31–36 of 36 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Particularly apt: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
That's a good example that's a bit further back in the archive, but hopefully shouldn't be too hard to find due to how influential it was. Probably better just to read the entire site, some really amazing posts there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's such a superficial appraisal of the reality The reality is exactly as described, namely: As the feminist movement gradually took hold, women conquered one of these fields after another. 51% of law students are now female. So are 49.8% of medical students, 45% of math majors, 60% of linguistics majors, 60% of journalism majors, 75% of psychology majors, and 60% of biology postdocs. Yet for some reason, engineer…
So 30% of judges being women is what, the natural state of things? This is the highest heights that women can reach? Or are you just ignoring the state of gender in the law, even as you present it as a success story, just as the original blog did? Is there some collective blind spot here? Let me spell it out. The reason that there is not a percentage of judges equal to the prevelance of women in the population, is du…
Since there are other possible explanations, like men and women having different interests and drives and following different paths in pursuing those interests, there's no tight logical proof dictating that "systemic factors" ipso facto is definitely the cause of the outcome we are evaluating because there are no other possible causes.
There are other possible causes, so given this reality of multiple possible causes, what evidence would suffice to convince you that "systemic factors," aren't the primary cause?
If we want to stick with the premise that "systemic factors" are a problem, what are they specifically? How are the remedied specifically?
If it turns out after following these prescriptions there is still a divergence in the sex ratio, then what? Should we basically just force some number of women to work as judges so that the sex ratio in the field is equal?
There are far more occupations than judge that have a divergent sex ratio, should we work tirelessly to equalize sex ratios for all occupations where this is the case?
If your understanding of "systemic factors" basically means the system of sexual evolutionary history extending over millions of years, then we can agree.
Am I missing part of the argument here? At the beginning of section IV, Scott argues that stereotypes can’t explain the gender gap in engineering because of the differential rate at which people major in math vs. engineering (45% women in math, 20% women in engineering). He says: > Might girls be worried not by stereotypes about computers themselves, but by stereotypes that girls are bad at math and so can’t succeed…
If math vs. engineering is a mystery that can't be
explained by streotypes,
As for engineering: the variation within engineering disciplines is much smaller than the variation between engineering and other disciplines and since we already have a hard time explaining the large difference, let's not worry about the small differences. Perhaps chemical engineering is perceived to be about 'people' more often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's such a superficial appraisal of the reality The reality is exactly as described, namely: As the feminist movement gradually took hold, women conquered one of these fields after another. 51% of law students are now female. So are 49.8% of medical students, 45% of math majors, 60% of linguistics majors, 60% of journalism majors, 75% of psychology majors, and 60% of biology postdocs. Yet for some reason, engineer…
So 30% of judges being women is what, the natural state of things? This is the highest heights that women can reach? Or are you just ignoring the state of gender in the law, even as you present it as a success story, just as the original blog did? Is there some collective blind spot here? Let me spell it out. The reason that there is not a percentage of judges equal to the prevelance of women in the population, is du…
If there was no sexism, no racism, no *ism, no history and no cultural predisposition towards anything whatsoever, it could still be that only 30% of all leaders would be women, simply because women would be found to be less biologically predisposed to wanting to be the leader and leadership would go to the best suited person that wants to do the job.
Some women argue that in that situation 70% of all leaders would be women, because everyone would recognize them as better leaders and would ask them to lead. I recognize and acknowledge that as a fully valid option. That could also be. The point is that we simply do not know.
[1] 'all identities in ratio of their self-identification'
Am I missing part of the argument here? At the beginning of section IV, Scott argues that stereotypes can’t explain the gender gap in engineering because of the differential rate at which people major in math vs. engineering (45% women in math, 20% women in engineering). He says: > Might girls be worried not by stereotypes about computers themselves, but by stereotypes that girls are bad at math and so can’t succeed…
If math vs. engineering is a mystery that can't be explained by streotypes, Scott gives an explanation in the article. Interestingly, it's exactly the suggestion commenter peacetreefrog puts forward: relatively many math graduates become teachers. And teaching is a 'person' thing. As for engineering: the variation within engineering disciplines is much smaller than the variation between engineering and other discipli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because he's taking a mocking tone Given as the alternative is "punch the Nazis!" from one side and "lol libtards are nutz, praise kek" from the other, I'd rather take a gentle mocking now at then. Even if I disagree from time to time. Scott is not ideal, maybe, but definitely in the top 10%. Maybe even 1%, but I don't read enough to claim that. Also, I don't see much mocking going on there, could you give a couple…
See my other comment about women having "conquered" the field of law because they have a representation in higher education 1 percentage point lower than their proportion in society, falling to 36% working in the field and 30% at state judge level. It's such a superficial appraisal of the reality, it's insulting that he then mocks people who think there may be systemic issues.
In the UK feminists are whinging that "only" around an eighth of senior lawyers are women and "only" around a quarter of judges are female.
That in itself should be lighting up a bulb in a logical brain, but the fact is that when judges were going to university only about 1% of law students were female here, and most of those dropped out to raise families, and yet an eighth of "senior" barristers (QCs) are women and a whole quarter of judges are?!
Are they making women judges straight out of law school?!?!?!