56 réponses à ce sujet

[Bayonet Hipshot]

 

http://www.news.corn...culty-positions

 

A comprehensive and rigorous study from the Cornell Institute for Women in Science shows that it is men, not women, who are being discriminated against in STEM fields. The data shows, irrefutably, that women are twice as likely to be hired for tenure track jobs in STEM areas, compared to male applicants with the same qualifications.

 

Once again, the feminist lies and dishonest agenda are being destroyed by actual data. Next up, feminism will denounce the very concept of data and facts as misogynistic patriarchal constructs. 

 

From this research, we can see that women make up over 60% of college graduates, have all sorts of special grants, fellowships, quotas and incentives to get into and remain in STEM fields, and are twice as likely to get a faculty job just because of their gender. The only gender bias in practice is against males.

 

But since its discrimination against men, I doubt anything will happen or will change. The thing that I really find fascinating is that how facts and reality are at odds with or contradict feminism.

 

First its wage gap which was debunked. Then came the rape hysteria which was once again, debunked. Now its workplace discrimination which is debunked. Oh and patriarchy as feminism know it is long debunked as well.

 

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd say your one example of higher faculty hiring does not debunk the large volume of work showing disparities in the STEM fields.

For instance, blind studies found that scholars gave better peer reviews if the study author was shown as male versus the same exact study getting worse peer reviews if the study author was shown as female.

http://researchnews....ive/matilda.htm

Then you have the sheer volume of women in the STEM fields, which still shows a large slant to men over women:

http://dx.doi.org/10...963721410383241

http://dx.doi.org/10...rev.2010.06.010

http://women.acm.org...finalreport.pdf

And there is still the presence of bias in published journals who favor the work of men over women, as can be seen by the recent story with PLOS ONE:

http://www.washingto...-a-male-author/



I would just like to say that disparities don't equate preferential treatment (women being underrepresented in the STEM fields doesn't mean positions, jobs or openings should be reserved strictly for women to "make up" for any deficit), but rather that there is a unique challenge in getting more women interested in these fields as careers.

Also, there may be more college faculty hiring for women for very different reasons - perhaps more men seek out higher paying jobs in the private sector, or perhaps university funding cuts have shifted colleges to hiring women, who are traditionally paid less. It could not be a badge of honor, but rather a symptom of the underlying problem. That's just speculation on my part, but it goes to show even if the study you quoted is 100% accurate, it doesn't mean there isn't a problem or that it has been solved.

[Sully13]

But what type of shirts were they wareing?

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Quite frankly the thing that interests me the most is the fact we are even pursuing these "equality" drives.

 

From my studies, I think the only real and genuine equality that we can achieve is equality under the law. By that I mean the ability for everyone to be judged by the same laws. That's it.

 

Any other forms of "equality" or pursuit of "equality" is in my opinion, rather foolish. 

 

Let's apply the supposed lack of women in STEM field argument to other facets of life shall we ? 

 

"There is a noticeable lack of White men and Asian men in the 100 Olympics. This discrimination bad and must be stopped. As such, we will be erecting foundations, creating institutes and instituting affirmative actions so that there must be equal proportion of African men, Asian men and White men in the 100m Olympic finals."

 

"There is a noticeable lack of women among the homeless population. This discrimination against homelessness inequality bad and must be stopped. As such, we will be erecting foundations, creating institutes and instituting affirmative actions so that there must be equal proportions of homeless men and women in society."

 

"There is a noticeable lack of women working as road construction workers or miners or trash collectors or sanitation workers. This discrimination against the very jobs that drive our society and make it function is bad and must be stopped. As such, we will be erecting foundations, creating institutes and instituting affirmative actions so that there must be equal proportions men and women doing these same jobs."

 

See how ridiculous the whole idea of forcing equality based on reproductive organs or ethnicity or race is ? Yet we still do it. We erect these affirmative action policies and structures to force the equality instead of letting things evolve organically.

 

This then result in the situations like in original post where now women outnumber men when it comes to hiring in STEM fields.

 

So do we institute affirmative action policies for men too ? Do we play this rather silly and idiotic balancing act in the name of a term, "equality", that is so nebulous no one really knows what it really means ? Do we attempt to control, coerce, corral, institute a Big Brother like institution or a Qun Triumverate style institution, removing people's freedom to choose in favor of a theoretical and supposed "equality utopia". Do we then only cater to the lowest common denominator, force all people to be bad instead of striving for excellence or for competition ? Do we then censor or kill those who disagree ? 

 

See how this whole equality shenanigans goes belly up really quickly when you follow down its natural routes, which can be found in history ? I mean, this whole equality thing feels good. It appears to be very noble.

 

Personally, I am in favor of letting things be and allowing it to mold itself organically without people trying to play utopia experiments. 

[Sully13]

im more for takeing the pish out of it and let the reserch into how Gravity is sexist and how Fluid dynamics is a Female only subject continue.

 

Btw Trishen-13 i am a Female sanitation worker. so you now know one i put in more hours than some of the guys.

and shock horror i get payed more for those hours worked.

My nickname is Dirty Harryet due to my takeing any overtime going and doing any dirtyjobs.

[Cyonan]

I can't even be bothered to care that one side is cherry picking stats and lying in order to further their own agenda, because in all honesty the other side will be doing it too.

 

Pretty much every group of people on the planet will do that at some point. Feminists like these are just louder and less subtle about it.

 

Although the idea that just because there is a disparity in numbers of a gender in any given field that automatically means discrimination should probably die in a fire.

[o Ventus]

I would just like to say that disparities don't equate preferential treatment (women being underrepresented in the STEM fields doesn't mean positions, jobs or openings should be reserved strictly for women to "make up" for any deficit), but rather that there is a unique challenge in getting more women interested in these fields as careers.

Also, there may be more college faculty hiring for women for very different reasons - perhaps more men seek out higher paying jobs in the private sector, or perhaps university funding cuts have shifted colleges to hiring women, who are traditionally paid less. It could not be a badge of honor, but rather a symptom of the underlying problem. That's just speculation on my part, but it goes to show even if the study you quoted is 100% accurate, it doesn't mean there isn't a problem or that it has been solved.

 

Women are underrepresented in STEM fields because women (in general) simply don't pursue careers in those fields (except teaching and nursing, both of which are largely full of women depending on where you live).

 

@bold: I'm assuming you're not talking about the United States. Men and women have had mandated equal pay since 1963, and nobody with any knowledge of economics would claim otherwise. There is no wage gap in this country. College faculty for hiring women stems from women being more inclined to take on more cooperative careers, like teaching, nursing, and office administration. It has nothing to do with funding cuts or some nonexistent pay gap between men and women. Men and women, for the most part, simply pursue different fields of work.

 

With all of the affirmative action and added incentives we give women to make them want to enter STEM fields, they still don't do it. It's not because of misogyny or sexism, the women just don't want to work in these fields. Simply put, women are more prone to working a white-collar job, while men are more likely to work blue-collar.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I think the larger problem that should be addressed is finding out what scares people from these STEM fields

 

Nothing. Some people are not interested in it. Some people don't like it. Some people like something else. To put it simply :- Preferences. 

 

Finding out what scares people from STEM fields in order to promote some faux-equality is as sensible as finding out what scares people from eating bacon in order to promote bacon eating in all meals across all cultures for bacon equality. 

[Beerfish]

I had to google STEM fields, that is all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Women are underrepresented in STEM fields because women (in general) simply don't pursue careers in those fields (except teaching and nursing, both of which are largely full of women depending on where you live).

@bold: I'm assuming you're not talking about the United States. Men and women have had mandated equal pay since 1963, and nobody with any knowledge of economics would claim otherwise. There is no wage gap in this country. College faculty for hiring women stems from women being more inclined to take on more cooperative careers, like teaching and office administration. It has nothing to do with funding cuts or some nonexistent pay gap between men and women. Men and women, for the most part, simply pursue different fields of work.

With all of the affirmative action and added incentives we give women to make them want to enter STEM fields, they still don't do it. It's not because of misogyny or sexism, the women just don't want to work in these fields. Simply put, women are more prone to working a white-collar job, while men are more likely to work blue-collar.

Check your facts.

http://www.aauw.org/...gender-pay-gap/

http://www.pewresear...gender-pay-gap/

http://www.bls.gov/c...tabook-2011.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/o...110216_data.htm


It is illegal in the US to pay someone less for being a woman. Just like it is illegal to pay someone less for being an ethnic minority. That doesn't mean that women and minorities don't make less on average - they do. There is a whole host of reasons for it outside of pure sexism and racism, but it doesn't change the fact that hiring more women would, on average, be cheaper than hiring more men.

[o Ventus]

Or, instead of linking PDFs that are 30+ pages in length and that broadly cover numerous topics, you could just get to your point.

 

Women do not earn less than men anywhere in the United States. Keyword: earn. If a man works in a certain field and makes $20 an hour, a woman working that same job will also make $20 an hour. There is no gap in pay. Women, on average, make less money overall than men because again, women pursue different careers than men. 

 

But idiot feminists who don't understand this will look at the headline and parrot it off to their idiot friends, shrieking about workplace discrimination and sexism. Women only make less than men if you fully aggregate and calculate what women earn, working full time and working year-round, compared to what men earn, working full time and working year-round. Women, on average, work lesser-paying white-collar jobs and are less inclined to pursue higher paying STEM careers, which is why it looks like women earn less. In the United States, women tend to retire slightly earlier than men (between 1 and 2 years, on average) do as well (and obviously one is not earning a salary when they are no longer working).

 

Per 2010, women made up just under half of the workforce in the US (47%). That alone should explain why, in a country with 350 million people, women are making less than men. Likewise in 2010, nearly a quarter of working women (26.6%) did not work a full time job, instead working part time. Moreover, women are half again more likely than men to work in the public sector (which in the U.S. typically means a moderately lower income than the private sector). "Overwork", as defined by the American Sociological Review, refers to an employee working 50 or more hours in a typical work week. Roughly a fifth of men (19%) will work overwork, as compared to only 7% of women in the same field. In short, men work more overtime than women do.

 

Failing to even take all of that into account, women are the ones who have children. In the UK and US, close to 43% of women will take time away from their jobs to raise their child or children. Going back to the American Sociological Review, only 74% of women will actually return to work once they have children, and only 40% will go back to working full time.

 

Finally, women simply take different jobs than men do. The highest average salary in America in 2014 was for physicians, at $212,000 a year. There are far more men than women who work as physicians. Out of nearly 900,000 physicians in the United States, men make up 589,000, or almost 2/3 of the total population. Of course men are going to make more money in this field because there are more men working in it than there are women.

 

There is no wage gap. Women make the same amount of money as men do in any given line of work. The caveat is that women pursue different fields than men do, and due to a number of factors, tend to work less than men. The very fact that women do find work in prestigious fields and have high-ranking positions that earn a lot of money means that they can achieve it, so it's not like there's any widespread sexism or discrimination against them. With all of the affirmative action we give women and all of the added incentives we try to give to them to nudge them into pursuing higher-paying work, they still don't work in those fields, because they simply don't want to work in those fields. 

[Sully13]

the honest fact is some stem is Hard reserch numbercrunching and loooooong hours. i had a uncle who worked in Aerospace in Propusion.

as he said its Tiny tiny calculations you know.

Now some women like that stuff and some others have a Genderstudies degree.

. 

[o Ventus]

 

Now some women like that stuff and some others have a Genderstudies degree.

On the topic of college majors, 5 out of the 10 most popular majors in 2013 (according to Princeton) were for the social sciences (read: worthless for actual, paying jobs in the real world). 1 was for English and Literature (read: also worthless for actual, paying jobs), and the other 4 are actually useful. College kids in the new millennium are, by and large, idiots for pursuing degrees that employers don't care for. The only social science degree on that list that is even remotely useful is the PoliSci major, which would actually help a great deal for someone looking to pursue a law degree to become a lawyer or judge.

 

A communications degree could help in a journalism career I suppose, but any idiot with a blog can call themselves a journalist, degree or not.

[Cyonan]

On the topic of college majors, 5 out of the 10 most popular majors in 2013 (according to Princeton) were for the social sciences (read: worthless for actual, paying jobs in the real world). 1 was for English and Literature (read: also worthless for actual, paying jobs), and the other 4 are actually useful. College kids in the new millennium are, by and large, idiots for pursuing degrees that employers don't care for. The only social science degree on that list that is even remotely useful is the PoliSci major, which would actually help a great deal for someone looking to pursue a law degree to become a lawyer or judge.

 

I wonder about the thought process(if any) of the person who spends thousands of dollars to go to school for something that won't result in a viable career.

 

If you're merely interested in the subject and want to learn about it, that's what Wikipedia exists for. It's equally as useful in getting a job afterwards, but you don't get the crippling debt along with it.

[Sully13]

i know a guy with a PHD in astrophysics who works as a plumber.

I also know a 5.3 woman who has a degree in beutitian stuff who works beside him on buildingsites.

trust me seeing a tiny woman in watter proofs in a watterlogged trench laying a pipe is glorious.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Check your facts.

http://www.aauw.org/...gender-pay-gap/

http://www.pewresear...gender-pay-gap/

http://www.bls.gov/c...tabook-2011.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/o...110216_data.htm


It is illegal in the US to pay someone less for being a woman. Just like it is illegal to pay someone less for being an ethnic minority. That doesn't mean that women and minorities don't make less on average - they do. There is a whole host of reasons for it outside of pure sexism and racism, but it doesn't change the fact that hiring more women would, on average, be cheaper than hiring more men.

And yet, employers still don't hire more women than men in STEM fields. What does this tell us about the gender pay gap?

It's complete crap.

If there was a pay gap then employers would jump at the chance to pay someone less for doing the same job. Yet, consistently it's not the case.

[Sigma Tauri]

I think the larger problem that should be addressed is finding out what scares people from these STEM fields

 

Math.

[Sully13]

Anyone concidered that many traditionaly female dominated inusties (Factory worker call center ect) have been shipped abroad as well?

[Sully13]

I think the larger problem that should be addressed is finding out what scares people from these STEM fields

Shirts.

[o Ventus]

Math.

Actually, yes. the human brain is notoriously s**t with numbers and organization (read: 95% of mathematics), and math is a turn-off for a large number of people.

[Fast Jimmy]

And yet, employers still don't hire more women than men in STEM fields. What does this tell us about the gender pay gap?

It's complete crap.

If there was a pay gap then employers would jump at the chance to pay someone less for doing the same job. Yet, consistently it's not the case.

That's assuming that pay enters into these decisions. That is patently not the case.

I am well-versed in the recruiting and hiring process, from both sides of the equation. The process goes through numerous levels of review and interviews before money is ever seriously discussed. Prior to that point, no candidate is labeled with a dollar amount that would help them rise of fall in their consideration. If it comes down to the wire between a handful of candidates, the amount they are asking for would be one factor in making the decision. However:

1) it is not the only consideration, as many times businesses hire the more "expensive" candidate due to perceived bonuses on their return

2) many women are eliminated prior to that point, as can be seen by one of the studies I quoted where candidates were passed up for recommendation for a research position if their resume had a female name but were suggested for recommendation if they had a male name, even when the decision makers were female

Women make less, but that doesn't mean that they are seen as a "bargain" by many companies. Bias is still strong in hiring processes, not to mention the nature of connections + friends over actual qualifications... but that is an entirely different discussion.

[o Ventus]

One more thing I never thought to mention, but is relevant to the topic: Men are more inclined to negotiate over salaries than women are, because men are naturally more competitive. Women are naturally more cooperative, and so are less likely to haggle over pay. That's not to say that there aren't men who are content with what they get and that there aren't women who try to get better deals, there certainly are. Personally (as a male), I don't tend to negotiate prices all that much unless the number in question is blatantly higher or lower than it "should" be (in a competitive business sense).