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

Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#51

Post by jnhnum1 »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #42
samfoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're cherry picking statistics: Do you think women are more likely to be homeless? Drug addicts? Do you think women are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime? More likely to be in prison? I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them. So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses? To clarify: I think it's important that wome…

> You're cherry picking statistics . . . All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interact…

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns

And after you've read that, please don't make the claim that there is no "real" discrimination against men.

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#52

Post by jamesaguilar »

jnhnum1 wrote: post #51
jamesaguilar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're cherry picking statistics . . . All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interact…

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns And after you've read that, please don't make the claim that there is no "real" discrimination against men.

I never made that claim. Maybe you are responding to the wrong commenter?

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#53

Post by samfoo »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #42
samfoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're cherry picking statistics: Do you think women are more likely to be homeless? Drug addicts? Do you think women are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime? More likely to be in prison? I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them. So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses? To clarify: I think it's important that wome…

> You're cherry picking statistics . . . All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interact…

I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#54

Post by jamesaguilar »

samfoo wrote: post #53
jamesaguilar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're cherry picking statistics . . . All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interact…

I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?

> How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime?

I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time.

I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being.

> Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher?

Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder.

> Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation?

The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#55

Post by tricolon »

timdellinger wrote: post #21

This reminds of research showing that "Over 80% of high school leadership positions are now held by girls (Fiscus, 1997.)" ( from http://cfge.wm.edu/Gifted%20Educ%20Artices/GenderGenius.htm ) It still remains to be seen how doing more of something (or being more successful at something) in high school translates to being successful at that endeavor later in life. Time will tell!

Everything in high school is a popularity contest, whether it's obvious or not.

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#56

Post by webXL »

Cushman wrote: post #40
samfoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're cherry picking statistics: Do you think women are more likely to be homeless? Drug addicts? Do you think women are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime? More likely to be in prison? I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them. So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses? To clarify: I think it's important that wome…

So men's weakness is a predisposition towards violence and irrational behavior, and women's weakness is... men's predisposition towards violence and irrational behavior. I mean, it'd be funny if it weren't true.

samfoo never made the claim that men and women had the same weaknesses. He was simply stating that men are also disadvantaged because of their own nature. If you're a woman and are able to avoid violent or bigoted men, or are able to defend yourself against them, then you are not disadvantaged as someone who can't defend against those men. And to ricefield's claim that girls are no longer "disadvantaged.", there is some truth to that just looking at what's happened over the last century.

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#57

Post by samfoo »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #54
samfoo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?

> How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of t…

I'll accept that victims of violent crime are also more likely to be the perpetrators. I just don't see how that matters: They're still part of the demographic of "men" and still contributing sociological disadvantage to the population (viz. "Men are stupid muscly brutes").

There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.

(Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#58

Post by benmccann »

Cushman wrote: post #38
Helianthus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thus demonstrating the conflict rather concisely. his/her* solidarity is taboo and you can attack him by saying he's just playing for the team _as if that's a bad thing._ would you do that to a girl? a more balanced equality would not qualify arguments based on group membership. *just making a point with the 'her', I'm sure he's a guy, too.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the corollary to "Solidarity has historically been acceptable in disadvantaged groups and frowned upon when exhibited by privileged groups" is that privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). As a member of the privileged class, your perception that you are not privileged isn't taboo , it's just wrong…

Girls do better in school than boys. I'm curious why you'd suggest that boys are privileged in this environment.

Re: Girls sweep at Google Science Fair

#59

Post by Helianthus »

Cushman wrote: post #38
Helianthus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thus demonstrating the conflict rather concisely. his/her* solidarity is taboo and you can attack him by saying he's just playing for the team _as if that's a bad thing._ would you do that to a girl? a more balanced equality would not qualify arguments based on group membership. *just making a point with the 'her', I'm sure he's a guy, too.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the corollary to "Solidarity has historically been acceptable in disadvantaged groups and frowned upon when exhibited by privileged groups" is that privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). As a member of the privileged class, your perception that you are not privileged isn't taboo , it's just wrong…

My point, in fact, was that the conflict is _over_ the perception of privilege. Indeed, it has to be. The corollary to your statement:

>privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence).

... is that disadvantaged groups tend to perceive equality after its true emergence. Please disentangle the current context (gender) from this discussion so we may examine a power struggle in the abstract--which is to say, I am _not_ commenting on whether or not gender equality has 'emerged' because such a question is a) too detailed, and b) probably way too ambiguous, because equality is not well defined. (and c) true gender equality, at least from my perspective, require an abolition of gender using lgbtq viewpoints)

Groups act in their self-interest. Privileged groups are required to act as if they do not--equivalently, they are asked to place disadvantaged groups within their 'self'--equivalently, their sense of identity is dissolute.

Thus (to bring the discussion back in context) my statement was not about 'correctness' or 'taboo,' but the fact that the conflict is _over_ what is 'correct' and 'taboo.' There is a vague discomfort in this topic with the idea of 'girl power.' The wave is beginning to build in the other direction. But those who stray too far, to identify with their group, are shot down by the taboo. (Incidentally, I was not trying to toe that line, merely trying to comment on the line's existence.)

We are not in stasis. At some point the wave will have crashed and those 'privileged' with 'unprivileged' status will lose that privilege, and those 'unprivileged' with 'privileged' status will as well.

Finally, I consider myself 'queer.' Examine which 'status' that accords my viewpoint, since you are readily prepared to ascribe membership to classes based on viewpoints.

Post reply on HN