http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10...ar-on-science/
Printable View
This bullshit is so damn motherfucking downright prejudice and fucking stupid. feminist liberal bastard motherfuckers, with their blatant sexism. whoever is behind this can suck a whole bag of cocks and choke.
Reading that was a little surreal. :wow
Looks like we have people who think women are inferior and not able to compete.
If you had to choose between a woman surgeon, or a male black one, which one do you go with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1718642.html
The studies in the above article are a good reason for separating boys and girls in education. There is very probably no genetic inferiority in girls' mental abilities, but there is certainly male intimidation and cultural conditioning/expectations in play.
Assuming the Huff~n~Puff post is correct for once, better to learn to deal with it in school rather than dealing with it for the first time at the work place.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Relax.Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
Rosenberg has it correct in this article. The disparity is due to career decisions made by women much more so than anything else. Quotas on male enrollment would only further excacerbate the shortage of qualified individuals in this sector.
no surprise obama backs it, he got a daughter and no sons imho
m>s has a right to be mad. Who will do his dickskin research now?!?!?!?
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
women always victims, never their fault...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
yeah only women can become victims of sexism and there're misogynists everywhere. schools gonna build more buckets in women's toilet rooms, the fact is women's public toilets should've never been built the same size as men's in the first place since it generally takes a woman twice or thrice the time to finish a pee as a man does, and in the men's room there are more urinals fixed to the walls which men can piss in, so a men's public toilet can hold alot more people pissing at the same time than a women's toilet of the same size. say if you have equal numbers of men and women in a building, the square ratio of men's toilet to women's should be made 1:3 or 1:4 imho
i might be wrong so don't mind correcting me if i am wrong, since your also such a pro in architecture like in many other subjects such as spacescience, biology, philosophy, mathematics, finance and of course... stalking :lol
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
so you guys are okay with the sexism and move toward a feminazi society? cool
just go ahead and drop off your balls right over there in the jar on your way out.
Couple of things
1) Male enrollment in science and engineering is so much greater it's not even funny.
2) Female scientists and especially engineers are in high demand in industry. Firms want them.
3) m<s is afraid of women :lol beta
^your balls, give em up
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe m>s is mad because now there will be no one to REATTACH his dickskin.
As long as they limit WHITE males, I'm ok with this.
War against men
you kidding?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
See the post above yours. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by scott
what's the big difference that gender makes in scientific research or engineering? industry & science need them female scientists for what? for sexual service to male scientists in the lab? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by m>s
Fuzzy Numb Nutz has no balls to give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
Of course he isn't kidding. The moment they reduce the black male enrollment numbers, there will be rioting in the streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
Women are increasingly in positions of authority across industries. If you are an geology firm submitting bids to a government agency headed by a woman then it is a good idea to at least include a woman in your presentation. Some men are more comfortable around woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by m>s
In design, half of the world's consumers are women. It makes sense to have them assist design for obvious reasons.
I realize that all too many of you posture but deep down are intimidated by women but the above should be obvious. Seems the Dallas Mavericks fanbase has a few of those types and you guys try so hard to appear otherwise that it makes it obvious.
:lol alphas
In order for insults to be effective you have to relate them to something other's can see. Your blind flailing just makes you look childish and butthurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's nobody's fault that you are dumb. You don't need to be so upset by it.
Maybe go find some pics of complete stranger's homes or brush up on your creationist science?
Or how about you bump your autobiography thread regaling us with your views on the poor and minorities. I bet if you tried you could find some good eugenics books.
Autodidacts Unite!!!
Another shocking area I recently found out that has gone to a quota system is state game wardens. Their new classes have to exactly reflect the demographics of the state by gender and race. This is really counter productive IMHO. Game wardens in Texas have a broader law enforcement mandate than virtually any other law enforcement agency and they frequently operate alone dozens of miles from any potential backup and almost 100% of the time they are dealing with multiple armed males. Crazy shit. You KNOW they are rejecting highly qualified male applicants in favor of desperately filling that female mandate with whoever they can convince to apply..
lots of begged questions there, and no sources linked to substantiate any of your claims, CC . . .
one does however arrive at political talking points much the quicker presenting facts as valid and reasoning as already concluded, when in fact no investigation into either has taken place.
hunch, half familiarity and prejudice get presented as fully sufficient, which, to the speaker, they little doubt are . . .
I really don't give a shit whether you believe me or not.
Then how are they numb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Seems to me they can encourage more female enrollment without emposing an artificial limit on male enrollment. When I was in engineering school, there were only a few female students, but I doubt it was because there were too many male students.
you don't seem to care whether anyone else does either, so I won't take that personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Everything can't always be linked on the internet. Doesn't mean it's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Not to say the game wardens weren't a good old boy network back twenty years ago but they are applying federal affirmative action guidelines to them now and it required a pendulum swing in hiring quotas.
Some things you just know because you know the people that know.
FWIW Blacks are still under-represented in hiring because they just can't hire any. The few that want to go into that line of work can jump right to the Feds and make more money with better benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
oh, I'll just take your word for it then.Quote:
Everything can't always be linked on the internet. Doesn't mean it's not true.
hard to believe there's nothing that can be linked from the internet to support what you say, but it's understandable you prefer the argument from authority over backing up your own claims. laziness rulz.
It's understandable that you just want to be an argumentative bitch this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I had to get a rag to wipe the dumb off my computer from having clicked on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by russellgoat
Made up phony outrage over a non-existant plan.
Libertarian conspiracy theory, based on... nothing. Nada. Zip.
This is what the fuss is about:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...lity-and-oppor
Nothing in there about imposing any "male science enrollment" quotas, and the best I could find, no one was proposing such.
The only person saying this was possible, or intended was the author of the op-ed blog, who provided no subtantiating evidence of this claim. I thumbed through the links in the article, and NONE of it indicated the current administration was considering instituting such quotas.
All I saw was a bunch of out of context quote mining, and hand-wringing.
I can't say for certain the Obama administration isn't contemplating something dumb like that, but none of the linked articles actually provided any proof of the claim other than vague generalities either.
You KNOW 9-11 had to be an inside job.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Just don't ask me to provide evidence of it...
guess you got nothing besides anecdote to back up what you say.:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
which is fine. forum needs big bullshitters. keeps things lively.
Yeah i was reading it and saw nothing about hard caps or even soft caps. i know without question that the engineering community is trying to attract more women and schools and firms are recruiting hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I know some girls that while able to do the work are hardly prodigies and they are getting offers from firms for $80k or more right out the gate with absolutely no experience.
This is not government either. This is market demand as these firms are under no legal obligation to give any more than equal consideration. The problem is this:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tab2-10.pdf
A 5:1 man to woman ratio in enrollment. It's pretty sad watching those that fear women wring their hands over this situation.
Quotas are stupid, but no women in tech/science is a problem. The government should give incentives (scholarships&subsidies) to address the problem.
You are a reallyyyyyyyy dense fucking idiot. Let me help you out. Nobody has a problem with women being in stem..but to impose quota's is what I have a problem with. Let the best people who apply in, end of discussion. There just aren't as many women as men who are interested in STEM..nothing wrong with that. I can promise you the reason that there are currently so many more men isn't anything to do with discrimination, as others have said women who actually want in have no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Fuzzy lumpkins is a sexist bigot who doesn't think women can compete.
I am in 100% agreement with you on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
Men and women are simply different. Neither is better than the other. Just different.
I think it's sad that anyone thinks men and women should have the same desires.
Nobody is talking about imposing quotas.Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
The only people even saying it is a possibility, are people who have full motive to lie, i.e. more fearmongering for readers/ratings/fame.
Quotas in enrollment are stupid.
The only thing being proposed that could be proven is that colleges are encouraged to remove any barriers that might be hindering female enrollment.
Do you have a problem with that?
I would mostly agree. Men and women are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That doens't mean, however, that women can't, or shouldn't, be in some fields.
Women should not be discouraged from seeking hard science degrees.
Can you agree with that statement?
women shouldn't be discouraged from seeking such degrees, nor should menQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
schools should treat them all students indifferently regardless of gender, and it's blatant discrimination to put a hard quota on enrollment based on gender imho
yet nobody complains about "legacy"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latarian Milton
or race
It would be, if such a policy existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latarian Milton
No one has shown anybody seriously proposing such yet. As noted the OP is an opinion piece about what someone *thinks* is going to happen, but has no proof to support.
Railing against something that doesn't exist, is all well and good, but kind of pointless don't you think?
I hate unicorns that poop on my car. :ihit
Who said they are discouraged? maybe it's their choice!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Quote:
Women should not be discouraged from seeking hard science degrees.
Can you agree with that statement?
No one said they are discouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I am asking you if they should be discouraged.
Simple yes or no. Agree or disagree.
I think my position is clear. No they shouldn't be discourage. I was saying men and women are different, so stop thinking they want to enroll in the same percentages.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I neither think that, nor have I stated that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
In fact, I very clearly said pretty much the opposite.
Men and women want to enroll in different things for different reasons. This is neither unwelcome, nor unnatural, it just is.
Now that I have been exactingly clear on the subject, I can hope you don't feel you have to make up strawmen to defeat going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
It's baffling how fucking stupid you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by mavs>spurs
My post boiled down to
1) The link did not demonstrate quota's or caps on male enrollments.
2) Firms and schools are recruiting women hard as there is a labor market demand for them.
3) Those that believe in 1) are bitches themselves
At no point did I advocate artificial limits or unfair enrollment advantages. I am saying people that wring their hands over shit that isn't happening are bitches. Basic reading comprehension should have shown you that.
What is telling is that you are scared of women it's hilarious. You put so much effort in denigrating them and acting as if you are some sort of dominant male, it is quite obvious that you are intimidated by the gender.
What a putz.