Women and science

>Will we ever achieve gender equality in science?
Define gender equality. Show that it doesn't exist. Explain why it is worth achieving.

Hire women
Promote women
Believe women
Believe IN women

I, for one, am willing to help change this world for the better, are you?

There should be less, but too many boys are more inspired by sport stars than scientists.

Fuck being a scientist. I am a mathematics major and I have my bachelors degree, but I decided I am going to go back to go for a gender studies degree and psychology degree since it was a subject that I was always interested in yet felt swayed by the faggots on Veeky Forums.org who never seen a vagina before. Am I cuck? If I am then this cuck can murder your ass in a street fight. Come fight me, bitch.

OK. Address?

Your definition of better sucks dick.

What's so egalitarian about affirmative action for one gender?
>the road to hell is paved with good intentions

you can go play for the other team

there isn't even 50/50 in the world

It's the UN, not some random blue haired tumblr feminist behind this.

I heard you were looking for another bull, user. I'd happily stop by and ram your wife's asshole in front of you sometime. Promote here. Believe her. Believe IN her.

Thanks.

>he actually thinks the UN is competent by any metric
Even WHO is awful.

99% of people working in sewage maintenance or rubbish collection are men.

The top ten most risky and life threatening jobs are overwhelmingly held by men.

How do we achieve gender equality?

>these pro-affirmative-action people have to be shitposting, right?

>only 30%
that's criminal, think of all the deserving men who got passed over.

If people are equal, which they are, you should expect an equal number of male and females (besides gays, POC and other minorities) in all fields.
Since we don't, this disparity can only be explained by external factors, such as racism, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.

>Gender communism
I want /pol/ to leave. Identity politics are liberal bourgeois distractions from actual economic issues.

"People are equal" doesn't mean every field will have equal proportions of every discernible group of people interested in pursuing it.

Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

1. No
2. No

Men and Women have evolved our differences to fit different Niches for a reason. It's best not to force either into the other niche. People aren't equal. There are different traits between different groups of people, both physiologically and neurologically,

Also this, and a reminder why Communism is inherently incompatable with the Human species.

Fuck off commie.

>people are equal
>a few thousand years of geographical seperation doesn't cause adaptions
>let alone the fact there are literal retards

Collectivism is inherently futile because every individual varies, and certain individuals are predisposed by various factors such as evolutionary influinces onto the niches that cause gender roles in the first place.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: blatant racism to assert your sense of superiority and justify institutionalized oppression.

There are plenty of reasons why different groups of people would tend to have different interests. For example, how young boys are expected to play with legos and videogames more than girls, and consequently tend to have better spacial-reasoning skills, which helps in math and engineering.
And no, that isn't institutionalized misogyny.

>a reminder why Communism is inherently incompatable with the Human species.
...ignoring the thousands of years between the emergence of behavior modernity and the developments of agriculture and class society, of course. But communism wouldn't work today, modern technology like automation and the internet would make it much harder for a classless society to function, right?

Not an argument

...

>hunter-gatherers were classless
Wrong.

And would you like to return to the days where primal humans fought wars to steal women to rape? When most of the adult male population didn't pass on their genes? Where most childeren died off due to harsh natural selection?

>Racism
You imply I harbor malice towards an individual by default.
>sense of superiority
I lack one.
>institutionalized oppression
generally speaking Women and Minorities are now given preferrential treatment due to collectivists seeking nice looking statistics over merit, but this ignores the fact that the very real opression is that of collectivism against individuals.

made me giggle

>how young boys are expected to play with legos and videogames more than girls
But that is an external cause, and these are called gender roles, imposed by society to keep women from reaching their full potential thus preserving the patriarchal structure in place, which is a form of misogyny.

Gender roles existed before society, they were imposed by the way we evolved. It is in no way anti man nor anti woman to say that the two have different niches due to phisiological and neurological differences.

Mods clean up this trash please

>Wrong.
In an argument about communism I'm using the communist definition of class. I'm not talking about social status or division of labor, silly.

And could you explain why workers' ownership over the means of production invariably results in rape wars?

>But that is an external cause, and these are called gender roles, imposed by society to keep women from reaching their full potential thus preserving the patriarchal structure in place
How do gender rolls prevent women from reaching "their full potential?" There aren't a whole lot of people (in the West) that genuinely believe each and every woman should become a stay-at-home, child-bearing housewife.

>How do gender rolls prevent women from reaching "their full potential?"
It's in the OP. Try paying more attention next time.

>they were imposed by the way we evolved
The length people go to justify their hatred for women.

I should have specified. I meant modern gender rolls the way they are defined today, as intentional diversions from the "traditional" gender rolls inherited from our parents and grandparents.

can't tell if you're a troll or a brainlet

Workers aren't excluded from owning private property nor making themselves an entity for shared property, and without statist agression many worker-owned buisness models free from the constraint of regulation would be able to exist in the free market.

Considering there's like 50 gender, art woman massively over represented then?

>and without statist agression many worker-owned buisness models free from the constraint of regulation would be able to exist in the free market.
That's called market socialism, à la Richard Wolff and Proudhon. But I don't agree with them.
Even if every company was worker-owned, it would just be groups workers owning individual firms that compete with each other. The downward pressure on socially-necessary labor time, the production of goods for exchange, alienation, the law of value, practically all of Marx's critiques of capitalism would still apply in such an economy. I don't consider it genuine socialism unless all production is controlled by the working class as a whole desu.

fuck women

You are an incubator to produce and raise new humans, we are the ones who ensures the tribe exists thus you should remain a slave and we the men are the ones who innovate and produce progress.

wasn't it a lot lower than 30% within the past 20 years? "progress" doesn't just happen the instant you want it to.

"People are equal" only has merit under laws and rights. It's ludicrous to think we are actually equal to the bone. But the thing to be asked is if all groups of humans should experience the same distribution across all fields? stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html It's really not that surprising to find out that a sexually dimorphic species is going to have differences. That, in any way, doesn't mean we should adopt retarded policies thay segragate against some group, but we are not going to expect the same numbers, neither I belive these differences make a group "superior". Now, there's no one that can, without a shadow lf a doubt tell you, we are 100% product of nature/nuture or an exact percantge of both, but it seems the answer is not clear and we cannot just state that it all water down to fucking misoginy. In this case
That guy exposed it horribly, but if you view it through a biological lens, who on earth imposed the first gender roles? Society didn't sprung put of fucking nowhere, and there's massive amounts of evidenxe suggesting we evolved from other mamales/primates, and you cannot deny the archeological evidence suggesting that even our hunter-gatherer cousins had clear gender roles.

All this is, just because there's thus weird tumbleresc notion of equality without really any real reason for it. That means we should opress people or assume they will fail? No, just let them do the same fucking exam and see how we do. The thing is, I don't expect if it's 50/50 after all is right with this world, or maybe it is, but it's a completley irrelevant number that doesn't favour any hypothesis. What we could do is go and raise our childs all using legos, but I think we have observed differences in how they play at an early age too.

Also, if you think an edgy 15 year old /pol/tard
Is why women are insecure, well humanity is doomed if kids writting "nigger joos" has any impact.

>Identity politics are liberal bourgeois distractions from actual economic issues.
This desu

The day we get put in camps, liberals everywhere will march in the streets demanding more women guards.

Communism addresses this: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
FTFY brainlet

Science will solve all of this mess once it invents self replicating robots.

idpol belongs to

I'm a voluntarist/Ancap so I'm vehemently opposed to violent redistribution of wealth, given the past of that in the 19th century, but we're going in more Veeky Forums than Veeky Forums boundaries.

Communism is violent though. Capitalism is the most ethical way to determine heiarchy.

Does one give more equitable treatment to the different genders?

t. bootlicker

>wanting to be left alone makes me a bootlicker

He's right. Capitalism, for the most part, is a meritocracy. Rewarded are those who work hard, approximately. In reality, rewards go to those who provide the most valuable work, not the best, but there aren't many differences between the two. Capitalism puts a value on people's time and lets them exchange it for goods, doesn't get much simpler, and it's a far cry better than distributing wealth solely in ways that incentivise a lack of work. If you could get paid more for the same job because your needs are more, then people are self-consciously going to ensure that their needs are more. It's this instinctual selfishness that causes communism to fail and capitalism to succeed.

But ensure that you aren't getting crony capitalism mixed up with theoretical capitalism.

Ask Marie Curie-Sklodowska

>>wanting to be left alone makes me a bootlicker
>Implying you're left alone in capitalism
>implying you have any way of surviving without the help of a civilized society

You can't enforce property rights without force and violence brainlet. Capitalists countries have engaged in thousands of brutal wars and violent dictatorships. Capitalists won't even let nations try their own non-capitalists economic systems without violently overthrowing democratically elected leaders. You'd have to be a bootlicker to think capitalism isn't violent or forces people to things they don't want to do.

>for the most part, is a meritocracy.
No it isn't meritocratic in the slightest. Who you're parents are decided pretty much exactly where you're going to be in life. Plenty of studies have shown that those who were born rich stay rich and those that born poor and middle class just get poorer. You have to be a stupid asshole or living in a social democratic country with low income inequality to believe that shit. "Crony" capitalism doesn't exist. It's literally no different from saying that real communism hasn't been tried yet. What you see now is what capitalism looks like.

youtu.be/_RzLP4Z4UJQ?t=2m40s

For women it's explained by different career preferences. For minorities it's explained by different IQ levels. Next question brainlette.

>this disparity can only be explained by racism, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.
Women are over-represented in health sciences, is that because of misandry?

>Will we ever achieve gender equality in science?
Probably not since free will exists
>What can we as individuals do to make this a reality?
What we've been doing has actually been a detriment to science since we've been promoting women who are not qualified into courses and majors they're unqualified for into fields and jobs they're unqualified for and not firing them simply to keep numbers up.

Every measure to raise numbers artificially is just going to hinder science. I remember way before the push for women into STEM women who were actually into it were great at it and not backwards thots who thought a lab coat made them look cute,

This isn't the 10th century, I'm not going to become a blacksmith because that's what my father does. I know there are studies countering your point on "the rich stay rich", the turnover rate of the 1% is surprisingly high. The poor stay poor because muh bell curve. But it's a question of ethics as to whether you let people inherit the money from their parents. Wanting the best for your children is instinct, so it only stands to reason that having your children inherit your fortune when you die incentivises hard work. We live in an era when anybody born in a modern country can enter a university on a loan and get the qualifications they need/want to start making money, and that's disregarding all the scholarships out there. We're not stuck in some system where poor people can only get jobs that pay badly. If there's anything unequal about inheritance, I'd say your intelligence and genes matter more than any money. Removing the plutocrats who contribute nothing to society and haven't earned a cent, feeding their money back to those who need it better isn't a bad idea, but in reality it doesn't make much difference since this number of people is fairly small. The majority of those who could be considered wealthy have earned it themselves, sometimes with the help of a small loan of a million dollars.

Personally I think that a society where family doesn't exist and all children are brought up under equal circumstances by (robot) parents would be an interesting experiment, if not a possible ideal scenario, since the inheritance effect on work ethic probably isn't too major. Possible issues include lack of diversity of thought, child indoctrination, and rebellion.

>In reality, rewards go to those who provide the most valuable work, not the best
>reality
In capitalism, however, rewards go to the guy who owns the infrastructure that the other guy uses to do the most valuable work, while the guy doing the work himself receives a small fraction of what he produces.
Capitalists do not make their money by working, they make it by owning. Ownership is not a socially useful step in producing something. It's merely an exclusive claim on some productive property, backed by organized violence of the state. All it does is enable a small minority to heavily tax the work of others without producing anything themselves

>But ensure that you aren't getting crony capitalism mixed up with theoretical capitalism.
Econ 101 is basically "people respond to incentives." Rent-seeking and suppressing your competitors through government cronyism are incentivized, so guess what happens? Subverting competitors and artificially meddling in product, resource, labor and capital markets is the daily bread of business strategy, my dude. We see every business that lacks access to a state apparatus - to defend its property rights, favorably distort the market, and advantage it over its competitors - effectively makes its own and sends around organized thugs to defend its interests. Drug gangs are an example. Is this because drugs are scary and illegal and so inherently violent? No, it's because undermining your competition through means besides the "free market" is pretty consistently incentivized. The modern state is merely a more efficient alternative, which is why we got things like world wars instead of AK-toting, balaclava-clad General Motors goons in pickup trucks.

No statically you're going to have a worse life then your parents. IQ has also been rising steadily. While income inequality continues to grow. All someone needs as one smart very very lucky relative to set themselves up for life.

>Personally I think that a society where family doesn't exist and all children are brought up under equal circumstances by (robot) parents would be an interesting experiment, if not a possible ideal scenario, since the inheritance effect on work ethic probably isn't too major. Possible issues include lack of diversity of thought, child indoctrination, and rebellion.
It's something anti-capitalists support because it's the only way to achieve meritocracy.

>Crony Capitalism

when will you commies learn that if your "not real communism" argument is valid than so are Ancaps Crony Capitalism argument? True Capitalism is in no way inherently violent, and is entirely voluntarist. If a bunch of commies want to go live n a commune voluntarily than I say let them. There are even private communes that exist within the US, which is a very cronyist state.

Pray tell, has this 'true capitalism' ever existes or even been attempted? How is your botched fantasy relevant to the situation at hand, where you have huge empires built on exploitation, built on militarized police and foreign interventions?

we have equality. Hence the inequality of outcome.

Tó clarify: True communism has been attempted numerous times and it came close tó be implemented 100years ago. It just failed because the revolution was relentlesly attacked by the most powerful empire in history. Reminder that the ussr was 90% peasant in 1917.

Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity. Women in the west are not being excluded or discouraged from Science. The only discrimination they have is in their favour with affirmative action quotas. Women tend to be drawn to people oriented fields. They choose not to go into STEM. There is no way to enforce equality of outcome without forcing discrimination or stomping on free will. It is okay for fields not to have gender parity.

>the soviet union called itself communist and was bad, and so everything calling itself communist is bad, regardless of what communism "is." any attempts to clarify or demarcate what we mean by "communism," or rationally assess the social driving forces of history and the failures of mass social movements, must be vigorously and uncritically resisted
>humans respond to incentives. the incentives to create a state to engage in violence are persistently present in the normal functioning of markets, and so we reasonably expect to observe this.
I can't tell these two apart! It's like I'm seeing double!

>when will you commies learn that if your "not real communism" argument is valid than so are Ancaps Crony Capitalism argument?
I'm not a commie sorry to break it to you. Communism and Capitalism are both trash. Thats been proven time and time again.

At least the blue haired tumblr feminist knows what they are, the UN is the biggest joke of the modern world

>if people are equal
>which they are
You need to be over 18 to post here

Yet every time capitalism falls apart, it eventually manages to rebuild itself. When communism shits the bed, the system is permanently fuxx0red.

What was nazism?

of course the radical centrist would be here on Veeky Forums

Communism isn't bad because of who called themselves communists, but because equality is the opposite of human nature.

True Capitalism has sadly not been as popular an idea and so no, it has not been tried, but saying capitalists invade foreign countries and exploit people is a stretch. Anything enforced by the state is inherently violent, and thus anti-capitalistic.

The solution is clear - if knowledge of math is considered a masculine or male quality, then women should be butch lesbians when they study math, in theory. Think about it. Also the Nazis tolerated lesbians.

Mods, can you please move this thread to

>of course the radical centrist would be here on Veeky Forums
Centralists support capitalism. I'm not a centrist. I didn't say I supported moderate capitalism. I don't support any price based based system. So no capitalism or communism or mutualism or syndicalism either.

>human Nature
Sorry that doesnt exist. Next argument?

Centrism is Socialism.

>Communism isn't bad because of who called themselves communists, but because equality is the opposite of human nature.
Humans are pack animals with tight tribal and family bonds. Capitalism is not compatible with human nature.

>Centrism is Socialism.
No it isn't are you retarded? I said no price systems so socialism is obviously off the table.

>Communism isn't bad because of who called themselves communists, but because equality is the opposite of human nature.
The equivocation fallacy is not an argument
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
Lenin refuted this "argument" a hundred years ago

They should rename this board to science, math and politics

Marxism, specifically diamat, is a Science. Read Althusser.

>scientific socialism

>Marxism, specifically diamat, is a Science

>ideology is science

No, it is a philosophial approach to history?

>What can we as individuals do to make this a reality?
Women should study science more, maybe?

t. woman on IT and maths

30% isn't a bad number in term of equality. It's even pretty good considering the biological differences between men and women

>anything will go faster with more women.
Thanks for the laugh friend

We already have equality of opportunity for women in science. Forcing equality of outcome is not what women want.

>We already have equality of opportunity for women in science
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.