https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/what-we-learn-from-50-years-of-asking-children-to-draw-scientists/556025/

It's all in their minds. As girls grow up, they believe less and less in their ability to excel in science. This is the real truth of the matter, that girls aren't interested in STEM because they don't believe they can do it.

Stuff it.

bamccaig, you totally missed the point of the study. The study asked children to draw scientists (yes children know what scientists are :/) because they wanted to know what the child's definition of a scientist was, whether they were male or female and whether or not they identified with it.

Ha. We tell boys they can be scientists. Why not tell girls the same thing? Guess what, the study was 50 years long, so we DO know the consequences of these things. As the times changed, girls idea of who they could be changed as well. Girls are no different than boys. They believe what we tell them. That's why it's so crucial that we tell them they can be whatever they want to be, including a scientist.

As the ideas of what roles a girl is capable of changed, so did the professions they chose :

This shows women are just as capable of men. These are young adults we're talking about, who have all had a chance to shape their own ideas, and half of all chemistry degrees are now going to women in the US.

I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but belief is paramount.

The person who believes they can and the person who believes they can't are both right. (Source - Henry Ford quotes)

Correlation is not causation. Don't try to slip that one past me. :/

The fact that the percentage of scientists drawn that were female increased to 28% over the course of the study compared to 0.6% at the start of the study shows that kids believe what we tell them, and that their beliefs shape their choices. Again, it's a matter of self esteem and guess what, faith.

You're positing something that was proven false by the study. The percentage of women earning chemistry (science) degrees went from 1/5 to 1/2 over the course of 50 years. If the trend continues, women will begin to dominate the field. And that scares the shit out of you, because pretty soon you're going to be obsolete.

Which makes sense. But it doesn't prove your point. Humans naturally group together. Where like minded people with similarities go, they naturally cluster.

What, you mean guns and dolls? Those are stereotypes built in by society. From birth to grave, people are conditioned to be what society tells them to be. So when we take the time to tell boys AND girls that they can BOTH be whatever they choose to be, then we shall truly see what is more 'natural'. Society's conditioning is so strong that in some examples of native Indian tribes, men took the roles of women.

Just google 'examples of reversed gender roles throughout history'. Here, Let Me Google that for you.

4th result : https://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite.html

It's not politicians trying to convince us women and men are the same. We both know that's not true, and so does anybody else with a brain. Note, I'm not agreeing with you. The difference is that men and women are similar in the way that they can both be whatever they believe they can be. In 2015, fully half of all chemistry degrees went to women. If females represent half the population, and they represent half of all chemistry degrees, then there is an EQUAL amount of interest among men and women in a SCIENCE related field.

Now you note correctly that the engineering field is underrepresented by women. What we need to discover is WHY. I would posit that it is another case of conditioning, and that a breakthrough could easily be made by women in this field as well if we encouraged them.

Again, this is not factually correct. The gap has been closing over the years, not widening. We have more freedom today than ever before. And if we use that freedom to encourage people, then nothing can stop us from becoming whatever we want to be. Women want financial security just as much as men do, and in the modern world, women are less reliant on men than ever before, because they realize they are capable of being self sufficient on their own.

Your giant wall of diatribe just reads like a newspaper editorial from the 1800's. You have been so conditioned into semi-modern gender roles that you feel uncomfortable if someone challenges them. You know who you are, a MAN. And you let society tell you what a man is and isn't supposed to be. You are the victim of your own conditioning. Be free. And allow women to be free to be whatever they believe they can be.

Gender roles change over time, as easily shown by the link above. This means they are largely ARBITRARY, and as such, we are free to define them for ourselves, and to redefine them as we see fit. There is no perfect mold for men or women.

This isn't about feminism. It's about HUMANISM.

Try to reverse roles with your wife for a day. Do the laundry and the dishes and the cleaning and the cooking and let her drink beer and smoke pot until her brain sizzles like yours. I bet you couldn't do it, and you would quickly resent your 'predefined' role as a woman and caretaker. Try thanking her for all she does for once, and show a little appreciation and respect for the opposite sex.

I understand that... It's flawed. Children are not lab rats. The variables are not controlled for. The findings are meaningless, and forming conclusions from the results is foolhardy.

There's nothing wrong with telling girls they can be scientists. They can. What's wrong is telling girls they should be scientists. They should only be scientists if that's what they want to do. And in societies where women are most free to choose they choose not to be. Funny, eh?

No, what this shows is that the proportion of women graduating with chemistry degrees has increased, but THAT'S ALL IT TELLS YOU. Like you said, correlation does not imply causation. For all we know the number of women graduating hasn't really changed much, and instead far fewer men are graduating.

We already know that women now earn the majority of degrees. Schools are no longer taking care of boys, and are instead chasing them away. Boys and young men are giving up on schools in huge numbers. That's not a win for women. It's a horrible loss for all of us.

They didn't ask children to draw what they believe. They asked them to draw a scientist, and beyond that we don't know what they told them. For all we know, teachers first drew their own female scientist on the chalkboard as an example, or maybe they stood over the little girl's shoulders directing them.

It's only a fun exercise from the children's perspective, and you really should not be forming such strong opinions on the results. Without controlling for variables it's impossible to reason why the proportion of scientists drawn as female increased over time. You'd have to ask the children why they drew the scientist as female to know the answer, but you also have to be careful with that because asking them could make them question it themselves. Psychology is very complicated, and we do not have a very good understanding of it. It's mostly guesswork still at our level of advancement... It doesn't necessarily mean that girls believe they can or want to enter science. It could just be they were encouraged to draw girls by their teachers, or that they watch a TV show or some other media that has a female scientist in it precisely because social scientists think girls need to see that, and more of the girls modelled their drawings on images they had seen before... Who knows. We don't have enough information to reason about it.

I'm not a chemist. It doesn't really affect me directly. It does indirectly affect me if fewer men are graduating with chemistry degrees. It's probably fair to say that the vast majority of chemistry-related discoveries in human history were discovered by men. There are still plenty of women that have made discoveries or important contributions, but that's beside the point. If men are not graduating anymore it could mean both a shortage of chemists in general going forward, and potentially a less effective workforce of chemists, which could mean a net decrease in productivity in chemistry. And all other fields that are being artificially tampered with by these initiatives.

What's more, it's alarming that you would imply that men are becoming obsolete as if it's a good thing, or even a benign thing. That's a horrible thing. Nearly half the Earth's population is male. Most families in the world depend on men to provide for them. Fewer opportunities for men will hurt everyone, including women and girls.

What's also worth mentioning is that while they tamper with some areas of our society, they are not balancing the effects. If you ask Feminists if women should pay half of the bill most of them will say no. They'll say men should pay for them. That they deserve it. And that men that would even suggest a 50:50 split are deadbeats.

What you find if you study genders and jobs in the world is that women do not date men that make less money than they do. And society continues to encourage this. When a woman is making $300,000 a year her husband is making even more.

We cannot fully understand all of the consequences of this long term. I'd wager that this is going to cause a decrease in productivity of the planet over time. It could also potentially put Western nations at a disadvantage compared to the more conservative East, which could significantly impact the overall balance of power in the world. The USA is already on a downturn. Imagine a world where the USA is no longer a superpower, and Russia and China are in control of everyone.

Changes like this are far reaching. They can have unforeseen consequences in the long term. I think you're crazy if you think politicians or social scientists really understand this well enough to be tampering with it in such a big way. It's far more likely that it's all about short term power grabs, and it hasn't even been considered what unforeseen consequences could arise, let alone planned and accounted for. Do you honestly believe that the government is that well run?

They have been studying this in babies that are too young to have been influenced by stereotypes. A few months old. They aren't able to understand language yet. And also they've been studying this in the societies that are the freest, like in Scandinavia. Even though their society as a whole is extremely liberal, they still see these differences naturally occurring. It isn't from stereotypes. It's from nature.

You're cherry-picking. It's not that men used to sit in the tepees with the babies, while the women went out and hunted buffalo. Rather, elderly women were considered wise and knowledgeable and were trusted with powers to oversee the tribe, but the women still did womanly things and the men still did manly things.

Of course, I wonder how many men lived long enough to be old and wise given their job descriptions of hunting dangerous animals with bows and sticks and warring with neighbouring tribes... I suspect that when these social structures are examined there's a fairly logical basis for this structuring, and it has nothing to do with reverse gender roles.

So your basing your argument on a Cracked article? Apparently written by a guy that the Interwebs claims to be abusive to women, though it's unclear if it's just a difference of opinion between a man and an army of SJWs or if he was beating up his girlfriend for making tuna casserole again.

That article doesn't even talk about gender roles. It talks about superficial stereotypes, like colour preference, and whether or not it's OK for men to cry... It's not talking about swapping roles. There are reasons why these changes occurred in society, and it is not in any way supportive of your arguments. Men have always cried. Women have always cried a WHOLE lot more. The fact that our current society shames men for crying is one out of a million examples of the sexism that men are conditioned to live with silently. Of course, that doesn't upset you. You don't even recognize it when it's right in front of your face. You're too busy white-knighting for women that don't need your help.

I don't know what conditioning you think there is. From the time I was in the lower primary school grades I was being told that girls can do everything that boys can. I'm 33 this year. The adult population has already grown up in a world that told girls they can be whatever they want, and even discriminated in their favour for education and job opportunities.

The evidence points to women making different choices because they just have different interests than men. That doesn't fit the agenda though so it isn't even considered and instead it's asserted that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, these girls were still discouraged from doing what they want and we need to give them even more special treatment...

On the contrary, society has been telling me since I was a small child that girls are the same as boys in every way. I disagree based on my own observations and understanding of the world around me. I challenge the agenda that has been taught to me as fact because it doesn't fit with the evidence. Strange thing that... Forming my own ideas about the world, and doing what I want instead of what society tells me I must do. Crazy.

Gender roles really haven't changed much. You haven't provided any links that demonstrate that. If you can find a society where the proportion of men and women is approximately equal where women do the dangerous, dirty, hard work, and men do the cushy, gentle, menial jobs then I'll consider your point. So far you haven't provided this, and I saw no such evidence of this from your suggested Google search. If you found it then please link directly to it to save me time. I'm not here to do your own research for you.

I am 100% in support of true equality. Which means no special treatment for women. It means equal opportunities, and choosing the best person for the job based on merit. Individual women should be given the opportunity to do anything they're good at, but if a man is also applying that is a better fit the job should go to the man.

Not all women should be scientists, but some of them should. Also, not all men should be scientists. Each individual has strengths and weaknesses that make them better suited to certain jobs. Similarly, men should also be given the opportunity to do anything they're good at, even if it happens to be childcare or wedding planning.

We don't need to achieve a 50:50 split in everything. That's unrealistic, and undesirable. People should be free to do whatever they want. And if that means that most women don't want to do STEM jobs that's perfectly fine. You shouldn't be encouraging them to do STEM jobs if they don't want to.

We know there are strengths and weaknesses inherent to sex. Some jobs are better suited to certain sexes. There are exceptions, but that doesn't mean that everybody is qualified to do everything. On average, men and women are equally intelligent, but men are more common at either extreme (extremely brilliant or extremely stupid). Jobs that require the most intelligent people should go to the most intelligent people, who on average are men. Jobs that require lots of heavy lifting should be performed by people that are fit to do them. On average, that will be men. There may still be the odd woman that is a good fit for those jobs, and they should be encouraged to do them if they want.

Third wave Feminism is very much misandrist, and therein lies the problem. It isn't egalitarians that are influencing policies, but Feminists that want special privileges for women and special responsibilities and burdens for men. I'm opposed to Feminism because it's factually wrong. I still support equality for women, but I support equality of opportunity, not outcome. I don't believe in it for political reasons, but I believe in it because I believe in fairness. My stance is based on evidence, not doctrine.

I do 95% of the cooking, 50% of the laundry, and ~40% of the dishes and other cleaning. I'm not sitting on my ass drinking while she's slaving away in the kitchen. Quite the opposite is true. I also pay 95% of our shared bills. She mostly only pays her own bills, but will occasionally contribute to the odd meal. Her savings account is a whole lot healthier than mine, despite me making about twice as much money. I'd love to reverse roles. Good luck convincing her of that though.

I think that I will need to install my VPN software on the Raspberry Pi itself to encrypt the DNS lookups. My VPN provides its own DNS service, and it by default blocks DNS requests to other services to ensure that they don't leak. In theory, if the Pi is running the VPN software then I should be able to configure pi-hole to use the VPN's DNS servers, and then it should still be secure... And then I'll need to disable that safety mechanism on my PCs and mobile devices for them to use the LAN DNS server instead... It just makes me uneasy because if the VPN software fails on the Pi then it could potentially leak still, and I would be oblivious to it. I think that to be 100% secure the VPN software needs to be built specifically to account for a local DNS blocker like this, and they need to build mechanisms to ensure that the local DNS blocker is also secured...

This I don't understand. There is not a VPN in the sense that a remote machine can access my network. The VPN exists on the Internet at my service provider's network, and my traffic tunnels through encrypted connections to those endpoints. I don't see how that could expose me to "0Days" (I assume you mean 0-day vulnerabilities in software?) and "whatnot". Please elaborate.

I just got a new monitor.

It's a Asus ROG Strix XG32VQ. 32" 2560x1440 144Hz 4ms. It's a bit too big for my desk so I'm so close to it it's almost overwhelming, but I'm getting used to it. It's a nice addition to the new PC I got a couple of months ago. I had been using a 27" TV while I was saving up for a new monitor.

{"name":"612064","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/a\/ba6617aed205c62897a2dd146cbdf823.jpg","w":4160,"h":3120,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/a\/ba6617aed205c62897a2dd146cbdf823"}

I paid $930 for it here in NZ, which works out about $800 CAD.

I had to use my laptop on the weekend. It's been about 6 months since I've used the Linux system and about 2 months since I used the Windows system (dual-boot). I booted into both systems and installed updates. Linux package management installed all updates in one go, download, install, ready, system usable again. No fan could be heard, it was a rather quick process. With Windows, it did about 5 rounds of rebooting and installing updates, it took forever, with the fan constantly spinning. After installing, some of my "No, thanks, just don't spy on me, please"-settings were, of course, silently reset.

I actually do not use Windows that much, but each time, I'm appalled at how crappy it is. Why are there basically two UIs for system settings starting with Windows 10? (I skipped Windows 8 completely.) This must be an accident, because no one in his right mind would do something like this on purpose, right? Why am I constantly harassed with apps and widgets and even ads that I did not install and that take up my screen space? Why do I have to resort to tweaking tools to get rid of some of the worse annoyances like Cortana? Am I the only one who just wants to work with this thing, preferably without distractions? I won't even mention the privacy settings. I mean I've even paid for this piece of utter bullshit. I'm admittedly ignorant of the Windows world, but I just cannot see any significant improvement since Windows 7 whatsoever, except, maybe, for WSL, but, thanks, I'd rather use the original.

This is a typical modus operandi of Windoze and the old Billdozer. Microsoft implements something new, leaves complete compatibility with the old system, and then silently phases out the old system with each new generation.

My Win10 lock screen is basically just an adboard for Microsoft's Photo Gallery and ad links. It's BS. I want my own damn lock screen, thanks.

You have to jump through a bunch of new controls to get to the old controls, which is what you really wanted in the first place, which again, is BS.

I love how Ubuntu just gets the fuck out of the way. Except how the damn auto updater locks the system updates for like 20 minutes every time I boot. Stupid junk $#!^ just let me install my own packages. 371 MB? WTF? Who is writing all this software, and why is it so big?

EDIT
GRRRRAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!

Wait, it takes 30 seconds to boot from a SSD?! That doesn't sound right at all. It should probably be more like 5 or 10 seconds max.

The thing is I think 7.x, 8.x, and 10.x are basically Windows Vista, fixed, with new desktop elements and other minor things changed.

Vista: 6.0
7: 6.1
8: 6.2
8.1: 6.3
10: 6.4

So the real upgrade was Vista, which everybody knows broke everything. Then they ironed out the bugs over time, and started re-releasing the same OS with minor changes as full new upgrades so people rebought the same damn thing over and over again. Classic M$.

Awesome Aaron, way to go!

I have a BS in CS and I still have trouble finding a decent job...

They have a tremendous building and they are all here huddled in a corner of the room, surrounded by a heavy snow storm and a hungry monster lost in the corridors.
Someone has to leave, right?

If find it amusing that RmBeer2 is exploring a C golf game for generating a dynamically sized text box to display text in one thread, all while his signature wrapped in a box is misaligned.

bambams, by 1 pxl,

(this thread cause a buffer overflow in my memory)

EDIT:

Forget my image:

{"name":"GO2.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/9\/c96ba8c550d45edd251724e71724ef24.png","w":410,"h":81,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/9\/c96ba8c550d45edd251724e71724ef24"}