Oh yeah, you're completely right... there's absolutley no problem. And the studies which accumlate massive amounts of data from the "real world" are trumped by your personal experiences in which you meet a few people. Not just newspapers btw... academic articles usually carry a lot more weight... but we must also be aware that they're apartof an elaborate conspiracy... so meh

Again, they are made by people, and they dont show the whole situation.

I actually didn't say that I think women do the best work... I said an employer should hire anyone based on nothing else except their ability to perform the job, whether they be a man or a woman it makes no difference.

They can do what they want, its their company... This whole conversation is going in circles.

To you, and others. This is not medieval times. Noone is holding anyone's hand and directs them to do what they dont want. If you do something you dont want, dont blame the society, blame yourself. This is university, you are old enough to do as you want, it's simple as that.

I'm done, this conversation is going nowhere.

Originally Posted by jim1

He didn't say they are allowed, he said if that's what they want then its up to them...he also added this: Yes, it's racism and sexism, but it's real life we are living here, it sucks for everybody.
This shows that he understands and know that such actions are racism and sexism.
I didn't want to be a part of this thread at all, but ohh well :/

And that's exactly what I critisized. He believes it should be "allowed" for an employer to hire based on skin colour. What does it matter if he acknoledges it is racist? It something that regardless of being racist he seems to think is alright... that's amazing really...

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

You're first point... yeah, it's all a conspiracy. Because if Twinkle didn't see it... it never happened!

Your second point... Yes, it is more than "just" it makes complete sense. Would you not agree that employers should only ever be hiring those that are most qualified? You can't honestly believe otherwise... Lets say for example two people are equally qualified. One is white the other is black, would be right for the employer to hire the white one just because he's white?

His first point is correct kid. All studies are subject to the bias of those who are conducting the experiment. The person conducting the experiment has been hired by a company to prove a point. So the sample population that is tested will be chosen to have the best possibility of producing results that will back the hypothesis or theory in question. And that second question is just a complete over exageration.

Originally Posted by jim1

He didn't say they are allowed, he said if that's what they want then its up to them...he also added this: Yes, it's racism and sexism, but it's real life we are living here, it sucks for everybody.
This shows that he understands and know that such actions are racism and sexism.
I didn't want to be a part of this thread at all, but ohh well :/

WTF is this point even trying to be
just because he understands racism/sexism (he does not) doesn't excuse anything
if anything it's even worst, congratulations, you're not an idiot you're just another sexist ass who doesn't care they're sexist?

and I'm so sick of the "well thats just how the world is" are you guys sheep?!?

anybody who really believes that everybody has the same opportunities are incredibly blinded

also I just can't with people going "well those studies are obviously biased"

because you're not biased at all right?

"Oh yeah, you're completely right... there's absolutley no problem. And the studies which accumlate massive amounts of data from the "real world" are trumped by your personal experiences in which you meet a few people. Not just newspapers btw... academic articles usually carry a lot more weight... but we must also be aware that they're apartof an elaborate conspiracy... so meh

Again, they are made by people, and they dont show the whole situation.

I actually didn't say that I think women do the best work... I said an employer should hire anyone based on nothing else except their ability to perform the job, whether they be a man or a woman it makes no difference.

They can do what they want, its their company... This whole conversation is going in circles.

To you, and others. This is not medieval times. Noone is holding anyone's hand and directs them to do what they dont want. If you do something you dont want, dont blame the society, blame yourself. This is university, you are old enough to do as you want, it's simple as that.

I'm done, this conversation is going nowhere."

first pont: you don't know the whole situation either, and I think a lot of sociologist with years of data wil have at least a better grasp

second point: no it is not going in circles, one person is asserting that the employer is being hella racist, you see no issue in them being so

given the history of race relations, how can an employer "simply" choose to hire a white person over a black person without there being SOME racial prejudice

Originally Posted by Chris23

His first point is correct kid. All studies are subject to the bias of those who are conducting the experiment. The person conducting the experiment has been hired by a company to prove a point. So the sample population that is tested will be chosen to have the best possibility of producing results that will back the hypothesis or theory in question. And that second question is just a complete over exageration.

I understand that experimental bias occurs. But personal experience is not scientific...

And no crediable scientist or researcher is going to find a population that will produce the outcome they want. That's the whole point of the peer-review process, those kinds of bias' become exposed very quickly. Both of you are acting very ideologically... you've come to a conclusion and no amount of evidence will sway it. When evidence does come along, you stick your finger in your ear and scream foul. Yet you can't even support your own views...

I've asked a number of times for the reason (which you admit must exist as I pointed out before) that women are under represented in engineering... you have not answered and I suspect it's because you don't have an answer. But please, prove me wrong...

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

I'm not specifically talking about affermative action... especially in the situation of gender inequality. But I don't know if programs that a university or government might set up to expose females to math (or any group to a field not typically pursured by them... males and nursing for example), is really the same.

The "encouragement" I'm referring to is specifically affirmative action for female students, be it in the form of lowered requirements or financial aid.

Also, I think I can put what I said earlier in slightly better terms: women can be just as good at mathematics, as it is now, (at the research level) as men, but in order to do so they need to either change the way they think or have been brought up in a sufficiently "masculinized" way, simply because of the male-dominated structure and history of mathematics.

Having an identifiable role model enables a sense of belonging rather than alienation when you precieve that everyone else in the program belongs except yourself. A previous article that I posted a link to found similar results in their research

There may be a misunderstanding here -- I don't think that encouragement is wrong in general, but what is important is the way that encouragement is communicated, and what I disagree with is the sort of encouragement we see today. Female mathematicians like Emily Noether are inspiring, and their stories ought to be more widely circulated (unfortunately she's mainly known within mathematics and not outside of it).

Of course, there are other factors to be considered here as well; for example, the representation of mathematics in high school.

Originally Posted by Twinkle

it sucks for everybody.

Except for privileged white males...

You guys are so biased, ignorant and unaware as to how the world works when you aren't a white male, or just male in general. The fact alone that you are born male grants so many more privileges and opportunities than women (and if you are lucky enough to be born a healthy white straight cis-male with access to education, you automatically have more privilege in this world than women, PoC, minorities, the LGBTQIA community and those who are differently abled!)

please read, educate yourselves!

http://finallyfeminism101.wo rdpres...s/faq-roundup/
http://finallyfeminism101.wo rdpress.com/

otherwise I fear for all your daughters

Originally Posted by Mahratta

The "encouragement" I'm referring to is specifically affirmative action for female students, be it in the form of lowered requirements or financial aid.



There may be a misunderstanding here -- I don't think that encouragement is wrong in general, but what is important is the way that encouragement is communicated, and what I disagree with is the sort of encouragement we see today. Female mathematicians like Emily Noether are inspiring, and their stories ought to be more widely circulated (unfortunately she's mainly known within mathematics and not outside of it).

Of course, there are other factors to be considered here as well; for example, the representation of mathematics in high school.

Yeah I don't know enough about affermative action to really comment... But Ive read/heard somethings that sound as though they do have a place, perhaps not with gender inequality.

And yeah, I didn't think that's what you meant, you seem rational
I think that a great way to "encourage" people to pursure math if they are interested is to be able to better picture themselves in that field (or any field) so if a mathematician like Emily Noether (no idea who she is) was actively promoting education in math (not just to females) it would allow girls to identify better and I think would go a long way in reducing that inequality. It doesn't have to be throwing money at girls who enter university or reducing grades (which I wasn't even aware occured... that's something I'd strongly disagree with)

Rebecca, Christina, how many people tried to stop you from going to university simply because you are female? How many times have you lost your jobs because you were women?

Except for privileged white males...

Oh really? And what about all those jobs we can't get or not supposed to get as white males or males in general?

Originally Posted by Twinkle

Rebecca, Christina and V, how many people tried to stop you from going to university simply because you are female? How many times have you lost your jobs because you were women?

I'm not female...

(nor am I handicapped, gay, etc., to save you some time when attempting to make a personal argument. I am tanned, though, if that helps.)

Originally Posted by Chris23

It does if you have a backbone. All im hearing is you allowed others to dictate how you were going to live your life and for that i am sorry. My parents raised me to be independant and to make choices for myself. No one is to blame for how someones life turns out except for themself. It is your life to live, its just a question of if you live it, or you let others live it for you.

That's still extremely condescending of you. Really, how have you determined my life story based on one personal anecdote I offered? Having something like good, loving parenting is a gift. If you had different circumstances then perhaps you would not have the strength to stand up for yourself. If someone's parents always told them they would be nothing if they didn't become a doctor, I think blaming them for not following their true passions is really ****ed up. They're human, and everyone has a breaking point. The only way they'd be able to overcome that is by having a good support network or by being one of those rare people with incredibly strong wills. I put my foot down and dated, moved out, and got engaged when I wanted. What I don't think is that someone who doesn't manage to do this is spineless or needs to bootstraps more.

Originally Posted by Twinkle

Rebecca, Christina and V, how many people tried to stop you from going to university simply because you are female? How many times have you lost your jobs because you were women?

How would they possibly know how many jobs they didn't get based on their gender? And what do you not understand about personal experience being irrelevant???

To actually determine whether or not this is a problem you're gonna need to come up with a better method of gathering data than asking stupid questions...

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

How would they possibly know how many jobs they didn't get based on their gender? And what do you not understand about personal experience being irrelevant???

To actually determine whether or not this is a problem you're gonna need to come up with a better method of gathering data than asking stupid questions...

Interesting, then how do you think all those scientist got their data?