TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Study finds that when all conditions are identical, female applicants are favored over male applicants by 2:1 for STEM tenure. This wouldn't be possible in a system with systemic male privilege!

BlueOrange22

April 8, 2019
2620 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://science.slashdot.org/story/15/04/14/1549207/cornell-study-for-stem-tenure-track-women-twice-as-likely-to-be-hired-as-men
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Study finds that when all conditions are identical, female applicants are favored over male applicants by 2:1 for STEM tenure. This wouldn't be possible in a system with systemic male privilege!
Author

BlueOrange22

Upvotes 2620
Comments 156
Date April 8, 2019 12:13 AM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ban1l8/study_finds_that_when_all_conditions_are/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/study-finds-that-when-all-conditions-are-identical.880145
https://theredarchive.com/post/880145
Top posts by BlueOrange22

We should be trying to spread the story of the Canadian court who found the female pedophile non-dangerous.

2031 upvotes
October 27, 2018
/r/MensRights

Sarah Jeong is lying, her "cruel to old white men" wasn't a response to anything, she said it first.

1843 upvotes
August 2, 2018
/r/MensRights

Teacher punishes 10 year old boy for calling her "ma'am", and threatens to throw something at him.

1172 upvotes
August 26, 2018
/r/MensRights

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, men were denied food as per U.N policy.

845 upvotes
May 22, 2019
/r/MensRights

When you hear a man say "my wife won't let me do that" or "I'm not allowed", that would be considered controlling/abusive if reversed.

773 upvotes
June 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Reminder- the Men's Rights Movement is NOT part of the alt-right, or connected to today's rally. We are not political in any sphere other than men's issues.

624 upvotes
August 12, 2018
/r/MensRights

Study shows that people who identify as feminists are more likely to sacrifice men.

549 upvotes
July 5, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male only conscription is practiced in many countries, even countries that are considered pioneers of "gender equality."

423 upvotes
June 5, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Stumattj1 182 points183 points184 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ok, taking bets, will they spin it to be oppressive to women, or will they ignore it?

[+]nO0f1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

The art of spin:

Despite need for women in STEM, few pursue that route, likely due to social stigma from a young age.

[–]Regs2 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Social stigma". In other words, women being catty and ostracizing the women who dare to "men's work".

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The art of spin

[–]matthewfullest 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really glad it wasn’t meatspin

[–]Ted8367 69 points70 points71 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

will they ignore it?

The paper was published in 2015.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abstract

So it looks like it's being ignored.

[–]RampagingAardvark 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It'll be viewed as benevolent sexism at worst, and they'll complain that the patriarchy is treating women like they aren't good enough to get in on their own merit, so are letting them in with lower expectations.

They'll chock it up to men treating women with kid gloves. Then they'll complain when percentage of women in stem drops if we stop treating them with kid gloves.

If only women knew how privileged they are in the western world.

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"This is just another example of men being over-protective of women. PATRIARCHY STRIKES AGAIN REEEEE"

[–]Nergaal 135 points136 points137 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

They fired the guy who dared to state that publicly, because he was too harsh the way he phrased it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06913-0

[–]poulty1234 74 points75 points76 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It infuriates me how they quote everyone saying what he said was antithetical and yet they don't quote a single word of what he actually said

[–]thelandofdreams 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

welcome to modern journalism. I frequently read entire news articles about something racist Trump said, that don't include the actual quote.

[–]chadwickofwv 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If they did it would be too obvious they were lying.

[–]SesQuans 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First i need to say that i really dislike Trump, but I hate it if people insult him for things he is not, like "gay-hating".

And if you question them, then you must be a Trump apologist and enabler.

[+]MyOtherTagsGood -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They don't need to include the quote, there's almost always video of him saying it.

[–]zaisoke 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you still need a quote lol journalism 101

[–]thelandofdreams 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet they never post the videos.

[–]thetewi 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

show a single video of trump being racist, shill

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's how people get silenced & blackballed these days. Social media platforms have begun rolling out mass-bans against people who are guilty of wrongthink. Funding platforms like paypal, gofundme, and patreon have begun doing ideological bans. There's even a few examples of banks shutting down peoples accounts for their wrongthink - and people being denied port of entry for being Alt Right.

We're witnessing the dawn of a New McCarthyism.

[–]deconstruct2000 294 points295 points296 points 7 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

STEM companies are clamoring for female employees. If only they got STEM degrees, rather than gender studies...

[–]ideserveall 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Considering no college would dare to deny a female applicant and no professor would dare to let a female student fail no matter how incompetent she is, you can't really compare a STEM degree of a male and a female graduate.

[–]Inc-Redditor 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We have 300+ students per class at uni and TA's do all the marking. They end up with soo much to mark they couldn't be arsed to mark off an agenda. In fact enough people have lower marks than what they probably should have and so disputing it with the TA that marked yours and the prof is somewhat standard practice

[–]phlumpy 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I’ve seen female students fail on a few occasions in STEM.

[–]-Master-Builder- 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Female professor?

[–]phlumpy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These classes were electrical engineering (majority male teachers/students), so not really.

[+]Moonman_Alpha -174 points-173 points-172 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Even when they manage to pull a STEM degree, they're still bottom-of-the-barrel in the field. Would actually be a better choice to hire an H1B visa worker instead.

[–]CarlosRanger 122 points123 points124 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

It’s this kind of generalizing that makes feminism look bad, so if we’re fighting for rights, we shouldn’t go into it with this mentality.

[–]bufedad 63 points64 points65 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That IS a feminist.

When they can find misogyny, they come to try to create some...

[–]NationalismIsFun 42 points43 points44 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Women don't make better firefighters than men

I don't say that because I hate my wife or my daughter, I say that because it's a fact

[–]RacinRandy83x -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In general that’s true. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good women firefighters because there are exceptions to the rule. This however is a because the physiological makeup of the average man vs the average woman is a lot more different than the mental capabilities. If you look at things like average iq’s it’s almost dead even between men and women.

[–]Workchoices 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you look at things like average iq’s it’s almost dead even between men and women.

Not true, the distribution is wildly different. Women cluster around the 100 mark. For men there's a lot of geniuses and also a lot of idiots.

For IQ above 120 women are very underrepresented which may partial explain why so few women are in STEM. At IQ 140+(genius level) its basically just all men

[–]RacinRandy83x 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women aren’t in the stem field because they are more likely to care about people more than things. Men’s brains are wired the opposite generally. If you want to say women don’t generally stand out in the stem field because of this then that’s fine, but I would guess there are more men who are bottom of the barrel in the stem field for the exact reason you stated. The bell curve for women is a lot tighter therefore they tend to be more average while men tend to be more extraordinarily smart and dumb, so more men would be at the top of the stem field while more men would also be at the bottom.

[–]TaxExempt 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, the stupid men don't get into stem programs.

[+]thetewi1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

unless they’re black

[–]Jex1170 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Go back to T_D

[–]JazzTheGoose123 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

How? He is 100% right. They already have more than equality, pure stating facts, as offensive to them as they may be wont change that.

EDIT: Missed a letter

[–]bludgeoning 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

He's saying women in STEM fields are bottom of the barrel even with a degree. That's not discussing equality its blatant sexism. Something that shouldn't be supported by people fighting against sexism.

[+]JazzTheGoose123 -26 points-25 points-24 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

That's not discussing equality its blatant sexism.

Hurr durr statistical facts are racist/sexist/hurtme

Remind me, how are you any different from feminists again?

Thank you for providing the perfect example of a feminist shill.

[–]RacinRandy83x 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Show me the statistical facts that support this statement then please

[–]bludgeoning 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Please. Show me some sources that validate his point on women in STEM fields.

Also I'm not a feminist shill. I'm an egalitarian. So what's the point of just dismissing me like that because I say your point is wrong. Your acting like the people that your comparing me to.

[+]JazzTheGoose123 -32 points-31 points-30 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Source. Do you have a source on that? SOURCE please??? I'll have you know I graduated.. yada yada yada. You know this is true, everybody knows. Would be weird if women performed equal or better despite being underrepresented because they don't qualify most of the time, wouldn't it?

[–]bludgeoning 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Do I have a source on the fact that women aren't bottom of the barrel in STEM? How about common fucking sense that good enough? They don't underqualify at all by the way they just don't fucking go into STEM fields. Also your the one with the wild claim so please provide a source or shut the fuck up.

[–]JazzTheGoose123 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

women aren't bottom of the barrel in STEM? How about common fucking sense that good enough?

Common sense doesn't work that way.. If you have a group of people who are underqualified generally and the top of the top barely makes it into this field, it's unreasonable to suggest they perform just as good as men on average. You sure you're in the right sub? You probably all for hitting women too if they punch you, right? Real fucking class act meninist.

[–]bludgeoning12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tf? How the fuck do you go from me believing women can make a successful career in STEM fields to literal fucking violence? I never said that women would have an equal share at the top. I said that they could make it as well. Still waiting for a source BTW?

[–]JazzTheGoose1230 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Tf? How the fuck do you go from me believing women can make a successful career in STEM fields to literal fucking violence?

Simple, you're an egalitarian. You're the kind of meninist who thinks we are equal and deserve equal treatment in every way. Lots of people like you defend hitting women in selfdefense.

I said that they could make it as well.

I didn't deny that. You also didn't claim just that. You said they're just as good as men in STEM. I'm talking about them on average still performing worse (aka bottom of the barrell) even when they succeed.

Do you seriously believe I'm gonna search across the internet to find something to satisfy you? Everyone who reads me and has common sense knows I'm right.

[–]bludgeoning7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It depends what you define self-defense as. If she slaps you than abviously don't punch her. But if she has a knife or is trying to seriously injure you than I think a bit of resistance is fucking justified.

I've also know realised I'm talking to the kind of person who makes claims, doesn't give sources, and then is asked about sources just says "fuck you I know I'm right" because that's how your meant to validate your point. It's almost the same train of thought as flat earthers or antivaxxers. It doesn't matter if you have 70 quadrillion studies they won't budge.

[–]tmone3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You sure you're in the right sub? You probably all for hitting women too if they punch you, right?

Nww, dog, that's me. Mod of pussypassdenied. So let me get this right, you wouldnt use reasonable force to neutralize your attacker simply because of what was between their legs? That right, hos? That's interesting. It's like you're infantalizing women, treating them like children with no personal responsibility. Thats quit.... Sexist my man.

How about a little less fallacious character attacks and a little more providing evidence for your own claims. Burdon of proof and all....

Goodluck you're going to need it.

[–]JazzTheGoose1230 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you wouldnt use reasonable force to neutralize your attacker simply because of what was between their legs?

Reasonable force is never punching. And now you're literally a feminist. You think the only thing that makes a woman a woman is what's between their legs.. And you're surprised I call you cucks out for being fake men's rights activists? You're the exact same as them. "It's all a social construct! Men are just as strong as women. There's no difference but their cunts!"

It's like you're infantalizing women, treating them like children with no personal responsibility because you don't punch them in the face when they punch you.

God, the irony of your comment.

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can literally see the people in your life walking all over you. Have some self respect, man.

I said reasonable force. Not downright murder. Your comment though...... Is weird. I cant get a read on you.

[–]JazzTheGoose1231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I talked about punching, why do you keep deflecting? And even worse, the most unoriginal personal attacks.

If your focus is reading me rather than my argument, yet another one of their strategies, then Im done with this conversation. You cant deal with my arguments on their own, evidentially.

[+]ChaseSpringer1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow look at this menist shill out here circle jerking to “men’s rights” bahhhhahhahha omfg what a pathetic snowflake victim

[–]JazzTheGoose123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isnt it funny i get downvoted on this nazi sexist racist mysoginist sub? Its almost like youre wrong about literally everything.

[+]NationalismIsFun -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sincerely hope you get an answer. Lot of virtue signaling going on...

[–]JazzTheGoose123 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep, r/mensrights is corrupted and cucked. Totally controlled opposition. Lots of feminist shills who don't even realize they're shills as well. Really sad.

[+]NationalismIsFun -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm willing to wait for a minute til I declaim it. We might well be right, but I've always had a good time here. Let's wait and see

[–]JazzTheGoose123 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Me too, for sure. Lots of great people here, but feminist bullshit gets upvoted nonstop just because it sounds good for men. The compassionate feminist nonsense for men I'm talking about, like "men need to cry more and go to therapy more and not be ashamed of being fucking weak" blabla. No, there's literally no proof or evidence that that helps at all with what men are going through, in fact there's only proof that it doesn't do jack shit for men, because we are fundamentally different. Women do not handle stress better, they just deal with less stress. In high stress situations men are way better at handling it, without talking about it but acting.

[–]McHox 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any stats on this?

[–]blamethemeta 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the sort of comment that appears on an overly long list that "proves" that we hate women

[–]DamnIamHigh_Original 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In no shape or form am I supporting this in general , but jesus are the some girls unable to do anything. Programming? Yeah no she could barely make a website.

Not saying all are like that, the first programmers were female, made the execption handling and got men to the moon, which is hard af.

Still, this acting and hiring is a shame because there are more motivated applicants, like for example me who lost his chance and now I have to work in a diffrent field... :/

[–]staticrain2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In my experience this is just not true. There are some brilliant (altough few) women in STEM.

[–]HelloJelloWelloNo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anhahahaahaha you know where this person is coming from

[+]NationalismIsFun -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And they did hate him, for he spoke the truth.

[–]jonnytechno 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But found It SO very hard to find a source to back up such a proposterous claim

[–]millenialprincess 50 points51 points52 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hmm isnt this sexist too?

[+]orax132511 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Not if it's against men. Jk.

[–]millenialprincess 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s so wrong on so many levels. Feminism sucks. Sincerely, a woman who is on your side, men.

[–]mervmonster 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Anyone have a link to the study? That website doesn’t like me.

[–]mervmonster 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nvm got the sauce

[–]Potatolover3 58 points59 points60 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

And yet there are still more men in STEM programs in college. Well at least In my college. Source: I'm in STEM

[–]joeflux 66 points67 points68 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

My college was about 50% women. All but half a dozen were Chinese girls who had no interest in computing but were pushed into it by their parents. They also cheated a lot. (that's not speculation. They were caught)

[–]Potatolover3 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My university is actually 60% women, but our most pursued college is arts and performance, 40% of the school. Only 13% is STEM (all chemistry, computer science, physics, biology, engineering and a few others)

[–]joeflux 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's bang on the average. In the UK and US, 60% of graduates are women now.

[–]CttCJim 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a China thing. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html

[–]abananaa1 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How were they cheating? I remember a psychology undergrad sleeping with her supervisor (into her postgrad). Lasted as long as her academic career did. It was common. Of course only he would get criticism.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My freshman class started about 50% women, and narrowed down to about 20% by the end.

[–]eriverside 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cheating is more of a Chinese thing, not a women thing. There was a riot in China when government cracked down on cheating on their version of the SAT.

[–]TheNextMilo 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah because maybe your college doesn’t virtue signal. And I mean unless 3 out of 4 people in a college in STEM are male there could be something wrong with your college.

[–]NohoTwoPointOh 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense. There is CHOICE involved in college. More men choose STEM degrees. How many men are there in your university's gender studies, social work or elementary education programs?

Howzabout nursing? Nursing is technically STEM. In the US and UK, they are begging for more men in nursing--perhaps similar to efforts to get women into traditional STEM fields. Hmmm....

Why is the factor of choice conveniently ignored? Is it sexist to say that men and women statistically simply do not prefer certain fields?

[–]bichboi1 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have 30 guys and one girl in my class, and my friend has 31 one guys and 0 girls in his class

[+]IndianaJones_Jr_ -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you mean women in STEM?

[–]Aback990 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually made a post on this topic about a month ago,

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/amjek1/the_unexpected_gender_inequality_in_the_stem/?st=JU8AVNHW&sh=a9552033

And some things I found is studies like this often either get their funding cut, or the researchers stop on their own free will and so often they don’t get enough data to make a publishable claim.

[–]backdoorinvestor5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m glad people are doing these studies.. more and more being done because people are getting sick of feminism

[–]jycr7532 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The links don’t work to the source a least the title and small resume link provided.

[+]ukiyuh1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I always found it ironic that men are a literal minority to women in America.

But only women can apply for minority scholarships unavailable to men...

[–]abananaa1 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not only are they a minority in the population, but where it actually matters, in terms of university numbers men are even more a minority. A majority if women go to university where they (unsurprisingly) make up the majority. A minority of men go to uni where they make up the minority. Literally in the UK disadvantaged white men are a minority group with protected minority status.

The average woman gets a higher education degree. The average man does not.

Women do better in terms of results too in every part of the education system in all but the top universities (which are the only ones targeted by feminists... To further become biased in favour of women, not everywhere else where men are catered to worst), as the education system has become gynocentric with far more female teachers than male.

[–]randomgamerguy1997 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So true

[–]Eleazaros 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Funny part is that AI's, designed to pick best applicants/best long-term employees - favor males over females.

[–]ThinkofitthisWay 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Thing is you can't argue thos point as AI learns behaviour from human data. If the data is biased so will the AI be. There is a whole thing called AI ethics & bias control.

Like the microsoft bot that became a nazi 3 hours after she was released on twitter

[–]Eleazaros 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It was Amazon and it was using HR data and digging for data. Not interacting with humans who could push it into a GIGO situation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-built-ai-to-hire-people-discriminated-against-women-2018-10

[–]ThinkofitthisWay 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

microsoft bot that became a nazi

Thanks for the link, im talking about this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot))

​

I get your point about not interacting, but that's not my point, the data itself could be biased (it's based on the decisions the human recruiters made over the past 10 years in Amazon, if there were was bias there, the AI will adopt it)

[–]Eleazaros 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes I remember that one. It took user feedback and modified its behavior/interaction based upon who it was talking to. The '4Chan' types had a field day 'reprogramming it'.

The AI one from Amazon simply took in all statistical information from HR and external sources, then provided the top candidate recommendations from what it could find. It became biased as it metered performance information, medical, OT numbers, etc.

It was an amusing thing to see.

[–]DiamondxCrafting 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're literally ignoring his point, "the data itself could be biased (it's based on the decisions the human recruiters made over the past 10 years in Amazon, if there were was bias there, the AI will adopt it)".

[–]boundarychimps 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The potential "garbage in" would be if the data used for "is this a good candidate" wasn't actually an accurate measure of performance.

​

Your linked article suggests that they just used "looks like all the other candidates", which is mind-bogglingly stupid. Because there isn't any check for "was this actually a good candidate".

If they used "was actually hired", then the potential "garbage in" would be any biases that the existing hiring team can be accused of.

If they used how quickly people were promoted, then it would be any biases that management (who makes promotion decisions) can be accused of.

[–]depression_mx_k 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Data is recorded by humans and selected for by humans. You can't bootstrap an AI to be completely lacking in human bias.

[–]MaxStories 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shhh this is woman hating!

[–]jonnytechno 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The sad thing is nearly every other subject is dominated by women in terms of pass rates, its only STEM where men tend to be more successful, but that's not good enough apparently. But there was recent research putting that down to dropouts, many of which linked to pregnancy I believe (will search for source). So if thia changes men will be failing in every subject.... I guess that's just further illustration of feminisms view of what "equality" looks like

[–]MrHappyTime604 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Will read the article after posting. I absolutely believe this. I'm graduating university with my finals in 1 week, convocation is in a few months. It is extremely important to me that I don't have to work with feminists just because of some shit that I've gone through in my life. Literal mental health issues because of them. I am considering posting one of the links shown in a thread above of a TEDx talk titled "is feminism starting to undermine itself".

Want to do that to make sure the feminism obsessed firms will screen me out, as I don't want to work with them in finance (my major). On the other hand I'm worried that ALL firms will screen me out as a result. Feminists claim we live in a patriarchy in 2019, yet here I am. Afraid to post that. In a patriarchy it would HELP me get a job. In today's world, it would do the opposite.

[–]PixelPete85 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Isn't the point of their argument that conditions aren't identical in the first place?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What! How dare you suggest that I read the article and draw logical conclusions!

[–]2plus24 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If they read the articles, they wouldn't be MRAs after all.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I find that hard to believe. It just doesn't seem to follow that people with tenuous grasps on reality and distorted views of society would also be underinformed and academically bankrupt.

[–]MrJonesWildRide 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Female privilege

[–]haydenv 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmmm

[–]AFuddyDuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But it is possible in the era of, "Equal-Employment" and diversity requirements.

When you are clamoring to meet these standards, you'll start cherry picking applicants.

[–]14Three8 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I’m not going into stem, despite having a large extended family pushing me to do so. (Every female in my extended family except for 2 are all in stem or going to school to do so)

[–]idealcastle 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where is the article? This link has nothing useful.

[–]ThreeLF 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.

I'll just leave this here.

[–]tableender 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's down to the welfare system. The more generous a welfare system in a country, the fewer women enter and stay in stem. Sweden Norway and Denmark, the least patriarchal countries in the world for example, where there are some of the most generous welfare system benefits waiting to catch a woman if she ends up divorced, widowed or single and then falls ill etc, have some of the lowest female stem figures in the world. China Russia and India on the other hand, countries where women have to face patriarchy on steroids have some of the highest female take up in stem, numbers that would give feminists a wet dream here in the UK or the US. The major reason being that in the event of them being divorced, widowed or single and falls ill etc, there is a very poor welfare system if any to catch them. Essentially they have to make the long term decisions that men do. You will never see this acknowledged though.

[–]Vuraxis 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've never seen this represented in any form as some sort of hiring discrimination, and this is why things like that advert calling for more women to apply for STEM fields exist. So, in some ways, I don't have a problem with this, but in others, I really do. By all means, encourage them, but don't favour either side.

[–]GrantNexus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet this happened: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47478537

[–]thebiscutetimtam 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well that aint stupid they campine is for girls it true i have proof at my schools

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense.

As a CTO, if I have two identical potential employees, I'm going to hire the female.

I want more females in my 99% male office.

[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Bruh. You JUST admitted to, given the opportunity, discriminating someone based solely on sex. Thats blatant sexist and discrimination.

As a CTO, if I have two identical potential employees, I'm going to hire the female.

You should get gold for those mental gymnastics, my gawd.

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

But this is the point of the article - if you have two exact employees, the female will be picked.

Do you want me to just pick the man, and "discriminate" (according to you) against the female? Is that what this sub has come to?

[–]darthbane83 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

if there is really no difference between the two you can just choose at random. You literally cant lose or win anything with a random decision when both options are equally good.

[–]TuckerMcInnes0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So what I'm saying is I don't need to choose at random, because I do have a problem I'm trying to solve - I don't want a 100% male office. I want there to be a few women to soften things a bit.

[–]Qwarked 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

He* wasn’t hiring someone based solely on sex, he was using it as the last deciding factor of two applicants were otherwise completely equal.

[–]TuckerMcInnes2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why are so many people failing to understand this?

I feel this sort of extreme reaction just makes MRAs seem like the flip side of feminism. That is not a good thing.

[–]paul9854 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

he was using it as the last deciding factor of two applicants

Using sex as a deciding factor is sexism. Has he never heard of flipping a coin?

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

But there are other factors I can use when making the hire. As I've said already, my office is all male, so I would like to add some women into the mix.

[–]paul9854 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But there are other factors

my office is all male, so I would like to add some women

That factor relies on the gender/sex of the applicants. Use a factor that doesn't result in bias to one sex or the other, like flipping a coin. Gosh, do you really not understand this?

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand you're not a manager so you've never had to make decisions like this.

In the real world we have to make compromises. Flipping a coin is not a valid management technique. Do you really not understand this?

[–]paul9854 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Flipping a coin is not a valid management technique

If you'd taken the time to google that, you might have learned that it is a legitimate decision-making function that has been used in business, government, and professional sports.

At any rate, there's no law against the use of a coin flip. On the other hand, it is unlawful, and highly unethical, to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sex, which is the behavior in which you are engaging, as you have described it.

My advice to you is to head down to your local community college and see if they offer a course in ethics. It sounds like your knowledge of ethics is quite lacking and you would likely benefit from some education in this area. Good luck!

[+]PM_ME_SCIENCE_PICS1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

And how is that not blatant sexism?

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

It's not blatant sexism.

I'm not saying I only want to hire women.

That would be blatant sexism.

I'm saying if everything is equal, and I have to make a decision based on something, in my situation which is an office full of men, I'm going to choose the woman so the office will balance out a bit.

If you really interpreted my post to mean "I only want to hire women", then you're seriously projecting your bias onto what people are writing.

[+]PM_ME_SCIENCE_PICS1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

You are disadvantaging somebody because of their sex. That's sexism. There isn't more to it.

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

So what should I do?

Hire no one?

Hire the man?

I have to randomly choose someone, so I'm going to choose based on the only advantage/disadvantage going, which is my office is almost entirely male, and it would be less gross if there were some women there.

This isn't sexism. Not everything is sexism.

We don't need be become extremists.

[+]PM_ME_SCIENCE_PICS1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

it would be less gross

Yeah, that's not sexism. At all. Have fun, Mr. CTO.

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

An office of programmers farting and in general being gross. Having some women around stops all that.

You know this is true. I have no idea why people need to "win" even when they know their argument is wrong.

[–]PM_ME_SCIENCE_PICS 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Haha, as a programmer I know that you are talking out of your ass.

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Look, I'm not going to keep arguing with you on this.

Most people know an office works better when there is a balance of people in it. Having an office of men only risks gross behaviour - farting, sex jokes, etc.

An office of women only comes with its own problem.

When there is a mix of men and women, that sort of thing stops.

I think you're being too extreme. It doesn't help the MRA cause.

You can have the last word.

[+]PM_ME_SCIENCE_PICS1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

There is no need to argue. You are wrong and a sexist, that's all there is to it.

If you think that me calling you out is too extreme then so be it.

Even if you were right (again, you aren't) then that still wouldn't explain why stopping that behaviour would be better. After all, the people in the office don't seem to have a problem with it. So if it was true (which it isn't), all you are doing is creating a problem out of thin air and solving it using sexism.

Thanks for the last word, I would like to use it to make my doubts known about you being a CTO.

[–]Qwarked0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You’re not wrong. I’d prolly make the same decision too.

[–]Double_A_92 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It's not blatant sexism.

​

If I have two identical potential employees, I'm going to hire the female.

Pick one.

​

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

You know your argument is bad when you have to exclude the context and edit what I said to make your point.

I said in my particular situation which is an office of IT males.

So I have two exact employees, and one is a woman, I'm going to give her the job so my office becomes more balanced.

That's what a good boss does. Tries to create a balanced office.

The alternative is to hire the man (also sexism according to you) or hire no one.

[–]Double_A_92 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

so my office becomes more balanced.

How is that relevant to any non-sexist reason?

The alternative is to hire the man (also sexism according to you) or hire no one.

The alternative is to pick randomly, or based on some detail that is actually relevant to their skills needed for the job.

​

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

You're not a manager, are you?

You don't make random decisions as a manager.

And we've already established they are the exact same in skills, experience and education. So there is no reason to pick one ahead of the other based on their resume and interview.

[–]Double_A_92 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You don't make random decisions as a manager.

What's the calculated reason for forcefully needing gender balance in the office?

So there is no reason to pick one ahead of the other based on their resume and interview.

I doubt that in reality 2 people could be so exactly equal, but ok. But then how is chosing based on gender a valid and non-sexist thing? It would be fairer to just becide based on personal sympathy.

​

[+]TuckerMcInnes1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

There are tons of non-feminist studies on how gender balance (doesn't need to be 50/50) in an office is better in almost every way.

Here's a study you can read: https://economics.mit.edu/files/8851

This is basic stuff.

Regarding the two people being exactly equal, that is what this entire post is about. Did you read the article?

[–]Double_A_92 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

We find that the perception that a firm is supportive of diversity in an office is positively associated with indications of the level of cooperation in that office. Other proxies for social capital or corporate culture, such as employee morale and satisfaction, were also higher in offices in which this perception was higher. Nevertheless, the presence of actual gender diversity was a significant factor in reducing these same measures of social capital.

~ Quote from the conclusions part of that study.

​

Edit, to be fair:

The quote continues

Gender diversity seems to affect thefunctioning of the firm in quite a different way. Our first set of results suggests thatgender diversity could have detrimental impacts on the formation of firm social capital,but the revenue results suggest that whatever impacts it had were outweighed or at least canceled by the direct contribution of gender diversity in the office

Don't know what "revenue results" are... But all that sounds more like a big maybe.

[–]TuckerMcInnes2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a huge study. You didn't read it in 4 minutes.

I'm not playing this game with you.

[–]Double_A_92-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's the conclusion that the authors wrote themselves... not mine. Why would they be misleading in their own paper?

Also I asked you about your reasons and you threw some random paper at me. It was your job to write a conclusion or at least highlight points as your argument... Who is playing games here?

[–]victorysflame1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe cause they won't have to pay them as much

[–]jonpierre -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like affirmative action

[+]risunokairu -62 points-61 points-60 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is just Patriarchy backfiring. MEN are choosing women over men because their inherent extreme toxic homophobia and desire to rape any women they see.

[–]TomDaNub3719 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really hope you were being sarcastic/high when you wrote this comment.

[–]IAmDefinitelyNotFBI 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nah men usually choose women for two reasons. One, they won’t get any shit for not picking men. And two, they could get their dick sucked. That’s ofc totally generalising but you know fo a fact there’s dudes out there that have this thought path, just look at white knights.

[–]joeflux 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would suspect that gay men are more likely to suck than woman.

[–]IAmDefinitelyNotFBI 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably, but most men aren’t interested in that.

[–]TheNextMilo 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck off...

[–]14Three8 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let’s get this straight. A study found that a mere 0.8% of men have raped someone. I’ll be generous and round up to 1% have urges to do so. You’re blaming all men for the men that are in that 1%. I’m proud to be a guy, but apparently that means I support rapists: not true. Before you write me off, I’ll have you know that I’m an Eagle Scout, almost 250 hours of public volunteering. I work video production at my high school, and I’ve literally made some people’s dreams come true by editing a highlight video for them to put on their resume because they came to me to ask for me to do so. I volunteer every month at the at the food pantry at the church, every other week at the library and church and every week mentoring middle school students on their math homework. Sorry for the wall of text, but that’s my credibility in this argument. End of story: you messed up by making and defending a generalized statement. Screw you for that

[+]Fraser761 -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The story is four years old. Interesting though. It's not denying sexism or discrimination in the industry. Just showing that women are being hired at a higher rate than predicted.

[+]Qwarked -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

this would actually point to a system of male privilege, because the implication of the study is that women would be hired far more if they were Evaluated the same as men

[–]problem_redditor 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It means the opposite of what you've gotten from it. The implication of the study is that when candidates were identical in every respect except for sex, women were preferred by employers and considered more "hireable" despite the fact that the candidate profiles provided were the same/very similar and had identical qualifications.

Essentially, this particular study seems to demonstrate employer bias in favour of women in STEM.

[–]Qwarked -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can see your point of view. but then how would you explain why is the stem field is dominated by men.

[–]Halafax 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can see your point of view. but then how would you explain why is the stem field is dominated by men.

I'm a generation or two back, so... Take it for what it's worth.

I've never seen a girl or woman chased away from a science/technology/engineering/math interest. I'm sure it happens, but I've never seen it. I just very rarely saw any to start with. Computer programming, electronics, almost none. My friends and I would go to computer/ham-radio/rc gatherings, no girls and the few women were usually getting dragged along by their partner.

I would see a few girls at AV and anime/comics/gaming gatherings. A small few. Sci-fi fantasy cons, slightly better turn out. Slightly.

I was at all of those things. All of those things appealed to me. There was considerable overlap between those interests, I found it all exciting.

Where were the girls? I dunno. I pushed through awkward and uncomfortable situations to be close to things I found exciting.

When it came time to find a job, I already knew a lot about computers and electronics. I already knew a lot of people with similar interests- networking got me leads on jobs.

I've often heard how unwelcoming feminists think techie communities are, I think that's pure bullshit. I saw very few women and girls try, I guess they had other interests?

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the same reason the boilermaking industry is, last I saw the statistic, 99% male. Women don't apply.

If you have an application rate of 1 woman to every 20 men, then having a 50/50 workforce is inherently discriminatory, often by passing up men in preference to women.

The alternative is to pressure women into fields they have no interest in to inflate those application numbers.

Also, in nations that incentivised other fields to become more gender equal (engineering encouraging women, nursing encouraging men), it only took a few short years after those programs to see the numbers begin to revert, showing that choice and passion is the biggest factor involved.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter