Unfortunately, there's no easy way to determine what to do about it. I would say that whatever is done, it shouldn't involve discrimination based on gender or sex except where it's obviously relevant (e.g. sports).
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Says Diversity is the Future of Apple, Points to More Female-Driven Presence at WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course not. You'll just continue to do what you've done this entire time. Which is to say, you'll never make an actual point and you'll repeatedly dismiss my points with arrogant or insulting quips.
Well if white men keep treating any threat to their dominance as discriminatory then it's going to be awfully hard not to "discriminate" when trying to level the playing field.
Actually if we're being completely honest with ourselves an Asian student is more likely to score higher than the white guy. But really whenever topics like this come up I'm always amazed that noone has a problem with the legacy students who only got in because their parents are on the board of trustees or because their grandfather's name is on the building. We're here arguing when admissions processes start out unevenly based on spots reserved for the kids of 1%ers.
Anywho here's some food for thought where college admissions are concerned:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans
An excerpt:
...Specifically, he found, in a survey of white California adults, they generally favor admissions policies that place a high priority on high school grade-point averages and standardized test scores. But when these white people are focused on the success of Asian-American students, their views change.
The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.
When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions -- apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (Nationally, Asian average total scores on the three parts of the SAT best white average scores by 1,641 to 1,578 this year.)
When asked about leadership as an admissions criterion, white ranking of the measure went up in importance when respondents were informed of the Asian success in University of California admissions.
"Sociologists have found that whites refer to 'qualifications' and a meritocratic distribution of opportunities and rewards, and the purported failure of blacks to live up to this meritocratic standard, to bolster the belief that racial inequality in the United States has some legitimacy," Samson writes in the paper. "However, the results here suggest that the importance of meritocratic criteria for whites varies depending upon certain circumstances. To wit, white Californians do not hold a principled commitment to a fixed standard of merit."
Samson raises the idea that white perception of "group threat" from Asians influences ideas about admissions criteria -- suggesting that they are something other than pure in their embrace of meritocratic approaches....
...And Samson noted in his presentation here that these concerns are not just theoretical. In 2009, the University of California Board of Regents changed the admissions criteria for the system, generally eliminating the requirement of SAT subject tests. Advocates for Asian Americans noted at the time that this shift was taking away a criterion on which Asian-American applicants tended to do better, on average, than other groups.
We also don't know if it's supposed to be even. I mean, it's not impossible that men naturally would make more money on average. And again there's no way to know.
"Threat to their dominance"
You are really trying to get at my motives aren't you? It's not hard to understand. I don't have some giant conspiracy going on. I simply believe that candidates should be chosen based on who is more capable rather than on race or gender.
Truth hurts I suppose
Resorting to ad hominem attacks does nothing to further your argument. All the arguments for diversity are reasonable. Institutionalized discrimination and implicit bias are well documented. Attempting to rectify them is and has been an ongoing effort by many civil rights activists, feminists and human rights' activists. They share the same concerns as RichTF. Are they all pathological you altruistic? Please provide evidence.
Last edited:
Well it's a good thing we live in a world where the right person is chosen for the right reasons all the time... except when these pesky efforts get made to diversify the work place, of course. So unfair. I mean, when will people stop discriminating and just accept that white guys are typically just kinda better at most things? Am I right!?
How are men favored at all in post-secondary when there's a nearly 2:1 ratio of graduates at all levels and it's rapidly increasing? Do you have any idea how many female-only scholarships there are, especially in STEM? On top of that, there's the hiring bias in favor of women in STEM (in addition to affirmative action). You also overlook that most hiring is done by women (this isn't exclusive to STEM).
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...sts-stem-faculty-hiring-favors-women-over-men
WRT "privilege".. what about how Asians could be considered over-represented in the high-tech fields and they have the highest median income by a long shot in N.A. Does that "privilege" interest you? Are you also interested in dealing with the many inequalities where men are very disadvantaged (such as family court or prison sentencing)? It seems the focus is on being entitled to the comfortable, safe, high paying jobs with regular hours, benefits, holidays, pensions, etc. I won't hold my breathe to hear about lack of women in sewage treatment, waste management, roadworks, roofing, oil rigs, etc... I suppose those men can just keep their "privilege."
Your hateful views and completely broken concept of "privilege" isn't going to help anyone. You aren't advocating equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome (which isn't always realistic in a free society).
You want more women in STEM? Help drive up the interest in young women/girls to take that route.
Yeah, I can't say I know much about the legacy student situation. Seems to me a practice that should stopped immediately. If those kids have the grades, test scores, etc to get in then more power to them. If not, then it's flat out wrong that someone who deserves it more doesn't make the cut.
Interesting. I was aware that Asians are typically better students than other racial groups. Personally I have no problem with them getting into universities in higher numbers. I'd have to really take some time to make sure that the study was done in a credible way, but just going on the assumption that it is, I'm not particularly surprised. As I said earlier, I wouldn't try to make the argument that racism is entirely a thing of the past. I also don't think it's a one way street.
This thread's got some pretty ridiculous stuff in it, considering it's 2015. I gave a solid, irrefutable example of why diversity's important back on page 3 (#71), and here we are, 3 pages later with a lot of men who still don't understand the problem and why it systematically stifles innovation... because they can't see past the end of their own nose, and/ or lack the empathy required to fully understand the daunting uphill battle that women face in these work environments. The irony of it all (ignoring what I had to say then) isn't surprising.
Injustice should be fought wherever it thrives. Contrary to your belief, Asian Americans (perhaps not in Canada) have to jump through more hoops to get the same college or job spots as their European American counterparts. For example, Asian Americans often have to score 200 more points on the SAT to get into an Ivy. If that isn't privilege, I don't know what is. Of course, it's equally reprehensible that African Americans are often admitted with a lower SAT score. Affirmative action is only acceptable if it asks for the same qualifications as the other applicants.
We're not talking about post-secondary. We're talking about the workforce. But you've only further illustrated the point: If women are dominating in post-secondary but lagging in the workforce... what does that tell you about the problem of discrimination in the workforce?
Oh, and women being predominant in HR doesn't mean that women do the majority of hiring. They just do the majority of the legwork with sifting through candidates. Anyone who takes running a team seriously makes the final calls when hiring for that team. They interview and they decide. Not HR.
Nobody is arguing that diversity is unimportant. It seems pretty well everyone is in favor of diversity.
What makes you so certain it's an uphill battle for women in STEM/CS, should they choose to pursue it?
They make up way more of University/College students and all levels of graduates. There are endless women-only scholarships (especially in STEM). They are hired at greater rates relative to the graduating ratios.
The people with a real uphill battle are the people who grow up poor. Hard to get into tech when you don't grow up with tech in the house, can't afford school, etc. Doesn't matter what color/gender/background, your chances are bad when you're lower class.
This is either knowingly attacking a straw man, a troll, or a complete lack of understanding of what I'm arguing.
Do you not see the connection between post-secondary education and the workforce? That's where the pool of candidates comes from. If you have a low ratio of female graduates, there will likely be a lower ratio of female employees in that field. Both of these are true and neither are indicative of discrimination.
You're putting the cart in front of the horse, so to speak. In order to get more women hired in STEM, more women have to pursue education in STEM. There is no other way.
And that starts young. People are in their low teens when they choose high school courses and a direction for post-secondary. Interest starts even younger than that. How ironic it is that Early Childhood Education is extremely female-dominated (another field where equality is not a goal).
This is a bad argument but you seem to be constantly shifting your position. First you claimed never hearing the word diversity again would make you a happy man and now you are supporting Altis's sentiment that diversity isn't all that bad. A bad argument is better than no argument.
Except what you gave was nothing more than a single example of anecdotal evidence. An interesting perspective, and one I read and thought about. That said I didn't bother to respond to this example because it's subject to your own perceptions. Maybe it's the few guys that you work with are just rude people in general? Maybe your confidence and assertiveness have wained? Maybe women don't show you any more respect than the men? In which case having more women wouldn't help your cause. There's a lot to consider here and I'm sorry but your personal story doesn't trump the idea that people should be hired based on qualifications rather than on gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.
I didn't carefully read what was written. I unliked it after a second read.
That said, I do agree with the majority of that post. In fact, the only thing I disagree with are the first two sentences.
Last edited:
Sorry, but it's true, and we're all at least somewhat adults here. Sorry if I made you worry that you're wasting your time worrying about this stuff.
Last edited:
This will take less than a minute:
If 999 black people and 1 white person are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, that equals 1000 injustices.
What a ludicrous response. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate beyond doubt that your paltry mock-leftism isn't anything more than neofascism garbed in dread locks.