Dude got Damore’d, remember kids, don’t question the narrative. You’ll lose your ability to participate in science.
Does this count under tech policy & news?
Here’s the actual presentation, I’m going to assume this is a “google translate” version of it, and it’s not in it’s original language? Or it’s just written from someone with low skills in English writing
To be frank, only with that slide, he is a real jerk. He implies that women are not in science because they can handle universal truth, because they are relativist and don’t want to think too hard, and they just want power.
I have a girl friend in physics and she must deal with a lot of dudes like that just she women as not at their place. And it’s even worse for my friend as she is interested in other stuff like history and that like distract her from the only real thing that is really important which is physics.
edit: just look at the whole presentation and omg he’s salty, and his work is horrendous. He like tries to do a social analysis, but without any background knowledge of social science methods and tools (including the quantitative ones), combine with a disdain for women because he’s an incel or something like that.
Yes there can be quantitative analysis in social science, and no it does not look like that. That’s like high school level bad.
I’m sorry maybe its my autism but I can’t find a single quote on that slide what you said there.
I have a friend who is a male nurse he has to deal with a lot of women around him who think basically the same thing about him, which the male part thinks about your friend. This only prooves that people can be real mean dicks.
I didn’t look at his whole presentation cause I don’t care that much. Not in particular because he is right or wrong or maybe hates women in general, more because he is a person with a limited horizon. But he’s not the only one.
If you take a closer look, if he tries like you said to do a social analysis, then maybe there would have been a higher probability of success, if a woman would have taken the job, cause his slide clearly shows that more educated women are working in this field than men are and they should know better. If you give a physicist a job social scientist, you know what you get.
Not sure if he did in the whole presentation, but that slide only says that there are in general more women in other positions that in physics, as it is at the whole CERN his formula is wrong though cause he did the : at the wrong place. I guess he meant:
Also at CERN female: %admin >> %phsicist >> %technician
Doesn’t look like discrimination, cause these figures represented in CERN are similar to the general population.
It’s written right in the title “Less women in STEM than in humanities (where right/wrong good/bad distinction is less clear) or ~legal professions (where real power is)” With that he is clearly implying that women cannot handle factual facts and thus are more attracted by the absence of factual facts in humanities and they only care for power to achieve their own means?
There is specific tools and methods to use math in social science. In this case he is only analysing something a propositional logic (is it the right term I forgot) that is not adequate for the complexity of the social world and do not take into account any of the other social variables!
Just look how it’s analyzing the data in slide 10 and the following. He’s clearly saying “well there is clearly more men in science, top researcher, and etc., so it must be because men are more fit for science work and it’s surely not because there have been heavy discrimination and structural causes which caused women to be less present in science in the first place”. A little bit strawmen how I wrote it but you get my point.
And how he define his variable seems to be imprint with a lot of bias.
but no that is the huge gap in his logic. In this case, it’s not because there is a huge number of “x” in “y field” that means that “x is meant for y field and not for z field”. In this case it’s “there is a huge number of x in y field for social reasons” and “there is few accomplisment x in z field because historically and still today access to z field was highly limited to x” plus “some gender related norms that still have a huge influence”.
ya I know it goes in both ways. There is still heavy gender bias with jobs that have been for a long time gender-related.
That is a lot of supposition. Assuming his implication is negative is wrong. It seems more that you assume that fact to be true and are projecting. He shows via his chart that they’re not there, he doesn’t say anywhere that women are incapable of handling facts.
It’s also in like broken English, are you sure more subtly isn’t being lost in some translation or language barrier?
It could just be implying that women in general prefer those roles which would explain why the disparity is there.
Science doesn’t care about feelings or gender, sure there was discrimination probably all the way through the 80s at least, as we move further away from that discrimination can’t keep getting blamed for why people choose to do what they do.
I forget the country, but somewhere in Europe someone was going hard on the whole gender discrimination/inequality in some work forces angle, and even after all of the gov’t’s intervention and whatever the number of male engineers Vs female nurses had not changed much if any, may have even gotten further divided.
I’m pretty sure that libel and sexual harassment aren’t encouraged on these forums. You may want to consider using more tolerant, gender-inclusive language in order to set a more positive and constructive tone for discussions.
I’d be interested in seeing a less formal study along the lines of polling employees in different areas on how they feel about gender in their field, “do you wish there were less women here,” or “is this a man’s job.”
I’m gonna guess the answer would be “of course not” to both, but why not conduct a huge anonymous survey and find out from the ground floor?
Honestly, when I heard about another man doing a presentation about why woman… I already knew he wasn’t going to drop any huge knowledge bombs on us. Woman from a young age don’t get the support system that men get to go into STEM fields, and when they do get there, there are these guys who discredit their being where they are to “the exeption that proves my point”.
There is only 1 job a woman can’t do, and that’s to hire the first woman.
Exactly what support are you referring to?
Do college administration, or hiring forces discriminate against women, if no, women simply make different choices than men on average which leads to different career paths.
I’m not gonna let this slide. Care to mention what support i got (or that men get in general) when i choose an engineering course that the girls in my class throughout highschool didn’t get? 'cause they sure din’t go into STEM despite having overall higher grades than the boys
Somehow I don’t think anyone would even be talking about this if the title was “Scientist uses data to show why more women aren’t handling snakes, greasing earthmovers, mining coal, pumping septics, slaughtering cattle or collecting garbage”.
The headlines/articles/reports that seem to generate the most support/attention/fuss seem to be the ones that refer to nice, clean, well-paying and/or respectable jobs. Gender-equality sure seems highly selective in that regard.
Perhaps one way to address the “problem” is to have a quota system? Let’s say that 1% of the population need to be physicists. If we force (I mean “support”) 1 woman out of every 100 to become a physicist then that should solve the problem, right? Ok, now since 2% of the population need to collect garbage, that means we should also force (I mean “support”) 2 women out of every 100 to become garbage collectors. Wonderful! Rinse and repeat for every disgusting/dangerous job where women are under-represented. Problem solved! No-one who advocates for gender-equality could possibly disagree with that — could they?