I stated "most relevant empirical scientific study".

Funny how if you believe that's a misrepresentation, you haven't provided a more relevant empirical scientific study. I guess you couldn't find one.

Right now, all you have is an opinion ungrounded in logic nor facts and that doesn't match the personal experience of the majority of the people here. You're going to have a pretty tough time convincing anyone with just that.

That would make sense. Having managed a K-8 school in the past, I'm familiar with overall employment statistics for teachers and male teachers are also more likely to leave the profession within 5 years, so that may be a big contributing factor on both sides of the occupational sex-selection differences.

It makes sense that if you think you're going to like a type of job, but end up not actually liking it, you'll move into another career path at some point earlier rather than later in the process.

As you have no facts to back up your opinions, using only pointless and inaccurate insults as your "best" arguments, it's clear you don't actually have any basis for your opinions. You can pretend to talk about "reality", but apparently are unable to provide any "reality-based" support for your claims.

Of course, based on your rant about "careers", you aren't able to read, either. Interest in college sports isn't about a career, but apparently you don't know much about sports, either.

You should consider reevaluating if you are capable of changing your worldview when presented with facts, or if you completely rely on indoctrination from others for your opinions.

You stated "gender counts against them in the job interview".

The most relevant empirical scientific study shows the complete opposite.

Total employment numbers are apparently based on something completely different than you stated. Hmm... maybe it's because actually, despite being biased towards hiring women, despite thousands of special programs to try and convince women otherwise, more men are interested in this type of work.

College sports are the same way. Studies have shown that a much higher percentage of men than women are interested in participation in sports in college. So those women who are interested in college sports participation have vastly more opportunities in college sports than men do, because they have fewer women pursuing the same amount of available positions.

Would it completely destroy your worldview to realize that men and women have different interests? And that women can be discriminated in favor of, yet still make up a lower percentage in a group because they just aren't interested in being in the group?

The relevant statistic for equal opportunity is for equally qualified individuals,do men have an advantage over women in the hiring process because of their sex. The answer from the study is the opposite. Women actually have a huge advantage. If you are looking for fairness, you'd be demanding that women get less of an advantage in hiring, not more.

So if being a woman actually counted for them in STEM hiring (not against them), then you'd agree there wasn't a problem?

Don't let me disturb your worldview with facts, but in every IT or other STEM area I've seen (in the US at least), Women would be hired ahead of Men if they were anywhere close to being able to do the job and were interested in it.

Google is your friend.

Took all of 5 seconds to find examples like this from Wired.

The first link in the list has this regarding CAFE regulations of the time:

Except of course, if you read the article (I know,must be new here) Ford actually _won_ the Pinto case and while they had previously (before the court case) agreed to install that plastic wall, the expert opinion was that it wouldn't actually accomplish anything and wouldn't have made any difference in the specific situation of the court case.

It's like saying horses should all be recalled because someone might fall off of them. Pintos were no more dangerous than other similar cars from all the other car companies. It's just how small, light cars were built in the days of high gas prices and associated regulations. Technology has advanced since then, but there are still trade-offs.

What most people "know" about Pintos is largely media-driven, not factual.

I'm in AZ also and are familiar with the race you're talking about. I knew they were utility-company supported, didn't see anything Koch related. Do you have a news report or campaign financing source or something I can look it showing major Koch money involvement somewhere?

Apparently we've reached a consensus among this scientifically literate community that AGW isn't proven, then? ;)

I wonder how long it will take for the school to be half filled with boys who like STEM topics and figure out that if they claim they "identify" as female, they get to go to this school and be surrounded by girls as a bonus?

Is this place just meant to have an entrance exam specifically designed to ensure just the best min-maxers get in?

Here's what was dropped by the editor from the original story submission:

Male economists were the only university STEM group found not sexist in their hiring.

No word yet on what steps universities are planning to take to remedy this apparent bias in hiring.

I find it interesting what he chose to cut out. I guess you can either argue it's for brevity, or because they want to avoid controversy in the original post, but compared to some of the other posts I've seen, maybe not...

Anyway, I found that male economists difference in the study interesting, but it's also fun to see that the researchers assumed (as conventional wisdom in their field) the exact opposite result until they realized no one had actually done any empirical work on it, then their work turned out the opposite of what "everyone" in their field thought it would. So I commend them for having the honesty to do actual science.

Exactly. Doing the math another way, if you want the equivalent of a 25% reduction in home and industrial water use (what the State government is calling for), you need to reduce agricultural use by only about 6% to get that same savings in water.

I don't think you understand how little water is used in CA for household and industrial vs. Agriculture.

I have a solution for your CA home water issues.

Ready? Stop voting for Democrat environmentalists.

The science is in. If you divert millions of acre-feet of water to fulfill environmental regulations, you can't use that water for other stuff. If you stop building reservoirs and dams to store water while increasing water usage, you won't have enough water. If agriculture water prices went up enough that the agribusinesses used 12.5% less water, then every residential and industrial user in CA could use 50% more water.