Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

131–140 of 144 posts

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

#131
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank goodness I have never advocated for revenge, then.

> Ending inequality requires asymmetrical behavior. Sure there's a small delta between what you say and what others claim you say. Unless they verbatim repeat what you say there will always be a delta. Don't pretend to don't understand the point they are making and address it.

If you believe you understand what they're saying, feel free to be explicit about it. As far as I can tell, their point is based in confusion and ignorance, and I can't address the particulars when they're cloaked in insults and vague accusations.

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand. However, the emphasis of my question is on your current viewpoint of the feminist policies at the workplace. How has having a son changed that? Did it change it at all? When I was younger and older male mentor told me this. He told me that many people don't know this but while society paints a picture of men being bumbling fools trying to crack the code that is this mysterious creature called a woman, t…

I think you are asking me a very emotionally charged and complex question, that I can't really answer over the internet. But I'm going to try . . . I stand by my original answer, having a son changed my perspective on boys/men for nearly everything. We are different. My view point on feminist policies changed because of my son, but also from my experiences in the real world outside of the university bubble. I was pro…

> I think you are asking me a very emotionally charged and complex question, that I can't really answer over the internet.

The internet is the only place I can ask this question. I can't ask this to my gf or friends. Anyway thank you for your answer.

> When men say they want a "gamer"/"nerd"/"etc, I assume they also mean "x" and cute.

Yeah, your answer is satisfactory, I'll just touch briefly on this topic. There are differences in what you're referring to here. Male attraction is truly uni-dimensional. A woman who has a nice average personality and works at the grocery store as a clerk but is very attractive and cute is infinitely better than a high paid female lawyer who is also a gamer/nerd/etc and has a great personality but is only average looking at best. The key here is physical attraction, that is the only dimension where the grocery store clerk beats the lawyer and really the only dimension that matters to a man. I do not believe women share the same overtly narrow preference.

So when a woman says she wants a sensitive man, I think she does place some importance in it, more so then a man would when he says he wants a "gamer" girl.

I suspect some of the confusion arises from the fact that even though women are more multi-dimensional in their attraction preferences then men it does not mean they place less emphasis on physical attraction. No, women are so selective that many women often set a bar higher then men for physical attractiveness despite the more multi-dimensional nature of their attraction pallet.

This is also an aspect of what I'm talking about. The scenario with the grocery store clerk is obvious to men, but I've often encountered women who simply don't get it. The concept was so foreign that they attempted to dispute with me what is in general just completely obvious to most men. Meanwhile, men more or less completely understand the complexity of female attraction preferences. Men all know about height, success, confidence and looks and how those are important to women and we're very clear about how these are different from what men want.

It's one of the things my mentor was referring to when he said that men understand women better then women understand men.

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

#133

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. Your left wing ideology is so extreme that it's causing you to hopelessly contradict yourself, are you aware of that? It looks ridiculous. You already said "I'm perfectly fine with things like the future is female" - that's objectively a very hostile statement against men but because you yourself are a part of the woke mis…

Ah, a spew of right-wing ideological talking points without the slightest bit of data. How surprising to find this in a discussion relating to feminism! I am perfectly ok with people who spout stuff like this claiming I'm ridiculous, so you just keep going, bub.

Why would I cite data when you didn't? What data can even be cited to refute totally subjective statements like the ones in this thread?

If you want points with data look at the usual suspects: percentage of men in prison, ratios of men/women in higher education, or the one this thread is about (women more likely to be elected in ....).

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

#134
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straight, white men have the privilege of being taken seriously, of being heard. The further you drift from that "ideal" mold, the less seriously you are taken. The roles that men fill in society are filled because people don't attach negative connotations to what those people do or say, and therefore leadership roles are massively disproportionately filled by men. There are so many more qualified women in this world…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#135
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straight, white men have the privilege of being taken seriously, of being heard. The further you drift from that "ideal" mold, the less seriously you are taken. The roles that men fill in society are filled because people don't attach negative connotations to what those people do or say, and therefore leadership roles are massively disproportionately filled by men. There are so many more qualified women in this world…

[flagged]

No, Tate exists because people want to avoid taking responsibility for their lack of success; anyone who gives them an excuse will be welcomed.

I’m not giving examples because I’m replying to you while taking a shit. If you want concrete examples of how misogyny hurts women, thousands of those specific examples are one Google away.

The problem you have with claiming I’m “completely disconnected from reality” is that there’s a lot of evidence I have to know otherwise. It’s like claiming I have a second head growing out of my neck; it’s so obviously untrue if you knew anything about me, that when you do it you ruin your entire argument.

Society is misogynistic at every institutional level, and the healthy straight white men who can’t succeed are failing because of their own decisions and actions.

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, a spew of right-wing ideological talking points without the slightest bit of data. How surprising to find this in a discussion relating to feminism! I am perfectly ok with people who spout stuff like this claiming I'm ridiculous, so you just keep going, bub.

Why would I cite data when you didn't? What data can even be cited to refute totally subjective statements like the ones in this thread? If you want points with data look at the usual suspects: percentage of men in prison, ratios of men/women in higher education, or the one this thread is about (women more likely to be elected in ....).

Yeah, I thought you couldn't cite any data for your claims. Nice work adding in some whataboutism to distract, though.

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

#137
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”. You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.

Sorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph. > Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Outnumbered in undergra…

> I didn't really change much of substance

That’s an interesting perspective.

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The roots may be biological, but we rise above our biology every day. That is the essence of the liberal project - we protect the weak instead of leave them behind. Democracy, a system of justice, these things are unnatural. They exist to prevent us from degenerating into a Hobbesian state of nature where might makes right. The inability of our society to protect victims and the weak when they happen to be male is on…

Good luck with you idealism, given that over 95% of 'society' does not care either for themselves or others, let alone the weak.

I have plenty of cynical opinions about the state of society, but here's the rub: if you believe you're going to lose, your belief will come true 100% of the time.

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

#139
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, Tate exists because people want to avoid taking responsibility for their lack of success; anyone who gives them an excuse will be welcomed. I’m not giving examples because I’m replying to you while taking a shit. If you want concrete examples of how misogyny hurts women, thousands of those specific examples are one Google away. The problem you have with claiming I’m “completely disconnected from reality” is that…

[flagged]

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I cite data when you didn't? What data can even be cited to refute totally subjective statements like the ones in this thread? If you want points with data look at the usual suspects: percentage of men in prison, ratios of men/women in higher education, or the one this thread is about (women more likely to be elected in ....).

Yeah, I thought you couldn't cite any data for your claims. Nice work adding in some whataboutism to distract, though.

Huh? This feels like a response from a chatbot. I just did cite several data points. This whole thread is about a specific data point that backs up the claim that society is overall hostile to men.
Post reply on HN