Slashdot Mirror
More Compulsory Math Lessons Do Not Encourage Women To Pursue STEM Careers, Study Finds (phys.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report: The demand for employees in STEM careers (science, technology, engineering and math) is particularly high, as corporations compete to attract skilled professionals in the international market. What is known as "curriculum intensification" is often used around the world to attract more university entrants -- and particularly more women -- to these subjects; that is to say, students have on average more mandatory math courses at a higher level. Scientists from the LEAD Graduate School and Research Network at the University of Tubingen have now studied whether more advanced math lessons at high schools actually encourages women to pursue STEM careers. Their work shows that an increase in advanced math courses during two years before the final school-leaving exams does not automatically create the desired effects. On the contrary: one upper secondary school reform in Germany, where all high school students have to take higher level math courses, has only increased the gender differences regarding their interests in activities related to the STEM fields. The young female students' belief in their own math abilities was lower after the reform than before. The results have now been published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.
The needed more STEM people, and while the number of female students stayed the same, the number of male entries increased, so that's a good result.
So, if you force people who are not good at math to do more of it, they will eventually figure out that they are not good at it and avoid it? Well, lets just do other things to force them into a field that they will not be good in. Anything but admit that there might actually be valid differences in the sexes.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The misogynerd narrative! Push it! I need more misogynerd narrative! Tell me why sexual harassment is the only reason! Tell me why I'm a rapist who merely hasn't been caught in the act yet!
Wall Street must be absolutely free of sexual harassment! Nobody ever gets sexually harassed on Wall Street! Otherwise we'd hear about how sexist Wall Street is and how there's a huge push to get more womyn-born-womyn investment bankers!
Build it up! Build it up! Build it up!
When abortion becomes illegal, this will be instrumental in the retribution feminism is planning.
In post-secondary education, class sizes are often at least partially based on the nature of what's being taught and if the subject requires student to student interaction or not. Some classes can have as few as a dozen students even for undergrad studies, and other classes may have 150+ in a lecture hall. Others still may have a hybrid; weekly lectures and also weekly small-group studies.
in high schools though, typically all subject have approximately the same number of students per class, with the exception of some fine-arts programs where a band director may have a hundred students or where an auto shop teacher may have fifteen to twenty simply because of a lack of interest.
Perhaps it makes sense to start looking how various subjects benefit from smaller class sizes. In particular, subjects where student to student interaction is almost as important as student to teacher interaction probably are not as-helped by smaller class sizes. Social Studies classes where the curriculum calls for students to discuss issues and their relative merits both as contemporary events and as historical ones may not require smaller classes, but mathematics, where students are learning from a combination of the rote facts of the textbook and from the teacher's instruction probably could disproportionately benefit from smaller class sizes, so that when students struggle the teacher has more time per pupil to address those struggles.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I guess if we can't convince women to go into the roles that some SJW wants we'll just have to force them. For the greater good of course. This is already being brought up as shown here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com....
... they already removed PT requirements in the army :-/
You're incapable of being a ballerina. Women are capable of becoming STEM professionals. This should be obvious, but to a lot of slashdotters, it seems like it is not.
Back on topic, there's some evidence to suggest women don't become STEM professionals because of choices they make in classes early on. In high school, I had some idea I wanted to be a scientist, but I had no idea what I was getting into. If someone had said "Hey, you should be a lawyer" after a boring math class, I might have ended up as a lawyer. Kids in high school often don't really know what they want to do. Things like "My friend doesn't like math or science so I don't either" can strongly influence career choices. It's disappointing that making kids take math classes doesn't have an effect on those mindsets. I think we need more scientific types, though I am biased.
If they broaden that scope a bit, they might note that STEM degrees are in decline overall. ( Unless you're in India )
Due, in no small part, to the current business practice of bringing in H1-B labor for pennies on the dollar. The reasoning being to cut wage costs for everyone who isn't at the executive pay scale. All the while playing the victim card of " We can't find qualified candidates locally " ( Translates to: We don't want to pay domestic market wages for this position )
In this work environment, it wouldn't matter if folks were given access to the most amazing math classes the world has to offer. The folks capable of taking those classes are all too aware of what awaits them in that career field, post education. Debt, with little chance of getting a decent paying job if they have to compete with the H1-B folks.
The smart ones simply choose not to play the game and find another career choice.
Regardless of gender.
I'm not sure why anyone would think any person would be receptive to anything "compulsory" or "forced" whether math, religion, or whatever.
Why this is shocking or unusual I have no idea. You cant
"force" someone to believe in something they don't. Sorry.
Don't be sorry. I was about to say pretty much the same thing in my own words. Compulsory exercise doesn't create a love of exercise. Compulsory reading doesn't create a love of literature, and on and on and on.
I can think of exactly ONE book I was required to read in high school that is still held in my heart, "The Little World of Don Camillo," back in 1963. I can't even remember what the other ones in that summer reading package were.
EXPOSURE works, for those who become interested. For the rest, it's a waste of the teacher's time and theirs.
I think these girls just moved on on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
According to Dunning-Kruger, people who are incompetent believe themselves to be highly competent, because they don't realise how stupid they are. As they become more competent, they realise more of what they don't know and feel they are less competent. Once they are competent, they think that they are probably just average. Only people who are highly competent have the same level of confidence as the total incompetents.
So I think these girls were on the part of the curve where more competence shows you more things you don't know, and makes you feel less competent. It's the move from "how hard can it be" to "this is hard". They need some more lessons to move on to "it's not that hard after all".
You are failing categorization check here. Unless you referring categorically to all possible Anonymous Cowards with "You're incapable of being a ballerina" , it is not equivalent comparison.
Since you later also refer to "a lot of slashdoters", I can only conclude that this is systemic flaw in your reasoning.
People who get demoralized by math, probably shouldn't pursue a career in a STEM field.
I think this is in fact the real danger of an effort like this - because what you are saying may be conventional wisdom but it is TOTALLY wrong.
The thing is that math is pretty much taught one way across schools and if that way does not agree with you, that says nothing about your ability to be good with various STEM fields or even math for that matter.
I was a late bloomer, as it were, in my relation to math. I didn't really enjoy it pre college, and had trouble with in in college until somehow near the very end it all just clicked and I was fine.
But I was programming, and enjoying programing, long before that point. And even while I was having lots of trouble with basic courses like statistics and calculus, I was getting A/A+ in things like algorithm classes that also required math...
It seems to me that other STEM fields need people who like "traditional" math even less - like biology.
So what an effort to make more math classes mandatory could be doing is actually driving away people from STEM fields who would otherwise like it. It seems more like what should be done is to make a variety of classes that make each STEM field as interesting as possible in order to draw you in to the topic, so that you enjoy the math required to enter the field because now it's not just pure concepts but has some grounding.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> Kids in high school often don't really know what they want to do
For many that's true.
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not. How many professional basketball players weren't really that interested in sports in high school?
I went to university with a now famous mathematician---he was doing research on string theory at age 17 with Ed Witten. Now, he's an outlier among outliers, but the point is true.
I honestly think something's wrong with this strategy. Since when is teaching math which is usually a dry / boring subject going to make someone interested in STEM fields? I'm a Computer Science graduate in the field and although math is important, in real life you usually don't need anything past high school in typical daily programming. Do the science first! I remember when I was young, I was attracted to the computer first whether it was programming to make it do things for me or just flat out gaming. It was later that math became interesting because I realized it gave me to tools to do what I wanted to do. If you try to make computers interesting by first burying them in complex and or difficult to understand math, I am almost certain you'll have the opposite effect.
So, if you force people who are not good at math to do more of it, they will eventually figure out that they are not good at it and avoid it?
Actually, bizarrely, that is not what happened. If you RTFA it seems that the extra course decreased the gap in the maths skills between the men and women i.e. the women benefitted from the course more than the men but still ranked lower on average. However it decreased the women's confidence in their maths skills whereas for the men it was unchanged. So paradoxically the course did a great job in better preparing women for STEM careers while simultaneously making them think that they were unsuited for a STEM career.
What is needed now is some psychological study to figure out why women developed such a gap between their actual maths skills and the perceived maths skills while the men did not. If someone could figure out that perhaps we can develop a better way of teaching maths and physics that imparts the required knowledge without the drop in confidence.
Can we just accept that different people like different things, and that maybe, just MAYBE, some of these might be related to gender?
I don't keep up on the news for other industries. Are there big pushes elsewhere to get more men into female-dominated professions?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
They want every kid in school to learn to code. I said good luck with that.
Has anyone actually walked out of a primary/secondary mathematics education with the feeling of being more competent in mathematics as more than just a false sense of understanding?
Maybe you had a US education? I felt ok with it and it served me well at college.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
So forcing people to study X does not make them want a career in X. Shocking!
In related news, redundancy is redundantly redundant.
Table-ized A.I.
Hens usually lay more than two eggs at a time.
If you say so, but they've been pushing the "girls rule, boys drool" dogma since I was a little kid back in the 80's. Even after 40 years of insisting that "girls can do anything boys can do, but better", girls still don't seem all that interested in technology and surprisingly, boys haven't lost interest.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
The STEM lead never made any sense when SV CEOs used it as an excuse to give away US jobs to maggot wranglers or bring in maggots from maggot wranglers using the corrupt and broken US visa system. Most modern programming does not need a storng math background and engineering is more about applied maths anyway.
So, not enough women are getting into STEM?
Obvious solution? Make it harder!!
Jaysus H. Tap-dancing Christ, they'll get all the math they want when they start seriously getting into STEM in university. Trying to weed out people in High School is NOT the solution to the problem.
If anything, de-emphasizing the math might be a (partial) solution. Amazing how seldom you actually use higher math when coding (mind you, an engineer or scientist had better have more than a nodding familiarity with higher math)....
But throwing up more barriers isn't going to make it more likely to get women interested.
Oh, well, it gave some more guys a chance to find out they could handle this whole math thing, so we'll have more STEM candidates by and by....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
So...wait...despite excessive incentivizing, women still don't flood into stem fields?
That's so weird, because if you listen to some of the loudest voices today, gender is a social construct with no underlying biology, therefore changing social conditions should result in a change of gendered behaviors.
Are we yet at the point where we can accept there are biological differences between the genders and skin colors which predispose them to certain fields, and thus stop playing the "DIVERSITY" game?
hahahhahaha
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
....you would almost think that women are ACTIVELY CHOOSING not to do STEM or something....
Sure, there are always exceptions, but if you want to be smart about doing the most with a limited education budget, it's smarter to go by general rules that apply to 99% of the people.
So many of the best programmers I have seen have had similar mixed bags with math that I tend to think people are are really into math and good at coding, are more the exception than the rule.
Part of the reason that is, real programming is not as "pure" as math. Some of the most advanced math students I know (like mathematics grad student at Yale level good) don't like programming, at all.
Also like I said, I'm not even sure liking traditional math is anything but orthogonal to being good at some STEM fields like chemistry or biology.
So I really don't think it serves anyone well to tie mandatory math around everyone's neck to sink many STEM students (male and female) before they can find a calling.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is there anything that compulsory anything encourages except wanting to get the hell out of the situation?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You seem to imply that men and women would be proving to best learning topics in the same way. Please explain how in your imaginary world that happens.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think it is just STEM. How do you define 'sexual harassment'? I think if you go by the Department of Labor definition.
https://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/sta...
It looks like about 1/4 of all 'reported' charges are for sexual harassment across the board, and those of coarse are more egregious then the basic 'attitude and atmosphere' so it seems unlikely that any women working in any field would not have seen at least some sexual harassment. Probably all have experienced sexism even if not direct harassment. Although, I suppose because women are a significant minority in the STEM industry they are more easily targeted.
American society has a terrible problem with respecting women in general, which is primarily due to our attitudes about sex and family.
It has gotten ever worse since the 'free love' generation. Women were empowered to work , but they were also expected to make themselves interchangeable with men on both an emotional and social level. That is a huge disservice to all women and all men.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
because it's still a viable career. I've said this before, I'll say it again: Bring the jobs and us parents will bring the kids. Until they stop outsourcing and pushing for cheap labor imports we're not going to encourage our kids to go into programming unless the kid's such a natural that they rise above that cheap foreign labor.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here is the thing: I have been teaching CS at a dutch university for thirty years. On our university, CS was obligatory, even for humanities students (which I think is a very good thing). About 80% of our students were women. Some of my best students were women, doing PhD trajects with heavy math, computers and statistics. No gender differences there.
But... and this is a big but... most of the female students just could not be bothered. They enrolled at the university because they were intelligent but ALSO wanted an occupation indoors without heavy lifting. And they were not above using their attributes to get a pass. It is not because I am male: my female collegues in the STEM department had the same experience (it is the Netherlands I am talking about - grin).
So all girls out there: stop whining about unequal opportunities. Do your assignments just like the boys. If you don't like maths or CS, just skip it - but don't expect to compete seriously in the world outside, without using your attributes, that is.
I *like* your attributes and they keep the world turning. But it is not maths.
Paai
don't be stupid. a^2=b^2+c^2 does not care whether you carry your genitals inside or out.
Paai
a bunch of wealthy capitalists tired of paying $100k/yr for a decent programmer are. Pull your head out of your ass. Not everything you don't like is the fault of SJWs. They're a small, vocal minority. Like religious nuts. The difference is the left ignores their nuts when it comes to policy. This is no different. Getting women into tech isn't a left wing policy. It's a right wing one used to depress wages. Hell, Beth Warren wrote a book on it ("The Two Income Trap"). Go read it sometime. It's great.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In other news, the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
AC said "big fat gut." I might be misunderstanding the requirements of ballet dancer, but I assume that rules out a career in ballet.
I should have said "SOME kids in high school," but you should have too. Not all top-level STEM professionals know from high school what they want to be.
What's your point anyway? Kids should be allowed to take whatever they want in high school and no efforts should be made to encourage them to pursue STEM? I suppose the current study suggest you might be right. But I think we should err on the side of not letting teenagers skip out on maths and science.
The general reason girl don't get into STEM is a social sigma
People like to keep saying that as if there's a positive social stigma surrounding boys who are good at math and like to program computers. There are actually a few term for boys like that, and they aren't flattering ones...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
their own life choices
Well, you know how liberals feel about a woman's right to choose...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Historians, socialists and social commentators have shown and illustrated many times how mass media has and will continue to have huge impact on how many people think. It's not glamour, it's the basic inner need by most of use to simply feel we fit in and accepted.
Your analogy is interesting but there is a flaw:It's about social acceptance, not necessarily fashion (appearance is but a part of the whole formula on what makes a person acceptable to their social circle). And it's not that boys don't "give a shit". Studies indicate the actually do, as do people in generally. Itt's that it was considered more socially acceptable for boys to be geeks, and be less social by society as a whole, especially with the rise in their demand and financial success.
Our media for the most part is slow in changing two aspects: The portrayal of socially adapt geeks (there are many), and double so of socially adapt female geeks. We have these big portraits of Bill Gates (a moderate geek, but more of marketer) and Steve Jobs (who although portrayed as a geek wasn't in fact one at all, but an aggressive amoral marketer with a good instinct on user interfaces and had no technical/engineering participation).
So the public is razze/dazzled yet again by marketing and media. This is changing but far too slow in my mind. Perception has been proven to be capable of altering reality, at least in controlled environments. (which ours is make no mistake). The same elements that drove parents to push their sons be doctors and lawyers decades ago, push tech on their kids (and mostly male, history repeats itself). Glad you enjoy "The Big Bang Theory" but when we play to stereotypes, I feel we all lose as an overall society. (but many people make tons of money on stereotypes, which is maybe why some old stereotypes have remained so long).
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I don't recall saying "Koch Bros". Motherfning Zuckerberg is _not_ a progressive lefty. Hell, he just found God in advance of running for office. None of those guys are progressives. That's my point. Saying we shouldn't burn homosexuals (or if you're being nice about it "convert" them to hetro) doesn't make you a progressive. There's a whole world of economics and workers rights these guys don't give two shits about. Hell, they don't really care about the LGBTQs, they just don't like bad press
Yes, right wing is bad. The policies of the right wing ( Trickle Down economics, religious extremism & opposition to science, privatization of the commons, etc, etc) are objectively bad. Everywhere they've been tried they've been a disaster (re: Kansas).
Finally, the Dems _aren't_ progressives. Bill the Clinton moved them hard right to get into the White House in the 90s. He shifted the whole country right. Why the heck do you think we just elected Donny Trump over Bill's wife? It was a choice between a populist demagogue & a Republican. America picked Donald Trump because, heh, what did we have to lose.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're incapable of being a ballerina. Women are capable of becoming STEM professionals. This should be obvious, but to a lot of slashdotters, it seems like it is not.
Women most certainly can be just about anything they want to be. And should be if they are so inclined.
But time after time, we find out that they don't want to be what they don't want to be.
And blaming it on men is like looking for your car keys under a streetlamp because the light is good, when you know you lost the keys 50 yards away. People who "know" that males in STEM are violent sexist rapists of greater evil than any other field need to see what happens in the business world.
But as long as we demand gender balance in STEM, the only way we will achieve that is to remove any choice from women, and force them into STEM Otherwise, they are as interested in STEM as they are in hauling garbage.
I've worked with some darn good female engineers and scientists, and the common thread is they wanted to be doing that, and they knew they wanted to be that from a very young age. They also are united in believing the present female recruiting efforts are doomed. Interest in Stem is not something that you can take just anyone and tell them they are interested in it.
What do we do to appease the gender balance people when we finallly admit our failure?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not. How many professional basketball players weren't really that interested in sports in high school?
I spent my career in STEM. I know of only three people who thought ot get in it because of being attracted by recruiting efforts.
All three ladies left after a couple years. They ended up not liking the work.
I knew what I was going to be by the time I was 8 years old.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's hard to get sexually harassed in a career that you don't even start in. Just saying.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Nearly all, if not all great scientists love their subject. Many of those who find maths or science a turn-off do not choose STEM careers. The emotional connection of a student to their discipline must not be neglected: we are humans, not programmable machines. Only if you engender a positive interest and desire in people will they be inspired to take up STEM careers, or indeed have a casual interest, whilst pursuing other careers.
John_Chalisque
Just like multiplication tables are made obsolete by calculators, is nightmare algebra a problem when you have Maple or Mathematica?
It does seem that the obvious concept that the majority of women do not want such jobs is constantly overlooked. Forcing children to do things they are not interested in will not magically make them interested. Why should women be expected to move into these careers? Why are women not allowed the equal freedoms that men have to choose their own career path?
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
or our fringes. We own that. It's also not what the right wing press tells you it is. They'll tell you it's giving unqualified black men a job that rightfully belonged to a qualified white guy. They say it with a dog whistle but they still say it.
All AA really says is that if 10% of the population is black and you don't have 10% blacks you better have a reason for that and it better be documented. For most that just means keeping resume's around. That's it. Book it. Done.
OTOH, if you're a racist POS who's too cowardly to admit your racism you don't get to hide behind "It's my business, I'll hire who I want!". When you opened a public business you joined the public. Don't like it? There's a perfectly good cave in the Ozarks. You will not be missed.
And nice straw man. Care to bother addressing any of my actual points? Probably not. You'll lose.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What do we do to appease the gender balance people when we finally admit our failure?
Send the ladies you described to explain to the gender balance people that their views are inaccurate and their efforts unhelpful. Fact and reason has to count for something, no?
They are. They have chosen to not go into STEM as much. The problem is that some people see that as a problem.
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not.
I disagree. Talking to the other fellows at my college (one of the smaller Cambridge colleges), a very high proportion of them changed topics (some more than once - I think one of our maths fellows has the record at five times) during their degrees. Even if they'd known precisely what they wanted to do at university as a child, the fact that they changed their minds at university indicates that their interests at school didn't reflect their final careers. These are all people in the top percent or two in their respective fields.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What do we do to appease the gender balance people when we finally admit our failure?
Send the ladies you described to explain to the gender balance people that their views are inaccurate and their efforts unhelpful. Fact and reason has to count for something, no?
You would think it would count for something, but Third wave feminism has some ideas that are remarkably resistant to logic.
It's kind of like a far left wing version of the right wing "trickle down economics" concept, in that it is a crazy idea that just won't go away.
Hopefully your idea of women telling the gynocracy ladies that "We will be what we want to be - not what you demand us to be" will win the day. Because in the end, a group of women telling other women what that have to be is as pernicious as men telling women what they have to be.
Be what you want to be ladies, if you want to be an engineer or scientist, then do it! But make certain that you want to do it, because it is a career like no other.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
For the ones who are driven to become top level scientists and engineers (and writers!), it is not.
I disagree. Talking to the other fellows at my college (one of the smaller Cambridge colleges), a very high proportion of them changed topics (some more than once - I think one of our maths fellows has the record at five times) during their degrees.
I'm curious - were they in wildely different fields? Or were they similar? It isn't unusual to change what you are interested in, but I'd be surprised if someone went feom CS to a Nursing field, or from being a Veternarian to a Math major.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
They were mostly within the sciences, but physics to computer science to maths seems fairly common. Only one went to university to study a humanities subject and ended up in the sciences. This may not be a representative subset though, because a lot of the highest-impact research at the moment is in traditionally interdisciplinary fields and so people with a broader background have an advantage.
Sounds about right. My career had a lot of twists and turns in it, but all with a science core.
Which is why I always warn people that some of those courses that they don't think are relevant to their goals, may become critical. That includes math, and it includes believe it or not - art. I have used both of those in my career in ways I never would have envisioned when I was 20 years old.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
since you're wrong and all.
It's child's play to keep those records. If you can't keep them it's because you're either a) Staggeringly incompetent or b) Committing acts of racial discrimination. If that's what you want folks to be able to do then come right out and say it why don't you. Man up and put the dog whistle down.
Our laws were designed to combat institutionalized racism. That's actually a thing, you know, and not something Uncle Bill O'rielly scares his children with at night (he used the bruises on his ex for that). The entire South had built up discrete institutions to enforce racist policies without codifying them in law. The only thing that broke that is when the Feds moved in and made rules like AA that didn't let them get away with that bullshit. It's like when you try to pass laws controlling banks without rules requiring proof that they followed those rule. The banks don't follow the rules. Who the fuck knew?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
well, they check a box. Haven't you ever filled out a job app?
And a major study just showed 25% of the country still harbor racism. Hilary's "Deplorables" comment was based on sound science. That's just F'd up. Or how about some anecdotal evidence. My black truck drivin' buddy had trouble getting runs because it wasn't safe for his driver manager to send him down through the South.
And maybe if we wouldn't defund those kids primary schools they wouldn't struggle when they hit college. Maybe if we wouldn't fund schools with property taxes so asshat rich people could get out of paying for poor kids schools things would turn out different. Maybe if we actually did _more_ about institutionalized racism instead of pretending it's not a thing. Not a chance with guys like you lying to yourself to feel better. But hey, you feel better, right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/