It's the nature of fanatics to impose their agenda upon absolutely everything they encounter. Some of it, I expect, is the kind of cognitive hole they've dug for themselves. Being against something is how they define themselves. There's no vision, no alternative arguments, just one long wailing scream. Conservatives in the West have abandoned any notion of positivity, of looking forward. I can't always agree with everything progressives put forward, but at least they put something forward. And yes, some of
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Discrimination is disgusting racism/sexism/whateverism and that is no way to create a "less adversarial or negative workplace".
Got it ?
Just to be clear here, and to make sure that the attack on "tokens" isn't just some sort of straw-man attack on NASA, can you please provide the specific examples of "tokens" at NASA relevant to this article? If possible, please provide information about their qualifications and which more qualified applicants they displaced and the qualifications of those applicants.
Does the percentage of female engineering students in the US match the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one ? NO, not by a very wide margin. Because NASA select TOKEN female engineers. NASA DISCRIMINATE and select TOKENS because of their GENITALIA.
Well, it looks like in actuality, women represent about a third of NASA employees overall and between 24-28% of the actual engineering workforce as far as I can tell. They make up about 22% of engineering students in the US. So, the proportion of women in engineering positions at NASA seems to be pretty close to the actual proportion of women in engineering programs at university rather than not matching by a wide margin. Which actually seems a bit odd, since the average GPA of female engineering students i
What did you not undertstand about "the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one" ? And you think your sexist observations of dubious GPA statistics are fine, but other sorts of sexism are not ? Take a good look at your sexist self. And oppose sexist tokens.
Oh, and while you're dealing with your own disgusting sexism, maybe you can campaign against the 2-1 bias FOR WOMEN in faculty recruitment:
"With minimal exceptions, female candidates were preferred over male candidates
What did you not undertstand about "the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one" ?
Apparently you don't seem to understand that you actually need to provide some sort of reference for claims like this. Are you talking specifically about the Ingenuity helicopter project? Do you have a list of the engineers on the project? I can find a list of the people in the media briefing and it's 5 men and 1 woman. If I go to their actual project webpage at nasa.gov and look at their team list, they have 30 men whose job title includes "engineer" (and also one "scientist" and one "fellow" and addition)
"Uh... Right. You know you're coming off like a bit of a misogynist nutter here right?"
Sexist nutter called out on their sexism calls their opponent a mysogynist. Never seen that before.
"What's notable about it is that, despite women being hired over men according to the study, it also noted that men are actually over-represented in faculties by a factor of greater than 2-1."
Yes, because men stick at the job of engineering and do it for more hours for more years than women ( before dying earlier than women
"What's notable about it is that, despite women being hired over men according to the study, it also noted that men are actually over-represented in faculties by a factor of greater than 2-1."
Yes, because men stick at the job of engineering and do it for more hours for more years than women ( before dying earlier than women ). And that does not justify SEXISM in recruitment. Nothing does. Because, sexist, sexism is wrong.
The article you linked was not specifically about engineering. Engineering faculty may have been included, but they were not the major focus. Also your more hours/more years argument would hardly explain such a large discrepancy. Also, if nothing justifies sexism in recruitment, how exactly did we reach the current huge discrepancy with so many more men in these positions than women?
Before you changed the subject, we were talking about a specific NASA program, one about the "First Attempt of 'Ingenuity' Helicopter's Flight on Mars" ( it's at the top of the page ), and one that tried to pretend that women are doing the work when they are not.
I did not change the subject. The only one changing the subject was you with your link to an article about hiring of men vs women for faculty positions.
As far as the actual subject, this thread started with a troll comment about "outreach", then an AC (you?) wrote:
Most engineers have been fired due to tokens complaining about unfriendly workplace atmosphere.
People replied and you came back with:
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Then I asked you:
Just to be clear here, and to make sure that the attack on "tokens" isn't just some sort of straw-man attack on NASA, can you please provide the specific examples of "tokens" at NASA relevant to this article?
Then, rather than provide specifics yourself, you wrote:
Does the percentage of female engineering students in the US match the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one ?
So, all NASA programs are, in fact, "NASA programs such as this one", I quoted general statistics for female engineering students and for female engineers at NASA. You came back with
What did you not undertstand about "the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one" ?
and in that post you went off on a tangent about a study regarding hiring of university faculty in the US. So you were apparently requiring that statistics I find be specifically fo "this one", rather than "such as this one". So, I specifically collected the best information I could find on the makeup of this specific program and it showed much lower participation by female engineers or women in general than the percentage of women pursuing US engineering degrees. I challenged you to find any information supporting your assertion about "tokens" and you failed to do so and just continued with name-calling and inexplicably accused me of changing the subject.
In the meantime, maybe cut down on the ranting and name calling?
You realize that you started the name calling with:
Next moronic question ?
after that, I did call your whole schtick "sexist", but that was after you had called my post moronic. You then went on to call me sexist (in fact, a disgusting one) and so forth. So that's on you, not me. As for ranting, I'm considering your original post and subsequent posts to be rants because you just keep repeating the same refrain without actually giving any supporting facts. I'm the one who has to keep making the effort to keep this conversation factual.
"Also, if nothing justifies sexism in recruitment, how exactly did we reach the current huge discrepancy with so many more men in these positions than women?"
WHAT ?! Because men and women are different and enjoy doing different things. FFS.
Now toddle off and fix the disgusting sexism in the romance-novel industry: https://romanticnovelistsassoc... [romanticno...iation.org]
WHAT ?! Because men and women are different and enjoy doing different things. FFS.
In this context, we're talking about faculty positions. I don't think that there is any strong indication that men prefer teaching over women. Once again, you're making an unsupported assertion.
Now toddle off and fix the disgusting sexism in the romance-novel industry: https://romanticnovelistsassoc... [romanticno...iation.org]
How about no. You also should not take a patronizing tone, you're clearly not my superior. You can not just wave me away because you are unable to make a good argument. Here, you're clearly just trying to distract with romance novels... seriously? The topic at hand was your unsupported claim that NASA is somehow cri
" The topic at hand was your unsupported claim that NASA is somehow crippled by "tokens" taking the jobs of supposedly more qualified men? "
No, if you READ MY POST, you will see that the topic was the NASA *program* ( it's in TFS ) featuring many token women babbling and thus pretending that women are doing the engineering work of the program when they are NOT, men are.
You tried to broaden that and then tried to make the pathetic case that the only explanation for the fact that more men are doing the work a
No, if you READ MY POST, you will see that the topic was the NASA *program* ( it's in TFS ) featuring many token women babbling and thus pretending that women are doing the engineering work of the program when they are NOT, men are.
Your first post in this thread (which started out with a reference to a Republican meme about "[muslim] outreach" was:
> Why anyone would gripe about a more inclusive and less adversarial and negative workplace is beyond me.
Why anyone would think such a pathetic straw man would pass muster as an argument is beyond me.
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Discrimination is disgusting racism/sexism/whateverism and that is no way to create a "less adversarial or negative workplace".
Got it ?
You did not mention any specific NASA programs in that comment. Later on, you did refer to "NASA programs such as this one" of course, but I have been sticking to discussion of either the specific NASA program from the article, or other NASA programs like it. Of course, without any specific criteria from you for what you think qualifies as a program like this, I have to work within a framewo
%
APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming;
...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis
Fewer tokens babbling, more engineers please (Score:-1, Troll)
By now NASA's "outreach" budget must be even more than they've wasted on SLS.
Re: (Score:-1)
Most engineers have been fired due to tokens complaining about unfriendly workplace atmosphere.
Fewer losers babbling, more winning please (Score:-1)
And yet they are flying a helicopter on Mars, while spend your time on earth whining about your own failure.
Right wingers suck at engineering because only the severely mentally retarded can watch Fox "News" without turning off the TV in disgust.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the nature of fanatics to impose their agenda upon absolutely everything they encounter. Some of it, I expect, is the kind of cognitive hole they've dug for themselves. Being against something is how they define themselves. There's no vision, no alternative arguments, just one long wailing scream. Conservatives in the West have abandoned any notion of positivity, of looking forward. I can't always agree with everything progressives put forward, but at least they put something forward. And yes, some of
Re: (Score:1)
> Why anyone would gripe about a more inclusive and less adversarial and negative workplace is beyond me.
Why anyone would think such a pathetic straw man would pass muster as an argument is beyond me.
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Discrimination is disgusting racism/sexism/whateverism and that is no way to create a "less adversarial or negative workplace".
Got it ?
Re: (Score:2)
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Discrimination is disgusting racism/sexism/whateverism and that is no way to create a "less adversarial or negative workplace".
Got it ?
Just to be clear here, and to make sure that the attack on "tokens" isn't just some sort of straw-man attack on NASA, can you please provide the specific examples of "tokens" at NASA relevant to this article? If possible, please provide information about their qualifications and which more qualified applicants they displaced and the qualifications of those applicants.
Re: (Score:1)
Does the percentage of female engineering students in the US match the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one ?
NO, not by a very wide margin. Because NASA select TOKEN female engineers.
NASA DISCRIMINATE and select TOKENS because of their GENITALIA.
Next moronic question ?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it looks like in actuality, women represent about a third of NASA employees overall and between 24-28% of the actual engineering workforce as far as I can tell. They make up about 22% of engineering students in the US. So, the proportion of women in engineering positions at NASA seems to be pretty close to the actual proportion of women in engineering programs at university rather than not matching by a wide margin. Which actually seems a bit odd, since the average GPA of female engineering students i
Re: (Score:1)
What did you not undertstand about "the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one" ?
And you think your sexist observations of dubious GPA statistics are fine, but other sorts of sexism are not ?
Take a good look at your sexist self.
And oppose sexist tokens.
Oh, and while you're dealing with your own disgusting sexism, maybe you can campaign against the 2-1 bias FOR WOMEN in faculty recruitment:
"With minimal exceptions, female candidates were preferred over male candidates
Re: (Score:2)
What did you not undertstand about "the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one" ?
Apparently you don't seem to understand that you actually need to provide some sort of reference for claims like this. Are you talking specifically about the Ingenuity helicopter project? Do you have a list of the engineers on the project? I can find a list of the people in the media briefing and it's 5 men and 1 woman. If I go to their actual project webpage at nasa.gov and look at their team list, they have 30 men whose job title includes "engineer" (and also one "scientist" and one "fellow" and addition)
Re: (Score:1)
"Uh... Right. You know you're coming off like a bit of a misogynist nutter here right?"
Sexist nutter called out on their sexism calls their opponent a mysogynist. Never seen that before.
"What's notable about it is that, despite women being hired over men according to the study, it also noted that men are actually over-represented in faculties by a factor of greater than 2-1."
Yes, because men stick at the job of engineering and do it for more hours for more years than women ( before dying earlier than women
Re:Fewer losers babbling, more winning please (Score:2)
"What's notable about it is that, despite women being hired over men according to the study, it also noted that men are actually over-represented in faculties by a factor of greater than 2-1."
Yes, because men stick at the job of engineering and do it for more hours for more years than women ( before dying earlier than women ).
And that does not justify SEXISM in recruitment. Nothing does.
Because, sexist, sexism is wrong.
The article you linked was not specifically about engineering. Engineering faculty may have been included, but they were not the major focus. Also your more hours/more years argument would hardly explain such a large discrepancy. Also, if nothing justifies sexism in recruitment, how exactly did we reach the current huge discrepancy with so many more men in these positions than women?
Before you changed the subject, we were talking about a specific NASA program, one about the "First Attempt of 'Ingenuity' Helicopter's Flight on Mars" ( it's at the top of the page ), and one that tried to pretend that women are doing the work when they are not.
I did not change the subject. The only one changing the subject was you with your link to an article about hiring of men vs women for faculty positions.
As far as the actual subject, this thread started with a troll comment about "outreach", then an AC (you?) wrote:
Most engineers have been fired due to tokens complaining about unfriendly workplace atmosphere.
People replied and you came back with:
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Then I asked you:
Just to be clear here, and to make sure that the attack on "tokens" isn't just some sort of straw-man attack on NASA, can you please provide the specific examples of "tokens" at NASA relevant to this article?
Then, rather than provide specifics yourself, you wrote:
Does the percentage of female engineering students in the US match the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one ?
So, all NASA programs are, in fact, "NASA programs such as this one", I quoted general statistics for female engineering students and for female engineers at NASA.
You came back with
What did you not undertstand about "the percentage of female engineers in, for example, NASA programs such as this one" ?
and in that post you went off on a tangent about a study regarding hiring of university faculty in the US.
So you were apparently requiring that statistics I find be specifically fo "this one", rather than "such as this one". So, I specifically collected the best information I could find on the makeup of this specific program and it showed much lower participation by female engineers or women in general than the percentage of women pursuing US engineering degrees. I challenged you to find any information supporting your assertion about "tokens" and you failed to do so and just continued with name-calling and inexplicably accused me of changing the subject.
In the meantime, maybe cut down on the ranting and name calling?
You realize that you started the name calling with:
Next moronic question ?
after that, I did call your whole schtick "sexist", but that was after you had called my post moronic. You then went on to call me sexist (in fact, a disgusting one) and so forth. So that's on you, not me. As for ranting, I'm considering your original post and subsequent posts to be rants because you just keep repeating the same refrain without actually giving any supporting facts. I'm the one who has to keep making the effort to keep this conversation factual.
Re: (Score:1)
"Also, if nothing justifies sexism in recruitment, how exactly did we reach the current huge discrepancy with so many more men in these positions than women?"
WHAT ?!
Because men and women are different and enjoy doing different things.
FFS.
Now toddle off and fix the disgusting sexism in the romance-novel industry: https://romanticnovelistsassoc... [romanticno...iation.org]
After that: TL; DR.
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT ?!
Because men and women are different and enjoy doing different things.
FFS.
In this context, we're talking about faculty positions. I don't think that there is any strong indication that men prefer teaching over women. Once again, you're making an unsupported assertion.
Now toddle off and fix the disgusting sexism in the romance-novel industry: https://romanticnovelistsassoc... [romanticno...iation.org]
How about no. You also should not take a patronizing tone, you're clearly not my superior. You can not just wave me away because you are unable to make a good argument. Here, you're clearly just trying to distract with romance novels... seriously? The topic at hand was your unsupported claim that NASA is somehow cri
Re: (Score:1)
" The topic at hand was your unsupported claim that NASA is somehow crippled by "tokens" taking the jobs of supposedly more qualified men? "
No, if you READ MY POST, you will see that the topic was the NASA *program* ( it's in TFS ) featuring many token women babbling and thus pretending that women are doing the engineering work of the program when they are NOT, men are.
You tried to broaden that and then tried to make the pathetic case that the only explanation for the fact that more men are doing the work a
Re: (Score:2)
No, if you READ MY POST, you will see that the topic was the NASA *program* ( it's in TFS ) featuring many token women babbling and thus pretending that women are doing the engineering work of the program when they are NOT, men are.
Your first post in this thread (which started out with a reference to a Republican meme about "[muslim] outreach" was:
> Why anyone would gripe about a more inclusive and less adversarial and negative workplace is beyond me.
Why anyone would think such a pathetic straw man would pass muster as an argument is beyond me.
Tokens are given the jobs of people who are more competent than them and whose only crime is to be the wrong race/gender/whatever.
Discrimination is disgusting racism/sexism/whateverism and that is no way to create a "less adversarial or negative workplace".
Got it ?
You did not mention any specific NASA programs in that comment. Later on, you did refer to "NASA programs such as this one" of course, but I have been sticking to discussion of either the specific NASA program from the article, or other NASA programs like it. Of course, without any specific criteria from you for what you think qualifies as a program like this, I have to work within a framewo