Georgetown University Racist, Sexist Arianna Pattek, Destroyed White Male Applications (EDIT: appare
180 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Unisath;40350628]so in every single case there's going to be exactly fifty male applicants and exactly fifty female applicants with little to no deviation from that
(because that's not how the real world works)[/QUOTE]
He didn't say that.
He said there is a problem if there was an overwhelming difference.
[QUOTE=Valnar;40350664]He didn't say that.
He said there is a problem if there was an overwhelming difference.[/QUOTE]
Do you need me to take you through elementary stats? Because it's completely possible that in any given sample of applications that there's a 9 to 1 ratio of men to women.
This is a case where unless you can actually prove that there's a reason why there's such an overwhelming difference in that specific sample, it's simply chance and the genders should be ignored (like they fucking should be in the first place for an application).
Let's use straw feminism and include subtle words like privilege, it's going to be so believable just trust me.
[QUOTE=Unisath;40350628]so in every single case there's going to be exactly fifty male applicants and exactly fifty female applicants with little to no deviation from that
(because that's not how the real world works)[/QUOTE]
a 80% spread is not normal deviation. you can't expect 50/50 in everything, because that's not the way statistics work. however, when you see spreads of like 10%, 20%, and on, you have to either assume that it's just a statistical anomaly(not likely considering how common these spreads are), or you see there is an underlying cultural or sometimes legal issue that is discouraging gender equality.
if you see a job has 90% qualified males, and only 10% qualified females, you have to ask [i]why[/i] that is. could it possibly be that our culture might impose gender roles that discourage women from seeking that particular job?
[QUOTE=Unisath;40350714]Do you need me to take you through elementary stats? Because it's completely possible that in any given sample of applications that there's a 9 to 1 ratio of men to women.
This is a case where unless you can actually prove that there's a reason why there's such an overwhelming difference in that specific sample, it's simply chance and the genders should be ignored (like they fucking should be in the first place for an application).[/QUOTE]
The problem that zeke was pointing out is that there is a fundamental lack of women in fields like engineering.
The example of having 90% male applicants is a symptom of that problem.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40350842]a 80% spread is not normal deviation. you can't expect 50/50 in everything, because that's not the way statistics work. however, when you see spreads of like 10%, 20%, and on, you have to either assume that it's just a statistical anomaly(not likely considering how common these spreads are), or you see there is an underlying cultural or sometimes legal issue that is discouraging gender equality.
if you see a job has 90% qualified males, and only 10% qualified females, you have to ask [i]why[/i] that is. could it possibly be that our culture might impose gender roles that discourage women from seeking that particular job?[/QUOTE]
I'm talking purely about that sample. I'm full aware of the fact that there's a fuckton more males than females in engineering, and yes, it's because of our culture and gender roles (which goes into so many other things but that's not for right now). In that specific sample? I don't see a problem. If there's ninety female applicants and ten male applicants in a sample of people applying to be a cashier at a grocery store, I'm not going to scream MALE OPPRESSION! until I see that [I]every[/I] grocery store has it.
Yeah, I'm arguing semantics, but still. One case doesn't prove it for the entire population.
[QUOTE=Unisath;40350911]I'm talking purely about that sample. I'm full aware of the fact that there's a fuckton more males than females in engineering, and yes, it's because of our culture and gender roles (which goes into so many other things but that's not for right now). In that specific sample? I don't see a problem. If there's ninety female applicants and ten male applicants in a sample of people applying to be a cashier at a grocery store, I'm not going to scream MALE OPPRESSION! until I see that [I]every[/I] grocery store has it.
Yeah, I'm arguing semantics, but still. One case doesn't prove it for the entire population.[/QUOTE]
but the thing is zeke and i are talking about something more widespread than a single sample. we are talking about a trend that is going on. when you see that 80% spreads are more normal in our society than they are an anomaly, you see an underlying problem.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40350942]but the thing is zeke and i are talking about something more widespread than a single sample. we are talking about a trend that is going on. when you see that 80% spreads are more normal in our society than they are an anomaly, you see an underlying problem.[/QUOTE]
that's not what was originally stated. zeke specifically said if there were 90 male and 10 female applicants out of 100, there's a problem. I agree with you, I'm saying that you can't judge the entire county by such a small sample.
No one is holding females back. If they want to have a certain job, they get a certain job if they have the required qualifications. How did the female portion of CEOs or engineers get a job if they are restrained by society?
Also, wouldn't it be easier to push the fifty/fifty agenda in a less demanding (education wise) job like sewer cleaner at first? I haven't seen any organization working on that "problem".
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40351100]No one is holding females back. If they want to have a certain job, they get a certain job if they have the required qualifications. How did the female portion of CEOs or engineers get a job if they are restrained by society?
Also, wouldn't it be easier to push the fifty/fifty agenda in a less demanding (education wise) job like sewer cleaner at first? I haven't seen any organization working on that "problem".[/QUOTE]
If you look at salaries, it is obvious that pay is not equal. If you look into industries that have a severe problem, like the film industry, you would understand a little easier.
Isn't there a quota for the gender's of freshmen added?
[QUOTE=Squad;40351142]If you look at salaries, it is obvious that pay is not equal. If you look into industries that have a severe problem, like the film industry, you would understand a little easier.[/QUOTE]
Last I heard the difference was mostly because the jobs women tend to go for generally pay less than the jobs men go for, not because they're women.
studies done by the EU show that even when you explain away all the possible factors theres still a gap thats 10-20% big.
meaning that a woman with the same job and the same position as a man in the same industry with the same hours and the same time worked still stands to earn 10-20% less on average
[QUOTE=Squad;40351142]If you look at salaries, it is obvious that pay is not equal. If you look into industries that have a severe problem, like the film industry, you would understand a little easier.[/QUOTE]
I am not talking about salaries. And why do you suddenly come up with the film industry?
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40351100]No one is holding females back. If they want to have a certain job, they get a certain job if they have the required qualifications. How did the female portion of CEOs or engineers get a job if they are restrained by society?
Also, wouldn't it be easier to push the fifty/fifty agenda in a less demanding (education wise) job like sewer cleaner at first? I haven't seen any organization working on that "problem".[/QUOTE]
There aren't a lot of female CEOs and engineers because women have been historically and still even today discouraged from entering those fields.
[QUOTE=Unisath;40350628]so in every single case there's going to be exactly fifty male applicants and exactly fifty female applicants with little to no deviation from that
(because that's not how the real world works)[/QUOTE]
In the real world a company hiring a hundred engineers would likely get a few thousand applications from both men and women, in proportionate amounts to the number of male/female engineering graduates, which would probably mean more male applicants, which still points to a problem
[editline]19th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;40351284]studies done by the EU show that even when you explain away all the possible factors theres still a gap thats 10-20% big.
meaning that a woman with the same job and the same position as a man in the same industry with the same hours and the same time worked still stands to earn 10-20% less on average[/QUOTE]
You don't even need EU studies to explain the american gender wage gap, the Department of Labour already did it in the US and found between 5 and 10% of it to be unexplainable (meaning discriminatory)
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40351100]No one is holding females back. If they want to have a certain job, they get a certain job if they have the required qualifications. How did the female portion of CEOs or engineers get a job if they are restrained by society?
Also, wouldn't it be easier to push the fifty/fifty agenda in a less demanding (education wise) job like sewer cleaner at first? I haven't seen any organization working on that "problem".[/QUOTE]
you are wrong. you have no idea how wrong you are
[editline]20th April 2013[/editline]
source: the numbers. look em up
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;40352126]you are wrong. you have no idea how wrong you are
[editline]20th April 2013[/editline]
source: the numbers. look em up[/QUOTE]
Which numbers are you talking about. And what am I wrong about?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40351248]Last I heard the difference was mostly because the jobs women tend to go for generally pay less than the jobs men go for, not because they're women.[/QUOTE]
hmm i wonder if there are any components of societal discrimination that might discourage or encourage someone from entering a particular field
[QUOTE=thisispain;40351284]studies done by the EU show that even when you explain away all the possible factors theres still a gap thats 10-20% big.
meaning that a woman with the same job and the same position as a man in the same industry with the same hours and the same time worked still stands to earn 10-20% less on average[/QUOTE]
not that i don't believe you but can you give us some sources?
[QUOTE=sp00ks;40354641]not that i don't believe you but can you give us some sources?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522[/url]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20223264[/url]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14721839[/url]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;40354521]hmm i wonder if there are any components of societal discrimination that might discourage or encourage someone from entering a particular field[/QUOTE]
I never said there weren't.
well what it does mean is that women don't "choose" to go into fields that pay less, as you said a moment ago, but that they are actively pushed towards them by society.
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;40355877]well what it does mean is that women don't "choose" to go into fields that pay less, as you said a moment ago, but that they are actively pushed towards them by society.[/QUOTE]
Yes they do. They chose a field they are interested in, that their interest was/is probably being influenced by society doesn't mean they didn't chose their field. They can choose a different field. They do choose different fields.
Someone should reclassify 'Men's Rights' activists as 'misogynists' and cut out the bullshit.
[editline]20th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40356651]Yes they do. They chose a field they are interested in, that their interest was/is probably being influenced by society doesn't mean they didn't chose their field. They can choose a different field. They do choose different fields.[/QUOTE]
Just idle curiosity here, but how did you earn your title? I'm pretty sure you didn't buy it yourself.
Even before this was shown as fake, I remember reading the "blog" and thinking it'd have to be fake considering how it's pretty much everything MRAs seem to think women are secretly doing in positions of power. It was just stupid.
I feel bad for the student though, it's hard enough seeing people speak trash about you, worse when it's being linked and spread in some places.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40357682]Someone should reclassify 'Men's Rights' activists as 'misogynists' and cut out the bullshit.
[editline]20th April 2013[/editline]
Just idle curiosity here, but how did you earn your title? I'm pretty sure you didn't buy it yourself.[/QUOTE]
I was arguing that using 'they're being oppressed' as an argument doesn't say much since rapists probably feel oppressed and we can all pretty much agree that's a good thing. Except my definition of oppression wasn't the right one I guess. I thought oppression meant any form of keeping someone from doing what they want but apparently it's only oppression when it's wrongful or something like that.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40357826]I was arguing that using 'they're being oppressed' as an argument doesn't say much since rapists probably feel oppressed and we can all pretty much agree that's a good thing. Except my definition of oppression wasn't the right one I guess. I thought oppression meant any form of keeping someone from doing what they want but apparently it's only oppression when it's wrongful or something like that.[/QUOTE]
Well, yes. Being a rapist isn't an inherited trait, it's a title earned when you commit a particular crime against humanity.
Therefore, rapists cannot be considered a minority, nor can they be oppressed.
[editline]20th April 2013[/editline]
And the interesting thing is that while you're asserting that it's not just because they're women that they get paid less, you're also saying that women have some sort of propensity to go for lower paying jobs because they're women.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40357890]Well, yes. Being a rapist isn't an inherited trait, it's a title earned when you commit a particular crime against humanity.
Therefore, rapists cannot be considered a minority, nor can they be oppressed.
[editline]20th April 2013[/editline]
And the interesting thing is that while you're asserting that it's not just because they're women that they get paid less, you're also saying that women have some sort of propensity to go for lower paying jobs because they're women.
Doesn't make much sense to me.[/QUOTE]
The jobs / fields most likely to be filled with more women than men are often things like teaching, nursing. Those jobs have as far as I know always paid less.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40358006]The jobs / fields most likely to be filled with more women than men are often things like teaching, nursing. Those jobs have as far as I know always paid less.[/QUOTE]
One could argue that their lower pay is an effect of women choosing those roles more often. And anyway, these days there are a quickly-growing number of male teachers and nurses.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.