317
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
317 points (89.9% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
1985 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They're grouping non-binary people as female and pretending like this isn't a problem for presenting a statistical analysis?
Who the fuck is doing this research?
There should be separate reports on non-binary discrimination and female discrimination not combining the two and labeling them women.
Completely unprofessional.
They do include the effect size of including non-binary students when they write "(nb. Non-binary students account for 0.3% of this total)" etc. so the impact on the actual data is shown, if you're concerned about the statistical analysis. It also does make sense to group them together in this context as they are both minorities in STEM. However the way the article is written makes it clear that including non-binary students was an afterthought; if it was clear in all the data and headings that the data is for both non-binary and female students with the interpretation that they are looking at just "students who aren't men" then it would have been a lot better.
We cannot do effective corollary research if groups are not independently researched with their own data, a 'minimum impact' is still an impact, one which can be used to portray a larger or smaller effect than there is between the actual groups being compared against, especially when there's a distinct call of 'white males' being a problem with no determination of class, culture or variance of religious vs non religious.
People are not blocks, they don't vote as blocks they don't work as blocks and they most assuredly do not behave as blocks. It's important to specify, separate, and effectively research each group and sub group in order to determine the veracity rather than just applying a claim to a useful and popular current enemy, e.g. 'white male'.
The conclusion are the same that you group or not : men in stem are male chauvinists who doesn't tolerate those not like them and feel the need to oppress those.
How is it unprofessional? It's just a different data set, there's nothing inherently professional or not about it.
Another way to say it would be "non-male" sexual discrimination. Which makes perfect sense given who are generally the target of that type of discrimination.
It's just a statistic, dude. If you're looking at it as something it isn't, that's on you.
Making wide claims on entire groups based on inferential data is inherently unprofessional. They didn't stop at observing they're making claims without evidence to back it up.
How one person feels about something does not automatically mean that someone was intentionally or even unintentionally hurting them.
That is the issue at heart here.
Non-binary people can experience sexism regardless of how they're born though. Your suggestion that just acknowledging that non-binary people exist without being disrespectful means research should be ignored is making the researcher's point for them.
Did you read what I wrote or just immediately respond the second I said 'non binary'? Also the fact you're making this statement also indicates you didn't read the source material at all.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Your clear lack of reading comprehension is absolutely not my fault.
There's no need to be disrespectful to me. I read you. I read your source you linked. I read the original article. You're the only one that said anything about grouping non-binary people as women. Did you read the article? Clearly the people voting you up and me down didn't. Make something else up to get outraged about.
Except no, they didn't. I know this because we are having this conversation. They are grouped together in this statistic, but they make it very clear that they did that, and what % of the block were non-binary.
There's nothing wrong with what they did. Nobody is trying to trick anyone, they are very transparent about including non-binary people (people who also experience discrimination).
I know you want so bad to be a victim, but men don't experience sexual discrimination in STEM. Anyone in a STEM career can tell you that.
Ah, so you don't actually care about the research, the statistics or the facts, you would prefer to try and turn this into a discussion about personal problems than facts.
I've no interest given you are likely not in a STEM education or profession and given your notes here, likely wouldn't make it far even if you tried.
Objective interest and observation is vastly more important than the individual, and instead of approaching it from a statistical and facts based approach you're attempting to twist what I've said into some kind of rhetorical attack on women.
I guess it would make you feel better to believe I'm a man that hates women, but, tragically for you, I have XX chromosomes so your incompetent attempt to present me as the problem in this scenario falls short, especially considering I have been in STEM for the past 20 years both as a student and now a professional academic.
Your personal problems with the materials are ultimately immaterial when compared to the concerns I laid out.
I assume next you'll start going "the jews are keeping women down"? Or maybe "the patriarchy is the problem, lets ignore the fact women on average choose caring professions over STEM professions".
At no point did I say the abuse and discrimination wasn't there, I specifically noted that more research is required to figure out "why" it is there, and not pretend like it's just "white men keeping women down".
I understand nuance can be hard, but if you read enough books you'll get it eventually, I promise.
Nobody asked about your chromosomes. Nobody cares. That shouldn't matter if what you're saying has value. That's kinda the whole point of discussing sexism. For someone talking about rationality you're acting like you're allergic to hearing other people's points. You instantly resort to ad hominem attacks, put words in other people's mouths and spew the most toxic shit. It's pretty sad that this garbage gets upvotes on this Lemmy. Get off your porn account and get some sleep.
Way to miss the point and prove an ample example of incompetence.
deleted
Assuming you're being genuine and not rhetorically trying to present a 'gotcha', I'll answer the question.
https://ilostat.ilo.org/these-occupations-are-dominated-by-women/ You'll notice women have the advantage of being able to choose professions which don't end their lives or break their bodies and minds prematurely.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers
Here you'll see an article (with corresponding associated research) that goes into the extreme biases surrounding this discussion, especially with individuals pretending to 'know' or 'understand' the core of the issue without engaging in the realities that there is a fundamental difference between the sexes. This doesn't have anything to do with the individual and what the individual chooses to do, it has to do with the average and what the statistics say about that. Statistics cannot be applied to an individual and an individuals views and decisions cannot be applied to the statistics. (rather, should not since incompetent malcontents always will try)
The vast majority of 'evidence' that states that these issues in the choices women make are discriminatory or pay based are entirely corollary and not directly evidence based. (I.e. the subject matter is not directly evidenced, and only related data is used to infer a conclusion but not actually determine a conclusion based on clear evidence and research).
Females have the inherent ability to empathize and assist others and males inherently do not, on an average basis, not on an individual basis. (Men can be empathetic but not ALL men are able to be empathetic while most women can be empathetic not ALL women can be empathetic, as a direct example with evidence) https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/04/05/reason-women-dont-enter-stem-professions-revealed
Activists like to pretend it's discrimination and sexism that prevents women from pursuing careers in STEM but the reality is, what few women actually want to get into STEM are the ones who suffer the discrimination therein, and that impacts THAT SPECIFIC group of women, not ALL women.
Again, this is an issue that comes down to small group data being used as an example of 'why' for the whole group without actually being the reason why, simply a useful point of data which people can abuse for their own agendas. The same thing assholes do when they have a negative reaction with someone of a different race and then they say "all X people are like this".
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-global-educational-gender-equality-paradox-the-more-gender-equality-in-a-country-the-fewer-women-in-stem/
Research:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719?journalCode=pssa
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-explanation-gender-gaps-academia.html
https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/a0017364
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
https://www.aaas.org/news/journals-and-funders-confront-implicit-bias-peer-review
https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1240031/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Gender_pay_gap_statistics
https://www.di.se/digital/bolag-grundade-av-kvinnor-far-1-procent-av-riskkapitalet/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02645505231221240
https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-023-01267-z
https://www.telenor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-Gender-Gap-in-Technology-in-Scandinavia_Full-report.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09636625211002375?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.2
Articles:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/countries-with-less-gender-equity-have-more-women-in-stem-huh/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201607/what-explains-some-demographic-gaps-simpsons-paradox
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/gender-bias-in-science-or-biased-claims-gender-bias
https://www.aaas.org/news/journals-and-funders-confront-implicit-bias-peer-review
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-global-educational-gender-equality-paradox-the-more-gender-equality-in-a-country-the-fewer-women-in-stem/
Also, regarding "the patriarchy", anyone making that claim these days when the military industrial complex is almost entirely run by women are wholly disingenuous and should be completely barred from the discussion until they educate themselves on the reality around them.
Per example:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/02/how-women-took-over-the-military-industrial-complex-1049860
https://inthesetimes.com/article/women-military-industrial-complex-gina-haspel-trump-feminism-lockheed-marti
deleted
The least you could do is read the research links provided in both the articles and the references provided before pretending like I didn't provide direct referential material to every point I made.
deleted
deleted