juansavage1

Ha. Not hiring female scientists might be a reality in some other places, but not the modern West.

No. I think the lady live tweeted her son:'s class. It's in wired magazine. She felt a little uneasy, even though she's a liberal, with the ideological purges.

Also, by asking the two questions I suggested, you'll see that almost all of this type of discussion is ideology.

That was the professor in the article. I'm on a phone and didn't have the quote thingy.

Would you say that there's a correlation between ones ideology and ones opinion on this issue? If there is, then it's relevant. I don't like to waste time on these things. I get to the crux of the matter.

Glad you asked. First, this isn't uniform among all of STEM. Women do better at biology than physics, for example. Men tend to be better at "right brain" type activities. This can explain why boys have higher math SATs. Women also show preference for soft majors in college. http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education.html IOW, much of the disparity can just be innate ability and preference. Does pointing out these facts make me a bad person?

Thanks for the links. Hopefully, we can settle this calmly. Full disclosure: I had to write a paper (just an assignment, not a big deal) on this so I'm familiar with the subject. I also don't divide the world between men and women. I see women as slower, hairless men without dicks, but I'll play along with your binary world view. The papers you provided point out that women are less than half of STEM workers (leaving out that many STEM "men" may identify as female). Women make up about half the population. There are four possibilities: 1. Women are denied positions by sexist bosses. 2. Women aren't as attracted to STEM positions as they are to other fields, like human resources or psychology. 3. Women aren't as good at STEM. 4. Women like STEM, but are discouraged from pursuing those fields by their mothers. Which one do you think is mostly correct?

Some people who normally advocate left positions still feel queasy about such rigid Ness (it's from wired magazine): The mob that thinks this is a good idea seems to be composed largely of people I generally respect: feminist, pro-science, publicly-engaged. But I feel like they’re not thinking about this clearly. Let me admit my biases here: The last couple of months have been rough for me. In just the last couple of weeks I published two articles that pissed off a whole lot of people on the science-y left, including one for WIRED on gender nonconforming children, and another for New Statesman on vaccine politics. These have each generated a number of calls for my head from people on the pro-science left. In addition, as you may have heard, I live-tweeted my son’s sex ed class, and with no warning that went internationally viral. (If somehow you haven’t heard about that, you can read what happened through my articles in The Stranger and The Guardian.) That was not exactly a pleasant experience, and I quickly got the sense my medical school’s administration was none too happy to have their institutional name on the front page of the Washington Post in this raucous sex ed context.

I wonder if there's a way to quantify laziness (time spent on non working activities?). Just because people don't like school, doesn't mean they're lazy. My brother didn't like school and is one of the hardest working people I know.

Notice how people scatter when you ask for evidence. My son's going to Cal next year (nuclear engineering - and he's half Mexican!) and I told him that whenever he's confronted with something that sounds wrong ask one of two questions: If it's a sociological or scientific point, ask for evidence. If it's a philosophical or moral point ask for authority (who said?).

What evidence do you have?

By the way, if you believe in ideological enforcement, that's OK. I do too. I'm Catholic and I applaud the efforts of the archbishop of San Francisco to hold teachers accountable to opinions contrary to the faith. If you have an ideology that denies differences between the sexes, it makes sense that you want to enforce it.

I don't think he said that he wouldn't hire a woman. Let me ask another question: Should a person be able to make an observation and keep his job or should he keep thoughts to himself?

This isn't true. Women in 2015 are encouraged to do STEM. Have you ever met anybody who discouraged a woman from doing STEM?

What about the men who don't hire people with controversial views?

Let's get something out of the way: Should it be possible to hold the view that women tend to be more emotional than men or that people of the opposite sex tend to be attracted to each other AND, if you're otherwise qualified, work at a job?

As the father of a girl, I liked the joke. I encourage my daughter to have a sense of humor and to not be offended by sex differences. I don't think people looking down on female scientists is in any way a problem in 2015 America.

Some professors on TV said that a person can be trans racial so stop laughing, haters.

She's pointing out several important trends. One is the growth of identity politics. Another is the growing constituency of single women, who are the backbone of a party she disagrees with. She's kind of outrageous about it, but don't people respect brash iconoclasts or is that only when you agree with them?

OK. If it's eexpensive expensive. You should know, I guess

I didn't argue that it wasn't bad for your health. It doesn't affect the point I was making-that people need to generalize to make sense out of anything and good data leads to good generalization, but your assertion only makes sense if an insurance company only covers a person to a certain age, say 65. Then, smokers will be more likely to develop some health issues before then and cost the company money. I can see this for life insurance as well. Overall, since almost everybody dies because of some sickness or malady, almost everybody costs lots of money. The longer one lives, the more health care costs they accrue. For those who don't think generalizations help, the moderator can ban generalizations.

I do that when I play to intimidate the opposition.