>We ran five national experiments with these otherwise-identical female and male candidates, systematically varying their personal attributes and lifestyles in a counterbalanced design. Every time we sent a given slate of candidates to a male faculty member, we sent the same slate with sexes reversed to another male faculty member, as well as sending both slates to two female faculty members. Then we compared the faculty members' rankings to see how hirable each candidate was, overall.
>What we found shocked us. Women had an overall 2-to-1 advantage in being ranked first for the job in all fields studied. This preference for women was expressed equally by male and female faculty members, with the single exception of male economists, who were gender neutral in their preferences.
>In some conditions, women's advantage reached 4-to-1. When women were compared with men who shared the same lifestyle, advantages accrued to women in all demographic groups—including single or married women without children, married women with preschoolers, and divorced mothers.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-in-science/index.html
http://pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
>>7749132
>male economists, who were gender neutral in their preferences
Economics confirmed most objective science
Anyway yeah it's almost like when you make it illegal to not hire women they take retarded steps to make sure they're not not hiring women.
>>7749132
Well of course women are preferred because everyone bitches when you don't have a 50:50 ratio which is practically impossible to get.
Anyone here surprised?
>>7749132
But anon, if that were true, how could men possibly make up the majority of any sort of work force?
Seems like you can't even be assed to at least pretend like your chauvinistic biased "experiments" reflect reality in any way.
>>7749176
Not in the slightest. It's been my own experience. Departments would rather hire the most incompetent applicant it she was female than hiring any man on merit barring Nobel prize winners etc.
People are extremely desperate to not be next target of activism bullying. It's pathetic.
>>7749209
>People are extremely desperate to not be next target of activism bullying. It's pathetic.
Their livelihoods, reputation and legacy depend on kowtowing to the mob though.
>>7749176
>the threat of public lynching, lawsuits, and criminal liability are effective motivators
>surprising
Anon, pls, consider what you're saying.
Well social-justice-minded types will just argue that the problem isn't discrimination they face at the point oc job application evaluation but rather during developmental phase wherein girls make choices that help determine their future academia or career path; and that affirmitive action is still necessary for equitable representation in these fields until that is successfully addressed.
>>7749132
And literally no one was surprised. Only majors in gender studies think there's discrimination against females. Everyone has been seeing how they're praised and wanted everywhere and the systemic favoring for females on scholarships and opportunities in modern STEM.
>>7749185
>how could men possibly make up the majority of any sort of work force?
There could be more male applicants. In fact that seems likely, given that if there are more male applicants to have a '50:50' gender ratio they would need to give the women extra weighting.
>>7749287
>Well social-justice-minded types will just argue that the problem isn't discrimination they face at the point oc job application evaluation but rather during developmental phase wherein girls make choices that help determine their future academia or career path
Pretty clear moving goalposts, unfalsifiable hypothesis, involves a massive overarching society pervading conspiracy.
>>7749295
>And literally no one was surprised.
Indeed
>>7749287
>during developmental phase
You mean school, where teachers will punish "boyish" behavior by destroying them with pills, will grade girls higher for being grades and will use systems of teaching which put girls over boys over systems that are better for both simply because they want girls to be ahead?
Or do you mean university where females have more opportunities, scholarships, and support groups?
At the end of the day, wouldn't you say the reason we don't have a lot of women in STEM is simply that they aren't very interested in it? At the end of the day women have the ability to do well in STEM just like boys, heck there is a female in my major that straight up kicks everyone's ass when it comes to physics. Women not being interested in science can be chalked up to the societal pressures they face when they are younger.
>>7749132
> A preference for women except for male economists
Yeah I can see that happening, I guess its cause everyone wants that 50/50 equality.
>>7749287
>The government has to raise children or else we force bigoted policies.
Not really an argument, but damn the word "liberal" has well and truly lost it's meaning to a complete 180 authoritarianism.
>>7749306
>At the end of the day, wouldn't you say the reason we don't have a lot of women in STEM is simply that they aren't very interested in it?
I would much rather be a house husband doing a lax job than kill myself pursuing stem. I really wish I was born a girl. Attracting a high earning women willing to put up with house husbands is very difficult.
>>7749132
>>7749132
It would be nice, yes. So long as they are competent and actually want to be there (i.e. their presence isn't the result of some SJW scheme/quota)
>>7749526
This.
>muh stem needs more women
>muh stem is boring
>>7749132
YOUR THREADS ARE GETTING DELETED FOR A REASON
>>7749162
Econ is the most statistics based science
>>7749695
>Obviously not, faggot
>>7749132
I think we need more women drilling the earth and working with concrete.
>>7749923
/thread
>>7749705
>Econ is the most statistics based science
Are you saying science is merely the artful application of statistics?
