You found a study and a report. Now look at the rest. A few: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.short … https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-008-9097-4 … https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316300129 … How about the Nobel Laureate in Physics only being an Associate Professor? Perhaps you weren't hired because you're just not good enough!
-
-
Replying to @evenkolder @aphorism_monkey
It's deeper than hiring. It's who advances, who stays in the field, who gets placed in higher positions, who is encouraged? No employer will hire a lesser qualified applicant. If women are hired over men, it's because they are more qualified or had equal qualifications.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evenkolder
And you're asking me to believe that the same, explicit biases that exist at the hiring level don't exist in regards to promotion, tenure and mentorship? You know that there are numerous scholarships, mentorships and other perks that exist for women only?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aphorism_monkey
I'm not asking you to do anything. Your mind is made upand you've yet to construct a coherent argument of your own. But let me reiterate: the 3rd female physics Nobel laureate ever is still only an associate professor. Let me know when you've put down Peterson and learned math.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evenkolder
I don't have to construct a "coherent argument." The bias is right out in the open for everyone to see. Like the Australian job advert that admits only women. It is you who are gaslighting me by telling me that I am somehow imagining it, that black is white and white is black.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aphorism_monkey
The "bias" you perceive is in direct response to the bias which you fail to see. It's an attempt to balance the playing field. But again, you won't see it, despite fields of study dedicated to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evenkolder
"Balance the playing field" Sure, two wrongs make a right. Lets fight discrimination with more discrimination. I know scientists, I am one myself and I am certain that they are less biased on the whole than others. They have to be.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aphorism_monkey
What you view as discrimination, I do not. If there are opportunities given to women that are not available to me. That is fine, since so many opportunities are given to me that are not available to them due to actual, documented discrimination. And scientists are no less biased.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evenkolder
What opportunities are those? Have your genitals mutilated at birth? Be conscripted to act as an agent of violence for the state? Or maybe you mean to be arrested after your spouse has beaten you half to death? You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, no matter how wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aphorism_monkey
Now that we've entered the realm of childish responses, I'll leave you with your misogyny and prejudices. Have a good evening.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What, now are you trying to tell me that circumcision and conscription are not a thing? As for the last example, I will borrow a page from you own playbook: google it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.