> Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.
> A critical shortage of male teachers continues to affect K-12 education across America, with men making up just 23% of elementary and secondary school teachers today, down from 30% in 1987, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Belmont University's College of Education is addressing this gender gap through intentional recruitment, mentorship and innovative program design.
> If you include biological and medical sciences in STEM
Biological sciences are STEM of course. But if we're going to extend the definition, why not include all fields that involve technical skills? How about accountants and lawyers?
I'm concerned that you only proposed adding medical and nursing students because it's the only additional field that would support your argument. That strikes me as goalpost moving, so I hope it was just an omission.
Accounting and law schools are also graduating majority women these days. Have you not been paying attention?
DEI keeps on saying "more women in universities! More women in universities!" even though universities have been majority women for decades now. It's a one way ratchet that never stops.
Women were marginalized for millenia. Your mother/grandmother wasn't allowed to open her own bank account until 1974. It will take a long time to correct for that. It's a ratchet from the perspective of our very brief lives.
What's the theory of harm here? If we continue educating women they may gain too much social mobility?
It was legal and common to discriminate on the basis of sex in banking services until 1974. I actually don't see anything in your link that disputes that. It discusses some earlier milestones about women being able to own certain types of property.
Even if we quibble about the dates involved, we all understand that historically women have been marginalized, denied property, voting, and other rights, and that this was the status quo for millenia, right? And that that has lasting effects that continue in our society?
> Your mother/grandmother wasn't allowed to open her own bank account until 1974.
And your father/grandfather was enslaved by the government to fight in the Vietnam war until 1975.
> What's the theory of harm here? If we continue educating women they may gain too much social mobility?
Blatant hypocrisy, you think 60% of college students being women is good, but consider it horrible sexism that at one time 60% of college students were men.
You don't want equality, you just want everything to be female dominated.
I actually don't care what the makeup of college students is. It's useful to encourage women to pursue education in order to promote equity. But there isn't some magic proportion of men to women graduates that I think we should be pursuing.
I don't want everything dominated by women, I just recognize that the work of undoing their marginalization is not complete.
If that's not your position, clarify what it is. You're complaining about efforts to encourage women to seek an education. What is the theory of harm, if not that women shouldn't be educated? Perhaps what I said was too snarky of inflammatory, but I genuinely don't understand what else it would be.
I don't think it's a realistic expectation that other people will help you gatekeep these links. I get that you wanted to stop your personal site from being spidered and I think deobfuscating that wasn't cool. But a link to someone else's very well known personal site...? I don't see how it's even your business if that gets spidered?
I imagine the other commenters felt asking us to do these string operations was disrespectful to our time and security theater that wouldn't stop spiders anyhow. My suggestion in the future would be that, if you want to control how a link is shared or accessed, put it behind HTTP basic auth or something and revoke access when and if you see fit. Or tell people you'll share the source if they email you. Or anything else that isn't so trivially defeated that it's practically begging to be.
So you do understand why I did it. It will kill many, not all, automated tools using this HN content, and human beings actually interested will put the little time required.
It makes me remember the time when I was some IRC channels related to security: we had a try at chatting using "sound based" writting (a bit like SMS/text), only very suspicious accounts were against it (many knew each other IRL).
I wasn't there but another reading might be that in both cases people resisted these efforts to obfuscate because they valued a frictionless clarity and the obfuscation interfered with their participation? I can't speak for this IRC community but on HN people will definitely resist obfuscation for that reason.
I'm not sure what to tell you. People don't necessarily want to decipher these riddles. If you want to communicate that way it's your right. But I don't anticipate it being well received by this community.
You have more respect for grifters on social media as humans expressing themselves than for authors of books...? That's very strange.
Doubly so because no one suggested "silencing them," they pointed out that people do presume to teach on social media. You acknowledge this but not how it relates to your original argument, you've pivoted to defending their right to speech instead of shoring up your original argument.
Saying "I think X should have a warning, like cigarettes do" is not the making the claim "X is harmful in a way that is comparable to cigarettes." The similarity is that cigarettes have warning labels and not that AI is harmful on the order of cigarettes.
> similarity is that cigarettes have warning labels and not that AI is harmful on the order of cigarettes
We put warnings on cigarettes because not only are they harmful, but we have ample evidence about how and by what mechanism they are harmful.
The logic that leads to labelling every harm is the one that causes everything in California to be labeled as a cancer hazard. You want tight causation of sufficient magnitude and in a way that will cause actual behavior change, either through reduced demand or changed producer behavior. Until you have that-which we did for cigarettes—labelling is a bit silly.
That's fine but doesn't give you license to put words in other people's mouths. Maybe they want AI labeled for transparency. Maybe it's a matter of personal preference. Or maybe they're following the precautionary principle and don't want to wait for the evidence of harm, but rather for the evidence of the absence of harm.
There's an infinite number of positions they could hold, and the discussion works better if you ask rather than assume.
That's extremely tangential. Bringing hot-button political topics into unrelated threads flattens everything into political arguments and starves all other topics of oxygen.
For sure but I don't think you do your cause any favors by commenting that books about taking turns in conversation and understanding how to respond when a family member dies is imperialist and heteronormative without providing any context as to why you believe that. I'm sympathetic to your position but my immediate reaction was, "that's nuts." I went to look at the link and, while I saw some outdated language, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "Social Stories" hadn't aged well either, it was apparent to me that this was a basic educational tool that some children would really benefit from. And it's difficult to understand why you would object to that.
If you wanna help people to understand your critique I think you should add context and not use such absolute language. That can really only reach the converted. If you feel it is your civic duty to represent these values, perhaps it's your duty to represent them in a way that's accessible to people who disagree but are reachable?
I understand your passion, I sympathize with your position, and this is my attempt at constructive criticism.
Here's what I found after a quick search. If you're interested I'm sure you could research and find more information.
https://www.arizonacollege.edu/blog/men-wanted-new-efforts-t...
> Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.
https://www.belmont.edu/stories/articles/2025/men-in-educati...
> A critical shortage of male teachers continues to affect K-12 education across America, with men making up just 23% of elementary and secondary school teachers today, down from 30% in 1987, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Belmont University's College of Education is addressing this gender gap through intentional recruitment, mentorship and innovative program design.