Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[weenog]

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the justification.  If someone is at a disadvantage because of discrimination, strip that shit out.  If it's an inherent disadvantage, they're either going to need to overcome it themself or find another field.  Equal opportunity doesn't mean nice and it certainly doesn't get along well with quotas.

Slack standards for groups perceived to be at a disadvantage due to attitudes in society or in a particular field just ensure that those attitudes will be perpetuated.  They marginalize the results of those who can perform.  The accomplishments of individuals in the "disadvantaged" group will be seen as cheap, shoddy, small things, not impressive, not earned.

Vector, what would you think about solid C students getting A- grades back in maths classes, because of some positive discrimination factor out of your and their control?  How seriously would you take individuals of that privileged "disadvantaged" group crowing about their grades?  How much harder would it be for a legitimate A- student of group to convince you that they earned their grades, after a few years of this?  How would you react to discovering that you'd missed out on an advanced class or a job, because someone who got the same credit as you for less accomplishment had gotten it instead, due to either a false perception of similar talent, or quotas?

[Loud Whispers]

For the soldier fitness test a lot of it is just being generally healthy and fit. It is not based on any real applications. The army doesn't want any soldiers who are not healthy and fit because they are a liability.

The altered test for females is based on this: If the test is just to make sure that all recruits are healthy and fit, then the test should be to see if a female recruit is a healthy and fit female recruit.

They have medical examinations to determine if you are healthy and fit. The tests are to determine if you are capable of operating. Hence why the RM do things like exercises around the world in the most inhospitable places with the full weight of their equipment and a loaded rifle.

[tahujdt]

And if you're struggling, don't blame others for it.

My professor for my introductory analysis course would, while lecturing, stare at me while zipping and unzipping his fly, visibly somewhat aroused.  I am not exactly sure how he isn't to blame for this.

After re-reading your post, I find it kind of hard to believe. About the continual harassment and stuff, I mean.

Good for you.

If you're wondering about the lack of mention of famous female mathematicians, it's probably because there aren't that many. This isn't because of lack of female ability, it's because of lack of women in the profession.

Oh. . . really?  That's a newsflash!  Thanks for telling me, teehee :3

Do we mention the founder of computer science in computer science classes, Ada Lovelace?  No.  Do we mention the discoverer of the double-helix structure, Rosalind Franklin?  No.  Do we mention the woman who figured out that the sun was made of hydrogen?  No.  Do we mention Sophie Germain?  Do we mention Hypatia, in our courses on the history of mathematics?  Do we mention Emmy Noethur in our beginning physics courses, the lady who built the backbone of modern physics and abstract algebra?

No.  We're given Marie Curie and asked to look the other way as our accomplishments are mentioned, but our names are forgotten.

Alright, then, which male mathematicians are you learning about?
Also, you seem to be discriminating by thinking of women as an entire different group, instead of one group of humans.

[GreatJustice]

The question then becomes is it worth the extra effort to have these women placed into these roles?

Well yes it is.

The test is just to make sure that the recruits they are hiring, who would be typically male, are physically fit. The test was made with a male in mind not with general performance in mind.

A firefighter's test is based off of real practical world applications. Thus the weight a firefighter has to carry as part of the test is immutable because it represents the average weight of a person. So even though female success would drop the test has tangible application.

For the soldier fitness test a lot of it is just being generally healthy and fit. It is not based on any real applications.

The altered test for females is based on this: If the test is just to make sure that all recruits are healthy and fit, then the test should be to see if a female recruit is a healthy and fit female recruit.

Well no, a soldier typically has to carry all of his equipment, and in addition may have to carry one of his wounded comrades out of the line of fire, something that most certainly would NOT be helped by an underqualified woman being left to do it. I'm going to be lazy right here and just quote one of the better arguments I've seen from an actual marine, which covers a lot of the points made in this thread:

Good lord [person] your arguments are so inane and absurd. You talk about it's all about the averages and yet the averages for men and women are exactly what we're talking about. Average men vs average women. You talk about muscle deterioration and bone density issues can happen in men too-- yes, at a significantly lower rate and you know what those people usually get pushed out of the Marines before they even make it through boot camp. Stress fractures in boot camp send you packing to a medical recovery platoon at which point you rejoin a training platoon further back in the training cycle, but in most cases stress fracture types get re-injured quite frequently and end up being medically discharged. But it's far more common in women than in men.

Musculoskeletal injuries are a serious problem for recruits participating in military
training, but may be especially important for women. Prospective studies of military populations
participating in different entry-level programs have consistently reported higher injury rates
among women than men.
5,9,16,18,19,30
In particular, estimates of stress fracture rates of 5-12% have
been reported among women undergoing various entry-level military training programs, rates
that are about twice as high as those reported for men undergoing the same training.
4,16
And keep in mind this is the ENTRY level training in the Marines-- of which females are twice as high as reported by males, but guess what-- contrary to the report the women are not going through the same training as the men. The standards for women are not as stringent or extreme for women-- so while they do the same events, the speed is not the same, height of different obstacles are not the same, and weight carried is not the same.

Now keep in mind that is just the rates for recruit training-- not something along the lines of the infantry where things are far more brutal regarding weight, speed of march, obstacles, sleep deprivation, etc.

Now why you think that it's the military's job to put women in this role even though the majority are not capable just because a tiny minority of males are not (of which most are sifted out before they ever make it that far) is just asinine. But you don't know what the hell you are talking about so it makes sense to you. Do you know what it's like being a young male in the infantry that can pull his weight physically? It is NOT a fun place to be. And if you don't get where you need to be with remedial training you're going to hate your life, you'll be socially ostracized from the rest of the unit, repeatedly punished, put on crappy details, and probably hazed endlessly if you're a boot. I can only imagine the fall out with females in this position. Except that because the military is a government bureaucracy they will be shielded and protected and the infantry as a whole will soften.

You keep talking about standards being developed and maintained for the sake of women in the program, but fail to comprehend that there are standards already in place that are not maintained and that female's performance is already white washed in many regards. To speak out against females performance (especially if you're an officer) is career suicide which is why you NEVER hear anything negative. Don't you think that's telling? When is the last time you heard a military officer, especially of flag rank, criticizing the females under his charge in some way, shape or form? Never. Because to do so would mean the end of their career. The opposite is not true when regarding males.

[tahujdt]

Lets argue about how life is discriminating against men because women live longer on average. We must tell life that he must treat everyone equally!

[Andrew425]

The question then becomes is it worth the extra effort to have these women placed into these roles?

Well yes it is.

The test is just to make sure that the recruits they are hiring, who would be typically male, are physically fit. The test was made with a male in mind not with general performance in mind.

A firefighter's test is based off of real practical world applications. Thus the weight a firefighter has to carry as part of the test is immutable because it represents the average weight of a person. So even though female success would drop the test has tangible application.

For the soldier fitness test a lot of it is just being generally healthy and fit. It is not based on any real applications. The army doesn't want any soldiers who are not healthy and fit because they are a liability.

The altered test for females is based on this: If the test is just to make sure that all recruits are healthy and fit, then the test should be to see if a female recruit is a healthy and fit female recruit.

But that isn't the case unfortunately. In my home town firefighters are allowed to discriminate when it comes to gender and race.

Also I'm not arguing that womens shouldnt be in the army. I'm saying that as it is now the standards for front line troops is lesser for women. Which in turn makes it more dangerous for everyone. If they were to make a gender equal standard they would have unfit men or be unable to have sufficient women.

[MonkeyHead]

This thread is circling the drain, and needs locking OP, before people start saying really stupid shit and end up muted or banned. A reasonable and fair consensus was reaced on the first few pages. Most of the rest of the posts (some of mine included) are pretty much redundant and repeating the same bad arguments over and over. So, yea, please take this out back and shoot it.

[DWC]

It's not so much getting into the military that's a concern, it's staying in the military. The military accepts all kinds of out-of-shape high school kids under the assumption that they can get them into shape while training them to be soldiers. They can't have soldiers in service that can't do what is expected of them.

I read the military is more trying to tailor standards to the soldier's individual job in the military. Infantrymen have one standard, admin clerks have another, ect. The problem with this is a soldier is a soldier. If the situation is dire enough (like in a real war) those admin clerks, cooks and mechanics will be fighting. So giving the cooks a test revolving around the rigors of lifting boxes of powdered eggs is doing them a great disservice when they are then later required to go storm the trenches.

This isn't like the civilian world where a fork polisher can't do the spoon shiner's job. A soldier's purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy, their specialty is just something added on top of that, it's not the sole purpose in the organization.

[Loud Whispers]

My professor for my introductory analysis course would, while lecturing, stare at me while zipping and unzipping his fly, visibly somewhat aroused.  I am not exactly sure how he isn't to blame for this.

My friend was forcibly given a strip dance by his chemistry teacher and I was incapable [though admittedly ethically wrong] of finding it as anything but laughable.

I wouldn't use that anecdote to justify affirmative action.

Do we mention the founder of computer science in computer science classes, Ada Lovelace?  No.  Do we mention the discoverer of the double-helix structure, Rosalind Franklin?  No.  Do we mention the woman who figured out that the sun was made of hydrogen?  No.  Do we mention Sophie Germain?  Do we mention Hypatia, in our courses on the history of mathematics?  Do we mention Emmy Noethur in our beginning physics courses, the lady who built the backbone of modern physics and abstract algebra?

Do we learn about Ibn Al-Haytham, who made valuable contributions in maths, anatomy, astronomy, engineering, medicine, philosophy, physics, and also introduced a scientific methodology of experimentation and observation? Tim Berners-Lee, who gifted the world with unpatented internet? Avicenna, a pinnacle in understanding the spread and treatment of disease? Fritz Haber, who is acredited with making the synthesis of chemicals so much cheaper to feed billions? Szilárd who theorized chain reactions? James Clerk Maxwell, probably the founder of modern physics, and discoverer of electromagnetic waves?
The list goes on.

[palsch]

And what would your outcome be? This is not egalitarianism nor humanism, this is discrimination. All you do is further degrade an ever growing number of people by making some inherently more valuable than others. You create inequality.

It all depends on the situation.

It's possible to have poorly designed and counter-productive affirmative action, as it is possible to have poorly designed anything when it comes to society. But it's also possible to observe the cultural conditions, work out the problems and try to find ways to fix them.

To take an example from the UK, the Metropolitan Police.

The Met were largely regarded as racist for the longest time, with good reason. This was mostly due to certain high profile incidents, but also due to the general culture of the force. It was massively majority white men, with a very ingrained culture of white-male-ness. The only real way to change that was to bring minority officers into the force.

Except that any minorities trying to enter would face racism from those already there, having to fight uphill every step of the way. For years this depressed the numbers of black and asian officers policing often majority black and asian areas of London.

This is a directly damaging problem for a major community. Hell, the Met being viewed as racist is a substantial contributor to the riots of a few years ago. Yet even suggestions that race could be used in tie breaks (two equal candidates, you pick the one most useful to the force due to adding some diversity - the usual form of AA used in American college admissions by the way) have been shouted down time and time again. And meanwhile the minorities are still frozen out of top jobs.

There are plenty of cases where having increased diversity within a group is of direct value. I'd argue that is one. College campuses (and frankly, individual courses) are another. I think there is a case to be made for the military as well, if only because women in the military are a reality no matter what and having a critical mass plus senior military staff being female might just be the best way to make sure things work smoothly.


And as someone who spent a long time in a university physics department as an undergraduate and postgraduate, I have to say that what Vector is saying sounds about normal to me. We had substantial numbers of women as both students and professors but they were still dumped on and treated substantially differently (to their detriment) than the men.

[Vector]

I'm not talking about changing letter grades.  I'm talking about admissions for graduate work.

I think that if I didn't get in because they give the place to a black person, I'd be happy about it.  There hasn't been one in any of my years of math studying.  I think that mathematics will be an inherently stronger field if it has more people to love it, and I think that breaking open the field is important if it is going to continue existing.

Alright, then, which male mathematicians are you learning about?

Gauss, Newton, Thales, L'hopital, Lagrange, Jordan, Riemann, Euclid, Euler, Leibniz, Descartes, Stieltjes, Sylow, Poincare, Kuratowski, Godel, Erdos, Cauchy, Liouville, Stone, Weierstrass, Abel, Dedekind, Kronecker, Galois, Artin, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Diophantus, Fibonacci, Fermat, Dirichlet, Hilbert, Turing, Stokes, Fourier, Lebesgue, Darboux, deRham, Sard, Klein, Ibn Al-Haytham, Al-Khwarizmi, Hookes, and I'm just getting started.

Do we learn about Ibn Al-Haytham, who made valuable contributions in maths, anatomy, astronomy, engineering, medicine, philosophy, physics, and also introduced a scientific methodology of experimentation and observation? Tim Berners-Lee, who gifted the world with unpatented internet? Avicenna, a pinnacle in understanding the spread and treatment of disease? Fritz Haber, who is acredited with making the synthesis of chemicals so much cheaper to feed billions? Szilárd who theorized chain reactions? James Clerk Maxwell, probably the founder of modern physics, and discoverer of electromagnetic waves?
The list goes on.

Actually. . . yes?  Every intro physics and chem student has to learn about Maxwell's equations.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually. . . yes?  Every intro physics and chem student has to learn about Maxwell's equations.

Yes, his equations.

[Leafsnail]

There's really no way around teaching Maxwell's equations.

[tahujdt]

My professor for my introductory analysis course would, while lecturing, stare at me while zipping and unzipping his fly, visibly somewhat aroused.  I am not exactly sure how he isn't to blame for this.

My friend was forcibly given a strip dance by his chemistry teacher and I was incapable [though admittedly ethically wrong] of finding it as anything but laughable.

I wouldn't use that anecdote to justify affirmative action.

Do we mention the founder of computer science in computer science classes, Ada Lovelace?  No.  Do we mention the discoverer of the double-helix structure, Rosalind Franklin?  No.  Do we mention the woman who figured out that the sun was made of hydrogen?  No.  Do we mention Sophie Germain?  Do we mention Hypatia, in our courses on the history of mathematics?  Do we mention Emmy Noethur in our beginning physics courses, the lady who built the backbone of modern physics and abstract algebra?

Do we learn about Ibn Al-Haytham, who made valuable contributions in maths, anatomy, astronomy, engineering, medicine, philosophy, physics, and also introduced a scientific methodology of experimentation and observation? Tim Berners-Lee, who gifted the world with unpatented internet? Avicenna, a pinnacle in understanding the spread and treatment of disease? Fritz Haber, who is acredited with making the synthesis of chemicals so much cheaper to feed billions? Szilárd who theorized chain reactions? James Clerk Maxwell, probably the founder of modern physics, and discoverer of electromagnetic waves?
The list goes on.

What about Muhommad al-Khawrmzi (probably spelled that wrong), who discovered much about quadratics and gave algebra its name?

[tahujdt]

There's really no way around teaching Maxwell's equations.

Let's whine about not learning every detail about him!