231–240 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since molecular biology has something like a 54/46 distribution and tech has something like a 19/81 distribution I'd probably tell anyone who told me I should focus on the injustices of molecular biology to shove it up their ass.
> to shove it up their ass. C'mon man. You're better than that.
I too have seen tptacek communicate a lot better than today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this is the top comment is very related to the actual issue. I came from mech eng, and the cluelessness and defensiveness techies display when their field's hostility towards women is discussed is incredibly messed up.
Maybe because there is no hostility towards women? Have you seen a bunch of programmers who were not happy about prospect of getting some girls among coworkers?
It's hard to find them because they were, correctly, flagged and Algolia search doesn't return dead comments, but they do exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have any facts to back up that strong assertion, I am sure people are interested. Otherwise, a blanket accusal of 'misogyny' is asinine and nonproductive.
Here you go: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=+Numquam+ponenda+est...
Therefore, for either side to claim that the "simplest explanation is misogyny" or "simplest explanation is preferences" is seen as unconvincing to the opponent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make a poor argument with emotionally loaded words (e.g. "primitive"), and then phrase it such that downvoting is a vindication of your argument, you are not contributing to the discussion. You're just lazy.
The burden's on you to show it's a poor argument. I can just as easily state that it's a great argument. Also, I think it's clear that OP expects down-votes for "going against the gender narrative", rather than the incidental swipes at America; That said, it is baiting to provoke in this style, rather than stick to the point.
This point has already been debunked in this thread, with links to data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> women were _expected_ to work, I also grew up in Eastern Europe in the '80s, and this is what most of present-day Westerners don't get. And women were not supposed to hold only "women-related" jobs, for example my aunt was an industrial-crane operator.
Socialist countries (whether in theory or in practice) tend to put more of an emphasis on equal rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most accountants will never make partner. You are taking two exceptions and comparing them to the whole population. You should be comparing them to people who become CTOs. Besides that most people will never even make half of your lower end salary during their whole career.
Well I suppose STEM is now a path to the middle class. Everything else is working poor. STEM used to be upper middle class. A dude driving a forklift was middle class. My advice (not that anyone asked) for STEM graduates: 1) Immediately max 401k contribution. Hopefully you'll get a employer match, but none is common these days. Should have no problem getting $1M by age 55, though more is better. 2) 15 year mortgage o…
"Should have no problem getting $1M by age 55" is totally not just "middle class." by my definition its "rich as fuck." and I'm saying that as someone who grew up poor and is now "rich as fuck." We can save ~70% of our take home salary and have enough spending cash to, literary, do whatever the fuck we want without ever worrying about the cost.
> Everything else is working poor.
"Yeah, you're poor if you aren't a millionaire by your 50s" is so silly I would believe it to be satire in a different context.
>15 year mortgage on a house.
I could have gotten a 15 year mortgage, strongly considered it, but I went with 30 because the interest rate was absurdly low so I believe I'd make better return investing that money rather than putting it towards my house. It's a risk/tradeoff I was willing to take. Everyone's situation is different.
If you absolutely require a 30 year mortgage on your home to make payments and don't have a good down payment or savings, you probably can't really afford it though.
>Don't have kids until 30's
There's both pros and cons to having kids younger vs older. It's an individual choice if and when to have children.
> Tech pays well (initially), but require along hours. Be prepared to do nothing but work in your 20's
That's silly, it certainly doesn't have to require long hours. I don't work long hours and I certainly didn't in my 20s either. In my 20s I worked less with more flexible hours than most of my peers.
>$80k educational savings for each kid
Oh, God, no!! Paying my own way through school is what made me make good choices. If my parents gave me $80K towards school I would have never taken it seriously nor understood the value of $80k.
>Remember 55 is elderly.
No, its not.
Again, all this stuff about being fired at 55, it's a Silicon Valley startup culture nonsense.
>home ownership
Is certainly not for everyone!!
Maybe because like men all over the world, Russian women aren't specially "encouraged" to go into tech? Maybe nobody has to tell them or tell anyone to 'like science'. People just do. The same argument goes for women in science. Albert Einstein was told he wouldn't amount to much. Doesn't mean he 'got discouraged' and quit physics. That's not why we do science - for public appreciation - we do it because we love it n…
Yes, because each one of us is an island, and we're not influenced by society at all as it is. I have a two year old and I can tell you fighting against pinky-princess girl culture is a battle. As a parent, it's you vs basically the rest of society that sends a million little cues about what girls are supposed to do. I had this conversation with my daughter the other morning: Daughter: I want to be a boy when I grow…
You know what else we are influenced by? Biological traits, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
Did you think about what if she would have a happier life as a ballerina than an astronaut?
There is also the fact that those who truly want something will go get it despite the headwinds.
They had female fighter pilots in world war 2 and the first female astronauts. That was long before anybody in the west could even think of that possibility. Not sure if it's a Russian thing or communism. East Germany also had more female engineers and scientists.
There's a wikipedia page with with female astronauts(google list of female astronauts). Out of the 60 that actually flew to space, only 2 are from the USSR/Russia, and both of them were elected to the soviet/people's representatives, so I'd say female astronauts in the USSR was nothing but a publicity stunt.
Maybe because like men all over the world, Russian women aren't specially "encouraged" to go into tech? Maybe nobody has to tell them or tell anyone to 'like science'. People just do. The same argument goes for women in science. Albert Einstein was told he wouldn't amount to much. Doesn't mean he 'got discouraged' and quit physics. That's not why we do science - for public appreciation - we do it because we love it n…
I don't know how true this is now, but there's plenty of Soviet propaganda aimed at women telling them how they're an important part of the workforce too. They were certainly specially encouraged to go into "technology" of the time (or industry, as it was more commonly known in Soviet times).
http://russiatrek.org/blog/art/the-image-of-a-woman-in-sovie...
Witness for example how much more of a celebration international women's day is in the ex-Soviet countries than elsewhere.
Silly Americans. You are always prohibited from talking about the differences between men and women. Americans think that men and women are exactly the same except for genitalia. We Russians don't. It's an example of primitive, anti-scientific thinking driven by America's cult-like obsession with gender equality. Historically speaking, placing "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" destroys nations. Ame…
If you make a poor argument with emotionally loaded words (e.g. "primitive"), and then phrase it such that downvoting is a vindication of your argument, you are not contributing to the discussion. You're just lazy.
This discussion must be about gender differences. And those differences must include desire, drive, taste and preference. To accept as a premise that 'there are no differences' is anti-scientific as it is not an observable phenomenon. This unsupported belief is based upon fringe theory held in a minority of countries -- including the US and (some parts of) northern Europe.
Holding the belief in 100% gender-sameness up as a fundamentalist truth, and blasting all those who oppose it as "sexist" does not make this belief any more valid. Quite the opposite: It vividly illustrates its similarity to other primitive, pre-science (and mostly religious) belief systems.
The onus is not upon me to present this argument in a palatable, non-offensive way. Science is not PC.
The onus is upon you rather, to not be offended. Offense is offensive in a context of science.