MRA: Women hate engineering because it’s too hard and they’d rather mooch off their husbands.

>>>Radiophobia and opposition to nuclear technology are far problematic than feminism and women’s liberation.

Nuclear energy is an inefficient method of energy production that has never been commercially viable. It only serves as a mean for a few corporations to syphon off taxpayer money in subsidies from the government (which is the only thing keeping those power plants profitable). The entire policy of the United States government towards nuclear energy is the result of a PR push by the DoD to stamp out anti-nuclear sentiments. The only useful purpose of nuclear energy is warfare, and while it’s not something the experts from the federal government will admit publicly (as it would be detrimental to their PR efforts), they are clearly aware of that fact given their reactions to Iran’s own nuclear ambitions.

Quackers – Well, its an interesting thing, too. Until I was told I had what apparently are freakishly exceptional spatial skills, I would have just assumed mine were average, and to tell you the truth, probably would have, without thinking about it, assumed mine were average “FOR A WOMAN” – Whereas if I was a guy with actual average or below average spatial reasoning, I might have assumed mine was average FOR A MAN, and therefore better than women I encountered. These things are important in your measure of your own talents and abilities.

Ah… Thanks for reminding me why I love… and hate… arguing around here. There are a lot of very smart people here who are good at reasoning. But, then they simply turn around and start mocking people and presenting one ad-hominem after another. It gets very frustrating when you are attempting to have a discussion. Protip: Manipulating another person’s emotions is not an argument.

Dev Guy/Developers! Developers! Developers! is back XD And with his same old same old “what about the traditional women” thing xD

Remember Zhinxy, he says you don’t count as a feminist who’s also a mother and a good wife because it’s impossible to prove your abuse, you could be lying! xD

Tell me, was this the same thread that you and your friends said that a Drupal hacker who claims that she has never experienced sexism in technology was being unreasonable in saying that?

What is Dev Guy trying to convince us of btw? o_O Better to leave it to white guys and a few “exceptions” or talent (i.e. abled white guys) will be wasted and the CommieRussianChineseNaziMuslims will take us over? o_O

Um… Are you even trying to understand my argument? This is such a strawman.

Plus, we all know that the real villains are the NinjaPirateCommieLawierNaziZombieRobots from the Marians Trench.

How do you know hiring practices that give mostly white male hires are not biased? (outside of the circular reasoning where clearly they must not be because white guys are being hired and therefore white guys are the most qualified, and since they’re the most qualified, them being hired shows pure objectivity) xD
How do you know that they are biased? I think the burden of proof is on you here. You can’t simply point to the unequal umbers and say that this is the result of discrimination, particularly when the precipitants themselves are reporting little if any discrimination. This is my fundamental point. It’s entirely possible to have an unequal outcome in terms of the total number of $underprivilaged_minority without any active discrimination agisnt $underprivilaged_minority.

And, let’s go back to my example of sociality professors and the Republican party. 50:1 is far more unequal than the gender distribution of my computer science department. Yet, in and of itself this ratio is not necessarily a sign of ideological discrimination. In order to allege that, you need some additional evidence.

And, that’s the thing. When it comes to sexism in science and engineering, the evidence for significant institutional sexism just isn’t there. I’d venture a guess, based on studies like that and talking to actual women I know how worked in the industry that you are more likely to be discriminated against as a Best Buy Customer than as job applicant in science and technology.

There is serious talk of applying title IX like quotas to science and engineering to enforce equality.

Lol. Citation absolutely needed.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/education/84/8420education.html

Men are not better suited biologically for math though. This has been debunked over and over again. I’m so sick of people perpetuating this stereotype, it’s why many girls don’t even bother with math. Not saying you are perpetuating this Kyrie, just overall.

http://io9.com/5867401/there-really-is-no-difference-between-men-and-womens-math-abilities
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105112303.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182655.htm

Well, there’s a reason I didn’t make that claim. Math is such a broad subject that requires such different skills, I think claims like this are impossible to test and not particularly useful. Which is why I made a much more specific claim…

oh and another about spatial abilities:

Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/19/1015182108

unfortunately you need to create an account to read it, but sociological images covered it as well http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/10/25/sex-society-and-spatial-ability/

Of course it does. I’ve done hand drafting and 3d modeling enough to know this is the case firsthand. But, I still think this shows some level of population-wide sex difference in brain function. Therefore, even if this can be trained around (and, I do believe that it can be), it still shows that are differences between men and women that might apply to specific skills that might influence someone away from specific fields.

Nuclear energy is an inefficient method of energy production that has never been commercially viable. It only serves as a mean for a few corporations to syphon off taxpayer money in subsidies from the government (which is the only thing keeping those power plants profitable). The entire policy of the United States government towards nuclear energy is the result of a PR push by the DoD to stamp out anti-nuclear sentiments. The only useful purpose of nuclear energy is warfare, and while it’s not something the experts from the federal government will admit publicly (as it would be detrimental to their PR efforts), they are clearly aware of that fact given their reactions to Iran’s own nuclear ambitions.

If Iran was interested in peaceful nuclear power, they would have taken the external enrichment deal and submitted to external monitoring. They would have built some sort of PWR or BWR that uses water for modulation and used longer refueling cycles to get the most out of their fuel. They have done none of these things.

As far as costs go, that is debatable. I’d venture that the irrational NIMBYism around nuclear plants have needlessly increased costs. Plus, if we got some real research into fast reactor technology, we could dramatically reduce the life-cycle costs of dealing with nuclear “waste”.

Shorter zhinxy…

Pro-tip – please note the manboobz.com tagline.

“Misogyny. I mock it.”

I’ve always been interested in why trolls show up, if they’re trying to convince us of something, like affect us and change our minds. Cuz if they do, they certainly never seem to really try. They don’t have evidence, they have vague claims, and they’re very dodgy when asked what specifically they want us to believe, and to elaborate. o_O

Honestly, as I’ve said before. I’m pretty sure the trolls just come here because they want a fight. Like not a debate, a fight. No troll is here to debate honestly, or affect our opinions, or change minds, or convince us to fight on their side and become allies to the MRA cause. They’re here because they don’t like that we’re mocking them, and they want to make us mad, angry, confused and upset XD Or just to frustrate us… they’re party crashers, and while many of them might believe some of the stuff they say, they aren’t here to debate that, and usually they haven’t really come to any of their conclusions through evidence, but it’s stuff they know they can derail and fight about. They know this is a mockery site, and they want to dampen the fun and turn the tables (or at least in their fantasy scenarios xD ) and thus we get the people we do, who say things, and claim things and etc etc but don’t want to hash it out XD

Damnit, got ninjed.

Also Zhinxy, he’s ttlly ignoring your “what about x people in history that didn’t get the training despite obvious brilliance?” Thing I notice too XD So much for debate.

I’m sure he considered that an ad-hominem too. xD

You aren’t sure of anything I’m thinking or feeling. How on earth would you know?

I’ll go ahead and answer that specific case right now. You are talking about a case from the 18th century. Are you telling me that modern society is no different? That everything from industrialization to woman’s liberation have had no effect? I fail to see how this is an example of sexism in the industry or academia today.

Honestly, as I’ve said before. I’m pretty sure the trolls just come here because they want a fight. Like not a debate, a fight. No troll is here to debate honestly, or affect our opinions, or change minds, or convince us to fight on their side and become allies to the MRA cause. They’re here because they don’t like that we’re mocking them, and they want to make us mad, angry, confused and upset XD Or just to frustrate us… they’re party crashers, and while many of them might believe some of the stuff they say, they aren’t here to debate that, and usually they haven’t really come to any of their conclusions through evidence, but it’s stuff they know they can derail and fight about. They know this is a mockery site, and they want to dampen the fun and turn the tables (or at least in their fantasy scenarios xD ) and thus we get the people we do, who say things, and claim things and etc etc but don’t want to hash it out XD

Nice bit of profiling here… So, remind me how you are reading my mind again?

Nuclear energy is an inefficient method of energy production that has never been commercially viable. It only serves as a mean for a few corporations to syphon off taxpayer money in subsidies from the government (which is the only thing keeping those power plants profitable). The entire policy of the United States government towards nuclear energy is the result of a PR push by the DoD to stamp out anti-nuclear sentiments. The only useful purpose of nuclear energy is warfare, and while it’s not something the experts from the federal government will admit publicly (as it would be detrimental to their PR efforts), they are clearly aware of that fact given their reactions to Iran’s own nuclear ambitions.

AU CONTRAIRE! It is extremely efficient. Thanks to eco/media-hype inducing anti-nuclear hysteria, the US government has put a moratorium on the nuclear industry so no more nuclear power plants can be built. Why do computer scientists pretend to know anything about physics? 😛 In fact, nuclear energy could be made even more efficient, along with much safer and controllable, with gas core reactors that use a *magnetic bottle* to contain the resulting plasma(much like the Tokamak rings used for fusion research).

It is wind power is what is truly inefficient and so much so that it isn’t economically viable on its own and requires massive government subsidies.