Happy International Women's Day.

[Anonymous]

How do you know Shen?  Do you ask what your counterparts make an hour?  Do you know if you are overlooked for promotions or viewed as less competent than the guys you work with?

I know because I AM management. We have a pay scale based on a combination of credentials and experience.



If anything, you should be asking have I ever discriminated against white males for promotion or salary. The answer of course is YES to both!!

[Anonymous]

How do you know Shen?  Do you ask what your counterparts make an hour?  Do you know if you are overlooked for promotions or viewed as less competent than the guys you work with?

I know because I AM management. We have a pay scale based on a combination of credentials and experience.



If anything, you should be asking have I ever discriminated against white males for promotion or salary. The answer of course is YES to both!!

 :001_rolleyes:

[RW]

So to put it out, this is the unbiased study I presented to Crow about sexism:



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/uno ... t-matters/">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/



In the hiring of a lab manager, people hiring were given identical information on an application - one with a male name and one with a female name.  The females were rated much lower in hireability and competence.  They were also offered almost $4,000 less a year as a starting wage than their male counterparts.



"When scientists judged the female applicants more harshly, they did not use sexist reasoning to do so. Instead, they drew upon ostensibly sound reasons to justify why they would not want to hire her: she is not competent enough."



Sound familiar Crow?



"We are not talking about equality of outcomes here; this result shows bias thwarts equality of opportunity."



This ^^^ too should sound familiar because it's EXACTLY what I've been saying.  





http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/uno ... t-matters/">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

I have heard the claims about women making 72 cents for every buck men make in Canada. However, I work in an extremely male dominated field and I have never experienced any such discrimination...and I'm also a visible minority.

Have any of the ladies here ever experienced wage or hiring discrimination?



I haven't, but I have never worked in a professional capacity.

When I was doing IT work I experienced a lot bullshit because I didn't have a penis.  It took a lot to prove myself.

[Anonymous]

^Was it East Indian guys?

[RW]

Hahaha.  No.

[Bricktop]

So to put it out, this is the unbiased study I presented to Crow about sexism:



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/uno ... t-matters/">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

"ScientificAmerican.com



Site Under Maintenance

Sorry for the inconvenience. ScientificAmerican.com is currently down for maintenance. Please check back later.



Thank you for your understanding.



Webmaster

ScientificAmerican.com"





 ac_lmfao

[RW]

Works fine for me.

[Bricktop]

And once again, you are drawn into an quasi-academic "study" that, when closely analysed, tells a quite different story.



What is immediately apparent is that this study is focussed on a specific area of employment; the scientific community. It is clearly invalid as a general guide.



It is also undertaken by a female, thus it will have an inbuilt bias.



But most importantly, both male AND female assessors marked the female applicants down. This is almost shrugged off as an afterthought, but what it clearly shows is that the gender bias is specific to that area of employment...a narrow area within the scientific community.



To cite it as a guide to the employment of women generally is misuse.



Others have also criticised the "study" as seriously flawed; junk science.



I also note that it occurred in the USA, which is clearly behind Canada and Australia in terms of anti-discriminatory practices.



Before you cite "studies", please do us the service of clarifying their relevance to the whole debate, rather than latching on to them in desperation of some support for your specious argument.

[RW]

I KNEW you were going to pull the female card, which also happens to demonstrate EXACTLY what this study is saying.  It's invalid because a woman lead the study.  That says a woman is incapable of conducting a study on sexism.  If the person doing the study was a man, it would be valid?  You have used the very point you are trying to debunk to try to make yours and I suspect you might be too dense to even see it.



You're the very kind of person who perpetuates myths about female ability and competency.  You reguritard decades of absolute garbage and until your type learns to think for himself rather than being an insecure sheep, this bullshit will continue.



This debate is over #3.



3) Figure 2 is misleading because the y-axis does not start at zero. Therefore, I will reject everything else exposed by this study.



You've just had your ass handed to you Crow.  Take it like a man.

[Renee]

You're the very kind of person who perpetuates myths about female ability and competency.  You reguritard decades of absolute garbage and until your type learns to think for himself rather than being an insecure sheep, this bullshit will continue.



This debate is over #3.



3) Figure 2 is misleading because the y-axis does not start at zero. Therefore, I will reject everything else exposed by this study.



I KNEW you were going to pull the female card, which also happens to demonstrate EXACTLY what this study is saying.  It's invalid because a woman lead the study.  That says a woman is incapable of conducting a study on sexism.  If the person doing the study was a man, it would be valid?  You have used the very point you are trying to debunk to try to make yours and I suspect you might be too dense to even see it.



You've just had your ass handed to you Crow.  Take it like a man.

Judging by that limp wrist I observed in that pic he posted awhile back, I'm thinking that phrase might have a completely different meaning to him than you intended.

[Bricktop]

Yeah, like YOU wouldn't like that "limp" wrist holding YOUR hand.



Green doesn't suit you buttercup.

[RW]

I wouldn't.   ac_beating

[Bricktop]

I KNEW you were going to pull the female card, which also happens to demonstrate EXACTLY what this study is saying.  It's invalid because a woman lead the study.  That says a woman is incapable of conducting a study on sexism.  If the person doing the study was a man, it would be valid?  You have used the very point you are trying to debunk to try to make yours and I suspect you might be too dense to even see it.



You're the very kind of person who perpetuates myths about female ability and competency.  You reguritard decades of absolute garbage and until your type learns to think for himself rather than being an insecure sheep, this bullshit will continue.



This debate is over #3.



3) Figure 2 is misleading because the y-axis does not start at zero. Therefore, I will reject everything else exposed by this study.



You've just had your ass handed to you Crow.  Take it like a man.

Firstly, where is this resume?



Secondly, who wrote the fictitious resume?



Was it loaded with female specific hot spots? Was the resume gender neutral?



Did you do YOUR research? That study was done in 2012.



Four years later, it seems the imbalance goes the other way;



http://theconversation.com/some-good-news-about-hiring-women-in-stem-doesnt-erase-sex-bias-issue-40212">http://theconversation.com/some-good-ne ... ssue-40212">http://theconversation.com/some-good-news-about-hiring-women-in-stem-doesnt-erase-sex-bias-issue-40212



See, yet again, you find ONE piece of 'study" and latch on to it like a maggot on a steaming turn, without researching further.



Now we have THIS; "Cornell University researchers Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci sent narrative summaries of hypothetical male and female tenure-track applicants to 873 science and engineering faculty across the US. Across a wide variety of conditions spanning five experiments, faculty raters selected female applicants over male applicants by a factor of two to one."



As we have discussed privately...the study of human nature is extremely flawed, because human nature fluctuates. It is dangerous to draw a single study and go "HAHAHAHA...I TOLD you so."



Your youthful impetuosity will wane as you grow older...in the meantime, do yourself a favour and refrain from debating with your elders.

[Bricktop]

I KNEW you were going to pull the female card, which also happens to demonstrate EXACTLY what this study is saying.  It's invalid because a woman lead the study.  That says a woman is incapable of conducting a study on sexism.  If the person doing the study was a man, it would be valid?  You have used the very point you are trying to debunk to try to make yours and I suspect you might be too dense to even see it.



You're the very kind of person who perpetuates myths about female ability and competency.  You reguritard decades of absolute garbage and until your type learns to think for himself rather than being an insecure sheep, this bullshit will continue.



This debate is over #3.



3) Figure 2 is misleading because the y-axis does not start at zero. Therefore, I will reject everything else exposed by this study.



You've just had your ass handed to you Crow.  Take it like a man.

Firstly, where is this resume?



Secondly, who wrote the fictitious resume?



Was it loaded with female specific hot spots? Was the resume gender neutral?



Did you do YOUR research? That study was done in 2012.



Four years later, it seems the imbalance goes the other way;



http://theconversation.com/some-good-news-about-hiring-women-in-stem-doesnt-erase-sex-bias-issue-40212">http://theconversation.com/some-good-ne ... ssue-40212">http://theconversation.com/some-good-news-about-hiring-women-in-stem-doesnt-erase-sex-bias-issue-40212



See, yet again, you find ONE piece of "study" and latch on to it like a maggot on a steaming turd, without researching further.



Now we have THIS; "Cornell University researchers Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci sent narrative summaries of hypothetical male and female tenure-track applicants to 873 science and engineering faculty across the US. Across a wide variety of conditions spanning five experiments, faculty raters selected female applicants over male applicants by a factor of two to one."



As we have discussed privately...the study of human nature is extremely flawed, because human nature fluctuates. It is dangerous to draw a single study and go "HAHAHAHA...I TOLD you so."



Your youthful impetuosity will wane as you grow older...in the meantime, do yourself a favour and refrain from debating with your elders.

[RW]

I'm going to refrain from arguing with people who are incredibly closed minded.



PS - you might want to READ the article you posted.   :001_rolleyes: