Posted on 04/21/2017 10:37:08 AM PDT by rlmorel
March For Science
The non-partisan March for Science celebrates the discovery, understanding, and sharing of scientific knowledge as crucial to the success, health, and safety of the human race. Thousands are expected to participate in Boston and across the country, with the main event happening on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
Reading the "About Us" part of the web site, I saw this:
Science based on diversity: Diversity Statement
"We are committed to making science accessible to everyone and encouraging people from diverse backgrounds and experiences to pursue science careers. Diverse science teams outperform homogeneous teams and produce broader, more creative, and stronger work. We believe that regardless of past practices, science should never be used to disenfranchise or marginalize groups of people. Rather, all persons have the right to pursue and enjoy the fruits of science regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status. Science belongs to all people, and should be done for all people.
Diverse representation through our speakers and volunteers is only part of our commitment to intersectional inclusion. We want to also use the moment to discuss the existing systemic problems underlying academia, cultural norms, and scientific institutions with relation to science. It is important to address the reasons why there is a lack of diversity in the first place and develop holistic solutions for fixing systems that result in inequality.
To this end we employ a range of outreach volunteers who have two goals: ensure that people, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status are welcome at our event and to work as messengers to bring the public’s concerns to the organizers. We see outreach as a dialogue and recognize that often our role is not to speak but rather to step aside and listen.
We also welcome discussions and academic research on ways to improve access to participation in and benefitting from science. Our speakers and action items that will be released after the event will reflect this concern."
Obviously your plant is racist and heteronormative. You talk as if the physical laws of the universe are immutable and not a mere social construct of an imperialist western scientific hegemony.
1. Lower average math ability in women. This isn’t sexism - I’m a woman who made it through differential equations, linear algebra, operations research and Calculus 3. It was a challenge for me, and many other women dropped out to become business majors. So did many men, but that’s less of an issue.
2. The long hours associated with STEM dissuade many women from starting the career path. This mindset is why women are more likely to work part time with or without children.
3. Have children, and your odds of working in STEM go down dramatically. Why work in a engineering job where they demand 60 hours a week and/or travel when you can work in configuration management, management or some other position for a standard 40? Some proactively pick the career perceived as more family friendly.
4. Men have stronger visual spacial skills invaluable for design. Few women have the visualization skills to be mechanical engineers, and fewer know about industrial engineering, chemical engineering and other disciplines that pay as well but aren’t classic ME.
5. While there is equal opportunity in entry to STEM fields (and often outright bias against men), boys gravitate to construction toys and disassembly of items at an early age, they are more likely to have the interest, skills and expertise to move into engineering. Girls are more likely to love dolls, cooking toys, etc and want to become teachers, doctors, bakers. I was playing with my brother’s legos, and I know I was the exception.
Isn’t becoming a science professor (on a university level) or a doctor essentially a STEM career?
Right, you cherry-picked a disgraced black doctor and a white doctor who was a genius. I could cherry-pick and find a dozen disgraced white doctors and the same amount of accomplished black ones.
STEM would be a chemist or biologist.
Medicine is not STEM, and it is heavily dominated by women now, even MDs.
Science education requires an education degree, and that’s overwhelmingly female AND their “dispositions” requirements actively discriminate against conservatives ... and incidentally men due to political correctness.
That peer group dynamic is something I can understand, to a degree.
It is the same handicap faced by a segment of black kids who are working hard and studying hard, and they are castigated for being too “white”.
Apart from the welfare state and other liberal polices, the biggest danger to the black community is the “black culture” of which that attitude is just a part of.
I sometimes think men and women are so different that aliens visiting our planet might think we were two different species.
But I relish the difference, it is the sauce of life that makes it work.
I believe there are things that men are better at than women, and I also believe that women can do some things better than men.
I have always enjoyed this video: A Tale of Two Brains (by Mark Gungor
One of the things that makes it so funny is not just that it is true, but that every man or woman in that audience knows it too (as evidenced from their reactions) from simple empirical evidence that results from living together for years!
I picked the original affirmative action doctor. When you lower standards, that is what you tend to get. If you were to look at black doctors who didn’t need affirmative action to get into med school, their performance is probably similar to others. Bakke, by the way, wasn’t a “genius” and wasn’t at the top of the applicant pool, which is why he was victimized. He was a smart, hard working white guy who had an opportunity stolen. If you read enough about Chavis, you’ll discover that the locals think he was killed by someone in the community - a relative of one of the women who died because of his malpractice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.