Feminism Thread

[GoggleHead]

So what you're saying is that the economics will force people into these fields regardless of whether or not they have any desire to be in them and this isn't about making sure people can choose to enter the field they actually desire?

I'm so confused.

[Andalusian girls]

do you believe the majority of people only pursue careers they have an abiding passion for? the desire to be well paid and secure overcomes most other considerations.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, that's all well and good on paper, but what happens if we provide every conceivable opportunity for women to succeed in these fields and we still get the same numbers of women entering these fields?

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

In a hundred years.

[GoggleHead]

do you believe the majority of people only pursue careers they have an abiding passion for?

No but I believe that's the ideal we should be striving for, rather than railroading people into specific careers because of a desire to make all the demographic numbers even.

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

In a hundred years.

Or you know, in ten to twenty.

[archibaldcrane]

No but I believe that's the ideal we should be striving for, rather than railroading people into specific careers because of a desire to make all the demographic numbers even.

Pretty sure the point is to counteract the current railroading of them out of specific careers.

[NynJa]

Pretty sure the point is to counteract the current railroading of them out of specific careers.

Do you have proof of this or are you just going by the numbers of currently employed women/minorities and therefor infering women/minorities just dont get hired

[GoggleHead]

Pretty sure the point is to counteract the current railroading of them out of specific careers.

Except that isn't a thing. Explain to me what it is that's supposed to be preventing women from entering these fields because I don't see it, either on a conceptual level or in my own personal experience in the workplace.

[BerenTebogo]

You really don't believe women aren't pressured away from an interest in science / learning early on in most places in this country? Really?

It happens starting at the earliest levels of schooling. Thats what a lot of these foundations exist for, to encourage and provide opportunities for young girls to succeed in science.

This isn't "pay random high schoolers enough to get them to apply to random shit". That's a silly thought, and if it is one any of you entertained, you should probably just head on out.

[Lyall]

I don't know if girls are pressured away from math and science any more than boys are. Dorky subjects are dorky subjects, and aren't being popular/playing sports.

Using the money to help those who are interested but unable to pursue the fields is a great thing. Monetary incentives for having "diversity" would be a shit show, though. There's not a chance that those managers would opt out of free money for hiring women/women of color/etc.

It would also depend on how that money is granted. If it's a regional thing, you can bet your ass that RMs are going to be pressuring location managers to be more progressive and diverse when it comes to hiring, because it makes them look better. It might not outright be stated as being a quota thing, but once money rewards become involved you can bet your asses it's going to be treated like a quota.

[Byrthnoth]

Saying they are pressured away from science is not honest. They are specifically pressured away from physics and engineering. As a biochemistry and neuroscience undergrad I cannot recall a single class that was less tHan half women. As a neuroscience PhD, more than half of my program is female. Admittedly they are probably20% of our senior tenured faculty, but that will cchange in the next 10 years. For most scientific fields, this problem was solved in the 80s.

[RKenshin]

There are a lot of potential reasons as to why women are underrepresented in STEM, but I disagree that all/most of it has to do with sexism (as what often seems to be implied - not that anyone here has said it).

Remove all forms of sexism/misogyny completely and you still have generations of kids that are typically raised with toys/interests/hobbies that encourages certain roles for boys (often combat/competition and/or stem related) and other roles for girls (often caregiver or socially related), you still have a field that is mostly associated with the 'unpopular kids/losers' (while girls tend to have more confidence/self-esteem issues than boys), you still have the (albeit slight) differences in brain development (men develop earlier/quicker in the area of the brain related to math/geometry, where as women develop earlier/quicker in areas leading to better language/social skills), etc.

That said, I think what Intel is doing is a good thing with the right intentions, and just hope the execution is done well too (which we admittedly have little details of). As much as I agree with their goal, I disagree with the idea of hiring based on gender/ethnicity (coming from a minority), which is dangerously close to what a pay-linked quota system would encourage.

[Koul]

As far as girls being pressured out of science/"nerdy" type stuff. I wonder how much of that is due to the parenting or pressure from peers in grade school/Jr high/high school.

Overall I agree with Rkenshin. I think the intention is good but I don't have any faith on the execution. Time will tell though.

[Cantih]

or pressure from peers in grade school/Jr high/high school.

From what I remember, that is a huge fucking factor.

[archibaldcrane]

Do you have proof of this or are you just going by the numbers of currently employed women/minorities and therefor infering women/minorities just dont get hired

I just believe the things I hear women say, as a general rule as opposed to denying their experiences simply because they are different from my own.

[Blubbartron]

I just believe the things I hear women say, as a general rule as opposed to denying their experiences simply because they are different from my own.

What you're saying is you treat anecdotal reports as evidence. That's a pretty useless way to try to determine anything about reality with any kind of consistency.

[NynJa]

I just believe the things I hear women say

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards...04_7096005.png

Right? Right!

[archibaldcrane]

What you're saying is you treat anecdotal reports as evidence. That's a pretty useless way to try to determine anything about reality with any kind of consistency.

What, other than the vast bulk of statistical and anecdotal data that strongly reinforce each other, would you suggest I go by?

[Charismatic]

What you're saying is you treat anecdotal reports as evidence. That's a pretty useless way to try to determine anything about reality with any kind of consistency.

I am archibaldcrane and as a general rule I believe things women say. Anyone else? Subject to scrutiny.

[NynJa]

What, other than the vast bulk of statistical and anecdotal data that strongly reinforce each other, would you suggest I go by?

So once again, you look at the numbers of people employed and go "that means that women are getting shafted in the tech industry and feminists agree on this fact alone", without even considering to look at the number of female applicants compared to male applicants.

If the application ratio of qualified workers is 50 males to 1 female, and the amount of women in the tech industry is 50 to 1, then theres no discrepancy. This is idiots trying to manipulate data to suit their whims so even bigger idiots can eat that shit up whole.

[Blubbartron]

What, other than the vast bulk of statistical and anecdotal data that strongly reinforce each other, would you suggest I go by?

What I'd suggest is that you stop making leaps of faith to determine causation, when all the stats do is show that there is some kind of difference. The exact cause why can't be determined without more rigorous investigation. And no, asking a few (or even a few dozen) women what they think is not a rigorous investigation.

You've basically applied the exact same logic that lead to the pay gap myth being perpetuated. There's a statistical difference in average pay between men and women, therefore sexism. It's a non sequitur.