cannotthinkoff wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
1: My state just passed the "Women's Economic Security Act." The naming of it is a little unfortunate, since according to BLS data, men lost jobs during the "recession" at 2.6 times the rate of women. The bill uses education level to determine when it's OK to pay differently, even though our colleges have a hard time showing that their product improves students' intellectual performance.
2: Schools favor girls in general: They select for people who are willing to sit for long periods of time. That's more common in girls, but has nothing to do with intelligence. The only study that I've read about it showed that kids who were physically active during class performed better than those who weren't. Age-advanced language skills are also favored in school, even to the point of rewarding grandiloquence in people who've failed to master concrete subjects.
3: We don't even teach the hard stuff in school anymore, and boys did will on it. Dawrin's own description of his thinking style (in his autobiography) showed that he was extremely right-brained and visuospatial. IBM's Virginia Rometty said in a piece in the Economist a while ago: "Smarter enterprises will make decisions by capturing data and applying predictive analytics, rather than just relying on past experience." Actually, men have excelled at that for ages. My grandfather was extremely good at it. So is my dad. Neither of them needed a big-iron server and a rack of terabyte hard drives to do data science. There's never been any other kind of science.
You systematically wiped out our best students and replaced them with dunces, and now one of those dunces wants to pretend that proper analysis is some sort of new invention.
4: Our punishments for sex crimes are some of the harshest. We have laws that aren't constitutional, like Minnesota's "treatment" system for sex offenders.
1. How is this relevant? Seems quite logical to me.
Would you pass a "White Economic Security Act?"
What's "logical" about using a standard that isn't performance-based to favor one person over another? I've already debated the performance of our schools:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf257450 ... ml#6050803http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts257450-start315.htmlQuote:
2. No. I speak from my own experience, I've had to endure a lot of sh** from people when I decided to follow the science path. And still I have to work twice as hard to be considered equal to male students. This is well recognized, that female scientists have to work much harder in order to receive the same level of respect, and eventually to land the same job. You have no idea how hard it was. And this your statement is so unbelievably inaccurate and sexist. You have no idea how much sh** I had to go through just for being a girl. Educational system is not perfect, but to claim that it is feminized and placing men at a grave disadvantage is plain BS. Every girl knows that to survive in this world she will have to work twice as hard as a man. And she does.
That's the exact opposite of what I've seen. Even going back to the 1940s, women who were good at engineering advanced to very high levels. Hedy Lamarr and Grace Hopper were (and still are) very highly regarded.
I heard lots of nasty comments about men who sucked at their jobs, but never once a negative comment about a woman who did solid work.
Engineering is a much more meritocratic field than education, which is 69% female. A friend of mine who was studying to be a German teacher had to spend most of her time learning preschool-level education techniques, even though she would never use them. The program was full of hurtles meant to favor people that the hierarchy liked, while keeping out people that they disliked. There was no evidence to justify most of it. Engineering can be rough, but it's not particularly unfair.
I would be surprised if you worked twice as hard as the men, but I've been surprised before. What's your field?
Quote:
3. What was that. look at the east, in korea where they teach pretty hardcore stuff.
looks like you think that proper data analysis and statistics is a new invention, as all is made up by feminists
I used to run a lab. Among other things, we calibrated quality control equipment for GE's jet engine division. I had to sign off on every measurement, leaving a paper trail in case I made a mistake. Yes, I
do have a lot of doubts about your "statistics." Unlike social science ditzes, I had to get my numbers right.
East Asian companies have done an awesome job at implementation. Not so much at new design. We're not doing a very good job at either anymore.
Quote:
4. Serves you right. Why do you keep defending sex offenders.
Because not all of them are sex offenders:
http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/ ... bert-tibbs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Garrett
http://forward.com/articles/182399/leo- ... ish/?p=all
Because we have a constitution, the principles of which you invoke whenever it suits you, only to ignore them in a case like this one.
15 May 2014, 1:19 pm
