2016 US Presidential Election Thread

[MonkeyMan576]

Women are 8 times less likely to negotiate for higher wages. I think that's a pretty big contributing factor in why they get paid less. (Being averse to negotiating for wages myself, I can correlate this one.) Not sure how that kind of problem can possibly be addressed either, since an employer is content to pay you as low as they possibly can.

We're also never going to see a world where men and women are distributed completely evenly across every single industry. Because of that you can't really compare wages because you're comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples.

Well, I'm sure men who speak up being perceived as assertive and women doing the same being perceived as bitchy has nothing to do with it.

Just because we probably won't see equality doesn't mean we can't identify the SOURCES of why there is equality and see what we can do about them.

I'm sure this is true, but it's not evil corperations trying to save a buck by screwing women over.

[quadz08]

just like racism isn't generally evil people trying to murder everyone who's not white

that doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs fixing

[AniX]

just like racism isn't generally evil people trying to murder everyone who's not white

that doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs fixing

+1

One of them most harmful beliefs in terms of actually solving gender inequality is that there is no sexism if there is no sexist. It's simply not true.

[Kublai Khan]

I'm sure this is true, but it's not evil corperations trying to save a buck by screwing women over.

Well, watch something like Mad Men. Look at the prototypical office which has male executives and female secretaries. Work out the average salaries.

A big problem is that culturally, girls aren't likely to embrace or be interested in STEM topics because they don't want to be socially ostracized by their peers. Or they buy into BS stereotypes like "girls aren't good at math" and don't even try.

[Sudo_Nym]

In a lot of cases, it's not even about what the woman wants. I went to college with a lot of women who were good at math, and were basically rejected from the STEM fields by professionals- there were professors who would "encourage" women in advanced mathematics to become accountants and bookkeepers instead, as well as STEM recruiters at the job fairs who didn't take female applicants seriously. It's an ingrained problem.

[Dessew]

Not like it makes a difference on wether there's a problem to fix or not, but there's this paper I cannot find, suggesting that girls under a certain age perform on maths tests just as well as boys, UNLESS you tell them before that women are usually worse at maths than men (then they score lower.) (This strange phenomenon disappears as children grow & boys steadily score higher than girls, but I personally suspect that every day negative feedback can be accounted for it.)

[Cephrir]

Yeah, that came to mind earlier. It's honestly kind of cool in an academic way.

[Dessew]

Oh, also: do you know who was the first person to write computer programs? Ada Lovelace, she was using some mechanical computers. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with compsci, so I'm not entirely sure what it means. But still, it's really worth asking yourself: how come you probably have never heard of her, but you know who, for example, the Wright brothers were. (She was also the daughter of Byron, & just over all a fascinating person, it's worth reading about her.)

[AniX]

Oh, also: do you know who was the first person to write computer programs? Ada Lovelace, she was using some mechanical computers. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with compsci, so I'm not entirely sure what it means. But still, it's really worth asking yourself: how come you probably have never heard of her, but you know who, for example, the Wright brothers were. (She was also the daughter of Byron, & just over all a fascinating person, it's worth reading about her.)

I don't think that is quite a far comparison. I mean, on the whole we know more about male accomplishments than female ones, but I'm sure most people know the Wright Brothers better than Filo T. Farnsworth or even Turing.

[Dessew]

Sorry, I don't have anything against the Wrights, I just wanted to name people who were the first to do something, & I thought they were well-known enough (to be fair, I'm a university student & I'm European, so don't necessarely know what is general knowledge in the USA.) The point is that there are & there have been women who are accomplishing or have accomplished incredible things in science, but they are not given the appropriate credit. (It just occurred to me, but it'd actually help a lot if more women were involved in history in an academic level, history of science, to be more specific.)

[T S O]

I agree, women are better than men at everything unless you tell them they're not. Then they believe it and they're not.

[Psyche]

stereotype threat works a little differently from that

[T S O]

victory?

[Aeronaut]

That debate was... Interesting

[Psyche]

i just
really appreciate what fox has done

[MonkeyMan576]

Trump is basically sabotaging him self with all the stupid crap he is saying. He doesn't look presidential at all and he is alienating (pardon the pun) two thirds of his constituancy. I don't know why the press feels obligated to take him seriously when he doesn't take himself or anything else seriously.

[SleepyKrew]

Because the public is taking him seriously.

[MonkeyMan576]

Not really they are just infatuated with his celebrity and there is an anti Washington section of the voting block that will back anyone that's famous and non political. A majority of gop voters don't think trump will be the eventual nominee but he is still leading thevpolls. What does that tell you?

[Mina]

I felt physically ill at the audience's reactions to his most mean-spirited instances of misogynist douchebaggery in this clip:



But hey, Megyn Kelly was totally on her period, so it's fine!

[Psyche]

at least he's not a racist!

[shaft.ed]

Because the public is taking him seriously.

since when does the press give a shit about the public?

[T S O]

When someone is leading the field by double figures it's usually a sign you should take them seriously.

[SleepyKrew]

Because the public is taking him seriously.

since when does the press give a shit about the public?

Usually if they don't cover something, no one will care. With Trump, people would care.
Donald Trump: Make America Care Again

[LlamaFluff]

When someone is leading the field by double figures it's usually a sign you should take them seriously.

Not in this case. Trump will hang around because the ultra-conservative love him and he is going to be the death blow to the Tea Party members because of that. That 40% in party disapproval rating (over 60% all parties) is going to damage him quite a bit when the field starts getting narrowed down though.

[Psyche]

if he could just sharpen himself a little bit
a little bit
a little bit