Is she /our gal/?

You know how I can tell you're a virgin?

she looks like a female version of Gavin Belson

>caring about women bickering

> but that doesn't mean hiring based on sex but rather encouraging women to apply for those jobs,to study in the field and trying to remove barriers for them to do that.
Why do you want to encourage unqualified people to apply for jobs where there area already a shit ton of qualified people for? You are literally saying that anything that is deemed to difficult has to be made "accessable" for the less capable. There is no such thing, shit's either hard or easy, there's no way of simplifying the difficulty of turing completeness or the on off problem, implying that there is just shows that people stick their nose in shit they literally don't understand in addition to other factors such as biological constraints/traits, social conditions and personal ego. Either you go learn something and prove you are worth something or you leave it, it's that fucking simple.

Stop being retarded

>whack
What kind of nigger are you?

Attached: terr3.jpg (286x342, 22K)

>Why do you want to encourage unqualified people to apply for jobs where there area already a shit ton of qualified people for?
I said women in general, not unqualified people. Encouraging people who wouldn't have otherwise considered it for whatever reason. Besides, universities and jobs will still have their own scrutiny, encouraging people to apply doesn't remove that.
>You are literally saying that anything that is deemed to difficult has to be made "accessable" for the less capable.
Where in my reply did I say that?

White guy from Finland, so a pretty bad one, I guess? I blame American TV shows for "whack".

Gomenesai.

I will find and rape you one day thot

I find it hilarious that you can pin point the exact moment she starts going into panic and feels like crying and screaming how she cannot be wrong.

:(

holy shit I didn't realize this board is full of freetarded leftist cucks

Are you blind?!
>to study in the field and trying to remove barriers for them to do that.
You know what actual barriers in STEM are? Complexity, complexity and competition. There are people that are capable to compete on complex levels and some that are not. People who are intimidated by this don't deserve to be included because it deconstructs the entire concept of growth as well as education, which is built upon competition. If there's no competition because you lower the bar to include more people you just run into a stalemate and don't accomplish anything but making STEM ultimately a stagnating construct.

You also disregard the fact that people like to make a choice based on their own comfort. This doesn't only differentiate us from another because of individuality, but men and women are different to and their selection of functionality necessary for them are driven by different constraints, which are again, biological, social and ego driven.

Stop advertising bullshit like "let's make shit more attractive for others". Shit's already attractive as fuck, you have wikipedia at your fingertips, you can dive into all kinds of topics like no other human being did ever since they existed. Information is available, that alone makes it easy, there is absolutely 0 need to adjust to people who are unwilling and like to live in a dreamworld were they aren't just an insignificant stupid person.

You realise that you're on g right? everyone here is a fucking incel. even you fagote.

*Complexity, capacity and competition

>remove barriers for them to do that.
"Barriers" are a meme

Barriers for them to apply for a job or to study and barriers such as discrimination. Doesn't mean lowering the requirements for women.
>You also disregard the fact that people like to make a choice based on their own comfort.
No, that's one of the issues. If people aren't applying to STEM because of real or perceived discrimination, that's an issue. Ideally, everyone should be comfortable to apply to STEM jobs and fields and that way we would have the most amount of candidates to choose the best from.
>"Barriers" are a meme
Well the discrimination is demonstrably a real thing. Men are discriminated against in "nurturing" jobs and fields (nurse, kindergarten teacher and so on) and women in STEM. So that's an issue that is preventing us from choosing candidates based solely on their merit and not on their sex.
Taking away barriers such as that doesn't somehow deteriorate quality of candidates, it just ensures that nothing but their merit, qualifications in the field and so on are used to judge them. And I think that's definitely a good thing.

fuck off kike

lmao what a response

>Barriers for them to apply for a job or to study and barriers such as discrimination
There are no barriers absolutely none. The majority of people in colleges are by numbers women in most western universities with an above 50% of women on a faculty.

> If people aren't applying to STEM because of real or perceived discrimination
Competition is discriminating towards people who are unwilling to compete and just want to be spoon-fed.

>Well the discrimination is demonstrably a real thing.
Discrimination exists through all cultures, all social classes, races and both genders. Our system has issues but it works amazingly well, given that a human being is only built to be functioning in small groups that don't exceed 250 people. What you are doing is nitpicking is on a similar level for safe spaces. People don't want to strive for things, they don't want to compete, they just want to do and in order to get there you have to "break barriers". No you fucking don't. Western society is the most open and barrierless society that ever existed in the entire human history. Ever natural instinct that we have learned throughout evolution is forcefully untrained from us, such as being afraid of foreigners and distinctive biological traits that manifest themselves through culture and so on.

>Men are discriminated against in "nurturing" jobs and fields
No they are not. The choice for most men and in fact women fall within their personal, unique evolutionary inherited traits. It's called equality of opportunity

You are arguing with logical fallacies and a gazillion times debunked statements which are just desinformation by a far left ideology which splits society all around the western worlds. Get help, you are showing clear signs of IDC-10 F22 which should be treated
mentalhealth.org/link-to-us

She is based as fuck

Attached: Screenshot_20180809-114440__01.jpg (350x334, 19K)

You know how we can tell you're retarded?

Who hurt you?

>There are no barriers absolutely none. The majority of people in colleges are by numbers women in most western universities with an above 50% of women on a faculty.
We're talking specifically about STEM where women face discrimination, unfortunately. Social sciences, teaching on the other hand are where it's opposite, men face discrimination, which could partly explain what you mentioned.
>Competition is discriminating towards people who are unwilling to compete and just want to
No I meant actual discrimination.
pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/
And wouldn't more women applying for positions to study or work increase competition and result in a larger pool of candidates to choose the most qualified from? So if you're secure in your knowledge and merits, this shouldn't bother you.
>Western society is the most open and barrierless society that ever existed in the entire human history.
Doesn't mean we don't have issues that could be fixed or that we couldn't improve. Just because we have it good doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about the issues we do have.
>>Men are discriminated against in "nurturing" jobs and fields
>No they are not.
eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2018/discrimination-against-men-at-work-experiences-in-five-countries
Also, equality of opportunity is exactly what the whole thing strives for. But when a candidate is judged by the name on their application or when it affects the decision instead of qualifications or merit, that's an issue. And it's not limited to women and STEM or course, but to others fields and men too.

She's a babe. I don't know who she is, but despite her being a filthy foriegner, all is forgiven. She's bold, ran her company, and is a manager. Give me her phone number. I'd love to take her out. She based the fuck out of those children on the stage.

I just wish we could accept that men and women are inherently different and excel in different areas. it naturally happens, but we have people who constantly try to push women into roles that they don't traditionally, naturally, take.

then there are the statistics about who is more likely to work more hours or stay late or whatever.

>And wouldn't more women applying for positions to study or work increase competition and result in a larger pool of candidates to choose the most qualified from? So if you're secure in your knowledge and merits, this shouldn't bother you.
The article is wrong on so many levels and disregards very important factors. Society as we see it is an ever continuing experiment. In no other observed nature of any animal do we have seen so many factors which are difficult to estimate or calculate the outcome, one of them being men and women working with another. By the majority of all species, both genders work together, separately on the same goal, which is their own survival as well as that of their offspring. Now hierarchy structures among bonobos or lions are by far easier to determine and understand, as the way these species function and express themselves is rather limited. We do not have that, we have the exact opposite, we are way to complex. Our biology doesn't strictly imply hierarchical structure anymore because of our consciousness, though we haven't decoupled from the biological implications and it's going to be a long as time before we can and understand why and how to achieve this. To put it more simple, we don't remotely understand what this implies to us, our societies and culture. Can you compare what's considered legit behavior in degenerate cultural ideologies such as Islam to be functioning in a society that has experienced enlightenment and reformed itself to not be abusive to others? The answer is easy: No
The article, which is at least trying to explain a very difficult problem, is still flawed because it just focuses on the statistics itself, which are fine as easy entrance to analyzing and fixing an issue, it disregards multiple factors: location, culture, upbringing, social status, education.

I'm not saying that we don't have issues, we do have a shit ton of issues that need to be worked on, but this is taking shit out of context

The first link relies on studies referenced throughout the text and the second is a study conducted. Which are the specific issues in them? Because I'm honestly more willing to believe the multitude of studies showing that workspace discrimination exists and happens more frequently to men/women on certain fields than your dismissal of them as "taking things our of context".

>We're talking specifically about STEM where women face discrimination, unfortunately.
Why and how do they face it. What are the 10 most literally observed factors, i'm not talking about a survey, i mean an actual observation as you'd do as scientist in the biology field.
>No I meant actual discrimination.
Discrimination is now more than ever a very fluid and unspecific term, not if you go by the book, oxford dict is pretty accurate on what it means. Common language as well as political communist ideologies have changed that narrative.

>Doesn't mean we don't have issues that could be fixed or that we couldn't improve. Just because we have it good doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about the issues we do have.
It doesn't but you should compare now to 30, 50 and 100 years ago. We have come further in the last 100 years than we did in the past 2000 years and the problems that currently destroys civilization are being ignored by feels vs reals. We have uncontrolled markets fucking people over all over the planet, contaminating everything including ourselves, but what do we do? We as a society that should be working on fixing these things that we understand and now, want to drastically change biological and social behavior without even grasping the short or long term implications. We rather waste our time shitting in each others face "muh feelings" instead of fixing what's really broken and could kill us all.

The question is what is discrimination, how is discrimination interpreted by both parties and how did discrimination manifest itself as definition by a single person through culture and society. Those are questions that need to be asked. Everyone fucking knows there's discrimination going on, i don't need to know numbers to know it's there, what i need to know in order to fix it is its origin and that's my problem with it being out of context.

>Everyone fucking knows there's discrimination going on
I very much doubt that, see
>Why and how do they face it. What are the 10 most literally observed factors, i'm not talking about a survey, i mean an actual observation as you'd do as scientist in the biology field.
lmao how surprising, you're given legit studies and somehow they don't count. And you want something other than surveys? Alright.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00289666
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=422902
pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1986.tb00217.x
I can give find you more, but I'd like you to specify what's wrong with the ones I just linked so I know what to find
>Common language as well as political communist ideologies have changed that narrative.
...communists?
>It doesn't but you should compare now to 30, 50 and 100 years ago. We have come further in the last 100 years than we did in the past 2000 years
And we can progress even further and we still have issues we can try to solve. And yes, the issue is "muh feelings" as in stereotypes about men and women that's preventing us from just getting the candidate that's most qualified. And that's just idiotic.

>Jow Forums

You have given just one link to a study that is basing its statement on pure statistics, now you link to more studies and claim i'm ignoring them all while this is the first time you mention them in the first place.

Just having flipped through this one pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
It does mention cultural stereotypes as being an unintended factor of discrimination. Though it doesn't intend to go to gender specific issues that are obvious, such as being able to get kids, shifting interests and so on and how much influence this has. The numbers on the salary are also confusing because they are not directly linked to the field, times worked on educational levels and average salary of a scientist in that particular field. It's an average which is flawed because it has the same flawed inconclusive and therefor incorrect assumption that you take an average and by that define a paygap.

I'd have to read more and do research on these particular papers, but overall, most studies are rather inconclusive because there are still underlying biological factors which are not accounted for as well as social constructs.