161–170 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I envy you. I feel weird when dealing with children for exactly that reason.
That's very odd. I can see why parents want to be protective, but immediately shielding a kid if a male interacts playfully with them seems an overreaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the parent comment is assuming one way or another, just offering a plausible explanation given the very limited perspective of the metrics being quoted. For example, how does this compare to other trends for female jobs in other sectors? How do the figures compare when you separate the population between those with children and those without? When someone wants to make a claim like: "These numbers…
> I am a libertarian so ultimately I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions even if there are gender preferences at play. Not saying there aren't issues, but simply saying, "X is anti-women, because only Y% are female," is academically dishonest. It's not academically dishonest, it's the application of a reasonable epistomological presumption: we presume that observations are not caused by b…
Further, lets think of all the distributions where we can easily measure - upper body strength and height are two examples. The male/female distributions are, in fact, not equal. Same for the distributions of mathematical ability.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/494.summary https://www.jstor.org/stable/2889145?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941 http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
It seems like you want to simply assume your pet hypothesis to be true - with no real evidence for it - while demanding a high level of rigor from those you disagree with.
See Scott Alexander's excellent takedown of this fallacious rhetorical strategy here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the parent comment is assuming one way or another, just offering a plausible explanation given the very limited perspective of the metrics being quoted. For example, how does this compare to other trends for female jobs in other sectors? How do the figures compare when you separate the population between those with children and those without? When someone wants to make a claim like: "These numbers…
> I am a libertarian so ultimately I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions even if there are gender preferences at play. Not saying there aren't issues, but simply saying, "X is anti-women, because only Y% are female," is academically dishonest. It's not academically dishonest, it's the application of a reasonable epistomological presumption: we presume that observations are not caused by b…
Wouldn't it be better to cite studies comparing women who do and do not care for children as proof that there is some other cause, instead of asking everyone to accept that assumption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you mean if you totally changed the context? Gee, for this completely different situation that really has little to do with this one, yes people would be offended. But, you know, the context and implications are so completely different. What's your point?
Reversing the genders is not totally changing the context. It just shows that it is discrimination based on gender.
It's an honor to be a part of YC S16! As an organization, we've been committed to making sure our members stay in tech and excel in the industry. We are excited to work with our Partners at YC and further enhance the Women Who Code experience. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any reason for that? I mean, it's anecdotal evidence, sure, but it's not the first time I've heard such a story about how men are treated in the teaching profession. It's only one data point, but even a single data point is superior to the no data points you've countered with.
Well, all of the schools that do not enforce such a ridiculous rule are my data points. So unless you suggest there are more schools enforcing that rule than not, then I have more data points, so I win. Right? The truth is that that anecdote brings no value whatsoever to the discussion.
Also, there need not be more than 50% of schools enforcing this policy, for it to discourage men from entering the profession. Even 10% would be a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what is the largest # of consecutive hours you have been responsible for a young child? I love my son and watching him progress over the last 11 months has been amazing but the day-to-day of raising a child can be mind numbingly boring.
I know it's boring and very, very hard work. Which is why I believe that we should support stay at home moms (and dads) by elevating the position in society and recognizing the hard and rewarding work it is. Going back to a career and paying someone to take care of your child is quite frankly the easy way out. Women leaving the workplace to raise kids should be seen as a victory, not a "problem" that needs to be fixe…
So you're now agreeing with 'unfulfilling manual labor'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am a libertarian so ultimately I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions even if there are gender preferences at play. Not saying there aren't issues, but simply saying, "X is anti-women, because only Y% are female," is academically dishonest. It's not academically dishonest, it's the application of a reasonable epistomological presumption: we presume that observations are not caused by b…
> we presume that observations are not caused by biological differences without concrete evidence of those differences. The corollary to that is that disparities in outcome are prima facie evidence of disparities in opportunity. Wouldn't it be better to cite studies comparing women who do and do not care for children as proof that there is some other cause, instead of asking everyone to accept that assumption?
i have trouble accepting the idea that fewer women in tech is a problem. it's not that i want to discourage women -- or anyone -- from going into tech. i just don't believe in encouraging anyone to do anything in particular, except what they enjoy. i'd appreciate it if someone can persuade me that the hype is true so i no longer need to feel like a black sheep. but.. for one, the fact that there are fewer women than…
> for one, the fact that there are fewer women than men in any field, computing or otherwise, is neither good nor bad. the disproportionate number of women in nursing is not seen as a problem, but somehow it has become one in tech. I don't agree. I think the gender disparity in nursing is just as much a problem. I think it's a significantly less tractable problem though, because I don't think the monetary incentives…
What makes you say that? An argument could be made that women, in general, are more nurturing and that role fits them better than men. I know in that environment I'd prefer a woman taking care of me over a man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you mean? A common stereotype is that men are aggressive while woman are kinder and gentler (the former true to some extent because of testosterone). Surely that's a good trait, so not all stereotypes disfavour women? Point being, recognizing differences between the sexes (which it exists in areas such as the aforementioned aggressiveness, or in kids where you can see boys are more restless and prone to suffer…
Actually testosterone studies have shown that it increases aggression in men who have anger problems. Estrogen has been shown to have similar increases in aggression in women. Too lazy to find on mobile but I'll edit later. Boys are held to a lower standard of behavior than girls. "Boys will be boys" is a societal mantra. It's worth noting that these "inherent" traits vary across societies. For instance Italian cultu…
But what did I freaking say? -.- I did specifically say it was a stereotype, to counter your point that differences between sex necessarily imply an idea of inferiority of women, and here you go lecturing me on how what I said is a false stereotype D:, well no shit. It's an absurd notion. Negative stereotypes go both ways. But that's not the point.
The point is that you clearly have preconceived notions about how the world should be. And damn the facts. I find that an intellectually dishonest way of looking at things. The point is, for instance: in all likelihood there is no difference of, say, intelligence between the male and female population, but you _cannot_ discard that possibility a priori. You can't just say that, because men being inferior to women in that regard, or the reverse, would be undesirable, that you can close your eyes and go la-la-la. You can't. There are physiological differences, hormonal differences, would it be such a stretch that there would be neurological differences too? Or that the hormones would generate different patterns of behaviour in males and females?
I mean, just look at your last sentence. You don't actually care to know if men are naturally more predisposed to aggression, or if boys are more hyperactive and thus have more difficulty at school (if that were the case maybe methods of teaching could be more tailored to that reality, but that is beside the point). You just say that "Boys being hyperactive" would mean we have low standards for their behavior, and as that is a conclusion you do not desire, you reject the premise, without caring to know if it is true or not!