Archives for posts with tag: the sexes

at least for the coastal states. from the awesome epigone:

“[I]f only women voted: Obama wins reelection in an even more convincing fashion than was actually the case, trouncing Romney 347-185 (6 undetermined).”

previously: repeal the 19th amendment! and tweedle dee…

(note: comments do not require an email. huddle!)

…hate kanazawa. i mean, they really hate kanazawa. just look at the photo of him that they chose to go with the article! (that’ll show him!)

they don’t like him ’cause he TOTALLY skewered feminism a couple of years ago — and they know he’s right but just don’t wanna admit it:

Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil

“Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy….”

read the whole thing.

previously: the offensive mr. kanazawa and ANOTHER watsoning in the air?!

(note: comments do not require an email. or a retinal scan.)

…comes great horniness. (women, consider yourselves apprised.):

“At I.M.F., Men on Prowl and Women on Guard”

“It is an international island in the midst of the American capital, a sharp-elbowed place ruled by alpha male economists. The days are long, and employees are regularly pressed together for weeks on end during overseas ‘missions.’ It is a climate in which romances often flourish — and lines are sometimes crossed.

“Some women avoid wearing skirts for fear of attracting unwanted attention. Others trade whispered tips about overly forward bosses. A 2008 internal review found few restraints on the conduct of senior managers, concluding that ‘the absence of public ethics scandals seems to be more a consequence of luck than good planning and action.’

“This is life at the International Monetary Fund, the lender of last resort for governments that need money and, under the leadership of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, an emerging force in the regulation of the global economy….”

see also: How Power Corrupts

(note: comments do not require an email.)

or lack of them…

Women entering the workforce expect less than men, study finds

“Women have lower career expectations than men, anticipating smaller paycheques and longer waits for promotions, according to a new study involving a University of Guelph researcher.

“When comparing career expectations of Canadian female and male university students, Prof. Sean Lyons discovered that women predict their starting salaries to be 14 per cent less than what the men forecast. This gap in wage expectations widens over their careers with women anticipating their earnings to be 18 per cent less than men after five years on the job.

“As for their first promotion, the study found women expect to wait close to two months longer than men for their first step up the corporate ladder.

“‘It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg-situation,’ said the business professor, who worked on the study with Carleton University professor Linda Schweitzer and Dalhousie University professor Ed Ng. ‘Women know that they currently aren’t earning as much as men so they enter the workforce with that expectation. Because they don’t expect to earn as much, they likely aren’t as aggressive when it comes to negotiating salaries or pay raises and will accept lower-paying jobs than men, which perpetuates the existing inequalities….’

Gender gaps in salary expectation and career advancement were widest among students planning to enter male-dominated fields such as science and engineering and narrowest for those preparing for female-dominated or neutral fields such as arts and science.

Another factor influencing women’s lower career expectations could be the gender differences in career priorities, Lyons said. The study found that women were more likely to choose balancing their personal life with their careers and contributing to society as top career priorities. Whereas men preferred priorities associated with higher salaries, such as career advancement and building a sound financial base.

“‘It may be that women expect to trade off higher salaries for preferences in lifestyle.’”

previously: the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

great! can everyone just shut-up about it then already?!

here’s from another (apparently) sane, rational woman out there (there are a few of us — a very few, I know — but there are a few):

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

“A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men….

“Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women — not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.”

yes! women chooooose jobs that they want to do! whew! is that really so hard to understand?

sheesh.

p.s. – actually, according to that one study, there IS a male-female wage gap amongst single, urban, childless workers between the ages of 22-30 — and it’s in the women’s favor!

previously: the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

they are!! they MUST be! i mean, look right here! here’s the PROOF:

too few women physicists. it MUST be SEXISM!! DISCRIMINATION!! d*mn them!

oh, if only we all lived in a perfect society. you know, like they have in scandinavia:

“And there was some discussion why the most egalitarian country in the world had bigger differences in choice of education and careers between the sexes, than any other developed country.

“This has been called the ‘gender equality paradox’, and nobody could explain it. The common reaction was that we just had to work harder to reach our egalitarian goals. But of course, this ‘paradox’ is easily explained if one takes evolutionary psychology into consideration: Because Norway has such a high living standard that you can live a decent life also with ‘female’ jobs such as nursing, the women now choose careers that suit their psychological needs. [source, via steve sailer.]

oh. oops.

hmmmmm. so maaaaaybe there are more female psychologists and biologists than coders and physicists ’cause (apart from the iq thing) a large proportion of women prefer working with people and|or cute, fuzzy little animals rather than with sql databases and large hadron colliders.

and what the h*ck is wrong with that??

previously: science bloggers are so mean! and oh noes! and they’re at it again

(note: comments do not require an email.)

whine, whine, b*tch, moan: “there’s not enough female science bloggers!” -or- “female science bloggers aren’t treated fairly!” [see here.]

gimme a break already!!!!!

like i said before, there’s nothing — NOTHING — stopping women from blogging about science (or contributing to wikipedia). nothing. nada. zilch. zippo.

here’s some of the more specific comments|complaints out there this time (and they’re all over the board). from thus spake zuska:

“At SciO11, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Anne Jefferson, Joanne Manaster, and Kathryn Clancy did a great session titled ‘Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name’. (See summary here.) The discussion ranged over a lot of topics, and near the end, someone in the audience said ‘I don’t want to get a [job/fellowship/grant/whatever] because of affirmative action, I want to get it on my own merits.’ I said, why do you imagine that the dudes getting those jobs now all got them all on their own merits?

“Not that they aren’t qualified, but do you imagine they had no help along the way, that there was no one pulling levers for them, no one setting them up, no one greasing the wheels for them, no one opening doors and helping them glide along? Why do we imagine everyone else who gets stuff got there all by their lonesome with no assistance from anyone else? I don’t even know what the fuck it means to get somewhere all on your own merits. You can’t even learn to wipe your own ass all on your own merits.”

well, no sh*t, sherlock! so, start networking already! obviously the merit has gotta be there in the first place. someone’s gotta be at least a halfway-decent scientist|science blogger before they’re gonna get “help along the way.” so, the talent’s gotta be there first. but then you gotta WORK THE CROWD! MAKE CONNECTIONS! SHUCK AND JIVE! do what ya gotta do to promote yourself. success is not just gonna drop in your lap!

for example:

“There’s been some buzz around the blogosphere lately about the Science Online ’11 panel on ‘Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name.’ Especially interesting to me (and a lot of other people!) was Ed Yong’s comment that while he receives lots of inquiries from male bloggers asking him to promote their work, he has never received a single message of the sort from a woman.

*facepalm* *double-facepalm*

for chrissakes! are ya’ll that retarded?!?! ya whine and b*tch and moan that no one recognises you and then you don’t even drop other bloggers a line asking for a leg-up?! this really takes the cake!! and makes ya’ll sound like a bunch of passive-aggressive girlie-girls. and i thought women were supposed to be the masters at social games!

like i said before, if you’re gonna enter the world o’ guys (and you’ve got to admit, science and science-blogging were established by guys), you’re gonna have to start acting a bit like guys if you wanna be successful. when in rome, and all that.

from the hermitage:

“There will always be people who are higher on the totem pole, who might even be kind of brilliant (or might be less brilliant than you), but will deny the parental, socio-economic, and network factors that got them there. They will insist the universe is a meritocracy and that if you can’t keep up it’s your own fault.

“I work in a field where most people had their on PC and were writing in C when me and my parents were living out of a van counting nickels to see if we could afford water or not. My list of achievements will never be long enough, my life experiences will always be too foreign, for me to be really one of them. That doesn’t mean they don’t respect me, and it doesn’t make my science any less awesome. But when I’m never put up for any award other than ones for minorities, if I’m never invited to give anything other than a diversity lecture, if I flame out and leave because I never get the same amount of recognition they do, they will rarely, if ever acknowledge, that it is anything other than my fault.”

well, welcome to reality, baby. yup. life is unfair and the “haves” don’t wanna give anything up to the “have nots.” who woulda guessed?! *facepalm* at the same time, tho, my guess is that you haven’t discovered a cure for cancer or a way for us to get to mars in a week, ’cause if you had, then you’d be gettin’ a sh*t load of recognition. if you’re really smart and talented and work hard and get lucky, you’ll become famous. otherwise, fuggedaboutit. it ain’t gonna happen for you. make your peace with it.

also, vivienne @outdoor science writes:

“First, the time issue. I think guys are better at marketing themselves because they’ve got more time. I can’t remember where (can someone find a link?), but someone argued Ed Yong spends lots of time on Twitter – this raises his profile among people who write lists of great science writers. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Rebecca doesn’t spend that amount of time online.

“I can’t spend that amount of time tweeting either. One reason is I’m a part-time housewife trying to do a full-time job. I’m not the only woman in this position. Women do more housework than men. We do the bulk of childcare….”

all that is a matter of prioritization, obviously. you might not be able to be the #1 science blogger AND be a mom at the same time. women might have to start realizing that they can’t have it all. you just might have to make some choices in life.

finally:

“A few years ago, I was standing outside the building where I taught, unlocking my bike. It was one of the first days of the semester, and I had just finished teaching. I was wearing one of my teaching uniforms: wideleg trouser jeans, a black boatneck sweater, and beautiful forest green heels. Except in really bad weather, I wear heels when I teach because it helps me feel older, like I have some authority. Being sometimes several decades younger than my colleagues, but usually less than a decade older than my students, meant my gender and age made me a sort of sexualized second class citizen.

“An older faculty member approached me to unlock his own bike. He complained about where some students had locked their bikes because they obstructed the bike lane. He mentioned that he had told the police but that they never did anything about it. I nodded sympathetically.

“‘Of course,’ he then said, ‘if I had been dressed like you, maybe they would have listened!’

“And just like that, I was no longer a colleague. I was a woman.”

oh, pu-leeeeease! quit being a prude — use it (but don’t abuse it) to your advantage, baby! if you’re attractive (or witty or tough-as-nails or whatever), make that work for you! fortune 500 ceo’s are, on average, 3 inches taller than the average american dude. you don’t think these taller guys aren’t, at least subconsciously, using their height to their advantage?! intimidating the competition by literally towering over them?

to sum up: if you wanna be a science blogger, just do it already. if you wanna be one of the best science bloggers, start emulating the behaviors of the best science bloggers. remember, it’s gonna take a lot of work. a LOT. and let’s all start acknowleding that humans are animals, too — social animals, in fact! — and we’ll exhibit all sorts of animal behaviors in all of our walks of life — and they’ll be impossible to reign in.

previously: science bloggers are so mean!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

via steve sailer i learn that wikipedia is sexist, TOO!! first science blogging and now this! oh the humanity.

clearly — CLEARLY — somehow, some way wikipedia is discouraging women from contributing. clearly. ’cause it says so right here in the nyt article:

“But because of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd, says Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women.”

*facepalm*

yes. a place online where you can contribute knowledge for free WITHOUT ANYONE HAVING TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE (I.E. WHETHER YOU ARE MALE OR FEMALE) must somehow be discouraging to one of the genders.

jesus h. christ.

can’t we all just admit that most women have DIFFERENT INTERESTS from most men?? is that really so hard?? is the modern world gonna fall apart if we do that??

look. i’ve contributed to wikipedia — only very slightly i have to admit. (mostly i tend to remove graffiti on the site. can we, please, grow up people?) and, obviously, i read a lot of guy-topics online (hbd-related stuff, for instance). but, i also do some chick stuff online. and let me tell you, there are PLENTY of women online doing things that are interesting to THEM.

ravelry.com (registered users only), for example, is a knitting site (i told you i’m a chick). and there are 1 million+ users. ONE MILLION! and while there are a handful of men over there, trust me — it’s mostly chicks. and there are PLENTY of contributions from them. Posting knitting patterns that they’ve designed; posting photos of their knitting projects; discussing knitting topics; etc., etc. these women are very, VERY busy posting about THE STUFF THEY’RE INTERESTED IN online.

and presumably some of them have even contributed to the knitting pages on wikipedia. but let’s all face it — MOST women are not interested in posting to wikipedia ’cause MOST women are not interested in discussing ad nauseum the minute details of ANY topic. even make-up or dating or babies. that’s just NOT how most women are.

get over it, pc-peoples.

steve sailer said:

“Considering that almost nobody gets paid for Wikipedia, the most obvious thing that can be said about its existence from a gender point of view is that the human race owes a debt of gratitude to the male sex.”

d*mn straight!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 229 other followers