>>7763259 >women cant into science because their dumb
Literally no one seriously say that. The only people who do are guys being sarcastic/funny and a really small minority of butthurt sexists that don't actually exist in real life because no one would exclaim such uninformed bullshit in real life.
>>7763269 For example, this fucking faggot. He is either trying to scare you off because you clearly are a tumblrina and he, like I, does not want tumblrinas in our board or he is part of a really small minority who is in no way going to affect your or mine personal and/or academic life.
>>7763283 > Literally no one seriously say that. The only people who do are guys being sarcastic/funny and a really small minority of butthurt sexists that don't actually exist in real life because no one would exclaim such uninformed bullshit in real life.
fuck off sjw you clearly have never been in the presence of a woman trying to do science.
>>7763301 >you clearly have never been in the presence of a woman trying to do science.
But I have and while I have personal opinions about why men would be better there is no reasons that prevent a woman to do just as good.
However, I would always be cautious of hiring a female STEM grad. There is always the possibility that they fucked their professors for grades so unless you give them a practical test and pass it, their degree is just not worth as much.
Other than that, I've seen women who are actually intelligent. There is no reason to immediately despise women in science.
>>7763421 No, you missed the point entirely. The test itself is just a bad test in terms of evaluating intelligence. It's mostly memorizing simple rules and adding nothing new to the information that is being used in the test. That is what real intelligence is : adding a new insight instead of regurgitating information like a plebeian.
>>7763347 >There is always the possibility that they fucked their professors for grades so unless you give them a practical test and pass it, their degree is just not worth as much. That is, wow...do you actually believe that is common at all? Many profs. mark exams without even looking at names so they can be as unbiased as possible.
A REAL reason to not hire women is because of the ridiculous maternity laws, hiring young women is a hassle that can cause your business a shitton of time and money.
I'd hire qualified women past their 50s in a heart beat though.
>>7763448 >Many profs. mark exams without even looking at names so they can be as unbiased as possible. You must have never taken a humanities class. This sort of bias is rampant there. Disagreeing with the prof's personal views and making real contributions in discussion rather than maintaining the simpleminded echo chamber and flawed arguments he/she wants is always a recipe for disaster. Science professors tend to run much more meritocratic ships because unsubstantiated personal beliefs and ideology have far less of a place, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending the system is thus effectively immune to bias and subversion is absurd.
>>7763347 >Other than that, I've seen women who are actually intelligent. There is no reason to immediately despise women in science. It's a statistical thing. On the average women seem less interested and less able scientifically, but this tells us nothing about -a- woman versus -a- man entering science, and decent scientists have far more in common with scientists of the opposite gender than normals of their own. It's mostly a silly divisive non-issue. AA and diversity policies are equivalent to cheating on exams as far as professional ethics. It may benefit certain people in the short run and may be morally justifiable under select circumstances, but it has a tragedy of the commons effect on the whole, where we are less and less certain that success through the usual channels means a person is qualified, and it's crucial we take measures against it.
>>7764440 >You must have never taken a humanities class. Thankfully no, my department got so pissed off at the liberal arts profs. pushing their retarded marxist religion on students that we now have our own humanities module taught by our own faculty.
It's pretty cool, you actually learn about philosophy instead of getting stuck on post-modernist crackpottery. Tests were objective where you only need to show your understanding of ideas and apply it (ex. morals/epistemology) in a professional/engineering case study.
I wouldn't assert that all STEM departments should do this, but I will say that no one campus would deny the STEM students aren't more knowledgeable about philosophy the average humanity major.
>>7764948 I'm an anarchist bruh, not sure where you're going with this.
It's precisely this sort of self-satisfied hubris that rubs me the wrong way. Not only does intersectional critical theory refuse to make arguments but simply states conclusions and expects everyone to take them dogmatically as the gospel truth, it condemns any mention of facts which contradict this vision, up to and including the actual text in the methodology sections of the $0.78 and 1 in 5 papers, as heresy. It not only thrives under but requires wholesale rejection of intellectual life for sincere belief (self-serving liars are another story altogether.) And its views of original sin based in identity politics, where the only remedy is this sort of bizarre self-hatred/shame? The way it distracts people, seemingly by design, from the only privileges (economic and political) which truly matter? It's the opiate of the masses; a new modern religion for these modern times.
>>7765066 That the humanities classroom not only tolerates but coddles this ideology that copes with being objectively bad by rejecting objectivity altogether is exemplary of its own underlying problems.
It's these problems that disjoint being a good thinker with excellent command of the subject from being a guy that gets good grades in humanities shit.
Imagine Stalin teaching Trotsky's SOC 205 course. Think being the smartest and hardest working in the class would get him that A?
But hey, at least it's not high school. There Trotsky would probably get a month's suspension for taking that icepick to the face.
Why do feminists cry 'We need more women in STEM!' and not 'We need more women in the military!'
I mean, working in any sector of the military is incredibly respectful. Just by wearing that uniform in any public space you are immediately recognized as someone who ought to be praised and respected.
Don't feminists want respect and shit?
I say >2016 is the year for EQUALITY IN THE MILITARY!
They could've been arguing about literally any score.
They could've used university grades; it's not like different genders write separate exams. But no they have to go as far back as possible to find the easiest test that will fit their agenda, but isn't. Anything difficult and white and asian males blow everyone the fuck out too hard.
So of course to "fix this problem" they're trying to "feminize" STEM programmes (read; make it easier for retards). Not that women/non-white+asians can't do STEM, there are just a smaller percentage that can, White and Asian males have been handicapped harder than any other field for over 4 decades and the outcome hasn't changed, it never will. Accept it and move on.
Why would you use "science" scores rather than math scores? "Science" at the grade school level is just memorization.
No, women are not "dumb," but they 1) have different preferences than men, 2) tend to excel more at verbal and interpersonal skills over logic (for men, especially intelligent men, it tend to be the opposite) 3) are not as numerous at the tail ends of the IQ distribution compared to men. All this in mind we'd expect women to not be in the hard sciences as much as men.
>>7765291 This is the most accurate statement in the thread.
The lack of women in STEM is just because a few amount of women want to be in it. If they can not meet the expectations set by asian and white men, then they should not be in there in the first place. No need to dumb it down, just fail like other people who can not do it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.