There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.
There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.Dunno about credibility of research or flimsy evidence, but how many women do you know who are nerds? How many women have hobbies which are technology related? When I started studies in university in 2005, we had only 4 girls among 80+ EE students. I don't think there were so few of them because of discrimination. Application was solely school grade / centralized school exam based. Also competition was extremely low because of general disinterest in EE in Latvia at that time. Basically anyone with half decent grades could get free EE education, IIRC less than 5 people among those actually paid to get in.
We're quite surprised to see is that you don't realise that what you posted were the rabid imaginings of a US Senator, well known to be an anti-communist zealot. What is contained therein has as much basis in reality in the then US political climate as "crisis actors" and "alternative facts" do in the current US political climate.
Here's the actual Communist Manifesto.
Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.
People complain about the lack of women in STEM fields but I've never personally met anyone in my field who had any desire to keep women out.
The thing I have trouble understanding is why some are so offended by the concept of there being genetic differences between the genders that lead to some things appealing more to members of one gender than the other, when looking at a large statistical sample.
wew laddies, we got some triggered people in here.
Opinions are a hilarious business ...
The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.
I don't see any evidence of people here being "offended". Sure, among the sociology and ____ studies types I'm sure there are plenty who are, but that's a group that likes to find something to take offence at. I am unconvinced that there is anything but a smidgeon of decent evidence suggesting any genetic predisposition to STEM/geeky subject preference along sex lines. Any objections I have to such a conclusion are just based on a desire for any conclusions in the matter to be based on scientific rigour not a priori assumptions or woolly thinking. We can leave the woolly thinking to the sociology department.
Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males
The only reason these subjects are as much discussed as they are is because we discuss them. "Don't feed the troll" is one common saying, and "stop making stupid people famous" another. Both could arguably be applied to the situation.Another. Never argue with a fool. A passer by will be unable to tell which of you is the fool.
Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males
I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.
Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males
I wasn't aware there was outrage, my other half works in veterinary medicine though and the field is dominated by women, in her clinic the head dentist is a man as are a couple of the techs, but every one of the doctors and at least 80% of the staff is women. Why? I'm not really sure, is it something we should try to fix? I don't know, frankly there's not much money in it, it's a career you choose because you love the work.
What amuses me about it, however, is the people complaining are the same people campaigning for grants to women. Now, I have no problem in colleges giving grants to types of people that are a relative minority in a field. The question of if it is necessary is another debate entirely, but I think it can do good in the right circumstances. The reason I posted that is because it's part of the SJW hypocrisy that I meant to address.
Also VetRanch is pretty cool and he's a guy.
Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?
That's the real trick here. Mr. Vainaloid here gets you thinking that's what his opponent is saying, thereby constructing an extremely attractive strawman. Don't fall for it.
Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor.
Grants? I am tired of the positive discrimination because in the long run it doesn't resolve the original troubles else it tends to create new problems and complicate the situation.
Now(Spain), the women take better califications than the men; on the Acces University Exam takes two point more than the men (5-6) and the Access Stem Careers,at generally, its calification are over 5.
But there are not more 5 women by career. So , What do we do ? We grant to women the free STEM career or we give them the University Degrees by their beautiful face
Well, she writes:QuoteRigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor.
This woman's mission and logically ridiculous argument against "rigor" and attacks on STEM studies as a whole isn't one that can be dismissed as simply an argument over "semantics". She is ardently persisting with this illogical nonsense and has dug herself in far too deep for this to be the case. I'm incredulous that she could be stupid enough not to see the logical flaws in her arguments herself, and that degree of intellectual dishonesty and denial can only be ideologically driven.
Let's start with an example from my school days at an all boys grammar school. In the third year we had elective subjects. The timetabling of these elections paired subjects, so that if you wanted to do one you were absolutely excluded from the other. Two of these pairings were (German and Biology) and (Art and Woodwork). I'll point out that at the time the majority of innovative academic publishing in Chemistry was in German, so that first forced choice disadvantages anybody who was to go on and do any Biochemistry that required up to date Chemistry knowledge. The other assumption was "linguists and scientists do not mix". The second elective assumes that Art and practical physical construction do not meet - roll on design engineering and sculpture.
Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.
Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.
Interesting point, I wanted to do Maths, Physics and French for A levels all those years ago. That combination disappeared due to a last minute timetable alteration, but you can be sure they had no problem in allowing me to do Maths, Physics and Chemistry:unlike my French, which wasn’t at all bad, my magic cauldron skills being less than mediocre! I never saw it as a bias issue, but in today’s terms it ceratianly is.At O-level time I wanted to do all the sciences, but scheduling wouldn't allow me to do physics, chemistry and biology, The things that interested me at that time were electronics and micro-biology. So, at 14 I needed to make a choice, dropped biology, and did <insert random subject here> for my remaining O-level. I think these things mostly relate to random scheduling, rather than any plan of coercion.
Take away gender and huge industries collapse overnight.