Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#101

Post by dang »

romanovcode wrote: post #11
majos wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. I think the everyday experience for female academics still lags behind that of male academics. If you're an undergrad in an unfamiliar hard class it can be tricky to approach a male fellow student without risking misinterpretation of romantic interest; if you're applying to grad school, letter writers are conditioned to talk about women in different ways ("diligent", not "brilliant", maybe); if you'…

People like you are given gold and they will whine it's too heavy. The graph clearly shows that women are prefered in STEM, what more proof do you need?

This crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed on HN. Neither is flamebait, which your comments elsewhere in the thread have crossed into by being handwavey and inflammatory. Would you please stop doing these things? As the site guidelines say: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

You've also posted a bunch of unsubstantive and even uncivil comments in the past, and we've warned you several times before. I don't think you're breaking the site rules on purpose, but we eventually ban accounts that repeatedly do this and don't change when we ask.

If you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart when commenting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#102

Post by whitemale »

katrinamo wrote: post #78
cup-of-tea wrote: post #67

At an academic institute I used to work at they hired a woman whose job was to improve equality for women. One of the specific tasks was finding out why there were fewer women in the institute. She gave a long presentation showing all kinds of statistics and bizarre graphics comparing job adverts to Playstation controllers (which only appeal to men, apparently). The talk concluded with a figure comparing number of wo…

> Same goes for the wage gap. We know there is no gap. I'm curious how you've come to this conclusion considering the preponderance of studies that say otherwise. This article by the Washington Post examines a few claims regarding the wage gap if you are interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/women-...

If this conspiracy theory would be true, companies would only hire women, because they are 20% cheaper. Why is this not happening?

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#103

Post by brucephillips »

whitemale wrote: post #102
katrinamo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same goes for the wage gap. We know there is no gap. I'm curious how you've come to this conclusion considering the preponderance of studies that say otherwise. This article by the Washington Post examines a few claims regarding the wage gap if you are interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/women-...

If this conspiracy theory would be true, companies would only hire women, because they are 20% cheaper. Why is this not happening?

People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#104

Post by whitemale »

brucephillips wrote: post #103
whitemale wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this conspiracy theory would be true, companies would only hire women, because they are 20% cheaper. Why is this not happening?

People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

> People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine.

Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such as "two very similar occupations, janitors (mostly men) and housekeepers (mostly women).", that's the equivalent of me saying "Worpdress development is similar to Enterprise Java Development" and for some reason one pays an order of magnitude more.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#105

Post by brucephillips »

whitemale wrote: post #104
brucephillips wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.

> People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory. People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine. Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such a…

You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#106

Post by whitemale »

brucephillips wrote: post #105
whitemale wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory. People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine. Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such a…

You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.

If my argument is "mistaken", why are you focusing on the language that I used instead of just disproving my argument?

I would also be interested that if the gender wage gap is real and it is as believers describe it, how would you explain it without going into conspiracy land.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#107

Post by brucephillips »

whitemale wrote: post #106
brucephillips wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.

If my argument is "mistaken", why are you focusing on the language that I used instead of just disproving my argument? I would also be interested that if the gender wage gap is real and it is as believers describe it, how would you explain it without going into conspiracy land.

Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#108

Post by whitemale »

brucephillips wrote: post #107
whitemale wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my argument is "mistaken", why are you focusing on the language that I used instead of just disproving my argument? I would also be interested that if the gender wage gap is real and it is as believers describe it, how would you explain it without going into conspiracy land.

Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.

I'm going by this definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire

Claiming that across the US women get paid 20% less than men, for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same qualifications with everything aside from genitals being equal is not a conspiracy theory in your opinion? Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?

Even if I grant you that I used harsh language, I take issue with your priorities, I would priorities truth over political correctness.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#109

Post by brucephillips »

whitemale wrote: post #108
brucephillips wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.

I'm going by this definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire Claiming that across the US women get paid 20% less than men, for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same qualifications with everything aside from genitals being equal is not a conspiracy theory in your opinion? Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory? Even if I grant you that I used harsh language, I tak…

> Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?

No. It's just a false claim. False claims aren't conspiracy theories.

> I would priorities truth over political correctness.

It's prioritize*, and prioritization only matters when there's a tradeoff. I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#110

Post by whitemale »

brucephillips wrote: post #109
whitemale wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going by this definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspire Claiming that across the US women get paid 20% less than men, for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same qualifications with everything aside from genitals being equal is not a conspiracy theory in your opinion? Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory? Even if I grant you that I used harsh language, I tak…

> Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory? No. It's just a false claim. False claims aren't conspiracy theories. > I would priorities truth over political correctness. It's prioritize*, and prioritization only matters when there's a tradeoff. I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.

> False claims aren't conspiracy theories.

Are you saying that conspiracy theories are all true?

> I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.

You are wasting 100% of your effort on arguing semantics instead of engaging with my actual argument, sounds like a tradeoff to me. And no, it's not a mistake, don't know where you got that idea from.

Post reply on HN