guest56436

Feminist logic: X is claimed to be discrimination. When someone questions whether that may be the case (not matter how logical or fact driven their evidence is), that person is invalidating individuals' experiences and is therefore wrong. Wow, that's some sound logic you've got there. Seems a little ideological no? I'm done here.

This is exactly what I said: Please explain to me how that is, in any way, 'denying that there is gender discrimination' or 'denying our experiences?' At the very least try to be a little intellectually honest here. No one has rebut any of my claims directly. I don't know why you keep saying this. It's pretty clear that you continue to actively skirt around my arguments. I've read these already. Yes, there are studies that have findings that suggest there may be discrimination. But there are also studies that show that there isn't (I've provided one such study, in this very thread). Furthermore, we also have no idea why these findings are actually occurring besides very vague claims of 'gender bias.' We also have no idea how prevalent it is. Of course there exists discrimination in academia. There is discrimination present in a number of facets of society, both for and against women/men/race/ect. I never said otherwise, and to claim that I did is at best a strawman, at worst, a complete lie. No, it's a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion Of course it's human. Does not mean it is logical and has any merit in an intellectual discussion. Great. I don't care.

Please point to where I said anything of the sort? I mean, for christ sakes, I even said this on the first page of the thread: No one has responded to any of my arguments in a substantive way in this entire thread. You are appealing to emotion. It's a fallacious argument that people resort to when they don't have any factual arguments to bring to the table.

I have already read those. If you notice, I replied to that very post in the thread. I'm so confused, denying what problem exists? What have I denied exactly? And it's convenient that you have now just ignored everything that I wrote and started with appeals to emotion arguments.

I never said there was such. There are male dominated professions and woman dominated professions however. This is simply not true. Please link to the scientific evidence behind this. Environmental factors may account for a portion of the variance in profession choice, but not even close to all. We know that baby infant males and females have demonstrably different preferences and behavior traits prior to environmental factors, so your theory is false. Science also shows us that male and female brains are quite different from each other. Differing levels of testosterone in the womb leads to divergent brain chemistry and development in males and females before birth. Lastly, competition and cooperation are not zero-sum. Environments need to have both - and the levels of each is debatable - to achieve optimal outcomes. More cooperation does not necessarily mean more success. They do not necessarily change to whomever is in charge, where's the evidence for that? Institutional behavior can persist long after the removal or turnover of leaders or members. I also linked a study that was done where it showed that woman were given preference in job applications based on their name being on the CV. When names were removed entirely form the CVs, men were favored. I also linked to a comprehensive and methodologically deep study that showed that women were favored in STEM job hiring by approximately 33%. That was completely ignored of course, but whatever. I am not part of the problem for 'denying your experiences' whatever that means. You are part of the problem for spreading false, and in many cases completely ideological (not factual), information.

Well, would you support making the nursing and teaching fields more competitive and less cooperative in order to entice more men to join these professions? Work environments are not static entities. They adapt through time, largely through innovation. The current system may not be the best but it's certainly changed organically countless times based on what works and what doesn't. No one automatically gets more respect and recognition because they present as male or have a male name. That just simply does not, or very very rarely, exists. However, some environments or systems may favor personality traits - such as disagreeableness - that are more predominant in male populations, hence benefit them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there is discrimination. In fact, it could just be a pareto-optimal situation that favors a certain kind of person which is causing a certain gender imbalance. There's a significant difference.

Not very common in political science, we don't usually get funded through professors' external grants. Although I agree it doesn't hurt to ask people in your department if anyone is looking for a RA. I think the most straightforward answer is probably to get a temporary summer job (could be anything).

I mean, isn't the choice here pretty much Berkeley vs. Yale?

^ Yes, and... What's the price-to-rent ratio of your area?

To be fair, you do sound a bit insufferable.

I feel like you're doing it backwards. Apply to 8-14 programs where you have multiple people you could work with, have good placement, and are preferably highly ranked. Dont worry about the questions you asked in the OP until or IF you get acceptances. Also, even if you study political psychology you don't have to go to programs that are traditionally really focused on that. Just apply to the best programs possible that are decent fits, including places like Minnesota and Michigan.

MA programs in political science in the US are rare and usually not very good. I'm sure there's some decent programs out there though. I think there's a few strategies if you're aiming to get into a doctoral program: 1) If you study comparative, an area studies MA. 2) If you are interested in policy, a public policy MA. 3) The more general interdisciplinary programs like MAPSS. 4) Quantitative focused masters, like stats or Econ. 5) Do an MA in Canada or the UK. They all have tradeoffs, and strengths and weaknesses.

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2015/04/08/1418878112.DCSupplemental/pnas.1418878112.sapp.pdf

Here's one, of public sector applications: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 Of course, this doesn't tell us much except that designing programs/policies to be outcome dependent on something you don't know why is occurring is a bad idea.

Fuzzylogician, there have been plenty of papers showing the opposite (as I am sure you know). So let's not tout your results (which we have no way of verifying either), as infallible. I'm not interested in denying the presence of discrimination --- and by the way, discrimination cuts both ways. I've always found the whole STEM thing curious though. There's so much focus on STEM. Yet, most people don't care about women dominating certain fields like education or nursing. And no one at all cares that men dominate the trades. It seems like when there's underrepresentation at the high end of the desirability scale (i.e. CEOs, stem fields, ect.) there is a significant outcry of discrimination; yet, for lower rungs of the job market, no one cares. I'm in the camp that doesn't believe there needs to be equal representation across all fields. There's plenty of research that points to significant differences in preferences and interests (and behavior) between males and females, we shouldn't expect these differences not to manifest into larger trends of occupation choice. I'm interested in reducing barriers that prevalent interested people in pursuing choice; but many 'remedies' are put forth to rectify something that might not be discrimination in the first place.