|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2018 21:48 Uldridge wrote:
It's innately biological that women lean more towards "caring" fields, and desperately want children (which convieniently coincides with not being able to handle 70h workweeks; also read desperately as 90-95% of women)
Look at Norway. Even in my field, biochem and biomedical you see 50-80% women, where in other STEM fields it's much lower. I don't know about medicine, but I've a rising suspicion that women are overrepresented nowaways or are becoming so.
Don't let innate biological skewing stand in the way of "equalizing the fields" that's all, because it makes no sense if they innately don't want to go there.
1. Can you please cite a recent poll that supports your statement that 90-95% of women (presumably American women) want children?
2. What evidence do you have that defends the argument that women are significantly less likely to "be able to handle 70 hour workweeks" than men?
3. What evidence do you have to support the idea that the percentage of women in biochem and biomed are higher than what is "innately" appropriate, due to biology?
I don't want to just flatly call out points 2 and 3 for being sexist remarks on your part, so I'm interested in hearing your data-driven justifications.
|
1. It's like innately biological to want children? I mean, it's probably even in men and women kind of, but the woman has the eggs (and the brooding chamber) which deteriorate rapdily in quality at age of 35. They're on a timer, men are not. So they feel pressure where men do not necessarily.
2. I'm not saying they can't handle it, they absolutely can handle it. They're simply not interested in it, or will have too much too handle when also having kids to raise. Raising kinds + 70h/week is no joke. Having kids (which is busting your ass) AND busting your ass at work is simply killing yourself.
3. It's mostly anecdotal about the biomed fields. And I don't understand your "innately appropriate" bit, what is that even supposed to mean? Women care more about people, ergo, they want to care for them in whatever way possible. If this is through nursing, social sciences, or research, that's all the same. Why do you ignore my example of Norway? Is that dismissable because of the "self fulfilling prophecy"?
It's sexist because you can't see that women and men have innately different physiological schemes that guide them differently in the world. They can both definitely do the same thing when presented the opportunities, but opportunity is vastly different from motive. I feel like you're missing the point here. But I guess it's "society driven inequality" that prevent men and women from having 50/50 representation in all workfields everywhere.
Edit: sorry, didn't see the "didn't want to call out", my bad. But I don't feel like they're sexist, simply because I firmly stand behind the biological drive.
|
On March 02 2018 22:46 Uldridge wrote:
1. It's like innately biological to want children? I mean, it's probably even in men and women kind of, but the woman has the eggs (and the brooding chamber) which deteriorate rapdily in quality at age of 35. They're on a timer, men are not. So they feel pressure where men do not necessarily.
2. I'm not saying they can't handle it, they absolutely can handle it. They're simply not interested in it, or will have too much too handle when also having kids to raise. Raising kinds + 70h/week is no joke. Having kids (which is busting your ass) AND busting your ass at work is simply killing yourself.
3. It's mostly anecdotal about the biomed fields. And I don't understand your "innately appropriate" bit, what is that even supposed to mean? Women care more about people, ergo, they want to care for them in whatever way possible. If this is through nursing, social sciences, or research, that's all the same. Why do you ignore my example of Norway? Is that dismissable because of the "self fulfilling prophecy"?
It's sexist because you can't see that women and men have innately different physiological schemes that guide them differently in the world. They can both definitely do the same thing when presented the opportunities, but opportunity is vastly different from motive. I feel like you're missing the point here. But I guess it's "society driven inequality" that prevent men and women from having 50/50 representation in all workfields everywhere.
Edit: sorry, didn't see the "didn't want to call out", my bad. But I don't feel like they're sexist, simply because I firmly stand behind the biological drive.
Bold part is not true, quality and quantity of sperm also deteriorate and can cause all sorts of problems.
Also, There was large study done using Uber driver data that found that even with the unbiased selection algorithm women were still earning less than men as drivers. Suggesting that personal selection and decisions on how & how often to work made the key difference in pay.
List and economists at Stanford University and Uber examined the driving records of 1.8 million drivers in 196 U.S. cities, more than 500,000 of whom (about 27 percent) were female. Men in the study earned $21.28 an hour while women were paid $20.04 an hour—a larger gap than found in previous studies of pharmacists and MBA graduates. Although there doesn’t appear to be anything built into Uber’s platform that would favor men, the study revealed details about the three factors behind the pay disparity:
Male drivers work more: 17.98 hours a week compared to 12.82 a week for women. This gives men an edge in learning how to choose potential passengers based on how far the driver has to travel to pick them up, the distance to the intended destination and other factors that can influence pay. The researchers found that, until about their 2,500th trip, drivers are learning those skills can maximize pay. A fully experienced driver earns about $3 more an hour than a driver with 500 or fewer trips.
Men were more likely to drive in areas and during times in which pay is higher. “We expected women would avoid certain times of the day because they would not want to confront drunk riders or the like,” List said.
Men drive 2.2 percent faster than women working for Uber. That increases the number of trips they can fit into the hours they work. Previous research backs up a higher degree of risk tolerance among men than women.
Any changes Uber might make to try to close its wage gap might be counterproductive, List said. The current system rewards experience, which he calls “good for everybody.” List, who also is a consultant with Uber, said the company plans to use the results to make the experience better for consumer and drivers.
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/08/study-uncovers-gender-gap-earnings-uber-drivers
|
So no actual statistical evidence for points 1, 2, or 3?  I guess I can appreciate you conceding that it's "mostly anecdotal".
You're the one who's talking about things that are "innate", as if you can just stereotype 90% of women due to their sex and assume that no other variables or factors could change their minds, or make a sweeping generalization as to whether or not they can handle a long workweek simply because they're women.
Both nature and nurture play a role in these scenarios, which is why I was interested in actual data and not just your feelings.
|
Quantity of sperm and eggs is highly different. Women have ~2 million eggs, that are preformed in utero. And not only that, they ovulate only once each month. Which makes for ~1000 possible pregnancies. You might say: that's a lot of time and a lot of possibilities, but it really isn't. Men start sperm production around puberty right up until they die more or less. That's billions of sperm cells produces in a lifetime. Quality deterioration is not something I knew about. Didn't know it was that relevant.
On March 02 2018 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So no actual statistical evidence for points 1, 2, or 3? I guess I can appreciate you conceding that it's "mostly anecdotal". You're the one who's talking about things that are "innate", as if you can just stereotype 90% of women due to their sex and assume that no other variables or factors could change their minds, or make a sweeping generalization as to whether or not they can handle a long workweek simply because they're women. Both nature and nurture play a role in these scenarios, which is why I was interested in actual data and not just your feelings.
So wanting to have children, something the world has done for literally millennia, suddenly needs statistical proof now, ok.
Also, if you read again, I never said women can't handle a long workweek. It's simply not doable if you also want a family and need to take on that workload as well (unless the husband is a full time housefather).
|
On March 02 2018 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So no actual statistical evidence for points 1, 2, or 3? I guess I can appreciate you conceding that it's "mostly anecdotal". You're the one who's talking about things that are "innate", as if you can just stereotype 90% of women due to their sex and assume that no other variables or factors could change their minds, or make a sweeping generalization as to whether or not they can handle a long workweek simply because they're women. Both nature and nurture play a role in these scenarios, which is why I was interested in actual data and not just your feelings.
I found a stat for switzerland.
94% of women between 20-29 want children.
76% of women between 30-39.
Men are a bit lower in both.
|
If you are going to go down that road, humans want to have children. All species want to reproduce.
|
On March 02 2018 23:08 Uldridge wrote:Quantity of sperm and eggs is highly different. Women have ~2 million eggs, that are preformed in utero. And not only that, they ovulate only once each month. Which makes for ~1000 possible pregnancies. You might say: that's a lot of time and a lot of possibilities, but it really isn't. Men start sperm production around puberty right up until they die more or less. That's billions of sperm cells produces in a lifetime. Quality deterioration is not something I knew about. Didn't know it was that relevant. Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So no actual statistical evidence for points 1, 2, or 3? I guess I can appreciate you conceding that it's "mostly anecdotal". You're the one who's talking about things that are "innate", as if you can just stereotype 90% of women due to their sex and assume that no other variables or factors could change their minds, or make a sweeping generalization as to whether or not they can handle a long workweek simply because they're women. Both nature and nurture play a role in these scenarios, which is why I was interested in actual data and not just your feelings. So wanting to have children, something the world has done for literally millennia, suddenly needs statistical proof now, ok. Also, if you read again, I never said women can't handle a long workweek. It's simply not doable if you also want a family and need to take on that workload as well (unless the husband is a full time housefather).
For some added context.
The figures about men, age and fertility
The average time to pregnancy if a man is under 25 is just over 4.5 months but nearly two years if a man is over 40 (if the woman is under 25).
There is a five-fold increase in time to pregnancy if the male partner is aged over 45 years.
For couples having IVF, the risk of not having a baby is more than five times higher if the male partner is aged 41 or older.
The volume of a man’s semen and sperm motility (the ability of sperm to move towards an egg) decrease continually between the ages of 20 and 80.
The risk of miscarriage is twice as high for women whose male partner is aged over 45 than for those whose partners are under 25.
Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30.
https://yourfertility.org.au/for-men/age/
|
Couldn’t women who want kids and a career just have the husband stay home? Just putting it out there.
|
All of this is besides the point; a desire for children is only tangentially relevant, at best, to the point underpinning the reality of continued sex discrimination, namely that fallacious nods towards naturalistic inclination make for a better Jordan Peterson speech than actual method for determining whether women truly want or would want to pursue careers that persist in hiring disproportionately higher numbers of men.
|
There's something very wierd and creepy about writing that women have the brooding chamber. Anyways last time I looked, barring expensive in vitro fertilisation, it takes two to tango. Brooding chamber indeed.
Anyhow @Plansix 80 hour weeks? Really? 11+ hours every day or 16 hours mon-fri? That's practically industrial revoultion levels of drudgery. When do you even have time to enjoy life? To have relationships with friends and family? Or do you do all that on the company's time?
|
On March 02 2018 23:13 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So no actual statistical evidence for points 1, 2, or 3? I guess I can appreciate you conceding that it's "mostly anecdotal". You're the one who's talking about things that are "innate", as if you can just stereotype 90% of women due to their sex and assume that no other variables or factors could change their minds, or make a sweeping generalization as to whether or not they can handle a long workweek simply because they're women. Both nature and nurture play a role in these scenarios, which is why I was interested in actual data and not just your feelings. I found a stat for switzerland. 94% of women between 20-29 want children. 76% of women between 30-39. Men are a bit lower in both.
Thank you  Source? Although I don't think Uldridge was talking about Switzerland, but at least a source would be some sort of evidence.
On March 02 2018 23:08 Uldridge wrote:Quantity of sperm and eggs is highly different. Women have ~2 million eggs, that are preformed in utero. And not only that, they ovulate only once each month. Which makes for ~1000 possible pregnancies. You might say: that's a lot of time and a lot of possibilities, but it really isn't. Men start sperm production around puberty right up until they die more or less. That's billions of sperm cells produces in a lifetime. Quality deterioration is not something I knew about. Didn't know it was that relevant. Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So no actual statistical evidence for points 1, 2, or 3? I guess I can appreciate you conceding that it's "mostly anecdotal". You're the one who's talking about things that are "innate", as if you can just stereotype 90% of women due to their sex and assume that no other variables or factors could change their minds, or make a sweeping generalization as to whether or not they can handle a long workweek simply because they're women. Both nature and nurture play a role in these scenarios, which is why I was interested in actual data and not just your feelings. So wanting to have children, something the world has done for literally millennia, suddenly needs statistical proof now, ok. Also, if you read again, I never said women can't handle a long workweek. It's simply not doable if you also want a family and need to take on that workload as well (unless the husband is a full time housefather).
Please don't move the goalposts from "desperately want children ... read desperately as 90-95% of women" to just generically "wanting to have children" without any percentage. I just don't like it when people pull numbers out of their ass, so I was simply asking for some evidence of your claim. I wasn't trying to be argumentative; I just wanted to know where you got your information from. I wasn't even saying that your numbers were wrong.
"Women care more about people, ergo, they want to care for them in whatever way possible."
Except when it comes to working longer workweeks to make more money for the family, according to you?
"But I guess it's "society driven inequality" that prevent men and women from having 50/50 representation in all workfields everywhere."
I didn't say that. In fact, the only real statements I was purposely declaring were that someone should provide evidence for their arguments- especially when they start using percentages- and that both nature and nurture are influential factors in people's lives.
|
It's not statistically logical to say they're hiring disproportionate numbers of a group until you are privy to data on the pools of qualified applicants from the applicable groups.
On March 02 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:
Couldn’t women who want kids and a career just have the husband stay home? Just putting it out there.
They can, they do, they aren't 50% of women.
|
On March 02 2018 23:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's something very wierd and creepy about writing that women have the brooding chamber. Anyways last time I looked, barring expensive in vitro fertilisation, it takes two to tango. Brooding chamber indeed.
Anyhow @Plansix 80 hour weeks? Really? 11+ hours every day or 16 hours mon-fri? That's practically industrial revoultion levels of drudgery. When do you even have time to enjoy life? To have relationships with friends and family? Or do you do all that on the company's time?
I have no idea. Partner’s make silly amounts of money at bigger firms, so maybe it is worth it to them. But there is a group of people in the world that just love working endlessly, obtaining money and making more of it than everyone else. They are the opposite of the idle rich and in a lot of ways far more harmful.
|
United States24683 Posts
At a recent class I attended having to do with applying for job, the instructor pointed out that a particular company was very successful in improving the diversity of their workforce by figuring out ways to enrich the applicant pool, not by changing their policies when it came time to review the applicant pool and consider who to hire. That is not a silver bullet but it may be a change in thinking for some people.
|
President Donald Trump and Alec Baldwin engaged in a Twitter feud Friday morning after the President mocked the actor's impression of him on "Saturday Night Live."
"Alec Baldwin, whose dying mediocre career was saved by his terrible impersonation of me on SNL, now says playing me was agony. Alec, it was agony for those who were forced to watch," Trump said on Twitter, at first misspelling Baldwin's name as "Alex" before fixing.
"Bring back Darrell Hammond, funnier and a far greater talent!" Trump said, referring to the former SNL cast member who formerly portrayed him.
Baldwin, who made his debut on SNL as Trump during the 2016 campaign, quickly shot back.
"Agony though it may be, I'd like to hang in there for the impeachment hearings, the resignation speech, the farewell helicopter ride to Mara-A-Lago. You know. The Good Stuff. That we've all been waiting for," the actor tweeted.
Next, he tweeted: "Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes. Just like..."
www.cnn.com
|
US counterintelligence officials are scrutinizing one of Ivanka Trump's international business deals, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The FBI has been looking into the negotiations and financing surrounding Trump International Hotel and Tower in Vancouver, according to a US official and a former US official. The scrutiny could be a hurdle for the first daughter as she tries to obtain a full security clearance in her role as adviser to President Donald Trump.
It's standard procedure to probe foreign contacts and international business deals as part of a background check investigation. But the complexity of the Trump Organization's business deals, which often rely on international financing and buyers, presents a challenge.
The FBI has been looking closely at the international business entanglements of both Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, to determine whether any of those deals could leave them vulnerable to pressure from foreign agents, including China, according to a US official.
www.cnn.com
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman is reporting that President Trump is using his Chief of Staff John Kelly to try and push his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner out of the White House.
www.cnn.com
|
On March 03 2018 00:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
US counterintelligence officials are scrutinizing one of Ivanka Trump's international business deals, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The FBI has been looking into the negotiations and financing surrounding Trump International Hotel and Tower in Vancouver, according to a US official and a former US official. The scrutiny could be a hurdle for the first daughter as she tries to obtain a full security clearance in her role as adviser to President Donald Trump.
It's standard procedure to probe foreign contacts and international business deals as part of a background check investigation. But the complexity of the Trump Organization's business deals, which often rely on international financing and buyers, presents a challenge.
The FBI has been looking closely at the international business entanglements of both Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, to determine whether any of those deals could leave them vulnerable to pressure from foreign agents, including China, according to a US official.
www.cnn.comShow nested quote +New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman is reporting that President Trump is using his Chief of Staff John Kelly to try and push his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner out of the White House. www.cnn.com
I thought his son-in-law and daughter were some of the best people he knew who could get the job done for him? I haven't heard anything from Ivanka, so she's doing a great job. Maybe Trump wants them to be spared from the shit show he's brought to town? Curious.
|
On March 03 2018 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
President Donald Trump and Alec Baldwin engaged in a Twitter feud Friday morning after the President mocked the actor's impression of him on "Saturday Night Live."
"Alec Baldwin, whose dying mediocre career was saved by his terrible impersonation of me on SNL, now says playing me was agony. Alec, it was agony for those who were forced to watch," Trump said on Twitter, at first misspelling Baldwin's name as "Alex" before fixing.
"Bring back Darrell Hammond, funnier and a far greater talent!" Trump said, referring to the former SNL cast member who formerly portrayed him.
Baldwin, who made his debut on SNL as Trump during the 2016 campaign, quickly shot back.
"Agony though it may be, I'd like to hang in there for the impeachment hearings, the resignation speech, the farewell helicopter ride to Mara-A-Lago. You know. The Good Stuff. That we've all been waiting for," the actor tweeted.
Next, he tweeted: "Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes. Just like..."
www.cnn.com
Hasn't this happened multiple times already? I guess we can thank actors (and beautiful women and shiny objects) for distracting Trump from actually doing his presidential duties [incorrectly].
|
On March 03 2018 00:12 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
President Donald Trump and Alec Baldwin engaged in a Twitter feud Friday morning after the President mocked the actor's impression of him on "Saturday Night Live."
"Alec Baldwin, whose dying mediocre career was saved by his terrible impersonation of me on SNL, now says playing me was agony. Alec, it was agony for those who were forced to watch," Trump said on Twitter, at first misspelling Baldwin's name as "Alex" before fixing.
"Bring back Darrell Hammond, funnier and a far greater talent!" Trump said, referring to the former SNL cast member who formerly portrayed him.
Baldwin, who made his debut on SNL as Trump during the 2016 campaign, quickly shot back.
"Agony though it may be, I'd like to hang in there for the impeachment hearings, the resignation speech, the farewell helicopter ride to Mara-A-Lago. You know. The Good Stuff. That we've all been waiting for," the actor tweeted.
Next, he tweeted: "Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes. Just like..."
www.cnn.com
Alec Baldwin is one of the last people at SNL making it funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
