Well then, Glen, according to your unnamed and unidentified "numerous psychological studies" that you present as (unverified) fact, then why, oh why, are women and minorities even seeking work in STEM-based fields, hmmm? According to these studies, they shouldn't be. And if these "variant" women are contradicting your unnamed studies, why would the standards need to be lowered if the women were just as capable as the numerous men already working in those fields? Is it because many of the men working in those fields are only there because of the built-in "girls aren't good enough to work here" culture? Where are your studies on that little phenomenon, Glen? Is it because the men can't tolerate a change in their workplace, Glen? Is it because they're afraid that even more women will become interested in STEM fields and soon sully the playground of the former all-boys club? Is that why "Angewandte Chemie" pulled the article and apologized for having run it in the first place -- because they couldn't defend it on a factual basis, Glen? You'd think they would have if they could have, being a scientific journal and all. Maybe, just maybe,STEM-based work forces are populated by men who are somehow just as misogynistic as the various cultures they grew up in and have to be forced to accept women as equals in a field where the standard is to reject them. And that force would come through quotas and preferences so that women who are as smart as men get a chance to prove it while working in their chosen field because of the long-standing hiring biases built in and still supported by you, Peterson, and Hudlickly. You obviously believe women are inferior and should stay in their own "nature and nurture" lane, and you will do your best to make sure that happens. Oh yeah, and please provide proof that Hudlicky's assertion of "preferential status" -- something HE created -- has been "counterproductive" and has led to provable -- PROVABLE -- "discrimination against the most meritorious candidates." I won't hold my breath waiting for a citation, "Glen." And re-quoting Peterson and Hudlicky won't count.
My shameless cut and paste. Hope this helps. As I've said numerous studies prove interest (and thus career) choices differ between genders. I didn't say women weren't interested at all, just far fewer.
The magnitude and variability of sex differences in vocational interests were examined in the present meta-analysis for Holland's (1959, 1997) categories (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), Prediger's (1982) Things-People and Data-Ideas dimensions, and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) interest areas. Technical manuals for 47 interest inventories were used, yielding 503,188 respondents. Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. Average effect sizes varied across interest inventories, ranging from 0.08 to 0.79. The quality of interest inventories, based on professional reputation, was not differentially related to the magnitude of sex differences. Moderators of the effect sizes included interest inventory item development strategy, scoring method, theoretical framework, and sample variables of age and cohort. Application of some item development strategies can substantially reduce sex differences. The present study suggests that interests may play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.
I'm only interested in facts, not your rhetorical questions.
I don't think anyone has issues with more women and minorities entering STEM fields or any in that matter. Both JP and Hudlicky have also stated this, so check your strawman at the door. But allowing more students based on race or gender is discriminatory. Even in the states Affirmative Action has been banned by some states because it is discriminatory.
Now in Canada The Faculty of Medicine launched the Black Student Application Program. The door MLK opened has swung to the point we are now discriminating against non-blacks. How many asians, hispanics, whites were cheated out of seats at the expense of ‘diversity’? Is this not what Hudlicky was warning us about 30 years ago?
Admissions to universities and job positions should be blind. No race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc needed.
"I'm only interested in facts, not your rhetorical questions."" Well, at least the facts as you cherry-pick them. Feel free to cast everything else aside as "rhetorical questions" too difficult for you to address. Then you'd have to deal with a question someone else hasn't answered for you.
"I don't think anyone has issues with more women and minorities entering STEM fields or any in that matter. ... But allowing more students based on race or gender is discriminatory." Even if it finally opens the door to those who as smart or smarter than those keeping them out simply because they are viewed as the "wrong" race or gender? Hypocrite much?
"Admissions to universities and job positions should be blind. No race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc needed." That's a very convenient way to pretend race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc., have not been factors in admissions for decades, leading us where? Oh, to the current situation where "everybody knows girls don't like math" because, gee, they don't like being sexually harassed or shamed for it Ever hear of the "human computers" who did most of the hard math for the early space missions by NASA because "math is women's work"? Or is that outside your cut-and-paste list of studies?
Take your blinders off, Glen. Oh, and I removed your reference to Jackofferson and Dicklicky because I told you using them for references wouldn't count.
"Can someone email me the pdf or screen shots - they took down the article before I saw this. I am incredulous at the excerpts in this thread and think it is important to cast light on this so our trainees can see all the slithering insects crawling around beneath it." Signed, Carolyn Bertozzi -- a Stanford chemist, one of the scientists that other scientists believe may be up for the Nobel prize in chemistry this year. I'm guessing she's NOT one of your colleagues, Glen.
I didn't cherry pick facts Heyzeus. I gave you multiple links to reams of data that prove you were wrong. The disparity in gender in STEM fields is mostly attributed to the differences in men and women's interests. It is not because of discrimination nor the white male patriarchy. Thus, why should women get preferential treatment?
If you can play identity politics by saying JP and Hudlicky are biased due to their race and gender can we not play this foolish game with Carolyn Bertozzi? After all she is a gay woman. Using your low standards, couldn't her motives tainted by a desire to put her demographic above others? That's the problem with your identity politics game, it solves nothing.
Heyzeus, you need to stop working backwards from a the premise that underrepresentation of a race or gender is because of racism or discrimination. First, it's misdirected. Second it won't solve the core issues that cause the problem.
For example, lack of blacks in higher education could be attributed to many other factors. 1. Poverty 2. Higher rates of incarceration. 3. Culture 4.Fatherless homes. 5. Higher dropout rates. If you don't address the core issues of black (men in particular) all of the preferential treatment for university admissions won't help in the long run.
Culture and gender roles also play big in career choice and advancement. Women often don't want to study or work harder into their child bearingyears. Remember women are biologically 'on the clock' This affectshow hard and long they wish to work or study, Many women would ratherraise a family than carry the burden of a researcher.
Assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University, Natasha Quadlinquotes, “It’s not really that women aren't interested in STEM, they may just be uninterested in the challenges STEM may impose in their broader lives ” This quote echoes what Jordan Peterson has lectured about many times.
As you quoted. ”...Oh yeah, and please provide proof that Hudlicky's assertion of "preferential status" -- something HE created -- has been"counterproductive..."
Preferential admission for universities has been proven as counterproductive in universities, Heyzeus.
This article makes some interesting arguments against affirmative action and cites a publication by Duke showing how it actually hurts. This is because the students are “mismatched” for the programs they are allowed to enter. In short, they are given school placements they aren't ready for.
I quote:“...The single biggest problem in this system - a problem documented by avast and growing array of research -- is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively - even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still good schools...”
“...The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference - sometimes because of a student's athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student's race...”
So you can see Heyzeus, just dumping students into programs is no guarantee of advancement or success for minorities. BTW, these days, it's Asian Americans who are fighting hard against affirmative action not just whites.
Again, the subject I started this thread with relates to how gender interests play a large role in the lack of women in the STEM fields. You said I was wrong. But I provided the proof with citations.
If you can't refute, there is no harm in admitting you were wrong. Talk to you later, Heyzeus. Bye.
"Heyzeus, you need to stop working backwards from a the premise that underrepresentation of a race or gender is because of racism or discrimination. First, it's misdirected. Second it won't solve the core issues that cause the problem."
So, you're going to keep pretending that centuries of misogyny and racism that has "kept them in their place" has nothing to do with how women and nonwhites have basically opted to take what few opportunities have been left open for them by white controlling asshole males. Good luck with that. Lucky for you you're a white controlling asshole male.
"For example, lack of blacks in higher education could be attributed to many other factors. 1. Poverty 2. Higher rates of incarceration. 3. Culture4.Fatherless homes. 5. Higher dropout rates. If you don't address the core issues of black (men in particular) all of the preferential treatment for university admissions won't help in the long run."
No fucking shit. And who do you think pushed them into poverty, higher incarceration rates, fatherless homes, higher dropout rates? What about the women? Who's pushed them into lower paying jobs and lower paying wages for doing the same job, fought against them having access to birth control and abortions, fought against letting them rise through corporate ranks. Christ, you're fucking blind, "Glen." And you sure don't want them to get anywhere but where they are.
Goodbye indeed. I expect that in not too many years hence your "studies" are going to look more like advanced phrenology than scientific investigation.
"Again, the subject I started this thread with relates to how gender interests play a large role in the lack of women in the STEM fields."
That's a bald-faced lie -- you started this thread to defend your hero Jordy, who remains, as the headline said, "still an idiot."
Using "studies" that verify misogyny and racism are rampant in a patriarchal society doesn't show that misogyny and racism are respectable -- but it DOES allow people use those studies justify their own misogyny and racism.
Face it, "Glen," you believe women's work and minorities' work should be whatever white males say it is, and you and your heroes Peterson and Hudlicky want it to stay that way. You just continue to try to hide it behind pseudo-intellectualism.
The assertion that letting women and minorities into STEM fields will "hurt" better qualified white males is based on the false assumption that there actually are only X STEM jobs in the marked and that there is a better qualified white applicant who wants one of those X jobs. The number of jobs is constantly in flux, and the proof that all white male applicants are better than any woman or minority is nonexistent.
So you've failed miserably in your attempt to show that Jordy and Hudldicky aren't just more assholes citing facts and figures to justify being assholes. But I might let you have the last word, because you need to have it in order to go away feeling all smug and self-righteous. I, on the other hand, want you to have the last word so you'll just crawl back under your rock with Jordy and Hudlick. Here's the space: _____________________________.
And who do you think pushed them into poverty, higher incarceration rates, fatherless homes, higher dropout rates? What about the women?
Not white men. 75 percent of black households are single parent households by choice. This explains all of the problems above. It is a product of a social benefit system that incentivizes divorce and single parent homes. You really think the average white man sits at home plotting of how to keep blacks down?
What does centuries of racism and misogyny have to do with where we are right now? Other races such as Asians and East Indians are thriving. In fact, East Indians now have the highest household median income in America, followed by Asians and then whites. How do you explain that?
If it is so misogynist why do women dominate so many other fields? Are women oppressing men in nursing, teaching, human resources, and social work fields? No they are simply choosing occupations that interest them.
Some of the straw men you've just posted. I'm not interested...
Using "studies" that verify misogyny and racism are rampant in a patriarchal society... The assertion that letting women and minorities into STEM fields will "hurt" better qualified white males.. Face it, "Glen," you believe women's work and minorities' work should be whatever white males say it is..
Speaking of studies. Maybe you can post some academic journals with statistics that prove the white male patriarchy is responsible for keeping down blacks and women in 2020.
No NYT, WaPo, CNN or left leaning op eds needed Hyezeus, just peer reviewed research please!
“My diatribe”...? Do you even know the meaning of the word? A diatribe is an angry verbal attack of someone. Where was I angry or racist? Where did I attack you? You were the one hurling childish insults and cursing. (seeabove)
All I've done is stated facts about why women and some minorities are lacking in certain fields and higher education. Unlike you, I buttressed my argument by citing where I got my information from with links.
While you're on this thread. Here is a video about blacks and why they are struggling. I know PragerU leans conservative but I really like Larry Elder. It's called 'Black Fathers Matter'
You should watch it because there is a lot of good information in it.
I guess I should have realized that a racist/misogynist making racist/misogynist comments would not view them as a diatribe and would consider it "just stating facts" and buttressing those facts with "studies" that support racism and misogyny. Larry Elder is an embarrassment to all beings "human," so no, I'm not going to watch something racist that supports racism.
What are you going to post next -- a "study" that shows 92.5% of people born with black skin or vaginas spend their lives acting like black people or women?
"Where was I angry or racist?" -- Oh, how about HERE: "And who do you think pushed them into poverty, higher incarceration rates, fatherless homes, higher dropout rates? What about the women? Not white men. .. You really think the average white man sits at home plotting of how to keep blacks down?" -- No, Glen, it's so ingrained they think it's normal, like you do. And pretending not to be incensed by anyone who disagrees with you is belied by the fact that you keep coming back to post more stupidity in your effort to "win the day" for Jordy and Hubcap licker.
"Some of the straw men you've just posted. I'm not interested..." -- guess what, Glen? You may be the one who decides what's important and not important in your own limited world, but you aren't for the rest of the planet. I'm sure you're used to thinking you control everything.
After all your blathering and whining, you (and Jordy and the Hublicker) have utterly failed to sway ONE person here. The only people who agree with you would be the other assholes who came here to denigrate the original story. Your attempts to make side arguments you think you have "won" have actually failed. I'm pretty sure that if this is the topic you focus on during social gatherings, those gatherings require attendees to wear white hoods and robes.
You are so stupid that you don't realize how stupid your arguments are. Feel free to terminate the disqus account you created just to come here and promote racism and misogyny. Cheers, asshole.
you are wrong. it is sad to see you act like a child. you could have offered your own studies, or information. At least make half the effort your partner made in trying to argue their point. But, you couldnt' do that. You just wanted to insult people. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a child.
Yes, and when I grow up, I don't want to be like you, after you spent 5 months pondering a reply chastising me for not presenting any studies when YOU didn't present any and criticizing me for just wanting to insult somebody exactly the way YOU did in your post responding to me, you fucking two-faced hypocrite. Bye, Jordan!
funny....your VERY FIRST response to glen "You're the one who has it all wrong. You take the same unsupported leaps of logic that all the other morons take. It's only a good starting point for more assertions of the stupid."
Well then, Glen, according to your unnamed and unidentified "numerous psychological studies" that you present as (unverified) fact, then why, oh why, are women and minorities even seeking work in STEM-based fields, hmmm? According to these studies, they shouldn't be. And if these "variant" women are contradicting your unnamed studies, why would the standards need to be lowered if the women were just as capable as the numerous men already working in those fields? Is it because many of the men working in those fields are only there because of the built-in "girls aren't good enough to work here" culture? Where are your studies on that little phenomenon, Glen? Is it because the men can't tolerate a change in their workplace, Glen? Is it because they're afraid that even more women will become interested in STEM fields and soon sully the playground of the former all-boys club? Is that why "Angewandte Chemie" pulled the article and apologized for having run it in the first place -- because they couldn't defend it on a factual basis, Glen? You'd think they would have if they could have, being a scientific journal and all. Maybe, just maybe,STEM-based work forces are populated by men who are somehow just as misogynistic as the various cultures they grew up in and have to be forced to accept women as equals in a field where the standard is to reject them. And that force would come through quotas and preferences so that women who are as smart as men get a chance to prove it while working in their chosen field because of the long-standing hiring biases built in and still supported by you, Peterson, and Hudlickly. You obviously believe women are inferior and should stay in their own "nature and nurture" lane, and you will do your best to make sure that happens. Oh yeah, and please provide proof that Hudlicky's assertion of "preferential status" -- something HE created -- has been "counterproductive" and has led to provable -- PROVABLE -- "discrimination against the most meritorious candidates." I won't hold my breath waiting for a citation, "Glen." And re-quoting Peterson and Hudlicky won't count.
My shameless cut and paste. Hope this helps. As I've said numerous studies prove interest (and thus career) choices differ between genders. I didn't say women weren't interested at all, just far fewer.
The magnitude and variability of sex differences in vocational interests were examined in the present meta-analysis for Holland's (1959, 1997) categories (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), Prediger's (1982) Things-People and Data-Ideas dimensions, and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) interest areas. Technical manuals for 47 interest inventories were used, yielding 503,188 respondents. Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. Average effect sizes varied across interest inventories, ranging from 0.08 to 0.79. The quality of interest inventories, based on professional reputation, was not differentially related to the magnitude of sex differences. Moderators of the effect sizes included interest inventory item development strategy, scoring method, theoretical framework, and sample variables of age and cohort. Application of some item development strategies can substantially reduce sex differences. The present study suggests that interests may play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.
I'm only interested in facts, not your rhetorical questions.
I don't think anyone has issues with more women and minorities entering STEM fields or any in that matter. Both JP and Hudlicky have also stated this, so check your strawman at the door. But allowing more students based on race or gender is discriminatory. Even in the states Affirmative Action has been banned by some states because it is discriminatory.
Now in Canada The Faculty of Medicine launched the Black Student Application Program. The door MLK opened has swung to the point we are now discriminating against non-blacks. How many asians, hispanics, whites were cheated out of seats at the expense of ‘diversity’? Is this not what Hudlicky was warning us about 30 years ago?
Admissions to universities and job positions should be blind. No race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc needed.
Cheers...
"I'm only interested in facts, not your rhetorical questions."" Well, at least the facts as you cherry-pick them. Feel free to cast everything else aside as "rhetorical questions" too difficult for you to address. Then you'd have to deal with a question someone else hasn't answered for you.
"I don't think anyone has issues with more women and minorities entering STEM fields or any in that matter. ... But allowing more students based on race or gender is discriminatory." Even if it finally opens the door to those who as smart or smarter than those keeping them out simply because they are viewed as the "wrong" race or gender? Hypocrite much?
"Admissions to universities and job positions should be blind. No race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc needed." That's a very convenient way to pretend race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc., have not been factors in admissions for decades, leading us where? Oh, to the current situation where "everybody knows girls don't like math" because, gee, they don't like being sexually harassed or shamed for it Ever hear of the "human computers" who did most of the hard math for the early space missions by NASA because "math is women's work"? Or is that outside your cut-and-paste list of studies?
Take your blinders off, Glen. Oh, and I removed your reference to Jackofferson and Dicklicky because I told you using them for references wouldn't count.
"Can someone email me the pdf or screen shots - they took down the article before I saw this. I am incredulous at the excerpts in this thread and think it is important to cast light on this so our trainees can see all the slithering insects crawling around beneath it." Signed, Carolyn Bertozzi -- a Stanford chemist, one of the scientists that other scientists believe may be up for the Nobel prize in chemistry this year. I'm guessing she's NOT one of your colleagues, Glen.
Cheers!
Hello again.
I didn't cherry pick facts Heyzeus. I gave you multiple links to reams of data that prove you were wrong. The disparity in gender in STEM fields is mostly attributed to the differences in men and women's interests. It is not because of discrimination nor the white male patriarchy. Thus, why should women get preferential treatment?
If you can play identity politics by saying JP and Hudlicky are biased due to their race and gender can we not play this foolish game with Carolyn Bertozzi? After all she is a gay woman. Using your low standards, couldn't her motives tainted by a desire to put her demographic above others? That's the problem with your identity politics game, it solves nothing.
Heyzeus, you need to stop working backwards from a the premise that underrepresentation of a race or gender is because of racism or discrimination. First, it's misdirected. Second it won't solve the core issues that cause the problem.
For example, lack of blacks in higher education could be attributed to many other factors. 1. Poverty 2. Higher rates of incarceration. 3. Culture 4.Fatherless homes. 5. Higher dropout rates. If you don't address the core issues of black (men in particular) all of the preferential treatment for university admissions won't help in the long run.
Culture and gender roles also play big in career choice and advancement. Women often don't want to study or work harder into their child bearingyears. Remember women are biologically 'on the clock' This affectshow hard and long they wish to work or study, Many women would ratherraise a family than carry the burden of a researcher.
Assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University, Natasha Quadlinquotes, “It’s not really that women aren't interested in STEM, they may just be uninterested in the challenges STEM may impose in their broader lives ” This quote echoes what Jordan Peterson has lectured about many times.
As you quoted. ”...Oh yeah, and please provide proof that Hudlicky's assertion of "preferential status" -- something HE created -- has been"counterproductive..."
Preferential admission for universities has been proven as counterproductive in universities, Heyzeus.
This article makes some interesting arguments against affirmative action and cites a publication by Duke showing how it actually hurts. This is because the students are “mismatched” for the programs they are allowed to enter. In short, they are given school placements they aren't ready for.
I quote:“...The single biggest problem in this system - a problem documented by avast and growing array of research -- is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively - even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still good schools...”
“...The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference - sometimes because of a student's athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student's race...”
https://www.theatlantic.com...
So you can see Heyzeus, just dumping students into programs is no guarantee of advancement or success for minorities. BTW, these days, it's Asian Americans who are fighting hard against affirmative action not just whites.
Again, the subject I started this thread with relates to how gender interests play a large role in the lack of women in the STEM fields. You said I was wrong. But I provided the proof with citations.
If you can't refute, there is no harm in admitting you were wrong. Talk to you later, Heyzeus. Bye.
"Heyzeus, you need to stop working backwards from a the premise that underrepresentation of a race or gender is because of racism or discrimination. First, it's misdirected. Second it won't solve the core issues that cause the problem."
So, you're going to keep pretending that centuries of misogyny and racism that has "kept them in their place" has nothing to do with how women and nonwhites have basically opted to take what few opportunities have been left open for them by white controlling asshole males. Good luck with that. Lucky for you you're a white controlling asshole male.
"For example, lack of blacks in higher education could be attributed to many other factors. 1. Poverty 2. Higher rates of incarceration. 3. Culture4.Fatherless homes. 5. Higher dropout rates. If you don't address the core issues of black (men in particular) all of the preferential treatment for university admissions won't help in the long run."
No fucking shit. And who do you think pushed them into poverty, higher incarceration rates, fatherless homes, higher dropout rates? What about the women? Who's pushed them into lower paying jobs and lower paying wages for doing the same job, fought against them having access to birth control and abortions, fought against letting them rise through corporate ranks. Christ, you're fucking blind, "Glen." And you sure don't want them to get anywhere but where they are.
Goodbye indeed. I expect that in not too many years hence your "studies" are going to look more like advanced phrenology than scientific investigation.
"Again, the subject I started this thread with relates to how gender interests play a large role in the lack of women in the STEM fields."
That's a bald-faced lie -- you started this thread to defend your hero Jordy, who remains, as the headline said, "still an idiot."
Using "studies" that verify misogyny and racism are rampant in a patriarchal society doesn't show that misogyny and racism are respectable -- but it DOES allow people use those studies justify their own misogyny and racism.
Face it, "Glen," you believe women's work and minorities' work should be whatever white males say it is, and you and your heroes Peterson and Hudlicky want it to stay that way. You just continue to try to hide it behind pseudo-intellectualism.
The assertion that letting women and minorities into STEM fields will "hurt" better qualified white males is based on the false assumption that there actually are only X STEM jobs in the marked and that there is a better qualified white applicant who wants one of those X jobs. The number of jobs is constantly in flux, and the proof that all white male applicants are better than any woman or minority is nonexistent.
So you've failed miserably in your attempt to show that Jordy and Hudldicky aren't just more assholes citing facts and figures to justify being assholes. But I might let you have the last word, because you need to have it in order to go away feeling all smug and self-righteous. I, on the other hand, want you to have the last word so you'll just crawl back under your rock with Jordy and Hudlick. Here's the space: _____________________________.
And who do you think pushed them into poverty, higher incarceration rates, fatherless homes, higher dropout rates? What about the women?
Not white men. 75 percent of black households are single parent households by choice. This explains all of the problems above. It is a product of a social benefit system that incentivizes divorce and single parent homes. You really think the average white man sits at home plotting of how to keep blacks down?
What does centuries of racism and misogyny have to do with where we are right now? Other races such as Asians and East Indians are thriving. In fact, East Indians now have the highest household median income in America, followed by Asians and then whites. How do you explain that?
If it is so misogynist why do women dominate so many other fields? Are women oppressing men in nursing, teaching, human resources, and social work fields? No they are simply choosing occupations that interest them.
Some of the straw men you've just posted. I'm not interested...
Using "studies" that verify misogyny and racism are rampant in a patriarchal society... The assertion that letting women and minorities into STEM fields will "hurt" better qualified white males.. Face it, "Glen," you believe women's work and minorities' work should be whatever white males say it is..
Speaking of studies. Maybe you can post some academic journals with statistics that prove the white male patriarchy is responsible for keeping down blacks and women in 2020.
No NYT, WaPo, CNN or left leaning op eds needed Hyezeus, just peer reviewed research please!
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Thank you for doing exactly as I expected. I will let your racist diatribe speak for itself. Thanks for showing your true colors -- finally. Goodbye.
“My diatribe”...? Do you even know the meaning of the word? A diatribe is an angry verbal attack of someone. Where was I angry or racist? Where did I attack you? You were the one hurling childish insults and cursing. (seeabove)
All I've done is stated facts about why women and some minorities are lacking in certain fields and higher education. Unlike you, I buttressed my argument by citing where I got my information from with links.
While you're on this thread. Here is a video about blacks and why they are struggling. I know PragerU leans conservative but I really like Larry Elder. It's called 'Black Fathers Matter'
You should watch it because there is a lot of good information in it.
Cheers Heyzeus!
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Zzzzzzz.
I guess I should have realized that a racist/misogynist making racist/misogynist comments would not view them as a diatribe and would consider it "just stating facts" and buttressing those facts with "studies" that support racism and misogyny. Larry Elder is an embarrassment to all beings "human," so no, I'm not going to watch something racist that supports racism.
What are you going to post next -- a "study" that shows 92.5% of people born with black skin or vaginas spend their lives acting like black people or women?
"Where was I angry or racist?" -- Oh, how about HERE: "And who do you think pushed them into poverty, higher incarceration rates, fatherless homes, higher dropout rates? What about the women? Not white men. .. You really think the average white man sits at home plotting of how to keep blacks down?" -- No, Glen, it's so ingrained they think it's normal, like you do. And pretending not to be incensed by anyone who disagrees with you is belied by the fact that you keep coming back to post more stupidity in your effort to "win the day" for Jordy and Hubcap licker.
"Some of the straw men you've just posted. I'm not interested..." -- guess what, Glen? You may be the one who decides what's important and not important in your own limited world, but you aren't for the rest of the planet. I'm sure you're used to thinking you control everything.
After all your blathering and whining, you (and Jordy and the Hublicker) have utterly failed to sway ONE person here. The only people who agree with you would be the other assholes who came here to denigrate the original story. Your attempts to make side arguments you think you have "won" have actually failed. I'm pretty sure that if this is the topic you focus on during social gatherings, those gatherings require attendees to wear white hoods and robes.
You are so stupid that you don't realize how stupid your arguments are. Feel free to terminate the disqus account you created just to come here and promote racism and misogyny. Cheers, asshole.
Dude! Stop provoking him/her! He/she/they obviously have issues. They are not commenting to make sense! They are venting some neurosis or something.
you are wrong. it is sad to see you act like a child. you could have offered your own studies, or information. At least make half the effort your partner made in trying to argue their point. But, you couldnt' do that. You just wanted to insult people. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a child.
Yes, and when I grow up, I don't want to be like you, after you spent 5 months pondering a reply chastising me for not presenting any studies when YOU didn't present any and criticizing me for just wanting to insult somebody exactly the way YOU did in your post responding to me, you fucking two-faced hypocrite. Bye, Jordan!
good. always seek to be better than yesterday and the status quo. good for you.
funny....your VERY FIRST response to glen "You're the one who has it all wrong. You take the same unsupported leaps of logic that all the other morons take. It's only a good starting point for more assertions of the stupid."