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

Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#71

Post by norwalkbear »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #10
kilgnad wrote: post #2

How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity." Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in this area. But then again is true equity even possible? Is it a logical possibility given the biological differences between men and women? Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in scienc…

I wonder if for many righting a historic wrong ends up spilling into retribution territory, where it feels justified to inflict vengeance upon one demographic group for a past injustice.

Look at wpietri in this thread, old man got his stuff, and is now fine with enacting retribution on all young men.

He calls it "asymmetrical behavior" to whitewash the concept.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#72

Post by ZeroGravitas »

The headline has lost some nuance:

> The paper finds that since 2019, female researchers have comprised around 40% of new members in both prestigious academies1. Historically, across disciplines in each academy, there have been substantially fewer female researchers than male ones. Before the 1980s, female members comprised less than 10% of total academy membership across all scientific fields.

So, if you choose a random person getting admitted, they'll probably be a man.

They claim that if you equalise for "achievement" then woman are overrepresented. Which you can interpret as "woman are inferior, even if we give them an advantage they're still not good enough" or "woman are broadly equal to men, but are held back by the predominance of men in science (and society) and consequent sexism"

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#73

Post by Zetice »

mpweiher wrote: post #60
dasil003 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one group defines society. It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power, and its admirable to acknowledge your own privilege as you are doing here, but it's critical to not start believing that the cultural narrative du jour is somehow the ground truth. The minute we do this, we feed political polarization between genuinely good people, and open the door for liars and sociopaths to manipulate us li…

> It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair. A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power. People always confuse these things. Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.

Sorry but no, it is completely accurate to say not only do men hold a disproportionate amount of power, but that they obtained that power by virtue of being men.

It’s institutional misogyny, it’s morally bankrupt, and it needs to change.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#74

Post by jorgesborges »

wpietri wrote: post #39
stuckinhell wrote: post #4

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Even where I work, I'm under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards. There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like "the future is female". I'm a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a so…

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

> he doesn't have to worry too much if people's trauma leads them to mistake him as being part of something wrong.

We're not talking about mature adults capable of reasoning and addressing historical and generational nuance. Children are internalizing the idea that they're bad by virtue of being born a certain way and that's terrible. It's not something they can "not worry too much about". Inflicting pain and trauma on children who had nothing to do with the past in the name of progress is stupid.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#75

Post by norwalkbear »

wpietri wrote: post #39
stuckinhell wrote: post #4

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Even where I work, I'm under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards. There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like "the future is female". I'm a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a so…

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

"asymmetric behavior" is just a way to whitewash retribution.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#76

Post by mpweiher »

kilgnad wrote: post #53
ipaddr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greater intellectual superiority because of the % entering college? College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. It shows men are more independent thinkers and feel confident they can get along without a degree. It also because entry level jobs in fields women are interested in require college where men have more options in the trades. As women are dominating college entry over men a colle…

>College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. Isn't this a sexist statement? You're saying that women are more into superficial status symbols than males. This clearly isn't true and is sexist. What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men. This is the only logical and scientific conclusion when you look at everything from an an…

> What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men

It's both sexist and wrong.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#77

Post by mpweiher »

dasil003 wrote: post #65
mpweiher wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair. A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power. People always confuse these things. Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.

I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might feel good, but you're not going to win anyone over with this type of nitpicking.

You feel wrong.

The distinction is absolutely fundamental.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#78

Post by sfgoodforonce »

SapporoChris wrote: post #34
sfgoodforonce wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a son and I caught him and friends gravitating to Andrew Tate like content. He's so young, and he already feels that society is hostile against him. Society is hostile against him. Anti-male prejudice is absolutely everywhere. Andrew Tate is a get-rich-quick grifter and possibly a criminal, but he’s right about some things.

https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-ga... Yes, the anti-male prejudice is just awful. /s

Wage gap is easily one of the most significant bits of disinformation believed by the vast majority of the population.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#79

Post by wpietri »

stuckinhell wrote: post #68
wpietri wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok? I don't think society is overall hostile to men. I'm a man. I think I might have noticed. I'm not telling you to sacrifice your son to some abstract goal. I'm telling you that his happiness depend on things more meaningful than a gender label. Your son doesn't have to attach his identity to an oppressor class that is ending, which surely would impact his happiness. He can instead attach it to the end of oppressio…

You don't notice because you aren't the same generation. You seem to have a blindspot around the idea of generational differences. My son did not get advantages from being part of the oppressor class, YOU did. My son and you might both be male, but the generation experience is not the same. My son is a innocent child. You an old white man telling me I should tell my son to to accept an identity he does not deserve. I…

I have young male family members and also try to keep up with what's going on. So I think painting me as out of touch is incorrect. If you'd like to demonstrate that patriarchy entirely ended sometime in the last few years I'm certainly willing to look at your data.

I certainly believe that the generational experience is different. But I also believe that we have not get achieved gender equality. For example, dating and sexual violence for high schoolers in 2019: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/DataSnapshot_YRBS20...

> You an old white man telling me I should tell my son to to accept an identity he does not deserve.

I am not in fact telling you that. That's what people like Andrew Tate want: for him to see himself as a Big Man who gets his bigness from lording it over women, an identity he does not deserve. I'm telling you that he should accept an identity he can earn: a person in the world who can feel empathy for the people around him, appreciate that he, like everybody, is caught up in the vast flows of history, and that he can participate in steering those flows in the direction he thinks for the better.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#80

Post by tharne »

wpietri wrote: post #39
stuckinhell wrote: post #4

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Even where I work, I'm under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards. There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like "the future is female". I'm a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a so…

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

I hope you're young because this level of naivety in an older person would be very concerning. As others have pointed out, the real world does not work based on rationality, and assuming it does will lead to some very bad decisions.
Post reply on HN