Feminist Philosophy

[Kibble]

Logic 101

You seem like the kinda dude who calls travel on every cool dunk.

[Siatdiat]

The first paragraph in that article that mentions any statistics points out that women earn 60% of bachelors degrees but that is glossed over to point out that not enough are in STEM fields. No one gives a shit that men are earning less degrees, what do you personally think of that fact? Now lets run through the supposed reasons.

1. Teasing- FEELINGS! I'm pretty sure boys get teased for being nerds too, they just don't whine about it. If they do whine about it, some shithead will always be there to tell them to man up.

2. Lack of encouragement- FEELINGS again. Similar response, if boys are not encouraged, what would you say about that? The article itself says only 40% of bachelors degrees are earned by males, could these 7 reasons apply to them also or do only women qualify for victim status? Imagine a man said the following "I didn't go on in physics because not a single professor — not even the adviser who supervised my senior thesis — encouraged me to go to graduate school." Would anyone have any respect for that guy? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't.

3. Stereotypes- More FEELINGS, women and there unhealthy fixation on what people think about them. I can only imagine what a non-stereotypical computer scientist is.

4. Childcare- There are a shit load of methods to control birth these days. Having children is something people should think long and hard about, and take very seriously once they have. People want to have their cake and eat it too, but sometimes you have to weigh your choices in life and pick what you think will make you the happiest. Men make these choices, also the men married to women in STEM fields also share in these costs. My fiancé and I have been discussing who will be the stay at home parent when we have a child, and there are different pro/cons.

5. Competition- I don't know if I understand the point here. Men are more competitive than women. So, one of the times when its ok to make claims that there are fundamental differences between men and women. Probably because competitiveness is considered a shitty trait. I guess they want science academia to be less competitive? Still not really getting what the point of this is. Competition between those in a given field is also why I think its utter horse shit when people try to claim there is a "boys club" because men will throw each other under the bus for the sake of a woman at the drop of a hat. Did I mention I don't get the point of this one outside of the subtle defamation of male character? Shit, when it comes down to it, women are way more competitive than men.

6. Marginalization- and 7. Bias- Bias according to the article is the cause of the marginalization of women in STEM.
One of the citations here is a twitter post. No really a twitter post. Also a link to a study that claimed Johns were more likely to be hired for a lab manager job than Jennifers. The actual data was not quoted in this article or the article it cited. I am interested in what the study actually says, and even more interested in why they aren't being clear about it. As far as women not being able to persuade people to fund their start ups... is it possible that there ideas are crap? I'm not saying they have shit ideas because they are women, I am just saying that if a women has a shit idea and tries to get funding, its possible that its not because men deep down hate women and want them to feel bad. People with the money to fund these kinds of ventures want to make money, and I don't think they give a shit what your gender is if you offer them a way to profit. The article about how Johns beat out Jennifer's also talk about how the rate of women in STEM has risen by a shitload, way more than men.

WARNING! Anecdotal story zone. WARNING!
I work in electrical construction. There are no women at my job. Men have screwed up and gotten themselves shocked to death doing my job. I have yet to see an article asking why more women aren't doing my job, or why they aren't picking up trash, or why they aren't doing any other number of other hands on dangerous and dirty jobs. Only whining about STEM fields, and how they need to elect more women and make more women CEOs. Sometimes women get jobs in middle management in these companies, superintendents or coordinators. Deep down the men who work for them don't appreciate that the women holding these jobs never did the work in the field and don't actually know anything about it. You will not hear them allude to any of this very loudly though, knowing that misspeaking on such a topic could cost their job. The world is so sexist against women that men are failing in school and men are afraid to say the wrong thing at work lest someone get the wrong idea.

I'm getting kind of bored of this. Do you have an opinion on why so few men are getting bachelors degrees compared to women? Do you even care about that? There are not many good articles on the subject of boys falling behind in education. The main topic of most I find is that we need boys to succeed again because if they don't it ultimately will hurt women.

[Blubbartron]

You seem like the kinda dude who calls travel on every cool dunk.

Pretty much. I stopped watching basketball when I realized it was more about entertainment than it was about honest competition, in a very similar way to wrestling (though not so scripted, obviously).

[archibaldcrane]

Here's the study for point #7 by the way, so you don't get to dismiss the findings as "a claim without evidence" because you're too fucking lazy to google.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

[Marootsoobutsu]

You think stereotypes discourage men from seeking STEM jobs more than they discourage women from doing so? "Everyone gets teased" isn't an argument unless you mean "in equal proportion".

Boys are more bullied than girls. The difference seems to be that boys are expected to, well, expect it, and aren't given as much sympathy when it happens. Also, while girls are more sexually bullied, I found it interesting that questioning a male's sexuality wasn't cited in the "sexual bullying", and that the study somewhat limited itself on the "girls bully girls through peer group", as if girls don't also bully boys that way. Like, all the time.

[Blubbartron]

Here's the study for point #7 by the way, so you don't get to dismiss the findings as "a claim without evidence" because you're too fucking lazy to google.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

Oh hey, it's THIS study again. The same one that we discussed on the first fucking page of this thread. That study was not done in a well-controlled manner. Each professor only got one thing to grade, and there were not enough people/contexts in the very, very small sample size (only 127) to average out differences in available funding, or innate harshness of critique.

It's almost two full pages of lead up to one giant fucking non sequitur:

Because all other information was held constant between conditions, any differences in participants’ responses are attributable to the gender of the student.

[Spicyryan]

So when are feminists going to attack magazines like Cosmo or dogmatic religions such as the Abrahamic trio. As more damaging to their efforts than a male dominated society?

[Andalusian girls]

uh

they do

[Darus Grey]

Arguing with archi is almost as big of a waste of time as arguing with hey was. He's not interested in a discussion, and he's not willing to consider the possibility he's wrong. It's like discussing religion with a believer. He is correct, and you are not, because the religion says he's correct, and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist.

Whenever I'm on the fence of an issue, I usually just take the opposite position of Archi and can rest assured I'm on a good path.

[Spicyryan]

uh

they do

Since when? The LGBT movement is full of Christians (aka self haters) and doesn't attack it as a group. So when did the feminist declare a war on the Qur'an?

[Andalusian girls]

i know most of you guys get your conception of feminism from tumblr but Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ophelia Benson are two leading atheists who relentlessly attack organized religion, heavily on feminist grounds, and the most prominent atheists of the age in Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are both self-professed feminists and if you've heard them speak or read their works you see how often and how hard they hit religion on issues of sexism. Simone de Beauvoir, author of arguably the most influential feminist text ever written in The Second Sex, was an atheist and a harsh critic of Christianity. the most vital of American suffragettes Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were anti-religious to varying degrees (though not atheist).

[archibaldcrane]

Oh hey, it's THIS study again. The same one that we discussed on the first fucking page of this thread. That study was not done in a well-controlled manner. Each professor only got one thing to grade, and there were not enough people/contexts in the very, very small sample size (only 127) to average out differences in available funding, or innate harshness of critique.

It's almost two full pages of lead up to one giant fucking non sequitur:

So even though the study is double-blind, you think that by chance the female resumes were on average given to harsher professors with worse funding?

I just want to make sure I understand your argument.

Also, can anyone well-versed in statistics comment on the assertion that 127 is too small of a sample size to provide an acceptable margin of error for the conclusions reached in this study? I don't pretend to know what would be acceptable.

[Blubbartron]

So even though the study is double-blind, you think that by chance the female resumes were on average given to harsher professors with worse funding?

I just want to make sure I understand your argument.

The point is that unless you explicitly control for such things, you cannot dismiss them as possibilities, as they so obviously did in the false conclusion I quoted. When you only have 60 participants on each side, it only takes a few extra harsh critiques on one side to tank the average by half a point on a 7 point scale, which is exactly what their graph shows as a difference.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, can anyone well-versed in statistics comment on the assertion that 127 is too small of a sample size to provide an acceptable margin of error for the conclusions reached in this study? I don't pretend to know what would be acceptable.

Student Gender Differences.

The competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring scales were each submitted to a two (student gender; male, female) × two (faculty gender; male, female) between-subjects ANOVA. In each case, the effect of student gender was significant (all P < 0.01), whereas the effect of faculty participant gender and their interaction was not (all P > 0.19). Tests of simple effects (all d > 0.60) indicated that faculty participants viewed the female student as less competent [t(125) = 3.89, P < 0.001] and less hireable [t(125) = 4.22, P < 0.001] than the identical male student (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Faculty participants also offered less career mentoring to the female student than to the male student [t(125) = 3.77, P < 0.001]. The mean starting salary offered the female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of $30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01] (Fig. 2).

There is, I believe, the relevant values for anyone statistically minded enough to determine if they are appropriately assessing P-values and such.

[archibaldcrane]

The point is that unless you explicitly control for such things, you cannot dismiss them as possibilities, as they so obviously did in the false conclusion I quoted. When you only have 60 participants on each side, it only takes a few extra harsh critiques on one side to tank the average by half a point on a 7 point scale, which is exactly what their graph shows as a difference.

The way you control for them is by blind sampling and large enough sample sizes. Just saying "127 samples is not enough" doesn't cut it in science.

[Spicyryan]

i know most of you guys get your conception of feminism from tumblr but Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ophelia Benson are two leading atheists who relentlessly attack organized religion, heavily on feminist grounds, and the most prominent atheists of the age in Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are both self-professed feminists and if you've heard them speak or read their works you see how often and how hard they hit religion on issues of sexism. Simone de Beauvoir, author of arguably the most influential feminist text ever written in The Second Sex, was an atheist and a harsh critic of Christianity. the most vital of American suffragettes Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were anti-religious to varying degrees (though not atheist).

Yeah, and in any movement there are those individuals. You could say the same for the LGBT movement, but no one declares one of the movements objectives the seperation of religion from society. That declares as a movement these have roots in their oppression. No one declared the hippies to be about the ideologies of Manson or Abbey Hoffman but flowers in the guns at Kent State, sex, drugs, and music. Civil rights was a movement seen as MLK and Selma not riots and Malcom X.

As for tumbler, yeah your antimasturbation feminists, antimale feminists, and your Code Pinks are going to shine through just like Isis and Hamas. As a whole we know Muslims aren't like that, but their base has some real issues. I also wonder as the movement has evolved and grown from the days of woman's sufferage. If the same doesn't apply as a whole to Feminists, but who knows.
As the scales balance it feels like it wants to keep the momentum and tip the other direction.

[#686578]

I'll be honest. As a male in the corporate work place working with exclusively males in my intermediate group within my department (IT, there are women in ERP and SharePoint but not in Infrastructure and Help Desk) I do have to admit that we did have some bias for and against hiring women to work with us. This wasn't because we felt that a woman couldn't do the job or whatever. Our primary concern against hiring them was "Will we inadvertently say something that will offend her?" We're not going around all the time cracking jokes about how stupid women are or how sexy women are but who knows what they might inadvertently find sexist that we didn't think of. Secondary concerns were that we often lift heavy things and be generally physically capable. I once racked and stacked a 250 pound UPS by myself (thanks squats), that even if we were properly following safety protocols and using two people do I really think a woman can lift 125 pounds? Our primary concern in favor of hiring them was a few times where their resume gave the impression "Wow that's impressive for a woman", obviously we were stereotyping them saying that just because they're a woman they're held to a different standard (lower) than men.

Eventually our solution was to have HR black out all the personally identifying information on the resume. Names, pronouns, etc, and we either rereviewed them or threw them out. Luckily most of our first batch was going to get thrown out anyway, people were COMPLETELY unqualified or had just had terrible resumes as far as professionalism, spelling, etc.

Spoiler: show

We ended up eventually hiring two men, but due to our precautions we're certain it was completely unrelated to gender.

Tangentially this is how I believe most things should be done, for example everything to do with college. As a male it's incredibly frustrating the amount of money for scholarships that I know I wont get because I'm not a female. I applied for female scholarships based on I was told that they couldn't legally preclude me from applying for running afoul discrimination laws but I was never selected. I dont understand why age, race, or gender should ever come into play with anything.

[Mazmaz]

>"I dont understand why age, race, or gender should ever come into play with anything"
>already has the best age, race, or gender combination that affords him all the best things in life

[Koul]

It's funny, Mazmaz. You and some of your banned similar thinkers always reminded me of heavy republicans, westboro baptists etc. In that, you're so stubborn and beyond cemented in your so totes absolutely 100% infallible beliefs that you just stick your fingers in your ear when challenged.

Just want that out there, that the way you behave is similiar to westboro baptists.

[archibaldcrane]

I was thinking the same, opposite thing. Even when a properly conducted study demonstrates ample evidence of workplace gender discrimination in science, the fingers go straight in the ears, they attack, it couldn't possibly be true, there's an agenda afoot, etc. etc.

It's really embarrassing.