In all seriousness the book WORTHLESS by Aaron Clarey is solid stuff. He took an economist's approach to various degrees and broken them down by return on investment. As a result he's very any hyphen-studies and liberal arts in general.

It's as if the scientists were correct: women are predisposed to jobs with higher social quotients.

http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...

Just so we're clear this is Twitter acknowledging that they're anti-free speech. Anything someone deems "offensive" is forbidden. That couldn't possibly be abused, nope not at all! /s

It's well known that men and women tend to value different things: men tend to go for higher base pay, ergo they tend to negotiate better for it, whereas women tend to go for better work-life balance benefits such as flex time or whatever. By freeing up money by reducing the rates by preventing negotiation, this translates to being against men's interests and allows the company more money for the sort of things women want.

To be clear, Pao is trying to kowtow to women by sticking a thumb in the eye of men. THAT is how this all shakes out in the end, plus any money isn't use for women's benefit goes right into the company's profits.

People are already jumping ship giving Voat a huge increase in users. Unless Reddit boots Pao, her toxic leadership is going to continue driving people away, both users and prospective employees.

Why are H1B visas even permitted if there's an unemployment rate for whatever industry that visa is being requested for? Employ those at home before bringing in even more people which drives down rates and compounds the unemployment problem.

I've got a 24" monitor that's 10 yeas old and it's native resolution is1900x1200. Why the regression in recent years back to 1080? You'd think monitors today would have continued advancing. Sure, give them 1080 capability, but still they should have a much higher native resolution by now.

Under who's authority? Has anyone ran this ban past the FCC and/or FAA? You know, the controlling agencies for radio frequencies and the nation's air space?

I question the police's unilateral authority on this to just up and arrest RC operators willy nilly without a crime having been committed. At best someone may be guilty of trespassing if they are operating one on the property, but if they're not and just fly one overhead and take pics/video, then what?

"The age old advice still stands: be yourself."

WRONG. Be your _best_ self.

"There is far too much speculation and not enough actual research in this area."

That's not true. There's a good amount of research on the topic, it's just you'll never hear about it since the mainstream media largely leans to the left. Christina Hoff Sommers cited two studies in a recent Factual Feminist video that more or less confirmed the final premise of this documentary, which is chock full of research relating to this subject:

http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...

The idea is that the more free and safe a society becomes, the more likely men and women are pursue their biological predispositions. This manifests as men having careers in hands-on jobs & STEM fields and women in jobs with high social quotients.

And that's exactly what's wrong with Title IX. Schools gutted male sports programs to build teams for women that they weren't even interested in.

In all seriousness this is a very valid point. Women and girls just aren't interested in STEM. And research now shows it's less to do with nurture than previously thought. Christina Hoff Sommers cited two studies in a recent video that more or less confirmed the final premise of this documentary:

http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...

The idea is that the more free and safe a society becomes, the more likely men and women are pursue their biological predispositions. This manifests as men having careers in hands-on jobs & STEM fields and women in jobs with high social quotients.

"School is not biased towards the boys at all."

What's worse is that people up and down the chain, going as high as the President, thinks this is a great idea!

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012...

"“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”"

The article continues...

"So if a 17% deficit was a catastrophe requiring federal intervention, what are we to conclude when that same federal intervention has created a 25% level of inequality?"

This is a good question, when women had a 17% deficit the govt enacted a host of laws to balance things out, to include Title IX. Now that there's a 25% deficit for men, where's the action to fix things? It'd be bad enough it was just crickets, but instead our president is lauding this even GREATER deficit than what women suffered. In what way does that make any sense?

And yes, federal intervention most certainly has made colleges more inhospitable to men. Case in point, the Dear Colleague letter and the kangaroo courts that have followed.

"The feminist argument is that this skew in gender balance is the result of prior socialization. But this claim of nurture over nature is not only unproven, it is utterly untestable."

Sorta. What research has been done on the subject actually shows there is a heavy biological component involved.

http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...

tl;dw - the more free and stable a society becomes, the more likely people are to follow their biological predispositions. This manifests as men gravitating to STEM and women to soft sciences and jobs with a high social component.