Cornell Study: For STEM Tenure Track, Women Twice As Likely To Be Hired As Men 517
_Sharp'r_ writes In the first "empirical study of sexism in faculty hiring using actual faculty members", Cornell University researchers found that when using identical qualifications, but changing the sex of the applicant, "women candidates are favored 2 to 1 over men for tenure-track positions in the science, technology, engineering and math fields."
An anonymous reader links to the study itself.
That's great news! (Score:5, Funny)
I've been pushing my daughter in STEM and she's about to transition from HS to college.
If this keeps up, I can look forward to her not having to move home after college graduation!
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexism shouldn't be considered great news just because it cuts in a politically correct direction.
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tuskeegee Airman scenario where pilots who had been discriminated against had gone through more training before they were allowed to fly and because of this had developed better skill than the average pilot is the reverse of what we see nowadays with Politically Correct discrimination.
Whereas once when a member of a discriminated-against group attained a position despite the discrimination they tended to stand as an example of why the discrimination was invalid, discrimination FOR groups produces examples that seem to justify negative stereotypes groups may carry.
Using irrelevant criteria such as sex or race to decide who fills a role, fills those roles with less qualified people than would be normal for those roles, and when statistics are done to determine how those criteria are associated with performance, ironically tend to support the discriminatory views the Politically Correct interference was meant to address.
Re: That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it attacks us young white males, it's always *great news* (hint: sarcasm). The fact is, most equality advocates I've met don't favor equality, they want preferential treatment and don't care if it steps on others, they just board the equality bandwagon to hide their selfishness. I've seen it too many times and I'm tired of it.
*Disclaimer* I'm all for equality and that's not preferential treatment, it's holding qualifications to the same standards regardless of race, sex, icecream flavor you like (unless the icecream flavor you like is directly a function of your job... somehow).
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right. If it is wrong to have a workforce that is dominated by one sex, then shifting your hiring processes in such a way that it will quickly be dominated by the opposite sex is not a "fix;" it's just another way of breaking the system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure that answers the question.
If two people have the exact same accomplishments, except one is from sex/race subjected to discrimination, then isn't there a good chance that the disadvantaged person would have done more if not subjected to said disadvantage? Doesn't that in fact make the disadvantaged person the "better" candidate?
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that answers the question. If two people have the exact same accomplishments, except one is from sex/race subjected to discrimination, then isn't there a good chance that the disadvantaged person would have done more if not subjected to said disadvantage? Doesn't that in fact make the disadvantaged person the "better" candidate?
No, it wouldn't. You'd have two equal candidates. Who you pick should come down to either a fair chance of some kind (a coin flip, dice roll, whatever), or you should give them an opportunity to compete to demonstrate better real life skills. Preferably, interview both and then make your judgements after getting to know them. Maybe I'm lacking in "moral flexibility", as you'd put it, but I'm not on board with sexism or racism of any kind, and I'm not going to screw over an applicant because of their skin color or gender. And even for you, think about it: you're here to judge applicants, not fulfil some higher order. If you're letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement, than I consider that a failure no matter how justified you think your final goal is.
Re: That's great news! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because it's an invisible backpack that doesn't actually exist
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to evaluate the relative adversity independently by evaluating the candidates' histories instead of blindly assuming it based on gender. But weighing things on their merits seems to be out of fashion nowadays.
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume the other person did not face obstacles because of their sex/race. Making assumptions on someone because of their sex/race is the definition of sexism/racism.
The neighborhood I grew up in was disadvantaged. I went to the same poor public schools, and had the same job positions to apply for. My parents had no more money then the others in the neighborhood. But someone else who is a different skin color should be hired instead of me because obviously I was not as disadvantaged? Thats a load of BS, and you know it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Two equal candidates, but one who overcame greater adversity to reach that point, suggesting they have greater inherent potential.
Say two people finish a race in a tie, but one was carrying a heavily loaded backpack - wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they were actually the better runner?
That's a terrible analogy. An accurate one is two runners - one with a red shirt, the other with a green one. Since red is an energizing, aggressive color, the green shirt must obviously be better because they wore a shirt that relaxed them. Right?
Nonsense. I'd assume the better one is the one with more victories on their record, not because of what shirt they wore.
Re: That's great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why you SJW types are going to lose in the end. You want to us white males to rally to your cause but all you do is insult and patronise us and all you have to offer is criticism. Life on easy mode my arse. Go tell that to the homeless whites, the poor whites, the whites that suffer from mental illness. You want to win the argument? How about giving a shit about men committing suicide in record numbers as a starting point. How about recognising that everyone has problems and not marginalising a single group based on their genitalia and skin colour (see the irony?)
Re:That's great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, unless that adversity and the skills obtained from it have direct application to your job.
Adversity can make you bitter and jaded. Or it can make you the sort of person who will claw their way to the top over the careers of their peers. That's not necessarily a trait that you want to hire.
That's not to say that this is what will happen, it is just there to show that "adversity" can have two sides to it.
I think that adversity can "build character", but it's not a slam dunk. Your hires shouldn't be judged based on their background, only their capability to do the job, unless that background is one which prevents you from doing the job well. There are plenty of people who "work hard" who are not as good at a job as people who just sit there and daydream most of the day until they do some furious work at the last minute. The fact that some people can do things the "easy way" may be infuriating, but doing things the "hard way" does not have any objective benefit by itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Car analogy time: your car for some reason veers left. The logical response isn't for you to just compensate by steering to the right. That's not going to get your car fixed.
But wouldn't you steer the car to the right until you fixed the car? Perhaps I missed your point, but your analogy seems to agree with using a stopgap solution until the gender imbalances are fixed in the schools.
Re:That's great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense - "Tabla Rasa" has been thoroughly disproved by numerous studies. Someone born with a 160 IQ has far more intellectual potential than someone born with an IQ of 30. Just as someone born with a predisposition to large, efficient muscles has far more potential for feats of strength. An egalitarian society must recognize that fact, and strive to provide them equal opportunities for happiness and well-being, not equal opportunities to become world-shaking theoretical physicists - the only way to do that would be to mandate that all people be crippled to reduce their potential to that of the least able.
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
>> If I'm interviewing two candidates, one who showed up on the red carpet and one who had to crawl over broken glass to get here, I'm taking the latter every time.
Which is fine and great. The issue is that people are assuming that because a candidate is a woman or racial minority that they had to have overcome more hurdles than the white and/or male candidate. And as a corollary, you're assuming that the white and/or male candidate didn't have an egregious past to overcome. Unless you actually know the details of a person's past, you're just continuing to propagate racism/sexism.
You can look at statistics and say, "Well, minorities historically have had more obstacles to surmount." but that doesn't tell you shit about individuals. And individuals are what matter.
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
I ran into this in college all of the time. During arguments people would assume that because I was white I couldn't understand what it meant to immigrate to the US and would say all sorts of asinine things to me. Then I would call them prejudiced for thinking that a white person couldn't have those experiences, since I immigrated and had to adapt to a new culture and learn a new language. People seemed totally dumbfounded that white people could be immigrants too!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So since I'm a white male, I should be passed over for someone who is black/female based on their skin color or sex regardless of the fact that they came from a more well to do family right? I was never poor to the point where I had to eat food out of a garbage can, but no one in my family went to college without scholarships and loans because my family wouldn't be able to just outright pay for it. But a woman coming from a family with two vacation houses clearly had to work harder and struggle more to re
Re: (Score:2)
... shifting your hiring processes in such a way that it will quickly be dominated by the opposite sex is not a "fix;"...
Who said that that is happening? They said there is a bias towards women of equal qualifications. If there are only a small number of women applying, then you could hire 100% of them and not make a dent in the gender balance. If a woman has to be better than a man to get the equivalent qualifications (and yes, this can be contended, but I think it's likely to be true), why not view women's CVs more favouraby than men's?
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
If a woman has to be better than a man to get the equivalent qualifications (and yes, this can be contended, but I think it's likely to be true), why not view women's CVs more favouraby than men's?
Because it means you are making a hiring decision based on criteria other than the qualifications that the applicant presents, namely their gender and your opinion about how their gender affects whether their qualifications are equivalent. Choosing to hire a person because they are a woman is just as wrong as choosing to hire a person because they are a man.
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
It's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes.
Re:That's great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
> And so long as there's systemic discrimination, there is no equality of opportunity.
Which begs the question of why systematic discrimination is a proposed fix for systematic discrimination if we want to end systematic discrimination.
Fighting sexism with sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
Yes. If gender is a consideration that influences the decision then it is by definition sexism. We can argue about whether it is justified or not (I think not) but it unquestionably IS sexism.
until then the choices are (A) preferentially hire women, or (B) hire an equal mix and wait until all the existing faculty retires (probably at least a generation or two) for the gender mix to equalize.
Incomplete set of choices. There are other options. The best option is to hire the most qualified individuals without regard to gender. Generally speaking unless there is a supply imbalance (which does happen sometimes) hiring the best people tends to take care of the diversity problems. Talent in STEM generally has little to do with gender or ethnicity or country of origin or age or even sexual orientation. Hire the best people and you'll get a diverse workforce in most cases rather naturally.
The problem is that people tend to hire who they are comfortable with rather than hire the best available candidates. This is how you end up with executive teams with nothing but old white men. Look at how much of a monoculture an organization is if you want to know whether they truly value identifying and promoting the best available people.
I should say that I'd be more strongly opposed to the practice if it were occurring in industry, but we're talking about a college
Makes no difference. College is just another type of industry. Hire the best people. Period.
It's not a 50/50 mix (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, presuming that women and men are equally qualified (which was one of the explicitly stated premises of the study), then that would make for a 50-50 mix, would it not?
No it would not because there are more men in the workplace than women overall, largely due to traditional gender roles. Furthermore there is an imbalance in some professions regarding the number of people that enter the profession. More men in engineering and construction. More women in nursing and clerical. Those issues occur FAR earlier than any hiring decision so it is not a 50-50 mix and probably never will be.
It will be rare that a workforce exactly matches the overall population ratio and doing so should never be the explicit goal. The goal is to create an environment where the only meaningful consideration is merit. If you do that well then you'll almost certainly have as diverse a workforce as is currently possible.
Yes, in a magical world populated by unicorns, rational humans, and the ability to accurately evaluate people's qualifications before hiring them, there are potentially better options. But we're stuck in this one.
Nice strawman. We don't even measure the qualifications we know about accurately or uniformly. Give the same resume with gender being the only thing changed and you get a different result? That means we aren't hiring based on merit. We're hiring based on societal pressure or comfort or some other principle.
Perceived gender roles (Score:3)
Seriously, I'd love to hear suggestions. I've got a niece in the first grade, brilliant little girl...
I hear you. Best current evidence is that the most influential thing to help girls find their way is to have a good role model. I heard about a study where the places that have the largest proportion of girls going into STEM is in areas like North Carolina's Research Triangle where there are a lot of good female role models working in the fields. Make sure she knows it is a real option. A good friend of my wife's is a doctor with young girls and she's made sure they know that such things are available t
Re:That's great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
To exemplify where Sweden is going in this direction, with two comments made by the Swedish minister for higher education and academia:
"7 out of 10 natural science, maths and engineering students being male is a gender gap that must be corrected as soon as possible"
"18 out of 20 students in service and profession oriented higher education(includes law studies, medical(covers nurses, doctors, surgeons etc)) being women is a great step towards equality"
Re: (Score:3)
Also in Sweden, if you protest Islam because of the institutional unequal treatment of women, you're an islamophobic bigot.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a citation for those quotes? I can't find them referenced anywhere...
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Interesting)
This also the reasons the "we need more women in field X because they only make up Y% of workers. As far as we've come, we still have a long way to go..." trope is misleading or dangerous. That populace of worker for which they are measuring demographics is...everybody. All the people who have entered (or not entered) that field for the past 40 years.
Today, 90% of electrical engineers are male. If tomorrow a magic wand were waved and enrollment of electrical engineers in college switched to 50/50 male and female, you still wouldn't have parity (if that's the measuring stick) for 40+ years, until last year's 90% male graduates retire.
You could bar men from entering the profession. Make electrical engineering schools 100% female. And next year you'd still have an industry that's 89% male. So people would still be saying "we're not doing enough for gender equality in this field!"
Clearly there's only one reasonable solution: kill all men.
Re:That's great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. It most definitely is still sexism. The goal should be to create equal opportunity, not elevate one over the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been pushing my daughter in STEM and she's about to transition from HS to college.
If this keeps up, I can look forward to her not having to move home after college graduation!
Did she actually want to do STEM? You sound like you've decided her career for her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
..or people that can barely spell or string a coherent sentence together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's great news! (Score:4, Funny)
You are aware that there's little chance of getting a Bush without a Dick?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess getting hired by a bunch of lonely nerdy guys so they can ogle her all day is a good thing...
From a McJob to CxO, it kills me you assume this kind of shit can't or won't happen anywhere and everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's wrong to say that white people are better. But being white is clearly better. Who could even argue! [youtube.com]
Well guys if you were passed over for a position (Score:5, Insightful)
You now have a basis to sue. Have at it.
Re:Well guys if you were passed over for a positio (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.. because penis. Welcome to affirmative action, the newspeak term for discrimination against those who are not in a protected caste.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Suck it up princess.
Re: (Score:2)
More than you know: http://www.breitbart.com/londo... [breitbart.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Understood. No human empathy for wrong gender, wrong race. Thanks for making it so clear what kind of person you are.
Why does anyone do STEMS (Score:2)
I would flip the problem around and ask why proportionally more males seem to be sticklers for punishment and waste their talents going to work in a difficult field with little job security and low pay (relatively) when they could go do almost anything else and be much more successful?
I have a lot of friends who did engineering and are women, and they all left engineering because their skills were more valuable working elsewhere. Many now regret having done the degree in the first place since they never use
Re: (Score:3)
Women thrive on social skills, it is impossible to encourage them to to have rubbish social skills. It is precisely because science and engineering do not foster social interaction that women find them, frankly, boring. So they eschew these careers.
Academic is a special case. They will accommodate oddballs more readily than business. You can be terrible socially in the business world, but that doesn't make you an oddball. It doesn't surprise me that academics misread the lack of women in science and enginee
Re: (Score:2)
Wowie, and just as I thought that the whole gender stereotyping was a thing of the past...
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. I'm 30, I have half a million in the bank and I'm making over $10,000 in a month. As for security, my LinkedIn profile explicitly says not to email me with opportunities, but I still get at least one a week. A little of
Not Actual Hirings (Score:3, Informative)
Before the comments explode into an orgy of heated and tedious argument (well ok, they already have), it's worth noting that the study didn't use statistics for actual hiring decisions. By the phrase "using actual faculty members," they just mean that they got a bunch of professors to participate in an experiment where they evaluate the suitability of various made-up candidates on paper. Meh. If they had real-world stats for this, I might actually be interested. How many men and how many women applied to different STEM faculty jobs in a given year, and who got hired? Simple - yet we don't have that information.
Aren't the odds vanishingly small anyway? (Score:2)
From what I've seen, getting a tenured STEM position is like winning the lottery these days, regardless of who you are or how good you are. Maybe this is just the system balancing itself out? There just aren't enough positions to go around anyway. Also, STEM departments in most places are overwhelmingly male, but correlation != causation.
This was one of several things that kept me from going on to graduate studies in chemistry. Other than just being burnt out on school by the point I had to decide, the odds
Discrimination is legal (Score:2)
Discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged, so long as it's in favour of women and minorities.
Pathetic.
At many schools, nobody is likely to be hired (Score:3)
Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
So we'll see the opposite in nursing schools?
No? You must be full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
There are tenure-track positions in nursing? I was under the impression it was literally back-breaking [nytimes.com] work, where most employers have a use-em-and-throw-em-away attitude to employees. I didn't realize it was a cushy desk job with lifetime employment positions that men were dreaming of breaking into somehow.
Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:4, Insightful)
I have not.
I HAVE heard of men being run out of the nursing profession by women who don't want them there.
There's also education, where men elementary school teachers are frequently forced out by institutional sexism, but again, no one particularly cares about the lack of men teaching first grade.
I'm going to find it really hard to take any of this sexism bullshit seriously until I see a strong push to get half of all garbage collectors be women. Right now from my point of view it's all bullshit done by people who see nerds as a "soft target."
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, being a male nurse is a mixed bag.
1) You will absolutely get a job. Female nurses will get jobs, too, it's a moderately in-demand profession. But a male nurse gets hired very quickly, because they can lift heavy things, and people.
2) Once hired, you will then get all the jobs lifting heavy things, and people. Also, frequently, assigned to cleaning up the grossest stuff.
3) You have to put up with a work crew that is entirely women. If you don't like discussing The Bachelor, you're goi
Re: (Score:3)
I work at a hospital. I hear nurses. This is what they talk about. *shrug*
Re: (Score:3)
First, I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was providing an example of the work culture in nursing, in the context of someone referencing a "glass escalator" for male nurses, as if it's a super-easy profession for them to slip in to.
If I told you that engineering is super-easy for women to get ahead in, because (as this study suggests) a female engineer would have no problem getting a job, you'd call me naive, would you not? After all, there was a story on /. in the last 48 hours chiding Microsoft for ha
Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Properly done, affirmative action simply means getting more of the unrepresented group to apply. The best candidate gets the job, it's just taking action to get more diverse candidates to apply for it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Properly" according to who?
In reality, affirmative action frequently means that people insist on what they believe to be statistically equal outcomes, and that requires active discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was replying to a comment, so you can take your purity test and shove it up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism
It's sexist if a woman has no interest in a pursuing a STEM career ?
Re: (Score:2)
if society has systematically shaped her expectations and preferences from the day she was conceived? Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
What if her genes have shaped her brain not to be interested ? Several tests on the very youngest subjects already show gender specific preferences in toys. And the same preferences can be seen in monkeys.
And even if society plays a role in shaping people's interests, should you enforce a "correction" by preferring a woman over a man for a position where a woman is less qualified, just because other girls lost interest when they were young ?
And if so, why shouldn't we enforce a correction in the fields of s
Re: (Score:2)
Let things be at least somewhat "corrected" for a generation or two, and then we can begin to explore biological biases. Until then the cultural preconceptions are going to drown out most everything else.
Re: (Score:3)
Let things be at least somewhat "corrected" for a generation or two
Let's start with getting more male teachers. Obviously, all these female teachers have the wrong influence on young girls.
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck? How about no, we don't spend two generations fucking over men purely because they happen to have a cock from birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Your evidence for this being... what?
Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
^^^^ THIS ++
There are dozens and dozens of programs for my daughter to participate in STEM. ZERO for my son. There are programs sponsored by local colleges, and high schools and software companies. Robotics competitions focused on girls.
ZERO for boys.
It is ridiculous at the opportunities cascading down upon my daughter (I am taking full advantage of it). Free, Awesome, comprehensive, ubiquitous.
ZERO for my son.
So anyone saying that girls are being discouraged from doing STEM is ignorant of the current situation in the world
Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
You'll need to define those terms carefully before you have any hope of persuading us.
Re: (Score:3)
Only an idiot would bother trying to persuade someone called DoofusOfDeath of anything. It's clearly a pointless endeavour.
I find your logic compelling. I am now fully persuaded of the OP's assertion. Well done, sir.
Re:Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor, and one of the most important steps is to eliminate the gender bias in positions of power - which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires. We could debate which is more damaging, but especially in the case of the educational institutions which shape the attitudes and expectations of the futur
Re: (Score:3)
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor, and one of the most important steps is to eliminate the gender bias in positions of power - which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
I really fucking hate social engineering. So until we reach this fantasy utopia of yours those of us that you are discriminating against just have to roll over? Because previous generations discriminated in the opposite direction? I'm to be disadvantaged because of my gender based on the actions of my parents and grandparents?
There's a reason why corruption of blood is proscribed in our political system. I fail to see why corruption of gender or race is justifiable. You're punishing me for the actions
Re: (Score:2)
which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
There is a danger to the quick fix. The following things could happen;
1. During the "correction" period few men may be hired. This could create a generation of employees that are mostly women making the discrimination against men very visible. This could create a rift between the male and females in the organization and cause more damage than good.
2. There may be a generation of males that due to past issues, issues they did not cause, may be kept out of industry.
3. When the current male generation retires
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're a complete cunt.
How are we subjecting any women to a sexist disadvantage if we grant them equal education, equal opportunities, equal choices?
What the fuck are you talking about disadvantages men *might* suffer when men are already more likely to commit suicide, more likely to die in the workplace, have lower life expectancy, work longer hours, are more likely to have mental health issues, are more likely to be homeless, are treated far far worse by the family and criminal court systems?
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
If yo
Re: (Score:2)
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor
How will you know when it's neutralized and fair ?
Re: (Score:3)
Not all that many more. NPR misrepresents the situation. For as long as the US Department of Labor has kept records, men have been prevalent in computing.
Engineering has been male dominated throughout history.
The whole "men pushed women out" narrative doesn't hold w
Re: (Score:3)
No it's not. It's the very same systemic/cultural/legal/economic discrimination its proponents claim to fight. It's extremely hypocritical to a point where I have to assume that its proponents do understand and have ulterior motives.
Re: (Score:2)
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
That is like saying that it is impossible to be racist if you are black.
Looking at a typical dictionary definition of sexism - "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.", Affirmative Action (a.k.a. Positive Discrimination) is still as sexist/racist as any other kind of discrimination, because it is putting people into a position because of their gender/colour/membership of a minority.
For me, the tragedy of Affirmative Action is that many of the appointments o
Re: (Score:2)
It is discrimination and therefore sexism. (Score:2)
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
It is also a form of institutionalized racism/sexism/ageism/etc. The intentions are good but it discriminates on a basis other than merit which ultimately is counterproductive. What is the point of saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of race and then discriminating on the basis of race? Makes no sense.
It also does not require that a group necessarily actually be a minority. Women technically outnumber men in the overall population so they cannot be considered a minority outside of specifically d
Re: (Score:2)
Affirmative action only means that women don't have to work twice but thrice as hard to prove that they weren't just hired because they're a woman. Yes, it may land her a job. But how happy would you be in a job where the immediate assumption is that you suck at it and only got it because of government mandated nepotism, no matter how good you really are?
Re: Affirmative Action is not the same as sexism (Score:2)
Google: LFL
Legends Football League, or as it was previously known: Lingerie Football League.
And no, it's not some prissy 2-hand touch event. These ladies are for real.
It's real (Score:2)
These ladies are for real.
Just like pro wrestling and roller derby.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Foxy Boxing.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, those costumes aren't the least bit sexist. (And if you can't tell this is sarcasm I suggest you check out the costumes.)
Good job Australia, nice to see you keeping your end up and your standards low.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually,~51% - there's a slight gender bias in birth rates (unexplained so far as I know). Which makes the fact that they are in fact minorities in most professional fields all the more damning.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess the takeaway is attend a lower-tier school but only take classes from white male faculty to get the most bang for your buck. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
The academic job market is so tight right now that there's not much danger of hiring unqualified people -- there are many more highly qualified job-seekers than there are jobs available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly like the study that showed 'white' names get more interviews. You can't discredit one without taking the other down.
Re: (Score:3)
Insane standards? No... my standards are quite reasonable and absent those standards you have bullshit.
The standards I'm talking about are the kind that required typically any serious empirical science.
As to the conclusion I draw from the whole thing?... review the posts from before and you'll see that my statement was that YOUR study was not something you could use to slam dunk your position. That it merely justified further study. Period.
And this? Same thing. Further study. I'll wait for a real study to b
Re: (Score:3)
This story included just enough SJW dog-whistles (like "this is a propitious time for women beginning careers in academic science" and "What we found shocked us") to make the SJWs point to it, without realizing it actually demolishes them.