That's not "a" study, it's from a metastudy.

Yeah. a metastudy by a doctorate candidate. So brilliant, no one has heard of her neither before nor after, and the only reason we have heard of her at all, is that she manipulated the numbers to show, what progressives wanted to see.

Where are you getting that quote from the paper?

Those words are from the article you linked to. The popular text describing the paper.

There absolutely are some very demonstrable differences in certain psychological regards

Oh, wow. Great. Now, if psychology is affected — and we also know, that muscles are — could there not be other differences, subtle and otherwise? Could those hormones, that cause women to dress more provocatively and buy provocative clothes during fertility periods, be also having an effect on work and other pursuits?

We are approaching the question with different axioms — and come to different conclusions. You say: "Genders are equal, therefor any sign of differences proves sexism". I say: "There is little to no sexism, therefor the observed differences prove, genders are different."

Some of our arguments (all of yours, actually) are simply variations of the above...

Oh please, you're not seriously going to pretend that there weren't tremendous pressures in Victorian society for women to not be involved in STEM-style careers

Queen Victoria died in 1901. According to NPR, female participation in programming was on par with men until 1984. I don't buy NPR's explanations, but I believe their facts. Whatever the reason for females losing interest in mid-80ies, blaming "Victorian era" for it is stupid today and was stupid 30 years ago. Find yourself something else to blame...

But if you continue to insist, it is American "parochial" ("bigoted", "backwards", "retarded") attitudes, that are to blame, then you must first explain, why women in the even more parochial countries (like all of the ex-USSR) are doing better, rather than worse.

"I'll see your 50% and raise it to 100%" - how does this even make sense?

Here is how it make sense. You wrote: "one can decide that having 50% of the human population having a solid interest in the sort of careers most valuable to the improvement of the human condition is a good thing". I still think, having the entire 100% of the human population — both sexes, that is — having that "solid interest" is an even better thing.

This ridicule is what you get for speaking in (other people's) slogans, instead of your own sentences.

Nobody is talking about disinteresting men from pursuing STEM careers

Why, TFA is talking about exactly that: "for excluded male students by [...] a companion all-boys school that would emphasize English Language Arts". So, did I just catch you lying, or you didn't even read the write-up before posting?

"Are there laws or even customs, that prevent girls from entering a STEM field and excelling in it" - it's like you didn't even read my post.

I read it, and I still don't know, what you are talking about. "Victorian era"? Must be it...

And if one person wastes their time trying to become a physicist when they'd have made a better fry cook? Well whoop-di-freaking-doo. The world is still a better place.

No, the world is a worse place, if you force a would-be brilliant singer, designer, or a CEO into becoming a mediocre programmer. She'll spend her life programming in some future equivalent of Cobol (Perl?) and hate her life...

I've met people — male and female — working in a field chosen for reasons other than sincere interest, and I pity them. And certainly would not wish such fate upon anyone else.

The pretense, that gender identity is "learned" destroys lives. Why must you insist on it?

Unless the companies start actually competing with each other now, there is nothing particularly exciting here.

Because the merger would not have reduced their (non-existing) competition...

Well, there's this and other things like it

That NPR-article offers two YouTube videos as evidence, that home computers were marketed to boys. We are also led to believe, no such advertising existed targeting girls...

Even if it really did not, however, makes little difference, because the marketing would not have been the reason of girls being less interested, it would have been a consequence of it.

The greedy capitalists paying for those commercials would not have deliberately rejected half of their market...

Also, the effect of such advertising would not have been immediate — the target audience (and the) kids in the videos were 12-15 years old, at least 5 years away from entering the job-market. So they can not explain the drop of female participation in computers, which began — according to the same NPR-article — in 1984.

Case closed.

You may be interested to know that the full grand master title is granted automatically for women-only achievements* to make them look better.

I am well aware of this fact, and the link I provided earlier makes the distinction too: see the "How Earned" column in his table.

But there's only one issue with that...

How was that study conducted? Has it ever been reviewed by peers or successfully reproduced?

Screw Mars and Venus; men and women are from Earth

This would argue againstsegregation... But even that study shows ample differences between genders, and the article describing it (which is what you linked to) acknowledges ample earlier studies "that had shown significant, and often large, sex differences".

If you had a society where eating apples was something almost exclusively done by men

Most of the female chess Grand Masters (not to be confused with the WGMs) come from places, where views on gender-roles remain quite traditional — Georgia, China, Russia, or Ukraine.

This alone handily defeats the argument, that it is the dastardly "Victorian moral system", that keeps women from advancing in anything other than child-bearing and singing.

If a girl from Lviv can become a Grandmaster — her last opponent, incidentally, being a girl from Vladivostok, what is the excuse for a girl from Los Angeles? Sex-stereotypes are only wider-spread in the former USSR...

the very fact that historically there were fewer women in STEM (a legacy from the old Victorian moral system)

Citation needed.

Or, one can decide that having 50% of the human population having a solid interest in the sort of careers most valuable to the improvement of the human condition is a good thing

I'll see your 50% and raise it to 100%. You make even less sense with these slogan here, than you made earlier with attempts to remain scientific.

and maybe we should give a shot at remedying this

Rectifying what? Are there laws or even customs, that prevent girls from entering a STEM field and excelling in it? I am not aware of any such and I await your citations.

even if just on the "offchance" that it's not biological

But what if it is bilogicial — as seems perfectly probable? Would not your efforts to encourage people to do, what they have little aptitude towards, then be wasteful and, indeed, detrimental to that "improvement of the human condition"?

Life Insurance Companies Hoping Wearables Can Delay Death Payouts

Because, simply saying, the devices can delay deaths would've sounded too nice...

Untrue. There is plenty of evidence.

If there is not already a special place in Hell for people claiming to there be "plenty of evidence" (of anything) without citing any, Satan better get on with it and build one. In anticipation of the new arrivals from the Internet-forum age.

So, it could easily be a case of chess culture putting girls off from participating

Except there are plenty of WGMs. It is just that very few of them make it to an actual gender-neutral GM for some reason.

Unless you are arguing that girls are just less intelligent than boys

Chess is not purely about intelligence — nor is boxing, for another example, purely about strength either.

But whatever it is, that encourages girls to become chess-players and advance, countries with "traditional" (otherwise known as "backwards" and "bigoted") views on gender-roles — like Georgia, Russia, China, or Ukraine — seem to offer more of it, not less, as evidenced by the last link in my post above.

But then these forums are really just shouting matches for ignorant people.

And, presumably, for the valiant teachers-of-the-people (5 points for figuring out the Ancient Greek word for it), trying nobly to eliminate the unfortunate ignorance...

Some research has suggested benefits for same-sex segregated education

Oh, I am not rejecting the idea of sex-segregation.

What surprised me — though, given their other obvious insincerity, perhaps, it should not have — is that the same people, who oppose such segregation, suddenly consider it a good idea or, at least, are willing to accept it "for the Greater Good".

particularly for girls

I don't see, how you can have one without the other... The numbers would not add-up.

One of the possible reasons why girls don't get into tech stuff may be peer pressure from other girls before they even graduate from high school.

Or, maybe, women and men simply aren't the same?

The anatomy and physiology are demonstrably different. Could those natural differences be having an effect on the interests in life? Feminists would like us to think, all of that is due solely to upbringing, but they offer no evidence — while denouncing detractors as "sexists" themselves.

Though businesses aren't allowed to discriminate, sports-leagues openly do all the time. A "co-ed" volleyball team, for example, must have at least two females out of six players at all times — because having more males is an advantage. A team showing up with only one woman is penalized one way or the other (see rule 11 of this set, for example), a team showing up for a coed game without any women automatically loses.

In chess too, for some reason, there are very few female Grandmasters (GMs). It got so embarrassing, a lesser title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM) was introduced... And there are some — but very few (all of them from countries with "traditional" views on gender-roles, BTW).

Now, I am not going to claim, women are intrinsically "inferior" to men — for a I don't think, the sexes are comparable, nor do they have to compete. We represent the same species. But we are certainly different — and I am not surprised, if the difference is manifested in aptitude for or interest in different carriers and pursuits.

I am awed and stupefied, how the idea of sex-segregation — hitherto denounced as "detrimental to equality" — comes back around as a good one.

What's next? Whites-only school of basketball?

I wish, I was trolling...

Just because you see some people abuse it

It is not "some people" — I gave links showing institutional abuse with kids of certain races being penalized by colleges, for example.

There are legitimate reasons why these laws exist for example

What's so "legitimate" about your example? On the contrary, it is quite illegitimate. The link tells us about an employee allegedly harassed and subsequently fired because of his age... While harassment (of anyone) is wrong, employment is not a "right" and private employers ought to be free to hire and fire anyone for any reason. If a girl can say: "You are too old for me" or "I don't date Jews" — why can't a private employer in a free country base decisions on the same thoughts?

Your link also gives yet another example of Executive's power to extract money and obedience without bothering with the Judiciary — if you celebrate that, then you aren't as "Liberal" as you'd like to think of yourself...

Firstly, people go to Emirates for a different reason, they put up with abuse and lack of human rights so they can save up money and eventually go somewhere else such as United States.

Maybe. But what makes you think, it is the discrimination being illegal, that makes the US so attractive? We were quite a magnet even before that. Can you cite some sort of study among the recent newcomers to the US summarizing their motivations for moving?

No-one is talking about some Affirmative action or racial quotas

Bzzz, false! The entire TFA and the write-up talk about racial quotas — the main accusation against Tata is that its workforce is 95% "South Asian". And my thread-starting post talked about those two kinds of discrimination primarily as well.

Quotas do exist, unfortunately, and it is to meet them that colleges and employers nation-wide lower standards for some races while raising them for others.

Your links don't back up your MRA talking point claims.

Yes, they do. Please, be specific and identify a link, which does not back the claim under which it is provided.

There is no evidence that equality laws cost businesses "billions".

I didn't provide a link under that, but wherever I did provide a link, each backs up the corresponding statement.

Now, if you insist on me backing up that statement too, here is an interesting page giving national aggregation of Employment Practices Liability Insurance:

The U.S. market of EPLI premium totaled about $1.7 billion in 2013

And that, of course, is just the routine cost of insurance premiums. Add to that the cost of dealing with the actual claims — and the costs of settlements and fines by those without insurance, and the "billions" multiply.

Using the term "womyn" is just plain trolling.

Well, that is the term certain females prefer — because there is no "man" in it — why do you consider my using it "trolling"? And even if it were — what of it?

There is no punishment of "thoughtcrime" - in order to bring a prosecution there has to be proof of action to discriminate.

That very same action may or may not result in prosecution depending on what the actor thought at the moment. That makes it a thoughtcrime.

So what you say is people should just give up and be discriminated against?

No, what I say is that it should stop being illegal. You and I may still dislike it, but no one should be prosecuted for it.

It should not be tolerated in public and government-run organizations — police, public transport, military ought to be "color-blind". But private companies should remain just as free to refuse to hire anyone for any reason (or no reason at all), as a girl may refuse to marry a particular suitor.

the reason why to this day US is an attractive destination for immigration [...] is because we have laws that protect people against this kind of discrimination

The US was an attractive destination for immigration long before we introduced such laws (which only happened 50 years ago). Various other countries — Russia included, for example — have such laws too... To put the final nail into your argument, Dubai and other rich emirates are swarmed with Indians, who — even those born there — have no citizenship rights, but are attracted by the wealth of the country anyway.

No, it is the Americans' wealth and freedom, that make us attractive. And freedom includes being free to harbor racist thoughts — and even base hiring decisions on them.

India and China are fighting to achieve what we have here in west in terms of equality.

You don't fight for equality by making it mandatory. It tends to have the opposite effect — and American life of the past 50 years is an experimental confirmation of that theoretical observation.

You didn't dispute a single one of the points I raised — so you agree, that we are in a hole. You just want to keep digging it for some reason.