This is an amazing discussion and it really needs to occur. What scares me is how much this conversation is being ruled by an angry emotive mob, at the expense of democracy and free speech. There is almost no fact in any of these comments.
Why MUST we have 50% of male and female in any industry? Have you noticed how almost every media outlet ignores female dominated industries (such as veterinary science) [0], where over 85% of vets in the western world are female? The strongest argument in this thread appears to be that there must be equal numbers for equality, but it's only EVER applied to male dominated industries (Google it if you doubt me). However, not only is this argument unjustified, it's continually selectively applied by most mainstream media outlets, again and again. There is no challenge or balance to any of these arguments from the mainstream media.
I am disappointed that Google sacked this engineer. To understand this mindset, you really need to watch this video on Yale. People being shut down from talking because they're male or white [1] or because angry mobs don't like what they have to say. People in this thread talk about sexism and yet they struggle to provide any evidence (while I can point at truck loads of evidence of misandry, eg. domestic violence, veterinary science, etc). This Yale video talks about this exact problem i'm describing. We have a society where you are no longer allowed to express selective views (even with evidence). Google have confirmed this with their dismissal of this engineer. What we've become concerns me deeply.
To all of the people who have stood up for free speech (and you're in the clear minority in this thread), I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you want to be able to sort out the media that's worth listening to, watch reporting on this topic closely over the next few days. Look for extreme prejudice and emotive language from the media. To quote an excellent quote from the Yale video, "these are moves of power, not reason" (3 minutes in, [1]).
So where are the rational arguments? What about the percentage of female university graduates with relevant skills? What about Dr Simon Baran Cohen's findings on very young children and trends to their thinking patterns? Where are the facts? Why are most people side-stepping facts?
Now please re-read this entire thread and ask yourself about freedom of speech. Ask yourself about democracy. Ask yourself about how many people have presented facts. There is something seriously wrong. You should be deeply concerned about the lack of debate, the lack of evidence, the number of emotive arguments and the message Google has sent to anyone who doesn't toe the politically correct line.
Look... up until a few years ago, I would never^ have had an issue with a 1:1 meeting, i'd had plenty of them. However, in recent years, the media has become so one sided about sex discrimination that I know an accusation could end my career (that's all it takes). Places like Ars Technica, the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald (and a host of others) paint a very one sided picture of sex discrimination (as do some of the comments in this thread that should have been modded down to oblivion but weren't). It's no accident that it's one sided and it has little bearing on reality#.
It doesn't matter if it's issues like domestic violence# or inappropriate behaviour in the workplace (eg. Marissa Mayer and her significantly under reported and alleged sacking of most of the male staff at Yahoo), the media continually present a one sided story to the point that we now almost solely accuse men of sexism. We've even had an Australian politician from Queensland try to legislate crimes by gender, with almost no criticism from the media. She's still in office because the media gloss over her sexist attitudes. If it were a man, he'd be out of government within a week. This has been going on for years.
So, I understand people becoming extremely wary. If the media wasn't so consistently prejudiced, the picture might be a little different.
^ Having said never (above), it's not quite true. I have been sexually harassed (physically and verbally in the work place). I was terrified to report it because one reverse accusation could have finished me. Thankfully, one of my bosses saw how stressed I was and this woman had a history of harassing male colleagues. Nobody would touch her for fear of recrimination, but, my boss ensured the opportunity of sexual harassment toward me was avoided.
# Perform a search on domestic violence using Google. Look at the imagery. You will see almost only white adult females as victims and white males as perpetrators (across thousands and thousands of images). The same one sided dialog is given in the articles linked to those images. Compare this one-sidedness to the actual stats and the story is very different (30-50% of the aggressors of domestic violence are female [1][2][3][4]). This is just one of the more extreme issues (ie. ignoring domestic violence females across the media) that underlies how imbalanced (and consistently imbalanced) the majority of western media are. There are many other examples of this one-sidedness other than this one topic. However, it's good to illustrate how easily people are blinkered to a topic as fundamental as victims of violence.
I am the parent of an Asperger. Like many other parents in similar situations, I have dealt with many autistic kids (low and high functioning). I get quite annoyed at the playing of the victim card just because somebody is autistic. It only serves to make things worse for everybody.
When my child behaves unusually, the results from other children are negative. This would happen irrespective if my child was autistic or not. I used these negative opportunities to discuss standing out and blending in.
There are times where it is not possible to blend in (ie. because of highly keen senses causing a crippling effect). However, that can be offset by playing to strengths. My autistic child has gone from strength to strength. When other parents have asked me what I did, I say I never told my child they were a victim and tried to steer them to blend in. While I can't definitely prove that is the only criteria, i've had many other parents comment on how my child's growth has stood out from other autistic children we deal with, despite starting in a similar situation.
Don't get me wrong, it's not easy to separate what's essential (eg. separation from a noisy environment) from what sounds beneficial but wouldn't help (eg. I had to fight hard against using coloured cards instead of plain language to communicate). I am averse to gimmicks that make children stand out. These gimmicks can easily backfire and cause social alienation (i've seen a lot of it, first hand).
One thing that Aspergers often have as an advantage is an obsessive nature. They want to know everything about a particular topic. They study, analyse, and study further. It's amazing to watch. I can imagine that this obsession can lead to some amazing breakthroughs. On this basis, I would say that it is possible that Aspergers can achieve exceptional results that others are less likely to achieve. This theory of mine aligns with others [0]. I actually found this link after watching the movie about Srinivasa Ramanujan, the genius Indian mathematician who struck me as having asperger-like characteristics.
I am not fond of victim mentality articles. I'm not fond of turning people into victims. If you are a parent of an autistic child, please do your best to help them understand how they are different without creating a victim. Help them steer toward socially acceptable behaviour and to recognise their strengths. Everybody is different. Even the atypicals.
Disclaimer: I'm married to an Asperger who became an engineer on her own steam. Despite being an engineer (a no bullshit engineer with no sense of entitlement or victim mentality), she's not had an issue with discrimination in her decades long career. How do some people make it through with no issues? That's an excellent question.
>> I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate.
>That's because it's a fairly well established fact.
Citation please. Work from Dr Simon Baron Cohen, the Director of Autism Research Centre (ARC) in Cambridge, appears to clash with your statement. He is an expert in child psychology and has conducted tests on young babies and noted strong trends based on gender at less than 12 months of age. This, at least in my mind, does not align with your "well established fact" that behaviour is socially driven and would point to biological differences playing a significant factor.
If you're going to cite a well established fact, it's value adding to provide credible sources because hear-say doesn't progress an intelligent conversation.
Unfortunately, the media push very hard to promote women who don't deserve it. My wife, who is a very capable and experienced engineer, is sick of it because it makes capable women look bad. Quotas and mandates exacerbate the problem and only serve to create antagonism. Unfortunately, political correctness casts a shadow over good women.
If you want to point a finger at anybody, start with the media.
A local school held a production on pirates a few years back. I noticed a significant emphasis on women on board (and it was used effectively to undermine the male actors who were all relegated to tertiary roles in the name of equality and were the brunt of derogatory comments that were not based on fact).
When I looked up historical pirate codes (the several known pirate codes), the topic of women on board was mentioned once and was discouraged because it was likely to cause division among the crew. There was also explicit law to protect any female who found herself on board.
I discussed the misrepresentation with my wife who is very knowledgeable on maritime history and maritime protocol. She agreed and mentioned that it was not uncommon for merchant marine captains to take their wives with them.
History is often revised for political purposes. The sad bit is how nasty some people become without even bothering to check facts.
There's a lot of talk about fake news. Am I the only one who is noticing that Uber is being bullied a hell of a lot by the media? Don't get me wrong. Uber have some major faults. However, compared to other companies, are they really that bad? Under Marissa Mayer, Yahoo reportedly sacked most of their senior male staff and the media didn't even blink. That was one of those jaw-dropping things that the media collectively ignored and continues to ignore.
We talk about media collusion. We talk about media integrity. I've got a strong feeling that there is some serious collusion going on against Uber.
I have no vested interest in Uber. I do not defend anything Uber has done. I even posted a negative review of Uber based on my limited experience with them. I am simply asking if I am reading too much into potential industry-wide collusion by the media as I am seeing too many coincidences.
I recently read about the media's secret jList - where the media supposedly don't collude, but, I keep on seeing themes across the media spring up out of nowhere. The negative focus on Uber might just be one more coincidence.
That's true. If he did, he wouldn't be sharing his lessons.
Thank you to everyone who has shared their stores. I have thoroughly enjoyed hearing people's perspectives here. Too often today, we think everyone else has it good and that's just not true. Everyone has challenges. I would love for more people would realise that.
I found some of the comments in this article highly insightful and others surprisingly blinkered. It did an excellent job of tying in technology and the media, however, the presentation left much to be desired.
For example,
Q: How many people trust Facebook as a news source and/or don't check any other sources?
Q: Why was there no mention of TV and radio news?
Q: Why did the article imply many times that Trump only won the election because of fake news on Facebook, yet, embedded well down was the comment '“overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.” This is almost certainly true.'
Q: Why does the article imply multiple times that Facebook is the principal source of fake news, when a Google search of keywords can prove most media outlets (including the prestige NYT) propagate fake news? This was not spelt out nearly clearly enough.
All media outlets have some form of bias. However, the reason that most people i've spoken with are wary of Facebook news is because it only shows you what you want to hear. You can't establish an informed judgement with that sort of information. Long term, I believe this will be the downfall of Facebook as it will never be seen as a credible news source. It will allow its readers to be blind-sided (ie. like the people who predicted the election result to be
a landslide in favour of Hillary Clinton).
After reading this article, I have a better appreciation of why so many people struggle with critical thinking. For example, anyone that says "domestic violence is not exclusively a male behaviour" (even when you list the high percentage of male victims) is shouted down as an extreme right winger. This defines logic, but, it's an extremely popular and pervasive view throughout the mainstream media of all western countries and is almost never challenged, despite obvious ethical implications. It's an excellent illustration of blind-siding and an inability to critically think or fact check by most media outlets.
The New York Times a great example of prejudice of mainstream media because it's often quoted as exemplary media. Look at the following NYT times page on hiring a gender editor. Not only is it extremely biased and inflammatory, but it specifically spells out the sort of editor and the sort of prejudices the NYT are looking for.
"An analysis that shows how pay decreases when women take over jobs that men used to dominate. A look at how women ruled the Olympics. A searing documentary showing how a mob in Afghanistan killed an innocent woman. Chronicling the quest of women in rural India to work and be independent, even at the cost of their lives..."
The same page has the cheek to claim they are equal opportunity and non-discriminatory. That takes real courage (or a head in the sand). women "ruled" the Olympics? If someone said "men ruled the Olympics", you'd have extensive outrage over social media, if not more.
In summary, the article has some excellent insights and fundamental flaws (eg. news on radio and TV not mentioned; Is Facebook really treated credibly?). It also didn't address the credibility and usefulness of news sources that tailor content rather than telling the whole truth. It downplayed the amount of "fake news" that comes from the mainstream media and misrepresented what influenced the outcome of the election.
I believe Wikipedia has an excellent definition of fake news which matches the understanding that most people I know are using,
"Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation, be it via the traditional news media or via social media, with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically."
I have researched many articles from around 50 years ago and today. I strongly believe that the amount of disinformation has grown significantly, especially from the Mainstream Media. I find it difficult to find a single news outlet that can't be found to meet that definition above (ie. to spread fake news).
It's not "I disagree with you" (like many posters are saying). It's not those "men’s rights advocates" [from the article] or "Breitbart". It's MOST (if not all) mainstream media.
The issue falls into two categories (above).
1. Blatant lies. For example, how many times have you heard about women's voting rights (women couldn't vote until a long time after men could). Read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Wom...
And the UK is not the only country with similar stories. Compare this article with statements like this from the guardian "In 1928, women were granted equal voting rights with men: it had been 10 years since the Representation of the People Act _first_ enabled them to take their place at the ballot box..." (emphasis mine)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/09/women.w...
Then there's the blatant misinformation. Go to Google, type in "domestic violence" and click "Images". Then scroll through every single image you can find. If you want even more images, pick specific media publications and search that using "domestic violence site:www.smh.com.au" (or whatever media out you like). You will see thousands upon thousands of images that all contain the same thing. Pictures of white grown women, or white men in threatening poses. You will find less than 2% of women who don't appear white, you will find less than 5% of pictures depict abused children. You will find 0% of abused males. Now, compare this with the following.
You will see the percentage of male victims is 35%, 51%, 41%, and 35% (Australia, Canada, US, UK). In other words, there is plenty of violence against males with the family. If you really have the time, also, read the text in the articles and you will see how consistently manipulative the media are, across the entire world!
The idea is to manipulate and create a public perception. The real reason behind it was captured by this feminist who said that her friends refused to acknowledge domestic violence of any males in case it took funding from women (ie. it's about the money).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0
I personally think you can't get much lower than denying violence, protection from violence and trying to cut off support any any victim of violence, but, then again, i'm in the extreme minority.
I could give so many examples of fake news, not just these. We could talk about cancer, education, employment, wages, you name it. There's a huge list of fake news. Sadly, these themes saturate the media (world wide) with a continuous stream of lies and misinformation.
I don't think the article helped in the slightest. If anything, I saw it as a backward step. There are perfectly good definitions and plenty of examples that could have been illustrated.
This is a worthy discussion. Let's stop pussyfooting. Hold all liars and manipulators to the same standard. Start exposing blatant lies.
Your comment really resonates with me. I've been very involved with a few schools and many teachers. I've presented classes to students. I've become friends with teachers. Sadly, the more I see, the less I like. You are absolutely right when you say that the classrooms aren't there for the students' best interests. One of the links below says "It’s a betrayal of our children and of our country’s future.".
To quote one particularly honest teacher, "your child is a slow processor and extremely gifted. He's F*. The education system doesn't cater for children like yours". She (like me) has an autistic child. I wasn't cross with her at all. In fact, I deeply respected her honesty.
My other child is very active. If you've done any reading, you will know that many modern teachers do not like active children. These kids are energetic, they ask too many questions, they are disruptive, won't sit down for long periods and no matter how much they're punished, they just won't shut up. My child has been marginalised by three teachers. I confronted the worst offender who broke down and cried when I told her how my child had responded to her bullying. She admitted it and in her own words "grossly mismanaged the situation". Yet, I respect her honesty (she's one of the few who would admit to it). My active child undulates between an A grade student a C grade student depending on the compatibility with the teacher. However, my child has said that he's getting tired of the sexism from the teachers and I expect it to start impacting the effort he puts in.
The education system has become more sexist than it ever was in my lifetime. World University Rankings show that girls, only in recent years, are 30% more likely to graduate than boys, and that's expected to grow much larger. Nobody is asking WHY the drastic change! How many times have you heard someone like the New York Times say flippant comments like "boys suddenly think education is girly" or "boys suddenly are thick as two planks" as an attempt to explain a radical shift in performance by gender? We also hear manipulative terms like "girls _outclass_ the boys". If it were the other way around, it would be called "discrimination", "marginalisation", or a "sausage club" (to quote an Australian Education rep in the Daily Telegraph - below).
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ucas-figures-gende...
I have included a link to one of the few excellent articles on Australia's prejudiced education system. They interviewed a representative from Australia’s school curriculum - a top science professor, Michelle Simmons, who condemned the Australian education system for totally failing students,
Australia has ramped up its gender bias in education significantly in recent years. The result, according to the article is...
"In less than 20 years, Australia has fallen from the fourth in the world for reading to 13th, according to an OECD report. We were once sixth for maths, but now we’re 19th."
You will see almost the same downward trend in the UK and the US (who we copied for their gendered education policies).
And a host of others. I can't tell you how many times i've seen extreme sexism in classrooms (eg. comparing leaders. Female: Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton; Male: Adolph Hitler and Donald Trump. I wish I was joking).
The education system is letting our kids down badly. The significant swing away from boys attending university would strongly imply that it's not just inadequate study areas, but also sexism. I've all but lost faith in the education system, yet, I still contribute at my school as much as I can afford to.
When you said men, are you ignoring when Marissa Mayer (not a man) dismissed many of her senior male staff and replaced them almost entirely with women?
Please understand that sexism is not a "men" thing. It's selective reporting by the MSM.
It's fantastic that we are seeing the selective exposure of sexism in the work place. I admire these people for having the courage to come out, especially given that some very high profile cases of sexism seem to be ignored by almost all of the mainstream media (MSM).
As an example, I heard that Yahoo dismissed the majority of their senior male staff, unfairly. The Verge, Vox, The Daily Beast and a host of others didn't report on this. The link below isn't the best reference, but it's one of the few I could find.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273...
I also remembered that Ars Technica gave it some limited and underwhelming exposure.
While everyone discriminates, I think the older generation is more in touch with egalitarianism than your generation. I'll give you a few examples,
Today, people refuse to acknowledge that domestic violence has male victims. This has NEVER happened in history. It's a modern phenomenon to reject victims based on gender. Perform a Google search for the entire year of 2015. You will not find one single picture of a male victim of domestic violence. Yet, ABS puts the figure at about 30% of victims as being male. Some Australian politicians have tried to legislate DV based on gender!
My local magazine has pictures of only girls on the front cover almost every issue. 50 years ago, you would almost always have a girl standing next to a boy.
A government organisation in Australia called 1800respect bombarded the TV with ads saying that the root cause of domestic violence was young boys "it's a boy thing" was the catch cry. They purposely targeted the demographic with the highest suicide rates who are most vulnerable to criticism.
Or Hillary Clinton's exit speech. What about this gem that not one media outlet commented on. Hillary's message of exclusion was clear. If you're a young boy you are not even worth mentioning.
"And to all of the little __girls__ who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams."
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13570328/hillary-clinton-conces...
These are all legacies that have been created within the last decade. Never in history have we played such nasty gender games. It is the older people that are banging the drums saying "what the hell is going on?", not the younger generation. I am yet to hear younger people chime in to the conversation. I've had some doozy arguments with younger people who talk about revenge (to which I say "for what?") or "no, that's OK, that's equality".
Now, you could argue that it's not the younger generation that's controlling the media. However, there are a lot of young people on Facebook and Snapchat. Where's the outrage at the extreme prejudice we see today from the younger people? It's just not there.
What may surprise you is that I don't support a men's movement because of how toxic feminism is as a gender based movement. What I reject is the extreme gender prejudice that is so popular today. Almost every media in the western world is in the collusion and there appears to be no bar too low they will stoop to.
When I see young kids in droves calling out The Verge, Ars Technica, The New Yorker, BBC News, Fores, Vox, Vulture, Beast and all of the other prejudiced media outlets, I will know that you are right. Until then, I will assume the majority of people who give two hoots about egalitarianism are the older generation of men and women.
Let's look at it another way. Ban all hate groups, or don't ban any of them. However, don't pick and choose.
I don't agree with Neo Nazis. I hold Neo Nazis with the same contempt that I hold feminists. Why not apply the policy for all hate groups?
For example, in Australia we refuse to acknowledge the approximately 25% of violence and abuse by females within the household. The worst case statistic is NSW ("Twice as many female victims (19,488) as male victims (9,261) in New South Wales."). Not one of these victims is given a voice!
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/...
You will see that men who are victims of domestic violence are turned away from support groups. This doesn't surprise me as there is an aggressive campaign to ignore male victims from media, government and community support groups.
I conducted a Google search from 2015 to determine that 100% of references in the Australian media stated that domestic violence was a "male only" behaviour and the only victims represented were female. I checked over 2000 references! In other words, 2000 of 2000 references represented one gender with relation to violence.
If you listen to Cassie Jaye (the feminist who created the documentary The Red Pill), she says that feminists in media refuse to acknowledge male victims because it will take money away from female victims. In other words, if you are a boy or a man who is beaten or abused, feminists insist males get no representation or support. It's almost a complete media kibosh throughout the western world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0
So, why is Twitter not banning prominent feminists?
or, why isn't Twitter banning all media outlets who support such hateful messages that insist that some victims of violence should be ignored? This is a fundamental breach of human rights! You can't get much worse!
Check media references for an absence of any of the following,
80% of suicide victims are male
25% of domestic violence is by a female
90% of incarceration is male
You will also notice that Cassie Jaye said she was suppressed by feminists. Cassie also said that she was advised by feminists not to represent any issues that impact men. This would explain the media suppression across all western countries.
If you're going to ban a hate group, why not include feminism. It's certainly one of the biggest and most active groups today and actively violates human rights. I've given plenty of pointers in this single post alone to build evidence.
There is almost universal silence from the overwhelming majority of feminists on this topic. It's a sad indictement of the overwhelming majority of the feminist movement. Check media, documentaries from 2016, support groups, even discussion forums. The message is consistent and it consistently breaches human rights.
So, should Twitter ban hate groups? If you really must silence hate groups, then ban them all. And like you, I dislike spending so much of my time fighting hate groups like feminism because there is no impartiality on the topic. How extreme do you need to get before people will speak up?
That's not the half of it. This author deserves no respect based on that article.
She is typical of "me me me" and the continual flow of sexism we see from Australian journalists. The last few decades in Australian media have been a dark spot. This author is sexist, arrogant and takes pride in yanking a strange girl's hair (which is tantamount to assault).
"In two strides I was behind the schoolgirl. I reached up, seized her ponytail at the roots and gave it a sharp downward yank."
"My only regret is that I couldn’t see the Asian woman’s face at the moment the schoolgirl’s head jerked back and her insolent grin turned into a rictus."
>The society where "elders" were regarded as wells of wisdom probably never existed.
Historically, the Greeks (as one example) respected the opinions of wise elders,
"Monarchies in ancient Greece were not absolute because there was usually a council of older citizens (the senate, or in Macedonia the congress) who gave advice to the King."
From my own experience, I always sought adults that I felt I could learn from. Even as a kid, I remember thinking some older people gave bad advice and some showed great insight and used this to focus my attention. My own kids seem to echo similar sentiments to my own at the same age.
Pulling apart appliances is a great idea. I've had that in the back of my mind but pushed it back for too long. Thanks for the reminder.
This article reflects some of my own views. I moderate my kids' access time to electronic games very tightly. We have frequent group discussions on things we've seen, done, learned, etc. The conversations are really amazing and are a good lead-in to bedtime.
It shouldn't surprise me, but I often hear more intelligent conversation from my kids than I do from most media sources. In fact, we sometimes analyse places like The Verge for their prejudice as an exercise in critical thinking around flawed arguments and fallacies. We look at youtube for history, engineering and biology videos. We've developed board games, Rube Goldberg machines, flying craft, gone on bike hikes, looked at water safety...
If you live in the suburbs and you look in your local area, there are many free educational community activities too. We've looked at construction, robotics, software and sports activities to name a few.
We even make up our own learning activities. Eg. we went shopping together and discussed food priorities, food costs for equivalent items, set a budget, discussed buying local v/s imported food, etc.
There are learning opportunities all around. I feel that education on computers is over-rated and critical thinking outside of a computer is underrated. It just takes a lot of time and energy. I usually put in a weekend of planning about a month before school holidays.
Why MUST we have 50% of male and female in any industry? Have you noticed how almost every media outlet ignores female dominated industries (such as veterinary science) [0], where over 85% of vets in the western world are female? The strongest argument in this thread appears to be that there must be equal numbers for equality, but it's only EVER applied to male dominated industries (Google it if you doubt me). However, not only is this argument unjustified, it's continually selectively applied by most mainstream media outlets, again and again. There is no challenge or balance to any of these arguments from the mainstream media.
I am disappointed that Google sacked this engineer. To understand this mindset, you really need to watch this video on Yale. People being shut down from talking because they're male or white [1] or because angry mobs don't like what they have to say. People in this thread talk about sexism and yet they struggle to provide any evidence (while I can point at truck loads of evidence of misandry, eg. domestic violence, veterinary science, etc). This Yale video talks about this exact problem i'm describing. We have a society where you are no longer allowed to express selective views (even with evidence). Google have confirmed this with their dismissal of this engineer. What we've become concerns me deeply.
To all of the people who have stood up for free speech (and you're in the clear minority in this thread), I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you want to be able to sort out the media that's worth listening to, watch reporting on this topic closely over the next few days. Look for extreme prejudice and emotive language from the media. To quote an excellent quote from the Yale video, "these are moves of power, not reason" (3 minutes in, [1]).
So where are the rational arguments? What about the percentage of female university graduates with relevant skills? What about Dr Simon Baran Cohen's findings on very young children and trends to their thinking patterns? Where are the facts? Why are most people side-stepping facts?
Now please re-read this entire thread and ask yourself about freedom of speech. Ask yourself about democracy. Ask yourself about how many people have presented facts. There is something seriously wrong. You should be deeply concerned about the lack of debate, the lack of evidence, the number of emotive arguments and the message Google has sent to anyone who doesn't toe the politically correct line.
[0] http://career-advice.careerone.com.au/career-development/pro... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK4MBzp5YwM