Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
1–10 of 144 posts
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#2How 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 science that's why we see this difference.
There is also more women attending universities then men. This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men.
What about the fact that virtually all of science, technology and modern infrastructure was created by men? It is clear from any layman that the frameworks and foundation of advanced civilization were built (with some exceptions) exclusively by men. This of course does not obviously speak to any intellectual differences between men or women but speaks more to oppression. Before modern movements toward gender equality, men regularly oppressed women making it impossible for women to display their superior intellect.
But is this the real narrative? Or is equality actually real? This is a controversial opinion but I think men are in fact much stupider then women and equality is a made up fantasy.
This is the real question everyone is tip-toeing around. At the end of the day how are men and women different in raw terms of absolute performance and intelligence? And are the elections a reflection of raw performance OR not?
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#3How 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…
> Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science
The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations.
My take? I think we men are used to having things handed to us, and women in our society are used to having to try hard, and with more or less equal opportunity, they're kicking ass.
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#4National 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 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.
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#5How 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…
> Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations. My take? I think we men are used to having things handed to us, and women in our society are used to having to try hard, and with more or less equal opportunity, they're kicking ass.
When women are behind, it's because systematic inequality holds them back. When men are behind, it's because women actually kick ass and are better than men at whatever it is they're behind in.
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#6National 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…
This ^^^
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#7National 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…
>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.
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#8How 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…
"This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men"
Or the ability to do diligent repeating work and sit in a chair.
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#9How 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…
>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.
There are various definition of equity and equality: equality of outcomes, of opportunities etc...
If you have a person who has been in chains for ten years and one who has been training daily compete in a race is it really surprising that they won't perform equally?
Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies
#10How 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.