Hey, I can 100% guarantee there was no discrimination against women in the GIS program I was in.I'm going to guess you were the only person in your GIS program then. ;)
20 people 20 X chromosomes :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None in it, but there might be some in the admission process.
Doubtful. That degree is from a community college, so if you graduated high school and hand them a check you sign up for the classes.
|
theJeff, the thing is (and despite me raising the point several times, you have never addressed it directly) that there is no reason to think that exact science faculties are and were more hostile to women than other traditionally male area of study, such as for example law. However, we have seen a major rise in female presence in virtually all schools except for engineering, mathematics, and physics.
Doesn't that suggest to you that the hostility faced in the universities and colleges themselves is a negligible part of the problem, and not the reason that we don't see women's participation in those areas as much as in others?
theJeff, the thing is (and despite me raising the point several times, you have never addressed it directly) that there is no reason to think that exact science faculties are and were more hostile to women than other traditionally male area of study, such as for example law. However, we have seen a major rise in female presence in virtually all schools except for engineering, mathematics, and physics.
Doesn't that suggest to you that the hostility faced in the universities and colleges themselves is a negligible part of the problem, and not the reason that we don't see women's participation in those areas as much as in others?
Law and medicine are not the same fields of study as science, so there might very well be different expectations or influences than what we see in science.
Off the top of my head, most people who go to law and med school...go onto either a job in a private practice/company/other private institution. At least in my field, most people get their PhDs and then go to a University or Museum...that perhaps upps the competition level which in turn may make it more difficult for women (due to factors explained above). It might very well be a situation where there is less pressure against female applicants and its considered to be more socially acceptable for them to take a teaching position rather than become a surgeon or corporate lawyer.
Like I said, the big issue isn't necessarily people telling grad students to get back to the kitchen, it is subtle biases which may influence hiring and tenure processes, societal pressures, or aspects of academia that generally make it harder for women overall.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
theJeff, the thing is (and despite me raising the point several times, you have never addressed it directly) that there is no reason to think that exact science faculties are and were more hostile to women than other traditionally male area of study, such as for example law. However, we have seen a major rise in female presence in virtually all schools except for engineering, mathematics, and physics.
Doesn't that suggest to you that the hostility faced in the universities and colleges themselves is a negligible part of the problem, and not the reason that we don't see women's participation in those areas as much as in others?
No reason to think this at all! Unless you actually listen to the women in those fields, I mean. But who's got time for that?
|
|
theJeff, the thing is (and despite me raising the point several times, you have never addressed it directly) that there is no reason to think that exact science faculties are and were more hostile to women than other traditionally male area of study, such as for example law. However, we have seen a major rise in female presence in virtually all schools except for engineering, mathematics, and physics.
Doesn't that suggest to you that the hostility faced in the universities and colleges themselves is a negligible part of the problem, and not the reason that we don't see women's participation in those areas as much as in others?
Law and medicine are not the same fields of study as science, so there might very well be different expectations or influences than what we see in science.
Off the top of my head, most people who go to law and med school...go onto either a job in a private practice/company/other private institution. At least in my field, most people get their PhDs and then go to a University or Museum...that perhaps upps the competition level which in turn may make it more difficult for women (due to factors explained above). It might very well be a situation where there is less pressure against female applicants and its considered to be more socially acceptable for them to take a teaching position rather than become a surgeon or corporate lawyer.
Like I said, the big issue isn't necessarily people telling grad students to get back to the kitchen, it is subtle biases which may influence hiring and tenure processes, societal pressures, or aspects of academia that generally make it harder for women overall.
A link in one of my previous posts shows that most young laywers in North America are women. I can't imagine anyone claiming that being a lawyer is not a stressful and competitive job, or that lawyers are traditionally female.
So why, I ask, is there still a huge gap between the number of female lawyers and the number of female hard scientists?
You can replace lawyers with any number of other, traditionally male fields of study and work that women have taken over in the previous sentence.
No reason to think this at all! Unless you actually listen to the women in those fields, I mean. But who's got time for that?
But listen to women lawyers! They too are mistreated. Why, then, does that not stop women from studying law and becoming lawyers, while the same treatment in exact sciences *does* stop women? I propose that the treatment in the faculty itself is just not a major deterrent and that other reasons - such as different treatments at younger ages, cultural pressure and possibly natural tendencies play a much larger role in this process than the environment in universities.
The bit I pointed out before from your article talking about the tacit agreement to leave the hard sciences alone suggests to me that the earlier efforts to include women weren't addressed to the hard sciences as they were to other areas.
And I have since shown you parts of the article that clarify that that was not the correct interpretation of the bit you pointed out. Rather, the intention was that there were fewer attempts made at changing the nature of exact sciences to make them align with some political views. The author of that article is not concerned with female presence, she is concerned of people with ideas like "Exact sciences are in their nature hostile to women" having the power to change things as they see fit.
But, separate from the article in question, I take it that you think the reason that we didn't see the same increase in women's presence in exact sciences is that not as much was done to absolve the old ways with science as there was with everything (quite literally everything) else. OK. Why is that, do you think? (If it's even true, which is hard for me to verify, but for the sake of the argument I'm willing to assume that it is).
I don't disagree with you that factors starting before women even get to college are certainly having an influence.
I think women also significantly get a lot of pressure from husbands and families to start families, which is extraordinary difficult to do while pursuing a PhD or academic job. Divorce rates are pretty horrible for people who stay in academia, and it's actually worse if your significant other isn't an academic. "Well we moved for your Masters/PhD, so we can now move/stay in town for my job". Which sounds fair until you realize that their are often only a handful of jobs across the country advertised per year. So effectively people are put in a position of choosing their job or their relationship, and it seems that very often it's the man making that choice, with the woman following along.
Again, as examples, I know two people who were given these ultimatums by husbands/significant other, one who worked in a car rental place and another as a baggage handler. Both worked in positions that would have not been difficult to find a new job, especially since the woman would actually be making far more money. The former dropped out of research and took a job as a lab tech. The latter ended up ending their relationship (To be fair, the guy was a controlling jerk of a manchild, and needed the boot even without the issuing of ultimatums)
I mean my masters lab was predominately female (marine mammal research is for whatever reason an attractive research area for women). However, only 4 of her female students went on in research and completed their PhD. Interestingly only 1 of of those students ever married and had kids. My sample sizes are not great (probably only 10 female students total...not counting students still in her lab or only recently graduated)
As a contrast, of the male students where she was a primary supervisor, 3 of 5 completed PhD's and went onto academic positions (including me). Of the other two, one basically washed out and became a male stripper (None of the female students washed out), and the other went to vet school . Again anectdotal, but still...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you guys should start arguing about Patricia Arquette's speech at the Oscars. At least it's about the movies instead of this academic bullshiznit.
School sucks!
Patricia Arquette responds to Oscars feminism controversy, and Hillary Clinton supports her
It's like they purposefully wrote that headline to predispose me against her.
|
Contributor
|
Patricia Arquette responds to Oscars feminism controversy, and Hillary Clinton supports her
It's like they purposefully wrote that headline to predispose me against her.
Could you explain? (I'm assuming the Clintons are too far right for you...) Feel free to radicalize at me as much as you like, Comrade. :)
Yeah. I hate Hillary.
Whoopie got all mad at Hillary because she found out she pays her female staffers 72 cents on the dollar.
I'd link to the closed Gender Wars thread, but I remember a discussion of the wage gap wherein I concluded after 24 hours of googling that, essentially, the wage gap affected female supervisors, executives, professionals, and, now, apparently, Oscar-winning actresses.
I don't know if that segment of the population can accurately be described as having it "slightly less bad."
Really, everyone needs to work harder to provide for us poor, unfortunate women. Isn't that right, gobbo? I do grow so bored with foie gras and Dom Perignon...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll work harder to provide for your needs, baby.
[Waggles eyebrows and does warm up callisthenics]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I linked to my summation post; there are posts before and after. Also, of course, I don't claim to be any kind of expert, it was just the result of googling shiznit as the conversation went on.
Although, La Principessa and I were talking about Patricia Arquette and the gender wage gap and then all of a sudden I saw her regurgitating my talking points on Facebook. I kinda cringed a little and thought "Ooh, baby, you should probably research that stuff before taking my word for it."
[Attempts to get things more on topic]
I spanked La Principessa last night. I'm not really all that comfortable with all that "dominant male" shiznit, but she seems to like it.
True fact, Doodles: one time I was making out with a chick and she was all, "This is so wrong!" Suddenly, her efforts to get sexy seemed very, very fake to me, so I replied "Y'know, I think you're right," and got out of her bed and walked back to my dorm room across a snowy campus.
I'm not sure if nice guys finish last, but guys who look for genuine interaction from a one night stand don't get either. :(
I think we're working out a pretty good system, actually: I get to be Tarzan in the bedroom, and then she henpecks me outside of it.
It's pretty dialectical, actually.
|
Contributor
|
[Attempts to get things more on topic]
I spanked La Principessa last night. I'm not really all that comfortable with all that "dominant male" shiznit, but she seems to like it.
In the future Radical Socialist paradise, we share everything, right, Comrade?
Does that include... details?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not Spoilered For Disgusting Goblin Sexiness
I have been privy to a few conversations between female comrades (mostly Mrs. Comrade and La Principessa, but not limited to them) in which they agree, and say that many of the other female comrades agree, that leftist men are, by and large, useless in bed.
I don't know if it's the demographic of nerdiness that often goes along with leftism, or if it's something about dudes who are down with women's liberation through socialist revolution, or what, but apparently the male comrades are largely incapable or unwilling to engage in the kind of Mick Jagger-esque rooster-y swagger that appeals to their baser instincts, nor the "slam me against the wall, hold me down" ravishing that, apparently, a great many of them crave, with or without the influence of Fifty Shades of Grey.
I'm learning as I go.
Anyway, I believe it was Citizen Home above, in a summary of the rape fantasies that he's read about, who brought up the whole "I'm so hot, he lost control of himself" thing, which, IIRC, is what Freud referred to in female sexuality as narcissism, but anyway, that's been a big thing with her, too. "Oh, Doodlebug, when you touch me, I lose control of my body, I want to do that to you, too." "Baby," I reply, "I'm just happy to be here."
Anyway, she just got back from walking the dog after we got back from the Newark commie rally, so, uh, I gotta go...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it's the demographic of nerdiness that often goes along with leftism, or if it's something about dudes who are down with women's liberation through socialist revolution, or what, but apparently the male comrades are largely incapable or unwilling to engage in the kind of Mick Jagger-esque rooster-y swagger that appeals to their baser instincts, nor the "slam me against the wall, hold me down" ravishing that, apparently, a great many of them crave, with or without the influence of Fifty Shades of Grey.
Then the solution is clear - read more Gor books! Grunt, grunt, ugh, ugh, male hormones forever.
Then the solution is clear - read more Gor books! Grunt, grunt, ugh, ugh, male hormones forever.
I don't know if it's the demographic of nerdiness that often goes along with leftism, or if it's something about dudes who are down with women's liberation through socialist revolution, or what, but apparently the male comrades are largely incapable or unwilling to engage in the kind of Mick Jagger-esque rooster-y swagger that appeals to their baser instincts, nor the "slam me against the wall, hold me down" ravishing that, apparently, a great many of them crave, with or without the influence of Fifty Shades of Grey.
I miss Gor..haven't read it since junior high school.
Hm. I'm not sure how putting the shoe on the other foot works. A play titled differently espousing the same attitude to anyone other than straight white men would not do so well. But I am not the best person to get into arguments of privilege of any sort with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not Spoilered For Disgusting Goblin Sexiness
I have been privy to a few conversations between female comrades (mostly Mrs. Comrade and La Principessa, but not limited to them) in which they agree, and say that many of the other female comrades agree, that leftist men are, by and large, useless in bed.
I don't know if it's the demographic of nerdiness that often goes along with leftism, or if it's something about dudes who are down with women's liberation through socialist revolution, or what, but apparently the male comrades are largely incapable or unwilling to engage in the kind of Mick Jagger-esque rooster-y swagger that appeals to their baser instincts, nor the "slam me against the wall, hold me down" ravishing that, apparently, a great many of them crave, with or without the influence of Fifty Shades of Grey.
I'm learning as I go.
Anyway, I believe it was Citizen Home above, in a summary of the rape fantasies that he's read about, who brought up the whole "I'm so hot, he lost control of himself" thing, which, IIRC, is what Freud referred to in female sexuality as narcissism, but anyway, that's been a big thing with her, too. "Oh, Doodlebug, when you touch me, I lose control of my body, I want to do that to you, too." "Baby," I reply, "I'm just happy to be here."
Anyway, she just got back from walking the dog after we got back from the Newark commie rally, so, uh, I gotta go...
...
.........
There's a MRS. Comrade?!?!?
You didn't really read my post or the article, did you?
I read them both including the comments underneath the article, and I lean towards thejeff here. That said, I just don't do well with privilege perspectives as they are currently understood/popularly espoused.
You're making your own assumptions here. As I said before, I read even more than what you posted and linked. I'm a bit leery of what was put forth in the article, and the ideas and attitudes in the comments section following. That's it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're making your own assumptions here. As I said before, I read even more than what you posted and linked. I'm a bit leery of what was put forth in the article, and the ideas and attitudes in the comments section following. That's it.
Surely we've not gotten to the point where internet comments sections must be questioned.
Start questioning that, and what's next? Barbarians at the gates, that's what!
I didn't read the article, either; I don't need to know what it's about.
Down with the pinkskins!
(Twice since last we spoke; now she's putting up pictures on the internet from our commie rally. NAACP chapter head, the Newark Solidarity Singers, some Filipinas with a banner in Tagalog and some symbol that I don't recognize but looks pretty commie to me.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't really read my post or the article, did you?
I have a gut reaction to hate crap like this. If you think they misunderstood, explain what your point was. All you did was link and summarize an article. That's not a point, it's a citation. If you want people to get what you're getting at, instead of accusing them of not paying attention, explain what you're getting at. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call this hateful in the slightest, but it isn't helpful either- throwing centuries of know-your-place-type thought back into the faces of the decendents(who certainly benefited from it in earlier points of their life and continue to do so in the long run, but are not necessarily responsible for it) provides visercal satisfaction, but doesn't really address anything.