Feminism Thread

[Charismatic]

Hey, if you're gonna count Madden and CoD, might as well right? :kappalq:

[hey]

I played video games for at least 6 hours daily from the ages of 6 to 16, was apart of my high school's robotics team. I'm working on a degree in Sport's Medicine. I would never want to go into the technology field.

ITT: what does "more likely" mean.

[Jefe]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, easy there, champs. We can't just throw numbers around like that, that's not scientific. The sample size is too small, horrible study. Wolfgang is spinning in his grave rn. First things first, are we talking about 'casual gamers' or 'hardcore gamers'?

[Charismatic]

ITT: what does "more likely" mean.

Doesn't matter. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You still haven't backed up your claim so any response to it doesn't mean anything regardless.

[Gokku]

Lol I love this.
Police Brutality thread : proof... Still a good shoot
Feminism thread : no proof... Why don't you belive us!

[archibaldcrane]

No proof that sexism is over, yet we're still supposed to believe it.

[Blubbartron]

No proof that sexism is over, yet we're still supposed to believe it.

You can't prove a negative. Only a fool attempts to prove "there is no god", and only a food would attempt to prove "there is no sexism." The burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim that sexism is to blame for the current trends you disapprove of.

[BaneTheBrawler]

nom nom nom


keep it civil

[Qalbert]

sexism is already a documented thing, so wouldn't the burden of proof be on the one claiming it has ceased to be?

[Blubbartron]

sexism is already a documented thing, so wouldn't the burden of proof be on the one claiming it has ceased to be?

We can all agree that sexism is a thing, but the question is whether or not sexism is directly to blame for the things that people don't like (such as the number of women in STEM). That needs evidence to be believed. You can't just go "we know sexism is a thing, and we know there aren't as many women as men in STEM, ipso facto, sexist people are the reason why." It's a hypothesis that has some plausibility, but it needs supporting evidence.

[Charismatic]

Wait, someone said sexism is over?
Who did? No one? Oh.

Why is this relevant at all then? Its not.

The question is whether or not that is a notable factor with regard to the lack of females in STEM, just in case you all forgot.
Leave the goalposts alone.

[archibaldcrane]

You want evidence that women in stem fields experience sexism, but you don't want to believe them when they say "I've experienced sexism as I pursued a stem career" so I recognize that you simply want to denigrate their gender as opposed to "get to the truth".

[Darus Grey]

You want evidence that women in stem fields experience sexism, but you don't want to believe them when they say "I've experienced sexism as I pursued a stem career" so I recognize that you simply want to denigrate their gender as opposed to "get to the truth".

Because anecdotal evidence is not evidence, intact most evidence suggests the women who do pursue STEM careers are above normally happy with them, which leads people to believe that the rampant sexism is an outlier. You can find the same people having the same experience in any field.

This also ignores the point that the person in question is attributing a bad experience to sexism which may or may not be the case. If you got fired or treated badly you may blame sexism(or racism, or etc...), but that doesn't mean it was the root cause. The individual affected isn't really the most appropriate person to judge this, as counter-intuitive as it seems.

No one is arguing that sexism doesn't exist, we're arguing that stating, as a matter of fact, that sexism is the biggest contributing factor to the gap in STEM fields, requires proof, and frankly a lot more research.

On the contrary, it's you Arch who seems to want to just throw your hands in the air, claim "sexism" and move on to fighting it... your stance is the one opposed to the truth.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, let's just slow down on the whole "ending sexism" thing until we can prove that women aren't just not that into science.

[archibaldcrane]

But seriously, do you have a better idea to keep women from being discouraged from scientific careers than...encouraging women to pursue scientific careers?

[archibaldcrane]

I mean, if I'm wrong that sexism is the number 1 problem, then all that effort in fighting the number 2 problem is wasted!

Wait...

[BaneTheBrawler]

I'm glad you decided to make a real post, Archi. I was fishing up the last time I told you to stop being evasive. You saved me the trouble.

Next time I feel the need to start looking, you'll have a problem.

[archibaldcrane]

This thread is basically

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/JoelP...ing_120709.jpg
But for women instead of the environment.

[Charismatic]

You ignore the fact that there may simply be biological factors at play and more women in STEM might just not be what they actually want.
Better world for who?

Attempting to force your ideals on someone isn't exactly 'better', its the same thing you're suggesting is the problem but simply pushing them in the direction you want them to be in.

What we want to determine is what the cause is rather than saying, prematurely, that anything is the number one or number two cause because we don't know yet.

[archibaldcrane]

You ignore the fact that there may simply be biological factors at play and more women in STEM might just not be what they actually want.

My god

No I don't

Read the thread, others have quoted it as well

I focus on what needs to be fixed

First I acknowledge that sexism exists, then I applaud those who work to fix it.

I don't shit on Intel for putting real money up to encourage the discouraged.

Whether I can accurately estimate the AMOUNT of discouragement women face is less important to me than recognizing that it is a factor that can be addresed.