Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
You can't argue it both ways. Structural factors can either affect choices or they can't. If you advocate that structural factors can affect opportunity then you should acknowledge that it applies to both man and women. You are correct that Pederson would likely be opposed to both. I am not Peterson though and believe that these structural affects can and do apply to both genders. Your position that when women are under represented its structural but when men are under represented it's choice is hypocritical.
|
That's funny, because at no time did I suggest that under representation was structural. I don't see recruiting under represented populations as anything other than trying to bolster enrollment and increase the diversity in programs.
Quote:
|
I'd be interested in which enrolement statistics you would argue show this. Things like class attendance rates being gender specific are likely results of the different priority parents place on their sons and daughters education.
|
Some of them? All of them? Good lord man, the statistical difference between male and female enrollment is 55/45 female.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ada-by-gender/
https://trends.collegeboard.org/educ...nder-1970-2008
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
It doesn't matter where you look, girls outpace boys in enrolling for school by 10 points or more. Girls have had an advantage since the 80's. Considering that girls have about a 1% advantage in population, that means boys are not enrolling to the levels consistent with the overall population.
Quote:
|
Isn't this precisely the opposite of the previous paragraph. If society does not encourage boys to go to school at the same rates as girls that is on society. High School grades when looked at in aggravate in my opinion are function of how well society is doing at educating children rather than a choice of individuals.
|
Or those grades are reflective of how well students apply themselves and prepare themselves for the next step in their lives. Society doesn't encourage girls to go to school any more than boys. If anything, it is the lack of maturity and motivation of male students.
https://www.economist.com/the-econom...hool-than-boys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
There is nothing wrong with saying that if either boys or girls don't want to enroll, that is on them. Personal responsibility aside I take serious issue with the idea that if boys don't enroll, that is their fault, but if we don't see an uptick in enrollment by girls in male dominated fields, then there is something wrong with the system.
|
And who said otherwise? As I asked, how many men have been bumped from enrollments to make room for girls in STEM classes? There aren't any, because schools will go out of their way to offer extra sections of popular programs to meet the need. This is not an enrollment issue, this is a recruiting issue, and you're complaining about a program to develop more diversity in the industry, which is driven by industry itself. Schools care about full-time equivalent numbers, and don't care if it is a boy, a girl, or any other gender, so long as the seat is filled.
[/QUOTE]
I don't care about tenure. I care about the idea of free speech, and how hypocritical the gender pronoun proponents are with their stupid arguments. [/QUOTE]
But you should, because tenure is what affords the faculty member the right to free speech. You seem to forget that the faculty member is part of the academy and as a result, the institution. The faculty is a representative member of the institution, and must abide by the policies and values of the college/university.
What gives academics the right to bring controversial subject matter into their classroom is academic freedom - a right granted by the institution. Academic freedom is limited by the subject of study and the expertise of the faculty member. Basically, a Psychology faculty member may speak to controversial issues pertaining to the study of their (gender neutral pronoun) class, as defined by their syllabus document. Anything beyond that is fair game. So if that same Psychology faculty member decided to dip a toe into the pool of Sociology, and discuss a subject like female circumcision, to the point where it offends their class, they are likely in for a rough ride. The faculty member has no expertise in that field as per the constraints of academic freedom is not protected by the institution for those comments.
Tenure affords an extra level of protection, allowing that faculty member a mulligan or two should they dip that toe in the wrong pool. Tenure is granted by the institution, and can be revoked by the institution. Without that protection, faculty must mind their Ps & Qs and stick to their field of expertise and defend their work accordingly.
This is what I have been getting at all along, and as Pepsi has alluded to.
Quote:
There is little evidence to suggest that Dr. Peterson refusing to refer to someone in the pronoun they prefer is in any way oppression or even abusive as many of the proponents of that fascist idea think it is.
But then again, we are not whining and crying. We are trying to protect the fundamental idea of free speech.
|
Except when that free speech is critical of an individual who refuses to acknowledge someone by the identity they wish to be identified. Seems that if Peterson were really about free speech he wouldn't give a ####, see this is a trivial matter, and address his class in gender neutral language, to respect the individual and their freedom of expression. The fundamental right of free speech is not you exercising yours, but recognizing that others have that right and you respecting their wishes as they communicate with you. The hardest thing about free speech is not having your voice heard, it's hearing the voice of others with which we disagree.