Hacker News Reader

Greater intellectual superiority because of the % entering college? College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. It shows men are more independent thinkers and feel confident they can get along without a degree. It also because entry level jobs in fields women are interested in require college where men have more options in the trades.

As women are dominating college entry over men a college degrees is less a proxy for intelligence and more for a middle class status symbol.

As companies fight over the pools of women grads the smart companies are picking up the males who are being excluded and reaping the rewards

>College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males.

Isn't this a sexist statement? You're saying that women are more into superficial status symbols than males. This clearly isn't true and is sexist.

What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men. This is the only logical and scientific conclusion when you look at everything from an analytical perspective.

Think about it. Any other formulation of what's going on inevitably leads to a sexist conclusion which automatically, by fundamental logic, precludes it from consideration.

> What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men

It's both sexist and wrong.

Recently laid off from misinformation team at twitter?

What are you talking about. Talking like this is what KEEPS me from getting fired. Are you nuts?

Do you have anything at all to back that up? It makes some sense as a story I suppose.

I wonder if for many righting a historic wrong ends up spilling into retribution territory, where it feels justified to inflict vengeance upon one demographic group for a past injustice.

Look at wpietri in this thread, old man got his stuff, and is now fine with enacting retribution on all young men.

He calls it "asymmetrical behavior" to whitewash the concept.

We’re all human. People who are in charge today aren’t biologically better/worse people than the people they oppress. Change the social norms and the oppressed group will adapt. Some of the oppressed will seek reconciliation. Others will seek retribution and they might succeed.

To pretend that marginalized groups DON’T work this way is (imo) soft racism/sexism/classism. We’re all the same human species.

That doesn't mean there aren't morphological differences between sex. Men in general have bigger muscles and penises, while women have breasts.

There is nothing logical or scientific that precludes differences in intelligence either. Clearly women are significantly smarter then men in practically every area.

"This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men"

Or the ability to do diligent repeating work and sit in a chair.

Or have committees and institutions that openly discriminate on their behalf to the cheers of the political establishment.

You can't post this here it's sexist and against the rules. It is, however, not sexist at all to say women are intellectually superior to men. But both sentences have the same underlying meaning, just one conveys the meaning through subtle absurdity.

People are OK with injustice unless it affects them personally.

>How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity". Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in this area.

There are various definition of equity and equality: equality of outcomes, of opportunities etc...

If you have a person who has been in chains for ten years and one who has been training daily compete in a race is it really surprising that they won't perform equally?

> Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science

The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations.

My take? I think we men are used to having things handed to us, and women in our society are used to having to try hard, and with more or less equal opportunity, they're kicking ass.

When women are behind, it's because systematic inequality holds them back. When men are behind, it's because women actually kick ass and are better than men at whatever it is they're behind in.

> Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records

That line doesn't really match with men being asked to try equally hard.

It seems to me that academic and professional societies are desparate to hit a 50/50 balance in new inductees, but they are finding that there is a paucity of qualified candidates due to upstream issues. (Remember that the current crop of peak career researchers started their training in the 80s and 90s, when the gender split among new trainees in the sciences skewed heavily male and when DEI programs for early career researchers did not exist nearly to the extent that they do now.)

But if you admit a class of inductees that's 80% men and 20% women in this day and age, it's very difficult to explain in a way that doesn't put you in a hot seat. It's much easier to apply asymmetric standards until you get a neat 50/50 split (or at least something close) because this is less likely to raise questions. So that's what the societies do.

That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”.

You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college.

Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.

Sorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph.

> Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college.

Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1].

> You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started

I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming.

[1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...

> I didn't really change much of substance

That’s an interesting perspective.

So women are superior to men because of hardship.

But that would imply anyone who goes through hardship becomes superior. So for example war. Men historically have been exclusively sent to war and suffer through hardships unimaginable to most people who aren't sent to war. Women are generally not sent to war so it's arguable in terms of raw stress and pressure they have suffered less than men.

Yet one still cannot say in this day an age just because men experience raw violence and combat in the arena of war that men are smarter. No in fact women are still better than men in every possible way even though they don't go to war.

So hardship isn't part of the equation. The only thing left is biological. Sexual morphology gives women biological advantages in terms of intellectual capacity and performance. This is utterly clear. That is why these women are getting elected far more than men. It is the only logical explanation.