Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance...

[fuji]

Fact is that the reasons why women don't go into math related fields are cultural, not innate ability. It's prevailing attitudes in society like yours that result in fewer women choosing math related fields.

From a study in Science:

"In more gender-equal societies, girls perform as well as boys in mathematics and much better than them in reading. These findings shed some light on recent trends in girls’educational achievements in the United States, where the math gender gap has been closing over time."

www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/science.pdf

And the best predictor of women's ability to equal men in school in maths is the number is women employed in high paying jobs in a country, from an APA study:

"Gender equity in school enrollment, women’s share of research jobs, and women’s parliamentary representation were the most powerful predictors of cross-national variability in gender gaps in math."

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/1/103/

 

[canada-man]

I never said women can''t be engineers. Unlike you who works at a company trying to force men only or women only hiring practices. Or you taking your new female hire as your pet project for the month, I stand by some key points in this thread:

1. People should be hired and promoted based on merit, not gender like you and your company prefers to do

2. Men and women are free to seek out whatever job or field of interest they want. If more women want to be nurses go ahead. If my male buddy wants to be a nurse (he is), go ahead. If most auto mechanics are guys because that job has more guys interested, so be it

3. The government and companies shouldn't be hiring for sake of satisfying some kind of demographic target % someone has set. That leads to tossing out qualifications out the window for sake of hiring a pinpointed demogtaphic to make numbers look nice

anybody who don't agree with him his a misogynist

 

[fuji]

anybody who don't agree with him his a misogynist

Anybody who thinks women are innately incapable of being good engineers certainly is misogynistic.

You are the guy who just linked to crackpot conspiracy theory websites claiming that feminism arose from the KKK and moved from oppressing black men to oppressing all men.

Reality check: early feminists were associated with the anti slavery movement, and feminism arose worldwide whereas the KKK was only American.

You conspiracy theory didn't pass the smell test and anybody who thinks critically about it would have known better than to post it, yet you are so far gone in your misogyny that to you it seemed reasonable.

 

[Occasionally]

Fact is that the reasons why women don't go into math related fields are cultural, not innate ability. It's prevailing attitudes in society like yours that result in fewer women choosing math related fields.

From a study in Science:

"In more gender-equal societies, girls perform as well as boys in mathematics and much better than them in reading. These findings shed some light on recent trends in girls’educational achievements in the United States, where the math gender gap has been closing over time."

www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/sapienza/htm/science.pdf

And the best predictor of women's ability to equal men in school in maths is the number is women employed in high paying jobs in a country, from an APA study:

"Gender equity in school enrollment, women’s share of research jobs, and women’s parliamentary representation were the most powerful predictors of cross-national variability in gender gaps in math."

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/1/103/

Who says females don't do as well as males when it comes to test scores? In fact, females typically have better avg scores and high school marks than males as a whole..... except some reason guys do better in math as a whole. And they also have better athletic performance scores, speed times and weight lifting tallies.

A reason why some jobs are male or female dominated can simply because people choose different interests when it comes time to getting a job. Anyone can do well on tests. I did well in school all my life, including Family Studies (fancy name for home ec), and even did decent in Industrial Arts class (shop). I even made a wooden cabinet. Woopee. Doesn't mean I'll do one of those as my career.

Now if some jobs are purposely men or women due to discriminatory hiring practices where people are being shut out despite having solid qualifications and interviewing skills, that's different. But you have to prove these industries are purposely being gender specific... although you have already proven that from your example of your own company hiring men only. So it does happen, but it's up to you to prove that across the broad spectrum of jobs.

Just because the population base is 50/50 or 49/51 doesn't mean everything in life is the same ratio.

 

[FAST]

No it isn't. It is based on a combination of factors, not solely on gender. You need to look up the word "solely" in your dictionary. It means only/exclusively/alone. My decision to fast track is based on performance AND gender, not solely on gender.

What ever little credibility you had remaining, you have lost,...consider yourself in the same ranks as footer, and that's not a compliment.

If they both show high performance I'm going to spend more energy on the female employee.

Maybe you should look up the word,...credibility,...obviously it has no meaning for you.

Your done.

FAST

 

[fuji]

Who says females don't do as well as males when it comes to test scores?

Misogynists were saying that before the data proved tthemwrong. Now the misogynists are saying women don't choose STEM fields because it isn't "motherly" which is complete misogynistic bullshit.

What interests are supposed to be female versus male is culturally defined. Sexism pervades entire industries and that deters women choosing those industries. People like you are the problem--people who go about spouting this nonsense that engineering isn't motherly enough for women.

 

[fuji]

What ever little credibility you had remaining, you have lost,...consider yourself in the same ranks as footer, and that's not a compliment.


Maybe you should look up the word,...credibility,...obviously it has no meaning for you.

Your done.

FAST

All sputter. No content.

It's hilarious that you can't admit the difference between "a decision based on gender" versus "a decision based solely on gender".

Is it illiteracy or obstinacy that prevents you from understanding how those sentences are different?

 

[rhuarc29]

I think we have created bullshit expectations for men and women that condition them to make these different choices and the efforts of this school, and my efforts, reset those bullshit expectations.

When sexism is ingrained that deeply into the culture, to the point where women themselves internalize it, then changing it takes converted effort.

There's no doubt that social pressures have led men in one professional direction, and women in another, at least in general.

What's more difficult to determine is what role, if any, biology plays in those choices. Personally, I think biology does play a role to a degree. We know it plays a role in other areas, such as the greater tendency of men to engage in risk-taking behaviour. This tendency is both social and biological, a result of differing levels of certain hormones.

We also know that men and women's brains, while very similar, are structurally different and sometimes operate in different manners. We have empirical evidence that men score better with object orientation, while women score better in language tests. So it is very possible that biology has some role in determining the professional route men and women pursue.

Of course, none of this actually matters. There is no hard barrier to men or women pursuing whatever area of interest they desire. We shouldn't be artificially encouraging one or another based solely on achieving a quota. Think of another example: more women attend university because more men go into the trades than women do. Does that mean that men have a problem and we need to artificially encourage them to attend university instead? No! Of course not! That decision was their choice and that's all that matters. If imbalances exist and those imbalances are not caused by a systemic issue, than it isn't a problem at all and shouldn't be acted upon.

 

[Occasionally]

Misogynists were saying that before the data proved tthemwrong. Now the misogynists are saying women don't choose STEM fields because it isn't "motherly" which is complete misogynistic bullshit.

What interests are supposed to be female versus male is culturally defined. Sexism pervades entire industries and that deters women choosing those industries. People like you are the problem--people who go about spouting this nonsense that engineering isn't motherly enough for women.

Really?

So the reason why most construction and auto mechanic jobs are guys is due to culturally defined systems and sexism? And nothing to do with perhaps...... guys have a higher interest in doing more labourious jobs and tinkering with cars?

And that a job like nursing (which is mostly women) is due women being influenced to go after that job, instead of an inherent nature of females (in general) having an interest in medical/healthcare jobs?

Give it up Fuji.

And here's a reminder again, since you claim to be in management in control of hiring people: don't be one of those management clowns conducting discriminatory hiring practices. Reward new hires and current employees based on merit, not due to which gender they are. You'll get ore respect that way. You've already admitted being part of a company that has done men-only hiring. Now you are going the other way and showcasing women only. Do the right thing and get things on track..... merit based, not gender based.

Don't get me wrong. It's a lot harder so evaluate someone based on skills and merit and performance. It's always a combo of objective and subjective factors you have to roll it all up into one.

But don't take the easy way out, where someone is pegged winner or loser based on whether someone is a man or woman.

 

[fuji]

So the reason why most construction and auto mechanic jobs are guys is due to culturally defined systems and sexism? And nothing to do with perhaps...... guys have a higher interest in doing more labourious jobs and tinkering with cars?

And what is the cause of the different interests?

What you don't get is the difference is ingrained stereotypes which you are assuming true and taking for granted, and which affirmative action programs overturn.

The more successful women there are in STEM fields, the more that stereotype erodes, and the more women choose it.

 

[LeeHelm]

All you are doing is doubling down on your misogynistic, dinosaur view that women shouldn't be engineers, justifying your discriminatory practices.
i

No one is saying that. What you are doing is saying that being a woman has something to do with her qualifications of being hired, which is totally misguided. I think you need to take a close look at the meaning of discrimination.

 

[LeeHelm]

And what is the cause of the different interests?

The cause is the differences between most women and most men. Pretty simple concept.

 

[FAST]

All sputter. No content.

It's hilarious that you can't admit the difference between "a decision based on gender" versus "a decision based solely on gender".

Is it illiteracy or obstinacy that prevents you from understanding how those sentences are different?

OK footer, sorry,... fuji,...why don't you tell us what is the difference,...while you continue to play your grade school, footer style avoidance game, and always telling,...resort to insults when you have lost.

A little help for you,,,as you definitely need it,...there is only one qualifier in your last 2 posts,...gender.

FAST.

 

[fuji]

The cause is the differences between most women and most men. Pretty simple concept.

Wrong. See the studies above. Women are actually better qualified, and the largest predictor of whether they pursue it is the number of women in field already, clearly proving that these differences are cultural rather than innate.

 

[LeeHelm]

Wrong. See the studies above. Women are actually better qualified, and the largest predictor of whether they pursue it is the number of women in field already, clearly proving that these differences are cultural rather than innate.

Men are different from women, fuji I hate to break it to you.

 

[canada-man]

 

[fuji]

Men are different from women, fuji I hate to break it to you.

Sure. But not in a way that should limit the careers if women in STEM careers. We know they're good at it, ACD we know that it's cultural factors that discourage their participation

 

[fuji]

Let us know when you have something to contribute that rises above the level of a fart joke.

 

[Smallcock]

fuji's cultural vigilantism - like so many liberals - is well intended but will necessarily end in failure. They will never achieve the desired "equality" or "proper balance" because these are entirely artificial and arbitrary constructs that people like fuji have created.

 

[Occasionally]

fuji's cultural vigilantism - like so many liberals - is well intended but will necessarily end in failure. They will never achieve the desired "equality" or "proper balance" because these are entirely artificial and arbitrary constructs that people like fuji have created.

The funniest thing about Fuji's crusade for male/female equality and all his banter about men oppressing women is that he focuses all his political energy on an escort site. A forum which is focused on men paying for sex.