PREDISPOSITION TO SCIENCE ACCORDING TO SEX

I guess.
But men can't do everything. Or can they

Everything except give birth

I mean you can't be both an engineer and a cook and a nurse and a radiologist.

I don't understand how radiologists haven't been made obsolete by computers

A computer can analyze an image with an infinitely greater degree of scrutiny than a human can

Because those jobs are shit and don't have any significant power in society, and they already have their own versions of that, like nursery teachers

>Because those jobs are shit and don't have any significant power in society

Imagine a world without automobile mechanics, without garbage collectors, without tradesmen
Society as we know it would cease to function

Enjoy the electricity in your home and elsewhere? Like having a roof over your head? A working car in your garage?
Yeah that's brought to you by hard working men doing shit jobs that get no respect yet without them you'd be naked and hungry

They are every bit as integral to society as engineers and scientists

So only jobs that are of a high enough status need to have equal representation?

>half the humans are girls and women, so we want half the coal miners and sewage workers to be girls and women
T. Bill Nye

>So only jobs that are of a high enough status need to have equal representation?

Yes, obviously. Some jobs matter more than others.

I don't even agree with him by the way, but not understanding it is pure autism.

Equality means equality. You don't handpick only your favourite jobs and call it equal. Plus there's no obstacle for women to go into STEM if they could only score the necessary grades.

Funny thing is parks and rec touched on this and proved your point

sure... Why then computers don't plow through captch'as?

This is what happens when your moral integrity is compromised by thirst for attention. You sell out the real talk, the real ideas, you find the most populated politically correct alley and start sucking on a fat PC dick. Then there is no way back, you gotta swallow what you say.

I'm pretty sure he didn't really say those things and this is all a bait.

Most women are capable of at least achieving an A in math and science, which is enough to get into a STEM program.Therefore, I think this is mainly a cultural thing.

If they wanted to, they could. High heels are painful, but women wear them anyway because of the culture. If STEM is somehow more painful for a female, it would probably be more painful by only a tiny amount, because the studied difference isn't that large. Therefore if the culture was right, women wouldn't have any problem viewing themselves as a gender that is STEM competent

nope, I googled that, there are an article with him saying that. That is just how the world works, I there is no other way, you gotta sell your moral ass

I go to a state university and there are a lot of girls here that I can say are better than me in STEM. Maybe it's more because of the culture here than anything else. Or maybe I'm just dumb.

People don't pay attention to them because they're not as "glamorous" than other jobs

being moral isn't going full retard.
> half the humans are girls and women
this isfactually wrong to begin with
> so we want half the engineers and scientists to be girls and women
and I can push the equality card even further to add more female workforce for sewage workers, sweatshop slaves that work day and night for half the minimum wage, automechanics, hard labor workers and many other sectors that women don't even wanna know exist.

youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=41m18s

offense in question

> 45 minutes
no thx

41 18

oooh thats what you meant. hes just spitballing about world peace and equality to gain sympathy, who doesn't do that. But he and all people never ever take action for it. Because you can't push women to go into STEM. If they have interest and the brains, they will go into STEM, it's easy as that.

I always remember, in my university, there were practically no girls in engineering disciplines, but they were dominating in mathematics, chemistry, chemical engineering and some other fields. There were many really smart and great girls, others were mediocre. Same with guys. The really intellingent girls would have done great in engineering, but what is the point to go study something you don't absolutely like? I don't really see why unequal numbers are a problem.
Another interesting observation was that there were quite a few women professors/lecturers in engineering. Considering how few girls study engineering this was looking very disproportionate. Also most of the lecturers were really bad.
Working a few year in industrial engineering I met some engineer girls. 90% of them were doing "dumb" technical work as drafting and such. Never heard stories that go like: oh, she is such a great engineering, she did this, that. The stories always go diametrically opposite.

I think they prefer other fields because they are biologically different. Anyone who says that just because a group is underrepresented in a field means that group is being discriminated against is retarded.

How about closing the 'wage gap' by getting women involved in more jobs which pay more for fewer qualifications due to the danger involved? Steve, who barely graduated highschool isn't getting paid a (comparative) ton of money in a coal mine because he's a man, he's getting paid a ton of money because he could be buried alive at any moment and is working in the broiling asshole of the Earth.

>>No one really wants to see a man pole dancing
Bill the homosexual Nye wishes for this

Reality have a genocidal fascist bias.

>I can ask more men to become pole dancers, can I?
That's a really shitty argument. Who becomes a pole dancer is determined entirely by who is in demand. Men aren't in demand because women (who make up the majority of people attracted to men) aren't as driven sexually by visual stimuli. If anything you just supported the argument that people hire based on criteria other than if they're good at their job or not, and that gender plays a role in that selection process.

its not a 'head start' its just that men and women are culturally different and see themselve's\others differently .
when they grow up they get 'this is a man's profession' or 'this is a woman's profession' vibes from different professions .

if we lives in a culture where 95% of seamen were blonde haired and that was a thing, a brown haired dude growing up is subconsciously thinking 'this is a thing for blonde people' long before he starts thinking about if he should consider choosing it as a profession . sure he might go for it anyway and women do go for science but it makes it much more unlikely .

tl;dr its our culture .

also your pic is retarded , who said scientists and engineers should be a completely homogeneous slice of the population , certain kinds\background of people statistically go into certain professions .scientists and engineers should be whoever chooses to be one and is willing to do what it takes to become one .

>mfw i found out bill was an engineer
holy kek
this explains everything

> there aren't gay men who wanna see male pole dancers
are you retarded. there is clearly demand, but not enough male workforce because of patriachy-oppression-sexism-evil-cisgendered-straight-white-males. So lets add more male pole dancers coz equality lol

>Equality means equality. You don't handpick only your favourite jobs and call it equal

Why not? Garbage collectors have no influence in society. It doesn't matter who does it.

this

All the times garbage collectors have gone on strike proves you wrong.

>tl;dr its our culture .
Unless, of course it's not.
There very well could be gender-specific trends.
Even if the NBA allowed female players, most would still be male, mostly because of cultural gender roles, but also partially because men are taller, on average , than women.
Plus men tend to vary from their average height more than women do, so unusually tall people are disproportionately male.
This higher standard deviation would also explain why men do so much better in track and field events.
Even if the average woman runs as fast as the average man (for all we know they might run faster), the most exceptional men are more exceptional than the most exceptional women.

>Garbage collectors have no influence in society. It doesn't matter who does it.
The more men have crap jobs, the less men there are to do important jobs, thus giving women a greater hand in shaping society.

Into collapse as Rome, Baghdad, that short-lived thing in Algeria, and probably more shown.

We can already see a direct parralel with baghdad in fact, being literally invaded yet all we discuss are cosmetic non-issues.
Except this time, the mongols are invaded on their own, we actually help them. Because muh economy.

Completely criminally insane and disconnected from reality.

Yes, we would be stupid to think genetic differences could have an impact on someone's way of thinking.
This is why I've treated my cat like a child and it has learned to walk and talk like a human.

physiological\anatomical differences are pretty big and that does affect ability to perform physical tasks .

however talking about the probability of someone becoming an engineer\scientist that's nearly entirely cultural and any other effects make orders of magnitude less difference then culture .

if you could somehow change the perception of an entire generation about science and engineering and make all the men and women think these are equally male and female professions the ratio of men to women in science and engineering will tend towards being equal .

it probably wont be sequel because both men and women still choose from many other non-science\engineering professions which they have cultural gender-biases towards .

and even if you eliminate all cultural gender biases towards all professions some of them (not all, most will vanish) will reemerge naturally . women in this magical unbiased generation will start dropping from professions they are physiologically less suited for and men will start taking their places .

tl;dr as long as there's any difference between men and women at all you cant expect them to gender employment statistics to be identical .

and why the fuck should you even care ?. as long as people have equal opportunity statistics will reflect their wishes which are still their wishes even if affected by their culture .

>probability of someone becoming an engineer\scientist that's nearly entirely cultural and any other effects make orders of magnitude less difference then culture .
What about childbirth?
Sure, a woman could just pop the babies out on medical leave and have dad stay home to raise the kids.
But as long as many women take a 3-20 year break from their careers to raise the kids, there's going to be less women in STEM.
Or are you claiming that "who raises the kids" is more cultural than biological?

yes .
>3-20 year break from their careers
again entirely cultural , personally i've never heard of a woman in my country doing that .maybe some rare cases and rich families (and even there most women prefer to work).

the very idea of having children in modern day humans is cultural .humans are so culture driven we created cultural constructs like societies of people who dont reproduce at all(monks and such) or social constructs where groups of kids are raised by people whose profession it is to raise kids (i personally know people raised this way , in certain kibutzes ).

the vast majority of our perception of men and women and the differences between them and their roles in society\family and the very idea of a family is cultural .

it could have easily been men raising the children had major chapters of out cultural history been different , or some other completely unheard of idea of how we handle the task of raising children as a society .

some other species have roles and reproductive\child raising behavior learnt from their ancestors that is not present in subjects raised in captivity . however in other species individuals and groups nearly never change anything about this inherited routine where's in humans we do and we change it a lot .

so yea the idea of a career-heavy profession interfering with the cultural idea in some societies\places that women should raise their children full time does make some women choose these professions less .

my question is why the fuck should we care ?.as long and we provide equal opportunity the people that should be scientists and engineers , which are the ones who want to be and are willing to do what it takes to become scientists and engineers will be scientists and engineers .

tl;dr its culture

-20 year break from their careers
>again entirely cultural
[citation needed]
I'm sure that belief serves your emotional needs well, but is it accurate?

>personally i've never heard of a woman in my country doing that
Wot? You mean to tell me that every last mother in your country is employed?

>President of the United States of America
Historically the manliest job in the world.

and just to clarify im not saying that some of today's cultural views dont originate from deeply ingrained cultural effects of biological selection for many generations of our ancestors .

in some primates the male stays to take care of the child and in others he does not (and we have evidence to suggest that humans are in some weird spot between the two). but in all groups the female stays with the child simply because of selective pressures , because the female's investment in it (even purely in terms of nutrients\time) is much greater . so the modern idea of the female taking care of the child originates from this natural selective process . females who did passed on their genes more successfully where's males who invested little in a child could play the numbers game .

im saying its rare for women to become unemployed for the sake of children . again this is due to the specific local culture and economy\history . i've heard of women doing this but i personally never met one .

there's nothing biological that makes you quit your job for 20 years . where i live most women do take a leave in the last months of pregnancy and the post pregnancy leave is mostly take by the woman in the family but then again they could just not make children at all if they decided to do so . people's reproductive decisions are usually based on their local culture .

the basic fact that you can choose not to partake in this breeding business makes it almost entirely cultural .

>no one really wants to see a man pole dancing

what is magic mike

>aren't as driven sexually by visual stimuli.
Bullshit. Sexism. Your just afraid to be objectified like women are.

>the basic fact that you can choose not to partake in this breeding business makes it almost entirely cultural .
What about the fact that the people that actually carry a child are the one who overwhelmingly stay home with the baby?
You can claim it's cultural, but that seems unlikely, and we don't have any experimental evidence one way or the other,
Besides, arguing nature vs nurture in this case is pointless, unless you have some grand plan to neutralize or reverse reverse the bias that's dependent on knowing the origin of the bias.
Either way, women sacrificing career for the sake of family more than men do is most likely the root cause of a relative lack of women in STEM.

>Either way, women sacrificing career for the sake of family more than men do is most likely the root cause of a relative lack of women in STEM.

It's definitely a strong reason why women lack in stem, but I can't see it was the root cause.

>but I can't see it was the root cause.
It might not be, but it's the clearest example of a cause I can find.
If there is some more significant cause, I really don't see it.
Maybe a general preference...
But it's not like the "good old boy" mentality is rampant in academia.
Most schools give admissions preference to women in particular, for instance.

>if the NBA allowed female players, most would still be male
Are you fucking retarded? Literally 100% of them would be male from now til kingdom come

Both.
youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA

There is no wage gap and in the eyes of feminists it will always be a wage gap.

At my college all the woman go for civil engineering, then mechanical. There are almost none in electrical, and the ones that are there are known cheaters. After asking a few freshmen, i came to the conclusion that women simply dont like calculus, and that is what steers them towards the other fields. I know they have about the same amount, but the only other answer would be vanity. It used to be common for women to go to college to meet men, and there is a steriotype of EE being all nerdy men. When you hear mechanical or civil it seems like there will be far more "manly" men. I dont want to think that it is this basic, but it wouldnt surprise me.

why do equalists have such a fetish for women wage slaves?
There is a sexual dimorphism in intelligence that manifests during puberty, men have more tail end individuals, both those that do stem and those which are ungifted. Greater plurality of men have an aptitude for STEM and ladies who did would in all deference be better off prioritizing reproduction.

I guess one question is why did computer science go from being dominated and pioneered by women to being dominated and pioneered by men?

but this is true.
observe lesbians and their indifference to looks when vying for mates, this is lady libido free of maleness as a variable.
faggots though are rather into aesthetics and catalog these designations, the same basic continuum of preference he suggests checks out.

>youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA
All muh boner. And yet...
She glosses over the SAT gap to conclude that gifted women are so multi-talented they can't be bothered pursuing STEM.
Plus, using Math-55 and child prodigies?
Seems like some really small sample groups.

>why did computer science go from being dominated and pioneered by women
?When was this?
Sure, Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace...
...but I don't think you can call that "dominated".

>culture is not the result of genes

Please, you got it all wrong.

>Even if the average woman runs as fast as the average man (for all we know they might run faster)
No, we absolutely know for a fact that the average man runs, swims, etc faster than women. This is why separate women's events had to be created.

Not a single fucking person contests the idea that men are, on average, physically superior to women. Whether or not that applies to mental capability is unknown.

Women are actually advantaged in swimming/gymnastics partially due to less dense bones. I'm sure they hip insertions offers center of gravity difference that could be better for certain events as well

Is it really that hard to know?

Chess
ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men
ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=women

Go
goratings.org/

Fields Medal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11922707/Nobel-Prize-winners-How-many-women-have-won-awards.html

The records certainly don't seem to imply a major advantage in swimming.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_swimming

I mean, they're not bad times and there's plenty of good female swimmers, but calling them advantaged seems odd to me.

>No, we absolutely know for a fact that the average man runs, swims, etc faster than women. This is why separate women's events had to be created.
>This is why separate women's events had to be created.
>This is why separate women's events had to be created.
Read my post again.
Sure, in competitions, the most exceptional men outperform the most exceptional women.
But what about the averages?

We don't keep records of how fast the average men and women run.

I'm arguing that a higher standard deviation would ensure that the best athletes are male, even if (IF) the average woman is as athletic as the average man.
And before you repeat yourself with an identical, yet slightly more irate post, go outside look at *average* people, and ask yourself: "could these fuckers even run a mile at all?"

in long distance specifically that difference becomes more favorable iirc

>I'm arguing that a higher standard deviation would ensure that the best athletes are male, even if (IF) the average woman is as athletic as the average man.

>The vast majority of men have more muscle mass than all women. 99.9% of females have less upper body muscle mass than the average male. The 61% greater average muscle mass in male upper bodies translates into 90% greater average strength (the respective values for the lower body are 50% and 61%).

Jesus, you pedant.
I'm trying to use athletics as an analogy to explain why the most intellectually gifted people are predominantly male, even if women were just as smart on average.
Read the thread for fucks sake.

Jesus, you pedant.
>NO!

>why the most intellectually gifted people are predominantly male, even if women were just as smart on average.
Also, very unlikely.

>There are people on Veeky Forums who actually think men and women don't have different brains and body chemistries that cause different aptitudes and preferences.
>In 2016.

lol underrated post

Interestingly enough, as a male getting his masters in social work to become a therapist, I've been told countless times by women in the profession how valuable I'll be because I'm a man. I've already received a GA position to pay for my masters and I basically can walk into any internship I want. It helps that I'm top of my class academically, and show a natural aptitude for therapy, but I'm convinced a lot of it has to do with how badly they want men in the profession - currently we make up about 15% of all social workers. Men are consistently hired and promoted faster too - which bodes well for me, as it's not that high paying of a profession to begin with. I'll need all the promotions I can get.

this sounds like some prussian "for the greater good" shit

and yet somehow the freer our society gets, the more quotas are put in place

why is bill nye still a thing?

We could get 100% of women into all the jobs quite easily.
We just use artificial wombs to reproduce and never birth women.
There, in five generations 100% of women will work in any given job, guaranteed.