OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Tuesday, September 15

#21276

OMG: Can someone explain to me how the HeForShe scholarship isn't sexist? Its given out to women to combat underrepresentation in STEM.

Why isn't there one to combat underrepresentation of men in arts?

Feminism: Women - do whatever you want and we pay their way. Men - fuck you work hard in STEM, you aren't allowed in arts.

61 comments

  1. I simply hate discrimination period. Too many "good discrimination" projects going to the determent of others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It takes away the agency of women by assuming they cannot be trusted to make a "good" decision when choosing a program.

    It also demeans people in arts because apparently to them your total earnings is they only thing that matters about the work you do.

    I mean anyone with a brain knows the truth, the people pushing for things like this keep inventing problems to keep themselves relevant regardless of the consequences for everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women are constantly told through out their lives that they are bad at math and science. Their teachers discourage them from pursuing stem majors. Their classmates insult their capabilities and nerdy men scare women (this is especially prevalent at Waterloo). College atmosphere is very intimidating to women since they are a minority and the 1 in 4 rape statistic. Companies practice discrimination when it comes to hiring women. When a woman fails, she is told that she failed because she's a woman. Their male classmates are constantly hitting on them and befriending them to simply sleep with them, so women don't know who is genuine and who is not. Women are then forced to instead pick nursing, environmental engineering, teaching, medicine, psychology, finance etc. even though they are interested in stem

      Delete
  3. what the hell are you guys talking about? Shaddup. You know that women are underrepresented in STEM. Look at the stats. Idiots. Stop trying to stir up crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women aren't underrepresented in STEM. Women choose not to go into STEM. Nothing is holding them back.

      The demographics of STEM fields represent exactly those who chose to go into it. To pay someone money because they made that choice while being a woman is fucking retarded.

      Don't be so ignorant.

      Delete
    2. 3a:

      Women are 50% of the population, therefore there's no good reason they shouldn't make up 50% of the population of any given university program.
      The reason they're so underrepresented in STEM programs, however, has to do with a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to: outdated attitudes that signal to a lot of girls that STEM programs are "a boys' thing," or the fact that when they look at possible careers leading out of STEM programs, they see work environments which are notorious for sexist attitudes and misogynistic behaviour.

      Take computer science, for instance (regarding the latter point above). For men working in that field (software design, programming, etc.), you have a wide range of talents - some are truly stellar, gifted workers, others are "pretty good," and a great deal many others are simply mediocre, but they get their work done and that's fine since their particular job doesn't require them to be exceptional (this whole breakdown is true of most fields, I think). But women are confined to two options: be exceptional, "a role model for women everywhere interested in computing," or be condemned to having men say "this is the problem with women in computing."

      Faced with a life like that, is it a surprise that so many women aim for other fields, instead?

      The point of awards like these is to try and incentivize women to pick STEM programs IN SPITE of that... because the only way most of that sexism is going to actually disappear, is for the gender balance of the actual workers in that sector to even out. Hard to be systematically sexist when LITERALLY half your workers are female.

      Delete
    3. "Women are 50% of the population, therefore there's no good reason they shouldn't make up 50% of the population of any given university program"

      Uh, yeah there is? Men and women ARE NOT EQUAL. That's the point.

      The rest of your post is pointless drivel. Just because you think STEM is sexist doesn't mean it is (it's not).

      Delete
    4. "Men and women ARE NOT EQUAL."

      Aaaaaand that's where we disagree.

      While there may be physiological differences, and some evidence to suggest men and women approach certain problems differently, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that, on an intellectual level, either gender is any better at particular tasks than others.

      But I'm not going to try and convince you that you're wrong. Why bother? Your view is already obsolete - another 100 years and it'll have gone the way of those who were convinced women weren't suited to vote in elections.

      Delete
    5. 3d you are missing the point.

      We are not equal in the sense that men choose to go into STEM more than women.

      Why are we rewarding the women that do instead of encouraging more to start? Why should a women get rewarded for doing something that people do all the time?

      Why aren't you fighting for more representation of women on oil rigs? Because you aren't for equality. Feminists want all the benefits of being a man without putting in the lifetime of hard work.

      Delete
    6. Don't put words in my mouth 3f. I'd like to see equal gender representation in every sector, not just STEM. If workers on oil rigs were 50% female, that'd be great.

      But this is a university. We don't train people to work on oil rigs here, we educate them in various academic fields. The Registrar's Office has stats on the demographics across a huge range of programs, and some areas (like STEM programs) have a clear imbalance/deficiency in certain areas (like female enrolment).

      The problem of "how to incentivize more women to go into STEM" is a wide-ranging one, and there are a bunch of initiatives aimed to solve that. The idea of giving awards to the ones who have already made that choice AND been successful in the program as well, is one such incentive - it provides women in high school who might be considering a STEM program a role model they can look to, as well as an element of "that could be me."

      One final note: "Feminists want all the benefits of being a man without putting in the lifetime of hard work."
      For the record, I'm actually a male myself. But leaving that aside, your statement is, in my experience, patently untrue. The problem feminists (myself included) see is the fact that there ARE "benefits" to being a man... how is that fair? Feminists don't want "the benefits of being a man," they just want a playing field that doesn't put you at a systematic disadvantage just because of your gender.

      Delete
    7. "it provides women in high school who might be considering a STEM program a role model they can look to, as well as an element of "that could be me.""

      Do you realize how stupid this sounds? Your role models should be successful in their field, those who have proven their worth, those who spent a lifetime achieving their goals. "That could be me" is pretty pathetic when that "me" is an undergrad, are you kidding?

      Now any woman in STEM is supposed to be a role model? Don't qualify it with "AND been successful in the program as well" when HeForShe is a fucking entrance scholarship. Some bitch writes a good application essay and we're supposed to regard her as the next Emmy Noether?

      There are benefits to being a man, and there are benefits of being a woman. I'd argue there are more benefits to being a woman (I'd kill for a pussy pass), but thats not the point. You want a woman to be seen as competent as a man? Make them work their way to the top instead of giving them a ladder. Men don't get ladders.

      You're male feminist huh? Pathetic. It won't do you any favours with either gender. In fact, it's people exactly like you that cause the systematic disadvantage. Literally, if I'm in charge of hiring someone and I have a choice between a man and a woman, I'm going to choose the man. Every time. Why? Because I know people like you allowed that woman to be there when she neither deserves nor worked as hard as the man for it.

      Delete
    8. Geez 3h, if I was interviewing a man and a woman, I'd probably just ignore the gender, focus on whatever set of criteria I'd drawn up for the interview, and select whichever candidate demonstrates the greatest competence, combined with the strongest resume and the best references. But you do you, I guess.

      Delete
    9. ^ choose between man and women *with equal resumes/experience etc, obviously.

      Delete
  4. Enjoy being downvoted.

    Try saying the exact same thing in a tech talk or whatever event that influential people attend and your career is ruined.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Because men want to have women around more than women want to have men around, this way they can get laid more easily.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is very much sexist but the hope is that once we generate a critical mass, we can stop doing such necessary evil. It has being a lot better for women to do STEM than a couple of years ago, and from the grand scheme of things this is not a huge cost to pay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So in sacrifice of justice and fairness we work towards an arbitrary number: 50%. Evil indeed, necessary? Hell no.

      Delete
    2. 6a, that's not an arbitrary number. Women are half the population, therefore they should account for roughly half the enrolment, half the graduates, and half the workers.

      Delete
    3. 6.b, you're assuming that women have the exact same career preferences as men.

      Delete
    4. 6c, if you look at things on an individual level, no two people have truly identical career preferences. But that's beside the point.

      There are many things that can affect the diversity of a specific sector. My claim is that, under conditions that are *actually* equal, gender shouldn't be a factor in determining how likely someone is to pick a specific career path.

      If your claim, or the claim of anyone else here, is that women somehow are "less well-suited" to STEM fields, then all I can respond with is: bullshit.

      Delete
    5. And I think under conditions that are actually equal people's sex would have a substantial influence on their preferences. Different hormones which affect temperament, different biological roles in reproduction, different social roles follow from that.

      Forcing groups of people into your preordained boxes is social engineering to no good effect.

      Delete
    6. Alright 6e, let's say, for a moment, that you're right, and gender affects preferences (I personally disagree, but for a moment I'm willing to set aside that disagreement in favour of a slightly different line of discussion). Let's say women are inherently less likely to go into STEM programs, and there's some upper ceiling on female involvement in those programs that falls below 50%.

      I submit that it's irrelevant.

      You don't have to look very hard to find women who'll admit they wanted to go into a STEM program, but were driven away by how male-oriented it seemed. It's even easier to find women who WERE in STEM programs, and even loved the subject matter/did well academically, but left because of the way their male classmates/coworkers treated them (a 'toxic environment').

      If there is a ceiling on female enrolment in STEM that falls below 50, the evidence suggests pretty clearly that we are not there yet.

      I don't particularly care where the ceiling is. This stuff isn't what I do for a living nor as a hobby. I just don't like the idea that there are girls out there who want to study this stuff, who might even be GOOD at it, and feel like they can't because of what the men who do study it are telling them. I can't bear the thought of it.

      I don't think these awards are an ideal solution, but they are one attempt to solve that problem. What's wrong with that?

      Delete
    7. I support efforts by STEM departments to eliminate discriminatory attitudes towards women as well as efforts directed specifically to welcome women into the fold. I absolutely oppose the idea that we are meant to shoot for parity. That notion is absurd and is not motivated by the dignity of individual choices or welcoming attitudes but by a highly ideological notion of equality.

      Delete
    8. Alright, well that at least makes me feel that our disagreement is less fundamental, 6g. While I generally do support parity, I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue on the internet at 12:30am, and we seem to have found some measure of common ground on the stuff I do feel strongly about. So thanks for that.

      Delete
  7. Even if you don't buy into the theory that girls are discouraged from entering STEM in the first place, gender balanced workplaces benefit everybody (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/17/us-un-women-economy-idUSKBN0MD0JJ20150317).

    As for underrepresentation of men in arts, I can't find any data on this but it seems entirely possible that the problem is an overrepresentation of women in arts. Either way, given the lack of job prospects we need to get people out of the arts, not encourage more people to go into them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The lack of job prospects" for arts graduates is mostly a myth. Most lawyers, teachers, journalists, clergy, parliamentarians, web designers, librarians, therapists, and diplomats are arts graduates, for example.

      Delete
    2. Lawyers and teachers: on the list of jobs that require a degree after your arts degree, or some other degree if you prefer. Arts not required.

      Journalism and clergy: great career, good pay, highly recommended. Nothing bad to say.

      Parliamentarians: see lawyers.

      Web Designers: clamouring for litt. crit. grads, I hear. (Who isn't) Fine arts? Maybe. Arts arts? Mmm... doubt it.

      Librarians? Answer: Google Scholar and the death of the paper book. (Which honestly does suck, but hey, I don't make the rules.)

      Therapists: mostly cranks.

      Diplomats: cool job. Good luck!

      Delete
    3. 7.a there is such a thing as statistics and they twitter that are graduates have some of the highest unemployment rates. Sometimes higher than for high school graduates.

      Delete
    4. Sure 7c. There are also more people with Arts degrees, period. On a very basic level, more supply = less demand. When you factor in the fact that these are all PEOPLE, large numbers tend to imply a great deal of mediocrity, meaning a lot of people with just the degree and not much to show for it.

      A degree's just a piece of paper. How you use that degree and your other experiences/soft skills to market yourself to an employer is what really matters. Arts degrees absolutely provide opportunities, but not everyone knows how to find and use them.

      Delete
    5. "... more supply = less demand"

      Lol. Supply and demand are schedules, quantity and price are the space in which these functions live.

      In any case, the quantity story you're telling implies a parity in the signalling and human capital value of Arts and STEM degrees. No such parity exists.

      Delete
    6. 7e, I'm gonna go with "I picked the wrong analogy to make." Because you took it far more seriously than I did in the 30 seconds I spent writing it. Far too seriously, in fact. All I was getting at is "while there are a bunch of jobs that you can get with an arts degree, competition for those jobs is a lot higher, broadly speaking, than it is in fields like programming where the need for skilled workers is always high." Does that get my message across better?

      Delete
    7. The higher competition exists primarily because the skills bar is much lower. Over time it looks like the income of smart people with a BA catches up. Cf. IQ vs. major, early-career income vs. major, and mid-career income vs. major data. (Take philosophy and then literature to start, the broad trends hold overall.)

      Smart students in the arts lose a lot of money in their early career because they've failed to signal/build up their worth. Perhaps that choice is worth it for some, but I suspect it's mostly just self-harm.

      If you've got a >125 IQ and you're interested in Pascal and Popper, Dostoyevsky and Dante, then read books and join clubs to discuss such things, immerse yourself in the humanities by all means! Watch Wagner! Read Roth! Listen to Liszt! But the formal credential is useless, ditch the philosophy department for a degree you can leverage.

      Delete
    8. Caveat to that 7g: if you think you have what it takes to succeed in academia, that's also a valid path.

      Anyway, I don't really disagree with you at this point. I think if you're doing an undergrad in the arts you should be prepared to follow that up with a second degree at the graduate level in something more specialized if you want a decent job. I've always thought that - hell, it's what I'm currently doing.

      Delete
  8. Men have roughly 50% representation in arts, and most Arts faculty members (at UW) are male. What underrepresentation?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aren't women the majority of students in university now? I heard it was over 55% or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not in Science/Engineering/Math. Which is all these awards apply to.

      Delete
  10. What? I see plenty of other dudes in all my humanities classes. Christ, some people will look for any excuse to bash women. Why is trying to balance underrepresentation such an issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because underrepresentation isn't really an issue. Let people study what they want to study.

      Delete
    2. 10a, the point of these awards is to HELP people "study what they want to study." You think the women who get these awards will have had no interest in STEM fields, or a desire to work in them, before accepting the award?

      ...Of course not. That'd be silly.

      As for underrepresentation, there are literally whole tomes out there that will talk at length about why diversity and representation in any field, community, or society in general, matters. But the short version boils down to "fresh perspectives and different ways of doing things usually leads to disruptive innovations, which move us forward as a society." So if you can identify underrepresentation (of any kind!) in a particular field, finding ways to counter it isn't a bad thing.

      Delete
    3. Most serious scholarship that tries to quantify the effect of diversity in various organization forms finds that diversity, of whatever sort, engenders a moderate depression on productivity. Hate to break it to you, but people get along best with other people like themselves. Along various axes: sex, gender, birthplace.

      Diversity and equal representation are politically correct goals that have no intrinsic value. They just signal to other people that you're a Caring Person who thinks Progressive Thoughts. You're Forward Thinking. You want to be Disruptive. Innovation. Business. YEAH.

      We get it, you're a milquetoast millennial. Congratulations. How's the Kool Aid?

      Delete
    4. gender -> ethnicity

      Delete
  11. I wish I was a woman. I could milk this scholarship for a year and take all the intro courses for my intended major as "electives" and switch the following year to pay less in tuition out of my own pocket...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But then you would have to put up with richard-heads like you, so in the end it would be a wash

      Delete
    2. Are you sure? I'd be avoiding "richard-heads" like you. That's like having my cake and eating it too.

      Delete
    3. You are the only one here crying like a little girl because the world is so unfair to us males (pout), even thinking about going transgender (not that there is anything wrong with that) because, sniff, sniff, there is one scholarship you don't qualify for.


      Delete
    4. Relax...I'm just making a satirical point about how this scholarship could be potentially misused by people. I think the the whole point of bringing in gender equality to something that should be driven by people's core interests is something super retarded. I think changes like this should happen at the grass roots level with younger children who are inculcated with gender roles (both at school, home, and in broader culture). This scholarship seems a bit too much like a case of teaching an old dog new tricks.

      Just giving someone a scholarship driven by their gender definitely rubs me the wrong way and is kind of demeaning for the recipient too in my opinion. Measures like this scholarship are not optimal in changing preconceived notions that actually create these issues in the first place. I guess it's easier to give someone a bone than actually give them the tools to empower themselves from the start...

      I am a male in STEM. If anything, bringing more girls in STEM would be good to make it less of a sausage fest and would not been misaligned with my own interests. However, I think this is not the way to do it. I don't give a fuck if there is one more scholarship I am not eligible for. Plenty of others that I am not eligible for exist and I don't make a fuss about them. I think you need to stop taking everything too literally...and I say this for your sake.

      Delete
    5. This is about giving them the tools to empower themselves... Creating an "image" of STEM that includes women so that young girls can grow up seeing themselves as professionals in STEM. It's like societal inertia -- nothing will change without a bit of a push.

      Delete
  12. woman here: STEM makes woman feel like waste :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. translation: I'm not good at math, it must be because its sexist.

      Delete
    2. 12a, Alternate translation: I'm great at math and my grades are good, so why do the guys in my program who are doing worse than me keep trying to 'tutor' me when new concepts are introduced, hit on me during class, and disregard the things I say during class discussions? It makes me feel like trash.

      Not saying that this is necessarily 12's situation or anything (and I won't deny that there are women out there who do poorly at math and then blame it on the program... hell I've met men who do that too), but it does happen.

      Delete
    3. i dont even dare to talk to girls in our class anymore after someone accused me of harassment when I was trying to work on our project more frequently and get work done. Ya. Maybe that's just one girl. But this is too much risk to take when my professional life hangs on the line.

      Delete
  13. > tutor me

    Because you always run to them when you have a problem so they think you need it

    >hit on me during class

    Because you came dressed as a slut in case you needed help from one of the smarter, thirstier guys.

    >disregard the things I say

    Because it was probably fucking stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a man, I sincerely hope you either change your attitude or die in a grease fire. Either is fine by me, just please do one of these. The world will be better off.

      Delete
  14. Let me explain this in a way you might understand.

    Say you see a cookie, you want said cookie. But the cookie is too far away for you to reach. You look for a ladder but the only ladder that can be used can only be accessed if you are part of a certain group. So you have to sit there and watch them climb the ladder and get the cookie, all the while you are standing on your tiptoes trying to reach but failing.

    In this scenario, you are women, the cookie is STEM programs/jobs and the group that can access the ladder is men. By giving an entrance scholarship the university is providing you with a step stool. It still may not give you the height a ladder will but at least you don't have to stand on your tip toes.

    Stop saying that the scholarship is gonna force women who are not interested to apply. No one fucking wastes four years of their lives studying a subject they hate and/or aren't good at. Check your privilege and go read a book.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Umm... Because the arts cater to men and men aren't actually underrepresented?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are actually, but as with female underrepresentation in STEM who gives a fuck?

      https://uwaterloo.ca/institutional-analysis-planning/university-data-and-statistics/common-university-data-ontario-cudo-0/common-university-data-ontario-cudo-2014/section-common-university-data-ontario-2014

      Delete
  16. As a male in math, I agree with this scolarship. The gender unbalance makes it difficult for us to get laid within our faculty. Bringing more women in will increase happiness and productivity.

    ReplyDelete