You swapped from cognitive differences to performance at cognitive tasks.
Most cognitive tasks require general intelligence, there is a range across men and women, it is suitable to ascertain an individuals ability at that cognitive task regardless of biological sex. There are also cognitive tasks which show a generalised advantage for females or males.
There are also large differences in the physical structure of female and male brains, likely changing perception, expectation, behaviour, etc. By better understanding the needs of groups of people we can specialise medicine, society and better understand relationships.
Your turn, what is the use in ignoring these observable differences ?
Injustice is ubiquitous in this world. Heaven knows there is enough of it in Canada that we do not have to look abroad to fill newspapers with alarming stories of discrimination and oppression. Still, we might learn something about how a blind eye is turned to injustice by considering the case of a relatively minor country--call it Country C--which, amazingly, ranks favourably in United Nations reports.
Country C contains two groups, the majority Xs and the minority Ys. In spite of what the UN says, the standard social indicators suggest that the Ys are an oppressed minority. Among other things, oppressed people tend to experience poorer health, more violent victimization and aggression, discrimination in the administration of justice and in employment, and disadvantage in educational attainment. The following is a brief indication how the Ys fare in these respects, relative to the Xs.
The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.
In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.
Ys are about nine times more likely than Xs to spend time in prison. Besides the harsher social conditions that tend to make violence a part of the Y culture, this difference is due in part to the fact that the law in Country C treats violent Xs differently from violent Ys. Ys are more likely than Xs to be investigated, charged, and convicted for similar crimes on similar evidence; Xs are more likely to be believed innocent, given favourable plea bargains, and awarded probation--even when participating together in the same crime with Ys. In violent conflicts between Xs and Ys, it is standard police procedure to haul the Ys off to jail even before establishing who was at fault or who was the aggressor. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, the law of Country C recognizes several excuses for Xs to kill Ys, with no parallels for Ys who kill Xs. In a large number of cases, Xs who kill Ys serve no time at all in prison.
Although a minority of the general population, Ys account for about 85 per cent of the homeless adults in Country C. It has been estimated that as many as half of these street people have been displaced from their homes by angry or violent Xs. Public money is spent on subsidized housing and shelters for needy Xs, much of it to the exclusion of equally needy Ys. (Public housing for Ys takes the form of jail cells.)
The education system, although officially integrated, nevertheless systematically favours the Xs. Especially in the early grades, when life-long attitudes toward scholastic achievement are formed, the distinctive needs and interests of Ys are ignored or trampled on. Few Ys have teacher training at the primary level, leaving young Ys without positive role models. As a result, the grades attained by Xs are, on average, higher than those attained by Ys throughout their school years; and Ys also have higher failure and drop-out rates than Xs at every le
It means that in a domestic conflict you'd be regarded as the perpetrator because you're male (and a member of the 'patriarchy'). It's a problem because domestic violence is actually close to gender symmetrical and male victims are ignored (women start most conflicts, men do more damage, women use weapons more often). It's a problem because male victims receive no support. It's a problem because it contributes to an imbalanced societal view of domestic violence and gender interrelations.
Please check if you self label as male feminist because you understand it as utopian socialist dogmatic ideology or if you self label as feminist because you've read propaganda from one side only and you like to compete with other men in a direction you believe women desire.
Tokolosh differentiated between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity is close to human rights, freedom from prejudice. e.g. everyone gets an education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Equality of outcome is a political concept, an arbitrary target is set (e.g. with sex/gender often a 50:50 participation outcome) and individuals are supported unequally to achieve this outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
I agree, equality of opportunity is worthy of intervention, equality of outcome is not.
You can't watch BBC videos because you don't help pay for their production. Every home in the UK which can receive TV has to be licensed. I don't watch BBC media and do pay for its production.
I didn't attempt to make a problem go away, I didn't change the subject, I added another variable to it. You've attempted to incorporate my argument to show even further victimisation of women, which is dishonest, especially as you're attempting to do what you're accusing me of, make my problem disappear.
Women are people, with all the associated evolutionary baggage which comes with that, men and women are very similar on most counts. Both objectify the other based on mate potential. Men objectify females sexually. Women objectify males on ability to provide for children, also using physical cues to ascertain breeding potential. Height is one aspect of this, preferred by women and a cause of 'short man syndrome' in males.
If you can't show me many, many millions of women dying bravely and horribly to defend men and society, I'd say men were considered more disposable. Here's a smart cap and a rifle, choose looking sexy or
You're more concerned over women who may or may not exist than you are that the poster is sharing his thoughts. Yours is a gynocentric viewpoint, your lack of male-male empathy is portrayed as sympathy for the female.
You've used ad hominem to attempt to position yourself as a champion of lack of personal attack. 'Is it because your mom was mean to you', this is expression of male hierarchy and exactly the problem under discussion here.
Man up, you're giving the rest of us a bad reputation.
Feminism is for equality, misogynist. America is for freedom, terrorist.
Negative, each red LED makes the computer 1(one) faster. A P-III with one red LED is functionally equivalent to a P-IV.
Unfortunately, given predominance of heteronormative patriarchal culture, PIV is problematic and females cannot be said to have truly consented to using these machines.
This is why Apple products don't have red LEDs, and are popular with females whilst technically 1(one) slower. Most females can detect attempts to 'red light' PIV consent even remotely, so unless you can identify server traffic by bit-gender it's best to use the slower machines.
If you can identify bit-gender reliably, masculine traffic is unproblematic processed by PIV methods, feminine traffic should be directed to a cluster of co-operating P-III servers.
In other, completely unrelated news, there are ten times as many male autism sufferers as female. We investigate how discrimination keeps females from this lucrative, male dominated scale.
If you're genuinely interested you should watch this, it contains a good discussion of gendered career choice, in Norway which is considered a world leader in gender equality. Answers by social scientists and evolutionary biologists, subtitled from Norwegian. The gender equality paradox, as people are freed from gender roles they choose careers freely, but based on evolutionary traits, which are gendered. I think this starts to answer your question and I find it interesting.
Even were it possible to change the situation of everyone on the planet, instantly, seven billion individuals, this would require 100% confidence. It seems unlikely this, or 99.9% is possible via model estimate, particularly given most historic data will never be available and we lack a control planet.
Many people, myself included (vegetarian and low resource using) understand human activity to have changed the environment, but are put off by association with people-are-shit arguments. We have gained the ability, through the stunning use of base resources, to roughly predict climate and possibly avoid a near extinction event. This is proof of humans being long sighted and interested in the future, the hairless monkey observes at planetary scale.
Incremental societal change seems most important and the correct solution, yet AGW 'supporters' often argue 'stop everything' (not an accusation), often in line with established political bias. We didn't know this would happen from the Industrial Revolution, we don't know the effects of an alternative lifestyle because it has not been proposed and has not had 100 years to have effect, including generating the science to measure that effect.
The general public isn't unconcerned because they're psychologically incapable, they think scientists fix things, invent things 'Scientists 99.9% sure!' usually comes before a solution, climate scientists are unusual because they bring only problem, claiming both expertise and the problem unsolvable.
That 'climate change' is presented to the public by authority as unavoidable fire-related-end-of-the-world scenario is unfortunate, particularly when associated with human failings. We're leaving a period of ~2000 years where asking the sky and finding human judgement has been very popular, AGW proponents broadcast exactly the same message, wondering at resistance, then going so far as to brand those who question it 'deniers'.
The one small difference between yourself and the people you hate is group affiliation, your target group for generalisation, stereotype and blaming is other nerds.
It's probably got nothing to do with the subject matter being abstract system engineering, and testosterone in the womb rewiring males to systemic, long term thinking, that wouldn't give you an opportunity to be morally superior.
Hahaha. I literally can't stop labelling people with stereotypes, look at me, I'm a machine, I can get four in a sentence ! I'm ethical ad hominem man and you're barely human.
I retract, your footer hyperlink doesn't work and you've reacted to complexity with verbal violence, a sign of low intelligence. I wouldn't hire you based on this so you're probably stupid but kept in work by oppressive white privilege. You should resign and let someone less privileged have your role. Racist.
Yes well done on finding a nit to pick, you're responding to about 2% of my argument, ignoring that you seem to think wikipedia is racist. If your job was in the UK and the majority of employees at the job were white males legislation exists which can only be used to promote non white males. It could have been used for the other applicants, but was not. Companies are pressured to provide diverse workforces.
The reverse of this is that the same protections make white males much easier to fire, so they have a short term employment advantage there.
Amended. Ok ? Anything else ?
'I wonder why ?' is a cowardly ad hominem, it means you don't have an argument. Back up your claims of racism and sexism or understand that you're arguing simplistic ideological bias against evolutionary biology.
Likely because you enjoy seeing yourself as morally superior, via a power hierarchy of labelling others unjustifiably.
Recommend you watch the video, read the page, you'll gain granularity of thinking on this subject. You attacking less people via stereotype is better for society. Yes? You not having such a poor view of your own people is better for society. Yes?
Sexism and racism are serious charges, please defend your anti-social behaviour by quoting the parts you believe sexist or racist. Reverse charge is that you are casually judgemental, offering dehumanisation rather than empathy.
If the workforce does not reflect society's makeup (e.g. that women, or ethnic minorities are under-represented) then the employer may prefer the candidate which would correct that imbalance. But they may only do so where both candidates are of equal merit, and further conditions must be met. This type of measure is also known as positive action.
I suppose we might as well do gender also. It's pretty simple, females enjoy working with people, males enjoy working with systems, so nursing is female dominated, and tedious to most people abstract system engineering is male dominated.
Interestingly, the more you free people from gender roles, the more they use that freedom to do what they enjoy, which has been set by evolution to be gendered. Norway is regarded as largely gender equal, and has larger divisions in career choice than before they started the gender equality process.
In the UK at least it's illegal to employ a white male when a female or minority shows approximately the same level of competence. A white male must be without doubt the best candidate, by law.
Again, congratulations on your job, you proved you're the best choice at interview. You should be proud.
Which part do you disagree with please ? It's important to remember that all careers require different skill sets, and the belief all evolutionary environments provided identical output 'people', seems foolish.
He's six foot three, did he get exactly the same intelligence and more height ? Is that equal ? Heightism exists and he's proudly stating his domination. Height remember is a common criteria of female sexual selection, & likely indicates greater physical power. Do you deserve recompense for his extra height and attractiveness to women ?
Maybe he's taller, and you're more intelligent, and this career depends on intelligence. Another job interview may be for a top basketball team, they earn much more than computer scientists, and you are disadvantaged in this measure. Do you deserve a place on team because it would be unfair to discriminate against you ?
And you're missing the part where your anecdote depends only on colour-of-skin data. There are many reasons you may have got the job. It's likely you were simply the best candidate, diversity statistics aside, companies which employ based on 'enjoying working with dudes' are likely to fail to companies employing the best candidate in spite of gender or colour.
Another solution which fits all evidence is that, in general, white males are more often the best candidate.
Congratulations on your job, you likely worked hard to earn it, and you have no reason to be ashamed of this.
I'm 6'1 white guy, with shoulder length hair and a massive beard. My ancestory is Irish, my people were slaves of the English, of less value than a black and more disposable. I earned my first computer delivering several paper rounds on top of school, against the background of the Yorkshire Miner's strike. Mid 80's UK. The whole community living on zero income. I've been told, to my face, that I should lose the regional accent of my people, by my employers. I have no comeback, because the working class white male is an unprotected group.
One reasons blacks and women are discriminated against is that they have more worker rights than whites. I'm easier to fire than a black, or woman because I don't have anti-sexism or anti-racism rules to reference to ensure my case is processed fairly, instead there are a number of societal rules which can be used against me, without question. He's a sexist, we let him go.
Also blacks look good on 'diversity' statistics, I do not. The difference between that situation and now is twenty years of seventy hour work weeks, a good answer to bias in the workplace is to start a company you control.
You're not on the other 'side', the reinforcement of 'sides' is sexist, racist, based on your seeing only gender, seeing only colour. You're simply grouping all people who aren't black or women into a stereotype. You've ignored all other information to create a bias based on identity, ignoring individual skills across identity stereotypes.
> It does exist, but unless you are on the other side of it, you will never know.
This is simply a way of excluding my viewpoint based on the stereotype associated with my skin colour. I'm physically incapable of understanding due to the colour of my skin.
Slashdot Mirror
You swapped from cognitive differences to performance at cognitive tasks.
Most cognitive tasks require general intelligence, there is a range across men and women, it is suitable to ascertain an individuals ability at that cognitive task regardless of biological sex. There are also cognitive tasks which show a generalised advantage for females or males.
There are also large differences in the physical structure of female and male brains, likely changing perception, expectation, behaviour, etc. By better understanding the needs of groups of people we can specialise medicine, society and better understand relationships.
Your turn, what is the use in ignoring these observable differences ?
They don't choose to learn coding.
Women dominate many other subject areas, and western education in general, but when given free choice most women choose something other than coding.
Most choose to practice people related skills.
The Curious Case of Country C, Grant Brown
http://youtu.be/eA8djGrsttA
Injustice is ubiquitous in this world. Heaven knows there is enough of it in Canada that we do not have to look abroad to fill newspapers with alarming stories of discrimination and oppression. Still, we might learn something about how a blind eye is turned to injustice by considering the case of a relatively minor country--call it Country C--which, amazingly, ranks favourably in United Nations reports.
Country C contains two groups, the majority Xs and the minority Ys. In spite of what the UN says, the standard social indicators suggest that the Ys are an oppressed minority. Among other things, oppressed people tend to experience poorer health, more violent victimization and aggression, discrimination in the administration of justice and in employment, and disadvantage in educational attainment. The following is a brief indication how the Ys fare in these respects, relative to the Xs.
The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.
In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.
Ys are about nine times more likely than Xs to spend time in prison. Besides the harsher social conditions that tend to make violence a part of the Y culture, this difference is due in part to the fact that the law in Country C treats violent Xs differently from violent Ys. Ys are more likely than Xs to be investigated, charged, and convicted for similar crimes on similar evidence; Xs are more likely to be believed innocent, given favourable plea bargains, and awarded probation--even when participating together in the same crime with Ys. In violent conflicts between Xs and Ys, it is standard police procedure to haul the Ys off to jail even before establishing who was at fault or who was the aggressor. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, the law of Country C recognizes several excuses for Xs to kill Ys, with no parallels for Ys who kill Xs. In a large number of cases, Xs who kill Ys serve no time at all in prison.
Although a minority of the general population, Ys account for about 85 per cent of the homeless adults in Country C. It has been estimated that as many as half of these street people have been displaced from their homes by angry or violent Xs. Public money is spent on subsidized housing and shelters for needy Xs, much of it to the exclusion of equally needy Ys. (Public housing for Ys takes the form of jail cells.)
The education system, although officially integrated, nevertheless systematically favours the Xs. Especially in the early grades, when life-long attitudes toward scholastic achievement are formed, the distinctive needs and interests of Ys are ignored or trampled on. Few Ys have teacher training at the primary level, leaving young Ys without positive role models. As a result, the grades attained by Xs are, on average, higher than those attained by Ys throughout their school years; and Ys also have higher failure and drop-out rates than Xs at every le
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
It means that in a domestic conflict you'd be regarded as the perpetrator because you're male (and a member of the 'patriarchy'). It's a problem because domestic violence is actually close to gender symmetrical and male victims are ignored (women start most conflicts, men do more damage, women use weapons more often). It's a problem because male victims receive no support. It's a problem because it contributes to an imbalanced societal view of domestic violence and gender interrelations.
Please check if you self label as male feminist because you understand it as utopian socialist dogmatic ideology or if you self label as feminist because you've read propaganda from one side only and you like to compete with other men in a direction you believe women desire.
http://womenagainstfeminism.tu...
The 1 in 4 statistic is completely debunked, it comes from a survey which included having sex whilst drunk as rape.
http://youtu.be/FKgrYVtYSCk
You might like to check out 'No Man's Sky', promoted at E3 2014 but not yet released.
Links from reputable sources please.
Tokolosh differentiated between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity is close to human rights, freedom from prejudice. e.g. everyone gets an education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Equality of outcome is a political concept, an arbitrary target is set (e.g. with sex/gender often a 50:50 participation outcome) and individuals are supported unequally to achieve this outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
I agree, equality of opportunity is worthy of intervention, equality of outcome is not.
You can't watch BBC videos because you don't help pay for their production. Every home in the UK which can receive TV has to be licensed. I don't watch BBC media and do pay for its production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
If you can get a VPN with a UK IP for less than £145.50 per year and want the content then you'll have the better deal.
Thank you very much, I'm familiar with their output and have seen much climate change propaganda.
Do you have a citation for the WWF please ?
I didn't attempt to make a problem go away, I didn't change the subject, I added another variable to it. You've attempted to incorporate my argument to show even further victimisation of women, which is dishonest, especially as you're attempting to do what you're accusing me of, make my problem disappear.
Women are people, with all the associated evolutionary baggage which comes with that, men and women are very similar on most counts. Both objectify the other based on mate potential. Men objectify females sexually. Women objectify males on ability to provide for children, also using physical cues to ascertain breeding potential. Height is one aspect of this, preferred by women and a cause of 'short man syndrome' in males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
If you can't show me many, many millions of women dying bravely and horribly to defend men and society, I'd say men were considered more disposable. Here's a smart cap and a rifle, choose looking sexy or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Men objectify women as sexual objects, women objectify men as disposable objects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
'The first step to remedying a problem is admitting that it exists.'
You're more concerned over women who may or may not exist than you are that the poster is sharing his thoughts. Yours is a gynocentric viewpoint, your lack of male-male empathy is portrayed as sympathy for the female.
You've used ad hominem to attempt to position yourself as a champion of lack of personal attack. 'Is it because your mom was mean to you', this is expression of male hierarchy and exactly the problem under discussion here.
Man up, you're giving the rest of us a bad reputation.
Feminism is for equality, misogynist. America is for freedom, terrorist.
Negative, each red LED makes the computer 1(one) faster. A P-III with one red LED is functionally equivalent to a P-IV.
Unfortunately, given predominance of heteronormative patriarchal culture, PIV is problematic and females cannot be said to have truly consented to using these machines.
This is why Apple products don't have red LEDs, and are popular with females whilst technically 1(one) slower. Most females can detect attempts to 'red light' PIV consent even remotely, so unless you can identify server traffic by bit-gender it's best to use the slower machines.
If you can identify bit-gender reliably, masculine traffic is unproblematic processed by PIV methods, feminine traffic should be directed to a cluster of co-operating P-III servers.
Hope that helps.
In other, completely unrelated news, there are ten times as many male autism sufferers as female. We investigate how discrimination keeps females from this lucrative, male dominated scale.
If you're genuinely interested you should watch this, it contains a good discussion of gendered career choice, in Norway which is considered a world leader in gender equality. Answers by social scientists and evolutionary biologists, subtitled from Norwegian. The gender equality paradox, as people are freed from gender roles they choose careers freely, but based on evolutionary traits, which are gendered. I think this starts to answer your question and I find it interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Computer Science is pure abstract system engineering. Most males can be thought of as occupying the autism scale.
Even were it possible to change the situation of everyone on the planet, instantly, seven billion individuals, this would require 100% confidence. It seems unlikely this, or 99.9% is possible via model estimate, particularly given most historic data will never be available and we lack a control planet.
Many people, myself included (vegetarian and low resource using) understand human activity to have changed the environment, but are put off by association with people-are-shit arguments. We have gained the ability, through the stunning use of base resources, to roughly predict climate and possibly avoid a near extinction event. This is proof of humans being long sighted and interested in the future, the hairless monkey observes at planetary scale.
Incremental societal change seems most important and the correct solution, yet AGW 'supporters' often argue 'stop everything' (not an accusation), often in line with established political bias. We didn't know this would happen from the Industrial Revolution, we don't know the effects of an alternative lifestyle because it has not been proposed and has not had 100 years to have effect, including generating the science to measure that effect.
The general public isn't unconcerned because they're psychologically incapable, they think scientists fix things, invent things 'Scientists 99.9% sure!' usually comes before a solution, climate scientists are unusual because they bring only problem, claiming both expertise and the problem unsolvable.
That 'climate change' is presented to the public by authority as unavoidable fire-related-end-of-the-world scenario is unfortunate, particularly when associated with human failings. We're leaving a period of ~2000 years where asking the sky and finding human judgement has been very popular, AGW proponents broadcast exactly the same message, wondering at resistance, then going so far as to brand those who question it 'deniers'.
The one small difference between yourself and the people you hate is group affiliation, your target group for generalisation, stereotype and blaming is other nerds.
It's probably got nothing to do with the subject matter being abstract system engineering, and testosterone in the womb rewiring males to systemic, long term thinking, that wouldn't give you an opportunity to be morally superior.
Hahaha. I literally can't stop labelling people with stereotypes, look at me, I'm a machine, I can get four in a sentence ! I'm ethical ad hominem man and you're barely human.
I retract, your footer hyperlink doesn't work and you've reacted to complexity with verbal violence, a sign of low intelligence. I wouldn't hire you based on this so you're probably stupid but kept in work by oppressive white privilege. You should resign and let someone less privileged have your role. Racist.
Yes well done on finding a nit to pick, you're responding to about 2% of my argument, ignoring that you seem to think wikipedia is racist. If your job was in the UK and the majority of employees at the job were white males legislation exists which can only be used to promote non white males. It could have been used for the other applicants, but was not. Companies are pressured to provide diverse workforces.
The reverse of this is that the same protections make white males much easier to fire, so they have a short term employment advantage there.
Amended. Ok ? Anything else ?
'I wonder why ?' is a cowardly ad hominem, it means you don't have an argument. Back up your claims of racism and sexism or understand that you're arguing simplistic ideological bias against evolutionary biology.
Likely because you enjoy seeing yourself as morally superior, via a power hierarchy of labelling others unjustifiably.
Recommend you watch the video, read the page, you'll gain granularity of thinking on this subject. You attacking less people via stereotype is better for society. Yes? You not having such a poor view of your own people is better for society. Yes?
Sexism and racism are serious charges, please defend your anti-social behaviour by quoting the parts you believe sexist or racist. Reverse charge is that you are casually judgemental, offering dehumanisation rather than empathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_employment_equality_law
If the workforce does not reflect society's makeup (e.g. that women, or ethnic minorities are under-represented) then the employer may prefer the candidate which would correct that imbalance. But they may only do so where both candidates are of equal merit, and further conditions must be met. This type of measure is also known as positive action.
I suppose we might as well do gender also. It's pretty simple, females enjoy working with people, males enjoy working with systems, so nursing is female dominated, and tedious to most people abstract system engineering is male dominated.
Interestingly, the more you free people from gender roles, the more they use that freedom to do what they enjoy, which has been set by evolution to be gendered. Norway is regarded as largely gender equal, and has larger divisions in career choice than before they started the gender equality process.
They call this the gender equality paradox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
In the UK at least it's illegal to employ a white male when a female or minority shows approximately the same level of competence. A white male must be without doubt the best candidate, by law.
Again, congratulations on your job, you proved you're the best choice at interview. You should be proud.
Which part do you disagree with please ? It's important to remember that all careers require different skill sets, and the belief all evolutionary environments provided identical output 'people', seems foolish.
He's six foot three, did he get exactly the same intelligence and more height ? Is that equal ? Heightism exists and he's proudly stating his domination. Height remember is a common criteria of female sexual selection, & likely indicates greater physical power. Do you deserve recompense for his extra height and attractiveness to women ?
Maybe he's taller, and you're more intelligent, and this career depends on intelligence. Another job interview may be for a top basketball team, they earn much more than computer scientists, and you are disadvantaged in this measure. Do you deserve a place on team because it would be unfair to discriminate against you ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
You might also like to research altruism by race. Which groups are providing for others with negative return ? Which groups are not ?
And you're missing the part where your anecdote depends only on colour-of-skin data. There are many reasons you may have got the job. It's likely you were simply the best candidate, diversity statistics aside, companies which employ based on 'enjoying working with dudes' are likely to fail to companies employing the best candidate in spite of gender or colour.
Another solution which fits all evidence is that, in general, white males are more often the best candidate.
Congratulations on your job, you likely worked hard to earn it, and you have no reason to be ashamed of this.
I'm 6'1 white guy, with shoulder length hair and a massive beard. My ancestory is Irish, my people were slaves of the English, of less value than a black and more disposable. I earned my first computer delivering several paper rounds on top of school, against the background of the Yorkshire Miner's strike. Mid 80's UK. The whole community living on zero income. I've been told, to my face, that I should lose the regional accent of my people, by my employers. I have no comeback, because the working class white male is an unprotected group.
One reasons blacks and women are discriminated against is that they have more worker rights than whites. I'm easier to fire than a black, or woman because I don't have anti-sexism or anti-racism rules to reference to ensure my case is processed fairly, instead there are a number of societal rules which can be used against me, without question. He's a sexist, we let him go.
Also blacks look good on 'diversity' statistics, I do not. The difference between that situation and now is twenty years of seventy hour work weeks, a good answer to bias in the workplace is to start a company you control.
You're not on the other 'side', the reinforcement of 'sides' is sexist, racist, based on your seeing only gender, seeing only colour. You're simply grouping all people who aren't black or women into a stereotype. You've ignored all other information to create a bias based on identity, ignoring individual skills across identity stereotypes.
> It does exist, but unless you are on the other side of it, you will never know.
This is simply a way of excluding my viewpoint based on the stereotype associated with my skin colour. I'm physically incapable of understanding due to the colour of my skin.