Your example is flawed. It sure looks like it worked for hiring people for orchestras, but that is not the same for other professions. Women today represent far more as a % in the arts vs stem jobs. To expect a 50/50 split in all areas when women do not represent half of the applicants is silly.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/359419934/who-studies-what-men-women-and-college-majors
When less than 25% of undergrads in computer science and engineering are women, why would you expect anywhere close to 50/50?
Take a look at this.
http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf
Even as babies, boys and girls respond to things differently.
"In summary, we have demonstrated that at 1 day old, human neonates demonstrate sexual dimorphism in both social and mechanical perception. Male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while female infants show a stronger interest in the face. The male preference cannot have simply been for a moving stimulus, as both stimuli moved. Rather, their natural motion differed, the face with biological motion, the mobile with physicomechanical motion. Naturally, these results apply to males and females averaged over a group, and not to all individuals. At such an age, these sex differences cannot readily be attributed to postnatal experience, and are instead consistent with a biological cause, most likely neurogenetic and/or neuroendocrine in nature."
This is not some social construct. The test was done on babies that had not yet been influenced in ways that would cause male or female bias.
Issued in January 2015
NBER Program(s): CH ED LS
In this paper, we estimate the effect of primary school teachers’ gender biases on boys’ and girls’ academic achievements during middle and high school and on the choice of advanced level courses in math and sciences during high school. For identification, we rely on the random assignments of teachers and students to classes in primary schools. Our results suggest that teachers’ biases favoring boys have an asymmetric effect by gender— positive effect on boys’ achievements and negative effect on girls’. Such gender biases also impact students’ enrollment in advanced level math courses in high school—boys positively and girls negatively. These results suggest that teachers’ biased behavior at early stage of schooling have long run implications for occupational choices and earnings at adulthood, because enrollment in advanced courses in math and science in high school is a prerequisite for post-secondary schooling in engineering, computer science and so on. This impact is heterogeneous, being larger for children from families where the father is more educated than the mother and larger on girls from low socioeconomic background.
If only he hadn't lived in a right to work state or been part of union he might have had some recourse.Every time you scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds.
Every time you scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds.
Forgive me if I except your opinions from my understanding of the external perceptions of my intelligence or character.
It's too bad. I want to be open minded and challenge my own biases and perceptions, but your rigidity and self assuredness has thus far prevented me from learning from anything you have to say.
I used "people have differences" as a starting point for where I expected we would agree. I'm glad you do. But you've failed to extrapolate that out and failed to use it in examining this case where genders are also, obviously, not identical. Different people will have a different inclination towards certain types of activities / work. Who are we to tell them it's wrong?
My argument is no quotas please, as they're based on a fantasy of all else being equal. In an extreme example, it'd be like mandating that half of all NFL linebackers be women. Why should we mandate such absurd things? Because we're going to make it equal.... It's a bad policy based on a false narrative that differences don't naturally exist. This leads to a notion that oppression is the root cause. Then policy is made to take corrective action, where people are actively chosen with bias... those not chosen are rubbed the wrong way for having been denied equal opportunity.
If we're to examine this further, I'd look at college courses that people choose to take. That should tell us a lot of how they freely choose to express their natural differences.
I never said a biological reason is a "rational reason." On average, aggression is hardwired into males to a greater extent than females, for evolutionary reasons. Which doesn't mean that all resulting behavior is rational. A desire to rape, for example, makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because the rapist is more likely to propagate his "desire to rape" gene by planting his seed where it isn't wanted. Either way, it's immoral in the context of human society, and so in that context the behavior is irrational on many levels. The concept of neurosis doesn't really apply here, certainly not in the way it has been discussed with the topic at hand, which is fitness for a high stress occupation.
Of that I have no doubt, but I think in talking about violent crime we are getting far afield of the contentions of the author of the memo in question. For one thing, "neurotic" is not the word any professional would use for a violent criminal or sadistic serial killer. The only thing truly relevant here about this heightened propensity for violence among men is that it highlights the biological underpinnings of behavioral differences between the genders, because no one seriously questions the notion that heightened aggression in males is at least in part due to biology. If evolution can point one gender toward violence more than the other, it can also cause other differences in personality and behavior.
Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and the venture capitalists that funded them all achieved exceptional performance and became world class organizations without paying any attention to diversity.The good news is world class organizations know they get better performance if they have diverse groups so are pushing back against those biases.
Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and the venture capitalists that funded them all achieved exceptional performance and became world class organizations without paying any attention to diversity.
Where diversity programs fail is that they rarely articulate how diversity makes successful organizations more successful than they already are under the status quo, however unfair that status quo may be. The Google statements released since this story launched certainly don't help with their vague HR speak mumbo jumbo.
That this employee felt compelled to right such a manifesto on an internal corporate message board, fully aware of the obvious repercussions, clearly indicates that diversity is not working at Google.
Such a lost opportunity. Rather than engage this employee as a coaching and teachable moment, they fired him. In doing so, they've made him a martyr. Will be interesting to see where his legal challenges land.
I am sure the memo you didn't read triggered you deeply.Just because degenerates like to keep their women dumb doesn't mean much.
I am sure the memo you didn't read triggered you deeply.
Every time you scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds.
HORSE'S TEETH
In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.
—Francis Bacon, 1592
Well if you hadn't climbed down they wouldn't have had the opportunity to take your spot.No, it's just the usual suspects jumping back up on their cross, this time triggered by cooties.
It's not that the orchestra was suddenly 50% women, it was after going to a preliminary round blind audition 50% more women were selected than when the auditioner could see the performer and was hence judging on a mixture of performance and unconscious or conscious bias.
So why would less than 25% of undergrads in IT be women?
You posit some genetic gender distinction observable from birth. If you are suggesting somehow that it somehow means women are less capable than men at IT and is the major reason as such you'll need a lot more support for this assumption you've jumped too.
Studies have already found biases by teachers push girls away from math:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909
I've personally seen bias against math with my girls. My eldest daughter accelerated a year in math in elementary school. We had to force the school to test her which she passed easily. When she did they sat us down and asked us, "Do you really want to do this? It could damage her socially and make it harder for her to get into college because she'll get a lower GPA in HS because she'll have to take harder math classes."
She's gotten A's every year.
Now it's possible the school just has a thing against gifted kids and not necessarily against girls but when my coworkers son (in a different school but same district) was doing well in the school asked her if they could test him for acceleration.
Further more our school put out a kids t-shirt which was supposed to say the kids were like 4 different superheroes. All 4 were male superheroes. When my wife asked the principal why they couldn't have put a single female superhero on the shirt she said, "The Boys wouldn't like it." No problem in the principals mind with girls have boy superheroes only a problem with boys wearing a shirt with a girl superhero. That's a gender bias.
Women are on the receiving end of gender biases that push them away from STEM jobs.
The good news is world class organizations know they get better performance if they have diverse groups so are pushing back against those biases.
Well if you hadn't climbed down they wouldn't have had the opportunity to take your spot.
Come now, I have seen your threads on global warming. The point of my study was to clearly establish that there are differences between women and men beyond what society and its bias would influence. The fact that even babies show clear differences in how they react establishes that the argument for biological difference is at least relevant. Once that has been established we should be able to look into it further to see what else those differences might cause.
So, the fact that we see women and men not at 50/50 ratios does not inherently mean anything in terms of sexism. So, when you say that I am using that study to prove that women are less capable you trying to strawman me and you likely know it. At no point was this ever about ability, but about proclivities that drive genders into some fields. My sister is the math major in my family and I suck at algebra. There are obvious natural deviations where some men and some women will cross over where the averages are.
But, as I already said I have seen your climate change threads and I know that you understand trends and how this all works. So once you connect biological traits and social norms, you can start to predict what will happen when people get as far as a 4 year degree. Women shy away from stem fields for 2 main reasons. One is they are pushed away from them, and the other is that our brains are wired so that some things come easier. Its not that women cannot do stem jobs, is that its much easier to find a profession that matches with their biological strengths.
I am fully on board with getting stupid societal norms that do not good. But to think that what this guy said is somehow sexist is very confusing. There are clear differences in men and women in terms of what they are interested. I find it stupid that your girls were held back in any way by stupid people.
It's just fact that you're too dumb to see where he's coming from. The only question is whether it's willful.
If you are asserting some sort of superior intellect and ability to infer people's motives, then challenge accepted.
How bout we start with your overuse of fanciful prose to cover for exceedingly bland thoughts.
Would you prefer Haiku?
Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and the venture capitalists that funded them all achieved exceptional performance and became world class organizations without paying any attention to diversity.
Where diversity programs fail is that they rarely articulate how diversity makes successful organizations more successful than they already are under the status quo, however unfair that status quo may be. The Google statements released since this story launched certainly don't help with their vague HR speak mumbo jumbo.
That this employee felt compelled to right such a manifesto on an internal corporate message board, fully aware of the obvious repercussions, clearly indicates that diversity is not working at Google.
Such a lost opportunity. Rather than engage this employee as a coaching and teachable moment, they fired him. In doing so, they've made him a martyr. Will be interesting to see where his legal challenges land.
I prefer interesting thoughts, like the usual suspects are here defending something they would write.
Ok let's use the climate change as an example.Come now, I have seen your threads on global warming. The point of my study was to clearly establish that there are differences between women and men beyond what society and its bias would influence. The fact that even babies show clear differences in how they react establishes that the argument for biological difference is at least relevant. Once that has been established we should be able to look into it further to see what else those differences might cause.
So, the fact that we see women and men not at 50/50 ratios does not inherently mean anything in terms of sexism. So, when you say that I am using that study to prove that women are less capable you trying to strawman me and you likely know it. At no point was this ever about ability, but about proclivities that drive genders into some fields. My sister is the math major in my family and I suck at algebra. There are obvious natural deviations where some men and some women will cross over where the averages are.
But, as I already said I have seen your climate change threads and I know that you understand trends and how this all works. So once you connect biological traits and social norms, you can start to predict what will happen when people get as far as a 4 year degree. Women shy away from stem fields for 2 main reasons. One is they are pushed away from them, and the other is that our brains are wired so that some things come easier. Its not that women cannot do stem jobs, is that its much easier to find a profession that matches with their biological strengths.
I am fully on board with getting stupid societal norms that do not good. But to think that what this guy said is somehow sexist is very confusing. There are clear differences in men and women in terms of what they are interested. I find it stupid that your girls were held back in any way by stupid people.
I don't disagree, but diversity must also include room at the table for those who may be skeptical or criticalSurely you don't think I would consent to you being the judge of this challenge. I can imagine many ways to attempt to objectively judge our relative aptitudes (all of which flawed), and I am certain at least some of which would not be in my favor. Nonetheless, if you or anyone else has a reasonable way of trying to evaluate things I'd be happy to participate.
I prefer interesting thoughts, like the usual suspects are here defending something they would write.
agent00f said: ↑
Svnla is worth keeping around to show TastesLikeChicken types their place in the degen hierarchy, not unlike roflmouth/chucky as tools to use against their own. I also must agree the size of his penis is inversely proportionate to the chip on his shoulder.