Men prefer things women prefer people

[Argus]

Some man (ick!) at Google had the nerve to commit his opinions in writing on the topic of alleged sexual discrimination in hiring and promotion at Google. What was worse, he had the nerve to tell the truth. That is, that women overwhelmingly prefer careers outside STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) professions. That, and not discrimination, accounts for the lower number of women at Google and in management positions there - and in other high tech areas. Naturally, truth doesn't sit well with the diversity crowd and there has been a lot of kickback.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

But there really isn't a lot of doubt that women prefer to work with people, not computers. I've seen it in my career in government, where, for example, every woman offered the chance, preferred to work with Human Resources, despite it being, in my opinion a terribly unrewarding job with limited forward progression. There is a massive amount of psychological studies on the subject, as well, all concluding the same thing. Women don't generally want to spend their lives in STEM professions. Yet progressives persist in the believe that wherever numbers are unequal between men and women (unless women are ahead) that is evidence of discrimination which must be addressed. The usual demand is that standards for women be lowered, and that men be discriminated against in favour of women. The irony of demanding discrimination is lost on them, of course.

Things versus people.  Su et al (2009) performed a meta-analysis of studies including a total of over 500,000 people examining gender differences in interests.  Despite claims that gender differences are typically “small” (Hyde, 2005), Su et al found a gigantic gender difference in interests.  Women preferred working with people, whereas men preferred working with things, a preference that is detectable within the first two days of birth and among our close species relatives, rhesus monkeys!  To be sure, these differences were not absolute.  Not every man prefers working with things, and not every woman prefers working with people.  But the effect size was d= .93, and even if you are not familiar with effect sizes, this would make it one of the largest effects in social psychology; it is gigantic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Argus

[Guest]

Your post put me in mind of this picture my daughter sent me recently.  Just for fun.  No disrespect intended.  Maggie was a woman, after all.

 

Edit>  I know it was 2014.  They've probably all moved on by now.

Edited August 7, 2017 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Your post put me in mind of this picture my daughter sent me recently.  Just for fun.  No disrespect intended.  Maggie was a woman, after all.

 

Edit>  I know it was 2014.  They've probably all moved on by now.

Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, none of them are superpowers and have the kind of responsibility that nuclear arms bearing nations do. They cn afford to ride on the coattails of others. The big boys.

The look on the Russian ministers face says it all.

[Argus]

del

Edited August 8, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, none of them are superpowers and have the kind of responsibility that nuclear arms bearing nations do. They cn afford to ride on the coattails of others. The big boys.

The look on the Russian ministers face says it all.

Anyway, the military is hardly a STEM profession. It does, however, help illustrate the point. Few women have much interest in joining the military - or the police or fire services, for example. That doesn't mean none. But it does mean they'll be heavily outnumbered by men. Still, there is always pressure to recruit more women, whether they want to be recruited or not, and promote them at all costs, regardless of qualification or merit. I'm certain Trudeau would love to appoint a woman to run the Defense department if there were any way he possibly could. But even once he dumps the current one he'd be hard-pressed to find an excuse to overlook Andrew Leslie without giving the man cause to resign.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

So now we proceed from xenophobia to misogyny. Seems logical I guess.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

So now we proceed from xenophobia to misogyny. Seems logical I guess.

No, neither, sigh...

 I guess all humour offends someone, sooner or later.

Here's one for you:  When is a door not a door?

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

No, neither, sigh...

 I guess all humour offends someone, sooner or later.

Here's one for you:  When is a door not a door?

I dunno, when it's a jar?

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

I dunno, when it's a jar?

Yes!  No offence there, yet.

That said, it's not overly funny...

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes!  No offence there, yet.

That said, it's not overly funny...

Maybe we need a joke thread

Like with real jokes, not just nano nano "jokes"

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Omni

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Maybe we need a joke thread

 

Two.  One for offensive jokes, and one for jokes that don't offend anyone.  Then a poll to see which is the funniest.

[OftenWrong]

I take offence that  door could be something else, simply because of immediate circumstance.

We right wingers are stalwart in our opinions.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Two.  One for offensive jokes, and one for jokes that don't offend anyone.  Then a poll to see which is the funniest.

I have a couple that would fit either category

 

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

I have a couple that would fit either category

 

I'm intrigued.  How would an offensive joke not offend anyone...?

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm intrigued.  How would an offensive joke not offend anyone...?

Door a jar wouldn't offend anyone would it?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Door a jar wouldn't offend anyone would it?

So it wouldn't be an offensive joke.  We are dangerously close to the twilight zone here.

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

So it wouldn't be an offensive joke.  We are dangerously close to the twilight zone here.

Is it that time already?

 

[Guest]

There are a couple in here that are both inoffensive and funny.  Numbers 5 and 13, for me.  With an honourable mention to 19.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/comedians/edinburgh-fringe-comedians-funniest-jokes/andy-field/

Edited August 7, 2017 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, neither, sigh...

 I guess all humour offends someone, sooner or later.

Here's one for you:  When is a door not a door?

When it self identifies with any other thing!

[Hal 9000]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Some man (ick!) at Google had the nerve to commit his opinions in writing on the topic of alleged sexual discrimination in hiring and promotion at Google. What was worse, he had the nerve to tell the truth. That is, that women overwhelmingly prefer careers outside STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) professions. That, and not discrimination, accounts for the lower number of women at Google and in management positions there - and in other high tech areas. Naturally, truth doesn't sit well with the diversity crowd and there has been a lot of kickback.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

But there really isn't a lot of doubt that women prefer to work with people, not computers. I've seen it in my career in government, where, for example, every woman offered the chance, preferred to work with Human Resources, despite it being, in my opinion a terribly unrewarding job with limited forward progression. There is a massive amount of psychological studies on the subject, as well, all concluding the same thing. Women don't generally want to spend their lives in STEM professions. Yet progressives persist in the believe that wherever numbers are unequal between men and women (unless women are ahead) that is evidence of discrimination which must be addressed. The usual demand is that standards for women be lowered, and that men be discriminated against in favour of women. The irony of demanding discrimination is lost on them, of course.

Things versus people.  Su et al (2009) performed a meta-analysis of studies including a total of over 500,000 people examining gender differences in interests.  Despite claims that gender differences are typically “small” (Hyde, 2005), Su et al found a gigantic gender difference in interests.  Women preferred working with people, whereas men preferred working with things, a preference that is detectable within the first two days of birth and among our close species relatives, rhesus monkeys!  To be sure, these differences were not absolute.  Not every man prefers working with things, and not every woman prefers working with people.  But the effect size was d= .93, and even if you are not familiar with effect sizes, this would make it one of the largest effects in social psychology; it is gigantic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers

 

Anyway, I can't remember where it was - i'm sure it was Norway or Sweden.  They took away any obstacles that would encourage gender in the workforce and allowed everybody to just "be whatever they wanted to be", what they found was that the gender in employment widened.  To their embarrassment, the local progressives tried to come up with the theory that women still chose women jobs because men didn't do their part at home, which of course restricted the women once again.  The truth is; women and men are actually different and do tend to choose differing professions no matter what.  One could argue that there are many women in traditionally male roles due to pressure to take those jobs.   

[Argus]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, neither, sigh...

 I guess all humour offends someone, sooner or later.

I find it humorous that an avowed Islamophile is accusing anyone else of misogyny.

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

So the guy who wrote the internal memo about this has been fired by Google. Which is ironic since:

Damore asserted in his 3,000-word document that circulated inside the company last week that "Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture" which prevented honest discussion of diversity.

And Google responded by firing him because:

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai told employees in a note on Monday that portions of the anti-diversity memo "violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace," according to a copy of the note seen by Reuters.

So Google fired him for 'advancing harmful gender stereotypes" which happen to be true. Apparently Google can't stand the truth. Or more likely, Google just didn't want the hassle of all the shrieking, wailing, howling progressives gnashing their teeth and inundating them with complaints that one of their engineers wasn't politically correct enough.

What did he say?

"The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and ... these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,"

Shocking! How dare he speak the truth!? Firing isn't good enough! He should be hanged!

 

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/google-fires-employee-behind-anti-024838491.html

[Guest]

Well, as the Human Rights Tribunals have made clear, the truth means nothing.  Feelings are all that counts.

Except his or his family's, of course.

[Goddess]

17 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

 1.  The truth is; women and men are actually different and do tend to choose differing professions no matter what.  

 

2.  One could argue that there are many women in traditionally male roles due to pressure to take those jobs.   

1.  I agree with this - in general.  I think both genders contribute to society, though.  When you're 85, and pissing your pants several times a day, you'll be more grateful for the 50 year woman who spent her whole life tending children and aging parents and in-laws, who now changes your diapers and does it in a way that allows you to keep your dignity.

 

2.  I don't really agree with this part, though.  "Many" women in traditionally male dominated roles took those roles under pressure?  No.  "Many" got here because they worked damn hard for it, just like a man.

I don't know if you would consider the software industry a "traditionally male role" or not, but the majority of the company I work for is female - by a ratio of 3 to 1.

[dialamah]

No difference in male/female brains.

Despite

 persisting stereotypes, girls are no worse than boys at science and maths subjects, either.

“People get wedded to the idea that being male or female is highly predictive of having different aptitudes or career choices,” says Margaret McCarthy, who studies brain sex differences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “This study fights against the idea that these outcomes are based on biological differences, as opposed to cultural expectations.” Other body systems are also often wrongly considered to be either male or female, says Joel.