Study of 1.6 Million Grades Shows Little Gender Difference in Math and Science at School (theconversation.com) 370
A study of school grades of more than 1.6 million students shows that girls and boys perform similarly in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) subjects. From a report: The research, published today in Nature Communications, also shows that girls do better than boys in non-STEM subjects. Our results provide evidence that large gaps in the representation of women in STEM careers later in life are not due to differences in academic performance. One explanation for gender imbalance in STEM is the "variability hypothesis." This is the idea that gender gaps are much larger at the tails of the distribution -- among the highest and lowest performers -- than in the middle.
Equal abilities (Score:2, Interesting)
Girls better in non-STEM (Score:5, Interesting)
Boys and girls have both the same abilities. However, boys tend to be more inclined to pursue studies in science.
Exactly! Re:Girls better in non-STEM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Exactly! Re:Girls better in non-STEM (Score:2)
Why get frustrated? Men tend to view male teachers nurse etc as weak(even though it is a lie) and so stay away from those fields.
Male nurses tend to even get paid more as they have the muscles to move some of the overweight patients around easier.
Re: (Score:2)
But do you believe that women really do have an innate advantage in non-STEM subjects?
And why are there certain very specific exceptions to this rule? The classic example is the difference between nurses and doctors.
Re: (Score:3)
"Subjects" or "fields"? Women will have a large career advantage over men at teaching young children, regardless of ability, because the men are assumed to be pedophiles. People have a preference for fields they are likely to succeed in, which is separate from ability in a subject.
That's kind of the point of a lot of the "OMG gender!" stuff going on, right? Accusations that some fields are unwelcoming to women, regardless of ability?
There are no doubt biological differences in ability. There are no dou
Re:Girls better in non-STEM (Score:5, Informative)
There is supporting evidence for your hypothesis:
http://journals.sagepub.com/do... [sagepub.com]
I think the explanation that high-achieving women tend to be proficient in both verbal and math abilities while men are more likely to be proficient primarily in math abilities is pretty compelling. It's possible that preference is the primary driver, but I'm not sure you can really separate preference and ability so cleanly.
Look at the gender breakdown of medical specialties here:
https://wire.ama-assn.org/educ... [ama-assn.org]
Notice how men tend to gravitate toward roles that involve less human interaction? Surgery, Anesthesiology, Radiology. There's no shame in admitting that women might be simultaneously as good as men at Math, but better, or at least more likely to enjoy, roles that require high levels of verbal aptitude as well.
Re: (Score:3)
It's one of the reasons why you don't have as many girls being diagnosed with ASD, they'll spend huge amounts of time and energy camouflaging the symptoms and rehearsing so that people don't find out.
I don't usually reply to ACs but thought it was better than down modding. The defining characteristic of ASD is not caring about these things at all. So this doesn't really make any sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Boys and girls have both the same abilities.
That's not been shown by the research.... only that the performance of the people that choose to take the STEM classes are on average: Mean performance basically the same across genders.
As mentioned in the summary: There may be gender-related differences among the tails of the distributions --- those that performed much better or much worse than average, for example the top 10% of performers in STEM courses and the bottom 10% might represent one gender mor
Re: (Score:3)
Interest on the other hand determines what field people go into.
For example, I had A+'s in Art, but it never appealed to me. On the other hand I had B's in Math, which did interest me. Guess which career path I took?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been pushing females so much lately, and ignoring the males and what made them excel in the past, so...these new findings aren't that surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
High achievement in technology tends to come from your ability to abstract concepts from other solutions and either build new tools from them and/or apply them in ways you haven't seen them before. Academic success indicates you have lots of tools in your ga
Re: (Score:2)
And people in STEM fields do?
Re: (Score:2)
And you're able to present some sort of indication that either of that assertions are actually the case?
Re: Equal abilities (Score:5, Insightful)
The study confirms a biological difference despite the misleading summary. They're saying they found no difference in the top 10% in STEM but:
1. Not only the top 10% go into stem. More than 20% of degrees are in STEM fields.
2. They admit that the "grade cap" means that even within the top 10% males might actually be better, but there's no way to know because the math/science scores are capped so that a top-level genius will score only as well as someone who is just very smart.
Furthermore their study confirms greater variability between men than between women which definitely indicates that the grade cap is probably handicapping top end male scores more than top end female scores. More importantly, the fact that girls do significantly better OVERALL in school, but only slightly better in STEM, indicates that the school environment is probably not the best way of determining suitability/ability in a given field. Unless you think that girls really are biologically better than boys at everything. If we assume that, as the feminists would have it, girls and boys are equally capable on average, then the higher performance of girls in school would be attributed to environment, and the fact that they don't do as well in STEM as they do in other subjects would still suggest that boys have an edge in those fields.
Lastly, they mention that the ratios are different in university than in highschool, with women losing a lot of their edge in university. However I don't see a breakdown of university vs high school scores, which seems like a curious omission.
All in all it's an interesting study which doesn't really support the conclusions being drawn here.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore their study confirms greater variability between men than between women which definitely indicates that the grade cap is probably handicapping top end male scores more than top end female scores.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
And even if it is biological, does that mean it can't be overcome? There is much debate over how much boys maturing a little later than girls is due to biology or social influences, but in either case adjusting the curriculum and teaching methods a little can negate this difference by the time both genders reach adulthood.
If we assume that, as the feminists would have it, girls and boys are equally capable on average, then the higher performance of girls in school would be attributed to environment, and the fact that they don't do as well in STEM as they do in other subjects would still suggest that boys have an edge in those fields.
That logic doesn't really work though, because school isn't the only factor in their lives and school isn't
Re: Equal abilities (Score:5, Interesting)
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
There's no absolute way to exclude them, that I'm aware of. But that's not really how science works. We don't have to exclude every single possibility before drawing a conclusion, or we would never be able to draw any conclusions at all. As someone pointed out below, when we are talking about differences between sexes biology is a default explanation. If you can exclude biological factors as the explanation, great, then we know they're not at play. This study doesn't do that; rather it reinforces what every other study has found: greater variability in males than in females. You can claim that this doesn't prove that the difference is biological, but given the persistence of these findings across cultures it's a fairly safe bet that biology is a significant factor.
And even if it is biological, does that mean it can't be overcome?
I don't know. I think the better question is whether it's something that we should be trying to overcome in the first place. That's where this stops being a scientific discussion and starts being an ideological one. You seem to think that, if girls are underperforming in some areas, there is a moral imperative to bring them up to par. I disagree. Just like I would disagree that we need to bring boys up to par in areas where they underperform. I'm perfectly fine with having diversity and letting people focus on the things they're actually good at rather than wasting time and money trying to force them to improve at everything else. I see no reason why the sexes need to be identical in every respect, any more than individuals would need to be identical in every respect regardless of sex.
That logic doesn't really work though, because school isn't the only factor in their lives and school isn't one single environment but rather a whole number of different experiences. I remember the atmosphere in some classes being very different to others, for example.
That's true, but it's just another confounding factor in this study which isn't (maybe can't be) ccounted for.
Re: (Score:3)
Higher variability in males than females (in almost any category) should be expected in anything that might be even partly gene-linked.
Males have only one X-chromosome. Any genetic variation on that will go unchecked, whereas females have a second X-chromosome which can help even out any variations. (Obviously I am oversimplifying genetics, but that's the gist of it.)
Not all factors in academic (or any other) performance are gene-linked, of course, and of those not all are on the X-chromosome. But minor d
Re: Equal abilities (Score:4, Insightful)
when we are talking about differences between sexes biology is a default explanation
That isn't justified when science is telling us that it's mostly social,
Science never said that. Social "science" says that, and they often say it with next to no evidence.
Re: Equal abilities (Score:3)
Found the women's studies major ...
Re: (Score:2)
but there's no way to know because the math/science scores are capped so that a top-level genius will score only as well as someone who is just very smart.
Yeah... there's a problem there. And the people most likely to successfully go into related STEM field after college may in fact be those whose scores were capped down.
Just having "average" performance is not necessarily impressive. Many students have to take some STEM classes, but aren't ultimat
Re: (Score:2)
When there's a difference between the sexes, "biological difference" is the null hypothesis, though it's hard to see how that expresses itself except in personality. There are plenty of psychological differences between men and women as statistical groups (and that's the context here, statistical group tendencies, not individuals). It would be interesting to see if that explains it entirely: measure the Big 5 personality traits of a large sample of e.g. physics grad students or working software developers,
Re:Equal abilities (Score:5, Insightful)
"Giving up on helping" is orthagonal to "biological difference". Insisting on equality of outcome (such as perfect gender balance) is tyranny. The goal should be enabling those who want to be a software developer or a nurse or whatever become that without placing gender-based obstacles in their way. Twisting people's arms to make them want to pursue a given field should never be a goal.
Re: (Score:3)
Why even assume that, it's bizarre.
Because we seem to be measuring against "equal outcomes" as if that were the goal. That's a particularly shitty goal.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people in psychology and biology do accept the fact that people are different and are predisposed to certain directions in life - women tend to be caretakers for example and thus score higher in traits associated with that; men tend to be more aggressive and conscientious thus scoring higher paying jobs.
People in sociology and women’s studies don’t believe the science, but then again, most of the papers in their field are virtually never cited.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really a meaningful metric? It doesn't seem to be specific to that field, and instead is a result of the nature of how citations work. it would be more indicative of a fraudulent circlejerk if most papers were cited.
Re: (Score:3)
It is because it means you're producing science that nobody bothers to even build upon. The problem is that sociologists build corporate rules (eg. equality and bias 'training' in HR departments) and laws (eg. in Canada and Europe) surrounding papers that have never been cited and are not logically or scientifically supported.
Re: (Score:3)
Directly, no. But indirectly, yes. The thing is that what body you happen to live in does shape your perception of reality. Simply wanting to conform to biological roles will put more men into engineering and more women into medicine (for example). Unless we manage to overcome fundamental biological realities, this will not change.
So in the end, all we can do is to allow people to make their own choices and not put up any artificial barriers. If the numbers are still skewed (and they are), we have to accept
Re: (Score:2)
STEM jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you work in tech or manufacturing, a lot of marketing and sales executives - and for that matter, managers - are former engineers.
There is some selection bias here for me, but when I lived in NYC I was shocked by how many people involved with trading were former engineers, physicists, etc. Finding signal in noise, trends in data, ability to logically think through problems, understanding human weaknesses in data analysis, etc are all great skills to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enough that it appears to be a viable path.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only "better" if you don't think it's better to come out of school doing something productive for ~$60-80k/year while your non-engineer friends are "paying their dues". Sure, your 15-year outcomes may be the same, but in the interim you actually had an income and did some interesting stuff.
If you are only becoming an engineer for the money, then yeah, run away. You might as well do engineering for the chicks :)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "just" you mean 20 years ago :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to capitalism. I'm fairly sure I'd be more useful developing secure applications. But there's simply more money in trashing insecure ones, so that's what I do.
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent, making sure there are liquid markets is an important function. There are extremes at play which benefit no one except the players - such as high-frequency trading. Still, those people are playing by the rules, and it is the rules which need to be tweaked. People won't stop being people.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, sales and marketing at tech companies make as much or more as STEM people.
But these are not the same fields and attract very different personalities. I would rather shovel sludge in sewers then work in sales or marketing. Not that I have anything against those fields; but cold calling or schmoozing people to me is not something I enjoy.
However, I will make the argument that for a larger proportion of women the opposite is true. Thus it has more to do with what you enjoy and less to do with how much you get paid. I also believe this is one of the big contributing factors to why wo
Re: (Score:3)
Great. So go do it. The point is that rational people would rather work in sales or marketing than shovel sludge.
Re:STEM jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. So go do it. The point is that rational people would rather work in sales or marketing than shovel sludge.
Luckily there are a lot of different types of people in the world or we would be in trouble. I have a coworker that quit an office job to go back to pouring concrete because he hated being inside all the time. The show Dirty Jobs is full of millionaires who do essential work to keep the world running, it just happens to be gross at times. Related to the topic at hand, there are very few women on Dirty Jobs. Men are more inclined to fill a need and do a dirty job than women and they get paid well for doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. I'm saying that it's totally rational for someone to choose to shovel sludge rather then work in sales or marketing. People are different and not all people are motivated by money. Here, watch this TED talk by Mike Rowe about Dirty Jobs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> I would rather shovel sludge in sewers then work in sales or marketing.
Huh. I worked sales at JCpenney for 10 years. I worked in a clean, air conditioned environment, and met tons of beautiful young ladies.
I would definitely not trade that for shoveling sludge.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a big financial incentive to go into STEM jobs if you are a college-educated professional. The pay is good, but there is a limit to your professional growth and you have to actually do work and produce results. In reality, sales and marketing at tech companies make as much or more as STEM people. So unless you really enjoy STEM, it is better off avoiding it as a career. I think many women have figured this out.
With all due respect, it's overwhelmingly women who become primary school teachers and nurses which are two of the absolutely most dead-end and poorly paying careers relative to their education level. So while I could say a lot about sales and marketing, I don't think women shy away from STEM because they generally make "smarter" choices. And by the way if it was that easy, why is it that most tech people are terrible at sales? I mean even in job interviews some people struggle to give even a fair impressio
Re:STEM jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
With all due respect, it's overwhelmingly women who become primary school teachers and nurses which are two of the absolutely most dead-end and poorly paying careers relative to their education level.
Teaching yes but not nursing. Nursing is a fairly highly paid job that only requires 2 years of school. My ex-wife had a bachelors in english and went back for an associates(RN) in nursing because nursing pays much better than almost any job you can get with a english degree.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> $125K in annual compensation (inclusive of insurance and benefits)
That's a bit misleading. If I included benefits into my engineer salary, I could claim $200,000 a year.... which goes back to the main point: Teachers are underpaid (75,000 less) compared to other professions with Bachelor degrees.
Re: (Score:3)
With all due respect, it's overwhelmingly women who become primary school teachers
So? That's a very recent phenomenon which is as good as proof as you'll get that it's entirely social factors.
Re: (Score:3)
> sales and marketing
I cannot watch movies or listen to audiobooks with those 2 careers. As an engineer, I can.
> I think many women have figured this out.
I read one time that most women choose careers they LIKE and enjoy (such as healthcare), whereas most men choose careers they don't really like, but they know the higher pay will support a wife + kids.
Apparently the theory still exists: https://www.theatlantic.com/ed... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to start your own company someday, being an engineer is probably a better career choice than being in sales.
Being engineer is a good start to a career, but if you want to start your own company one day you'll need to sell your product, service, or idea to someone. i.e. sales and marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to start your own company someday, being an engineer is probably a better career choice than being in sales.
I would say it depends on what you are selling. The greatest product in the world is useless unless you can sell it. Engineers can get too enamored with the engineering and forget that the end goal is to make something people will buy and makes the company a profit. Anyone can start a company but to be successful at it you need many different talents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The key is to become an asset not an expense. Salespeople generate sales so they pay their own salaries. The only way to do this in STEM is to work for a firm where they bill you out per hour. Even this is somewhat self defeating though because the other side still sees you as an expense so they want to keep your hourly rate low.
Re: (Score:2)
The key is to become an asset not an expense. Salespeople generate sales so they pay their own salaries. The only way to do this in STEM is to work for a firm where they bill you out per hour. Even this is somewhat self defeating though because the other side still sees you as an expense so they want to keep your hourly rate low.
I spent many years working for a government contractor in a variety of roles (both internal infrastructure and external billable resource). You may get slightly more pay as a billable resource, especially when the rate at which the company can bill you out is directly tied to what you are paid (true on some government contracts, not necessarily true on commercial contracts). However, the ones who are really making $$ are the people who "win" contracts; they are seen as bringing home the bacon. Oddly enou
So, when are we going to do somethign about this? (Score:5, Funny)
>> also shows that girls do better than boys in non-STEM subjects.
So, we need to have a massive influx of cash, capital, action to ensure that boys catch up to girls in non-STEM subjects. Boys go to and graduate from college less frequently than girls. There needs to be massive encouragement and support for boys to attend college. Something must be done. It is unconscionable that boys are being left behind like this. There seems to be a massive, systematic, institutional prejudice against boys that is causing them to fail. Something must be done. Boys are 50% of the population, but, they are not 50% of College graduates. Something must be done. There should be scholarships and camps and meetings and web-sites and discussion forums and bridge groups. This is absolutely unfair and shows a great prejudice and discrimination against boys and maleness.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, something should be done. After all we care about helping every child to fulfil their potential, right?
And yes, it is massive, systemic and institutional. Breaking down the barriers that boys face is the way to solve it.
Some of it is even discrimination. I've heard of boys being told that cooking and even book clubs are not for them, due to toxic ideas of what masculinity is and apparently the teacher wanting the club to be girls only.
Remarkably insightful post.
Re:So, when are we going to do somethign about thi (Score:4)
> I've heard of boys being told that cooking and even book clubs are not for them, due to toxic ideas of what masculinity is a
Even if a boy grows his hair long, below his shoulder, he gets told "You need to get a cut... you look like a girl." Teachers, preachers, random audlts, fellow classmates/bullies. There's nothing more natural than long hair (for both sexes) but our society won't allow it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that this was intended as sarcasm, but in my kids schools there was a Communication Arts magnet program. They bent over backwards to get enough boys in that program to get somewhat equal numbers of boys and girls. So at least in some areas, there is an attempt to achieve balance by encouraging and supporting boys.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Kinda sad this got modded as "Funny" ( as of right now anyway ), it's more +5 Sad because you know it won't happen. Men and boys are expendable, they exist to support and provide for women...and that's precisely how society views them.
Welcome to the "patriarchy".
As an aside, I'm conflicted on encouraging more people to go to college. Funding is already a shitshow ( student loans being guaranteed, colleges having blank checks ), and the indoctrination environment on college campuses aren't healthy for peop
Re:So, when are we going to do somethign about thi (Score:4, Funny)
I'm looking forward to the new Google counterpart to their "Ovaries in Coding" initiative:
Training & Educational Synergies Toward Individuals Creating Leading Experiences, ie Google TESTICLE.
The purpose of getting girls into STEM (Score:2)
Don't forget, our education system isn't there to enrich lives, it's there to make people (at the top) rich. Heck, it started out as a system to train farm hands how to put up with factory work. I suppose we could change that, but nobody seems
Re: (Score:3)
You laugh, but we complain about this a lot.
Up through middle school we would get project assignments from non-art teachers that involved what amounted to an arts and crafts project (eg, a history assignment that was a diorama about Lincoln or something).
My son always got bad grades on those projects despite having a B+ or an A in the class generally because art wasn't his thing, and the grading on the project was biased towards its artistic content. I would inevitably go in to gripe about the grade he got
Conclusion highly suspect. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conclusion highly suspect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Affiliations
Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, NSW, Australia
R. E. O’Dea, M. Lagisz & S. Nakagawa
Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, 2601, ACT, Australia
R. E. O’Dea & M. D. Jennions
Contributions
S.N. and M.D.J. conceived the study, R.E.O. and M.L. collected data, R.E.O., M.L. and S.N. conducted analyses. All authors contributed to interpretation of the results and writing the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Is there some specific bias that either the University of New South Wales or the Australian National University is known for in these subjects?
Grades do not reflect expertise (Score:5, Insightful)
When I taught math or science, the girls were always among the top of the class.
The main reason was that they cared about their grades.
However, they never seemed to enjoy geeking out or talking about things that weren't going to be on the test.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Girls would invest in coming to class, taking notes, coming to study and tutoring sessions and really asking for help when they needed it.
Guys weren't as social. Some guys would have problems and not ask for help and do horribly in the end.
Grades are very artificial. They can be gamed since the teacher is giving the grade (it's not a third party assessment). You can get As and not learn much but also get a D and learn a lot.
What really should be looked at is expertise and not grades.
Of course, with every generalization I've made, I remember plenty of exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you give people a metric they're judged by, they optimize for that metric rather than do quality work.
--Eva Infeld [twitter.com], mathematician
In other words, girls are better at gaming the system.
Re: (Score:2)
However, they never seemed to enjoy geeking out or talking about things that weren't going to be on the test.
To see a clear demonstration, check out youtube videos on electronics/metal/woodworking vs videos on arts & crafts. There's a clear gender division, even though there's an extremely low barrier to stream a hobby video.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you thought some of those programs (vi, emacs) are obsolete today? In one interview I had a manager list all the CLI commands I use in Modelsim. Fortunately I had a good memory, but after I listed several routine commands I said:
"Honestly I just use the dropdown menus now, or drag cursors on the simulation window to inspect waveforms. It's faster and easier than typing a string of commands."
Not that Surprising (Score:2)
"Variability Hypothesis" WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
From the summary: "One explanation for gender imbalance in STEM is the "variability hypothesis." This is the idea that gender gaps are much larger at the tails of the distribution -- among the highest and lowest performers -- than in the middle."
I have a hard time believing that out of 1.6M students the ends of the bell curve vary so extremely from those in the middle. Maybe there are other systematic issues.... just maybe? Not that I think we're going to fix systematic issues overnight, but we don't do our
Re: (Score:3)
I have a hard time believing that out of 1.6M students the ends of the bell curve vary so extremely from those in the middle.
Why?
Re: (Score:3)
You may have a hard time believing it, but it's generally believed to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Wait a second... (Score:2)
If girls are better at non-STEM subjects, and equals at STEM subjects, shouldn't the STEM fields skew towards boys?
An average girl has less competition in a non-STEM field (due to boys under-performing), but more competition in a STEM field (do to boys and girls performing equally). So some girls will choose non-STEM over STEM.
While the average boy is less likely to be able to compete in a non-STEM field (due to boys doing worse in non-STEM subjects). So by elimination, that means more boys will go i
sticking my neck out ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Grades are ... highly elastic things.
I have kids in grade school right now. Sometimes they get to redo assignments if they did badly on them, sometimes they even get to redo tests. Sometimes homework counts for a lot, sometimes a little. Sometimes extra credit is possible, sometimes it isn't. Some teachers offer more extra help, some less.
There's a lot of room for ... what shall we call it, fudge factor? And I'm pretty sure I know what direction the pressure would be in this scenario.
So first things first; we may not "know" what we think we know from this study at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Grades are ... highly elastic things.
I have two kids, one (male) a junior in high school, the other (female) a freshman in college. I and my wife both have STEM degrees and STEM careers. We also both organize and run extra-curricular STEM education programs (FIRST Robotics) for grades K-12. So... the subject of gender and STEM comes up a lot for us, as do grades versus ability.
Both of my kids suck at getting grades. Mostly due to missed assignments (aka homework). My daughter passed the AP Chemistry exam, but failed her AP Chemistry clas
Re: (Score:3)
According to this, the only area that men can compete with women is in STEM. In all other fields, women are markedly superior to men.
No, that's not what it is saying.
Academic performance is not a measure of raw, innate ability or intelligence. It depends greatly on many, many factors. Quality of teaching, availability of resources, diet, all sorts of stuff.
Under-performance of boys is mostly thought to be due to social factors. The same reasons that girls used to do significantly worse in maths, but with some effort the gap was closed. Now effort is re-focusing on helping boys reach the same level.
Re: (Score:2)
According to this, the only area that men can compete with women is in STEM. In all other fields, women are markedly superior to men.
No, that's not what it is saying.
sigh...Whoosh
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe something like those grinders that they throw male chicks into.
Wow, that's taking TERFs to a whole new extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe something like those grinders that they throw male chicks into.
Wow, that's taking TERFs to a whole new extreme.
It's a brave new world, and we must insure stability until selective breeding turns future men into little parasitical sperm releasing dildos.......
Re: (Score:2)
Dildos are the worst kind of emasculation. Imagine the outcry if you reduced a woman to the essential parts!
Re: (Score:2)
Dildos are the worst kind of emasculation. Imagine the outcry if you reduced a woman to the essential parts!
The hands that wash dishes?
Ohhhhh, I'm gonna be crucified here.
But to your point, there has been talk about banning the increasingly realistic female "sex" dolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In all other fields, women are markedly superior to men"
From the study:
"The simulated distributions of girls’ and boys’ grades show the distributions of grades overlap more in STEM (94.2%) than non-STEM (88.2%) subjects. For example, within the top 10% of the distribution the gender ratio is even for STEM, and slightly female-skewed for non-STEM (language, humanities, social science). One possible explanation is that boys’ are more affected by the ceiling affect in STEM than non-STEM. Fo
Re: (Score:2)
We both thought you were being sarcastic, but unfortunately it's the kind of sarcasm you get from people who just refuse to accept any of this and Poe's law took over.
Re: (Score:2)
Just playing devil's advocate here...
I've heard it argued that because education was female-dominated for so long, educational conditions and methods are actually skewed to favor females.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also have personal experiences which differ from national averages.
From the AAE [aaeteachers.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably - especially at the high school level.
But that doesn't really hurt the argument that the entire school and learning setup is skewed to favor females. Having essentially the same classroom setup, lecture-homework-test regime, schedule, etc but then plopping a guy vs a gal in the teacher's position doesn't really change all that much.
All of these bias arguments are very squishy and they require a lot of careful data analysis. Even fairly obvious biases like racial bias against black males are hard to
Re: (Score:2)
Just playing devil's advocate here...
I've heard it argued that because education was female-dominated for so long, educational conditions and methods are actually skewed to favor females.
I do know that after males were largely evicted from schools, they even turned to drugging the boys to start the feminization process. Boys are rambunctious, rowdy, and cannot sit still. They need to be drugged to make them compliant like the girls, who show superior cooperation skills.
Note: I'll drop to serious mode from my trolling for a moment.
In a world where we are being told that there is no difference between male and female, that all is a social construct - it is very difficult to actually demo
Re: (Score:2)
I do know that after males were largely evicted from schools, they even turned to drugging the boys to start the feminization process. Boys are rambunctious, rowdy, and cannot sit still. They need to be drugged to make them compliant like the girls, who show superior cooperation skills.
Eliminating recess was insane, IMO. Of course you're going to end up drugging young boys to get them to sit still!
They tried to get me to put my kid on Ritalin, I said no way. Instead, we put him in Ice hockey./quote
Nice! Glad it worked out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I do know that after males were largely evicted from schools, they even turned to drugging the boys to start the feminization process. Boys are rambunctious, rowdy, and cannot sit still. They need to be drugged to make them compliant like the girls, who show superior cooperation skills.
Eliminating recess was insane, IMO. Of course you're going to end up drugging young boys to get them to sit still!
And for some of us, it never seems to end. After my body took enough abuse that I couldn't play Hockey to a good level, my wife kicks me out for recess. Now I hike, which doesn't work as well as an hour of intense cardio - a minute at a time, but point is, I still get restless and fidgety.
And in High school, they made a weird mistake, which made me have to take gym class 5 days a week. Loved that.
Wait a second. It just occured to me - maybe they figured out what I needed? Perhaps not a "mistake' at al
Re: (Score:2)
According to this, the only area that men can compete with women is in STEM. In all other fields, women are markedly superior to men.
Looks like as women take over in STEM as well, we'll need to have a massive culling of males.
Maybe something like those grinders that they throw male chicks into.
Why so drastic? I think a lifetime on a treadmill with periodic influx of nutrients and electrical stimulation of the vital organs will be sufficient. Why waste the male drone potential?
Captcha: jerking
Not bad, not bad at all. I do like differential solutions to the male problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's first measure how big this bias is. Hint: you cannot measure bias by looking at number of men/women getting a STEM job.
Re: (Score:2)
Here comes a furious barrage of rationalization so that we don't have to acknowledge any possibility whatsoever of bias in STEM hiring. 3, 2, 1...
What does that even mean?
There's surely a bias in STEM hiring ... in favor of hiring women. The big tech companies are falling all over themselves trying to recruit women, teach girls to code, etc. etc.
Are you suggesting that leftist tech CEOs in Silicon valley are actually sexist pigs in disguise? Really?
Re:Another explanation is that grades are rigged.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Statistics are clearly showing that minorities and women are greatly over represented in college intakes in comparison to their grades.
Schools are picking lower scoring individuals to satisfy some sort of equality metric; those people consistently fail and drop out resulting in a much more natural end result (diversity among those graduating college once again falls in line with the scoring results).
So efforts to get some sort of outcome-driven equality, fail all the time. Nordic communities likewise found that out, they are amongst the highest scoring in actual equality but classic gender and race patterns are emerging stronger than elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)