<p>ugh ego i don’t even wanna know then. my head hurts. </p>
<p>Logic, I think what you’re saying sounds more sexist than anyone else. You’re saying women are naturally dumber at math/science and we need special help cause of that. Russell isn’t saying Engineering depts should be all female, he’s saying the best applicants should get the spots regardless of whether they have a dick or not. I don’t think it matters what they’re gender is if they’re capable.</p>
<p>no, due to cultural expectations of women being something more ladylike than engineers there could be women who could outperform the men but won’t go into engineering.</p>
<p>and the only way to reverse that gender norm is to put more women in engineering.</p>
<p>and don’t forget an ad hominem in your next post</p>
<p>“Logic, I think what you’re saying sounds more sexist than anyone else. You’re saying women are naturally dumber at math/science and we need special help cause of that. Russell isn’t saying Engineering depts should be all female, he’s saying the best applicants should get the spots regardless of whether they have a dick or not. I don’t think it matters what they’re gender is if they’re capable.”</p>
<p>no, i was saying if men are better, it wouldn’t mean we should have all-male engineering departments, that hypothetical went on way too long. and russell7 was saying engineering departments should be all male.</p>
<p>Well done ego, you magnificent ■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>You really had me and the other rational posters going - but it turns out you were a ■■■■■ the entire time. You win this round.</p>
<p>And amen Russel. It’s like talking to a wall with those two. It’s exactly that kind of ignorance they are displaying which feeds into the “feminazi” stereotype.</p>
<p>lol, right. I don’t see any scholarships to encourage poor males, who have been stereotyped into manly professions like engineering, into more ladylike professions in the social sciences.</p>
<p>If you’re that concerned with how society has shaped this ****, you don’t solve it with discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no I wasn’t. I was saying in your stupid hypothetical scenario. But we all know that women are perfectly capable of getting into and succeeding in engineering.</p>
<p>how was it a ■■■■■?</p>
<p>it’s hard to argue against people who think that helping people is sexist.</p>
<p>helping people is never discrimination</p>
<p>by your logic i should never give money to a charity without giving an equal amount to every other charity, anything else would be discrimination, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>helping a particular sex, because of their sex, and refusing to help the other sex, is sexist. That’s as obvious as sexism can be.</p>
<p>gender studies is a convoluted place, stargazer. </p>
<p>russell, i get your argument. i really, really do. but the issue is that math is a very typically male field, so women get scholarships to encourage them to step out of their typical bounds and to set examples for other women who might be wary about entering such a male-dominated field. i think that what you and lw seem to be fighting about are quotas, which are seriously bad ideas all around. </p>
<p>a more reasonable solution, i think, is to encourage more girls to take math and science courses early on, like elementary school age. you know, help them develop the skills and the interest that they might not have developed otherwise.</p>
<p>“a more reasonable solution, i think, is to encourage more girls to take math and science courses early on, like elementary school age.”</p>
<p>everyone took the same classes in my elementary school, not sure about yours</p>
<p>“refusing to help the other sex”</p>
<p>how many of those engineering scholarships that could go to either gender go to men?</p>
<p>the point of the comparison is that the media is discriminatory towards women of average or large proportion, while males are able to “prance around” because they ‘deserve’ to be seen … just saying, media is male-driven</p>
<p>Logic and ego you’re just trying to put a sexist spin on everything, give it a rest, it’s getting old. You two seem to be the only ones who agree with each other while everyone else disagrees, coincidence? I think not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a stupid question. More men will be applying.</p>
<p>I just find it amusing that one is considered more of a bad word than the other.</p>
<p>and more women will be applying for the female ones</p>
<p>here in NY state, girls/boys take the same classes in elementary school, in middle school they start having special “advanced” and “honors” classes, but everyone’s required to take the same curriculum. Most people in HS do Earth Sci, Bio, Chem, then Physics (i remember a very small minority gets stuck into Forensic Sci because they were too dumb for physics) and boys/girls take the same tests and get the same curriculum, i don’t think one gender is being encourage more to go into these fields.</p>
<p>but obviously there’s a reason one gender does better, and i’m guessing it’s cultural. Not sure what we can do about it.</p>
<p>“Logic and ego you’re just trying to put a sexist spin on everything, give it a rest, it’s getting old. You two seem to be the only ones who agree with each other while everyone else disagrees, coincidence? I think not.”</p>
<p>well, the majority is always right, time to leave</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given how men don’t qualify for those scholarships, no ****ing shlt. Men don’t even have their own engineering scholarships. More men get scholarships because there are more men in engineering. A higher proportion of men DO NOT get more scholarships. If I was ego I’d be embarrassed that you were on my team.</p>
<p>^^^so because the women apply for mostly the female ones, males mostly apply for the other ones. i guess we agree, not sure why you want to keep disagreeing.</p>
<p>"but obviously there’s a reason one gender does better, and i’m guessing it’s cultural. Not sure what we can do about it. "</p>
<p>how about scholarships? :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They usually are.</p>
<p>Funny how the neuroscience/biology (actual science) folks here seem to take the position of Russell and stargazer, while the “gender studies” duo keep embarrassing themselves by showing their deficit of knowledge of basic physiological gender differences. And yet they are the ones making the more outrageous claims.</p>