slipjack

One major issue in this scenario: you don’t know who wants/can/will have kids. Discriminating against women because they have a uterus and might get pregnant and might have a problematic pregnancy and might carry to term and might give birth and might take parental leave is incredibly short-sighted - even in your scenario you’ve just missed out on 4+ years of work because you’re worried about a few (potential) months.

Beyond that, while (cis) women have the necessary equipment to have kids, we’re not the only ones with bodies that can get sick. Penalizing all women for one particular way of (potentially) disrupting work is incredibly unfair, and ignores that men also can need leaves of absence.

If 43% of women leave the workforce after having a child, it’s still more likely than not that your employee is coming back. And my guess is that the number of women who plan to come back and then don’t is much smaller than 43%, because - to the surprise of many - women often know what they want in life. (That snark is not aimed at you, btw, just that this thread is full of people second-guessing women.)

What's interesting is that the author talks only about impact on children. I was under the impression that a large part of the argument for universal preK (and universal day-care, like Head Start) was that it evens out how easy it is for parents to work when they have small kids. If that's the case, then it's not a huge problem that the academic results aren't great over time for the kids themselves if it means that overall family well-being is improved.

As a side note, Head Start is also interesting in that it, when it's done using blended classrooms, it also lets kids from diverse background interact with each other before they've learned a lot of prejudicial behaviors.

Do you have any links about the project? I'd be really interested to know more.

> Many universities in the AAU survey offered 6,000 students > $5 each to fill out the survey, yielding a total potential > cost of $30,000. But if you were willing to pay $30,000, it > would be far better to pay 600 randomly selected students > $50 — a $200 hourly rate for a 15-minute survey, giving > students a much larger incentive to respond.

This is a good reminder of how important study design is, not just the questions on the survey.

The only worry I have is the tiny sample size one would get of underrepresented minorities, which in other studies have been show to have a much higher victimization rate than other groups.

Interesting - I'll check these out.

But again, I'm not arguing that genetics don't have any impact on behavior - I'm arguing that getting from someone else's experience of appearance to genetics to the 20% of behavior that's affected is a pretty long jump to make.

Do you have any studies about humans? Because I'm not aware of many that are clear-cut (of course, there's environment-gene interplay, but that is way more murky than anything talked about in the article or in the OP's comment).

I'm not saying that those claims were false and therefore all such claims are false. I'm saying that in the West we've spent a lot of time trying to prove that non-white men are inferior in different ways. Arguments like "unconscious bias comes from evolution" ignore that long history of non-white-male qualities being judged inferior.

Er... my point was that most superficial qualities don't have a 1-to-1 mapping on internal qualities. Height is another great example.

> Being swayed by superficial cues is not irrational if they correlate to the underlying qualities you are trying to judge.

I'd be pretty careful about this line of argument. What we think of as a clue to underlying qualities is cultural... for example, one of the biggest superficial differences in people is the color of their skin. What underlying qualities does skin color clue us in to?

In the US and Europe, we have a long history of trying to find the ties between visible and non-visible qualities. Phrenology, eugenics, Blacks as having "inferior intelligence", the belief that women are prone to hysteria - all were attempts to find that link.

> And when you refuse again, their job is to arrest you.

Not really. Their job is to assess the situation and see if it make sense to arrest the person. In most cases, the answer is that it doesn't.

Thanks! Honestly, I would start with the wikipedia article about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality). It's a nice intro and has a lot of great links.

My bad - I was being sarcastic about the first comment, not sarcastic about the second (and agreeing with you).

To more fully explain what I meant by my first response, I was frustrated by his lack of awareness of the ways intersectionality impacts how different people interact with each other online. Codes of Conduct become increasingly important as one recognizes that intersectionalities of oppression can create extremely toxic situations for some minority groups and not others, depending on the context of the group. So, basically what you were saying in your second comment.

Yup. It's annoying to hear that I should stop whining because the internet is fine, when he almost doesn't experience oppression in the same way.

> Whatever do you, do not make a scene, as that will burden the entire community with your issue... Remember, this is not the time or place to start these kind of discussions.

Cool. I'll make sure not to make a big issue out of being sexually harassed online... online.

Yeah, it's almost like intersectionality is a thing.

Would you expect that amount of fudging to change over time? Arguing that fudging stats explains the drop in crime requires that you believe in the last 30 years police throughout the country have started undercounting the amount of crime in their areas by increasing amounts year after year.

So, not necessarily this article, but I haven't seen much in sociological or economics literature that's put forth one single reason crime dropped. There's argument over primary causes, or how much each cause contributes to the drop, but not much about single unifying theories.

It doesn't really have anything to do with policy or working odd hours. Unless everyone presses enter at the same time, grades will be input at different times. (I'd love to see administrators trying to corral senior faculty into doing that, though.)

As to whether a system should process grades more than once a day, that's obviously a judgement call that Columbia has made. And as someone who worked in the administration of similar university, a small part of me is cheering on whoever at Columbia has held fast against the demand for up-to-the-minute GPAs.

Different teachers putting their grades in at different times of the day? Sure.

In Yiddish (at least as spoken to me), it often has a masculine connotation.

One of the points in the article is that the first often leads to the second: if your idea of a programmer is white and male, and that predisposes you to trust the capabilities of male tech candidates, you're going to end up with underrepresentation of people who are already minorities. It'll be subtle but it will be present.

(ETA: who is being underrepresented.)

Extra points for Orientalist views of Japanese femininity.

As mentioned in one of the other comments, you're getting NaN% for some success rates. I'm guessing it's because you're using the number of certified as the denominator, which will return NaN if it's 0.

Also, maybe this is a dumb question, but is this all green cards? For example, your site says there were 261 green card recipients from Nigeria, which seems quite low.

(Goes without saying - really cool!)

Yes, but suing costs a lot of money, so people don't tend to do it because they've "interpreted wrongly" a few isolated comments. She's suing 51 people - that's a lot of co-workers who just wondered why she opted to choose a career instead of a family.

(Also, asking women why they aren't staying home instead of having a family is the example HR uses when they talk about sexual discrimination. If you're working in a major corporation in America in the 21st Century, you should know that that question is not ok.)

Building subsidized housing is only one way to subsidize housing expenses. There are vouchers, sliding scale housing, mixed income housing, set-asides, and more.

A) We don't know she's single, only that she's living alone. Those are two different things.

B) She says in the video that she makes good money.

C) Our communities do better with more income/etc diversity (http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html).

Not to mention that a family's informal support network often works as a subsidy/social safety net, and when you move that definitely will not follow you. Probably the most common example is that many families in the US use family members to care for small children, because child care can easily cost ~30% of a family's income. Asking families to move to a lower COL area may well mean they have to pay more.

Even if there's no big market for fast food veggie burgers, Burger King sells a pretty decent one. Not always on the menu, but I've found them even in rural Alabama.

Sociological studies have found this to happen pretty often. A (very readable) study of tipping points can be found in There Goes the Neighborhood (http://www.amazon.com/There-Goes-Neighborhood-Tensions-Neigh...).