Caroline Criado Perez: Inside the data gender gap
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2024
- Award-winning writer and campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez reveals how the world is designed for men and the shocking consequences for women.
#internationalwomensday #women #gender #feminism - Наука та технологія
I don’t understand why there are so many men in these comments that somehow find it offensive that she’s merely acknowledging that females are underrepresented in scientific studies/research vs. women’s population. What is offensive in acknowledging this and that this underrepresentation may/could lead to less relevant,sub par or even dangerous outcomes/treatments for females because we are biologically different than males?
Because this lady is a man hater. She also makes everything up, which has been proven a few times. She is a liar.
Misogyny and Narcissism.
Males dont like when women are witty
Great video learned a lot. Unfortunately most of the people who commented looked at the title and screamed.
Was asked to watch this video for my universities "trends in technology" module. Really genuinely enjoyed this presentation and found it very interesting. Thanks
Thank you for talking about this topic ❤
Thankyou so much for the work you have done. I'm non-binary (Assigned Male at Birth). Wishing to see more cis-men supporting women outside of the LGBTQIA+. I hope to work on my implicit biases and help provide privileged support for feminine impacted leadership.
Caroline Criado-Perez is the best!!
I recall a modified rocket stove is also in the mix as an option for cooking for the third and second world women, along with solar box cooking........
Not only PPE . We will always underperform in sports in comparison to men as sports brands made lower quality sport clothing and accessories for women.Look at the cycling sports. Women can only get pretty pink gear that does not do the job like men garments do. And this is in every sport.
Just amazed & shocked ..
funny how they had to remove the likes ratios
Downvoted by fragile men who couldn't watch the video.
Sexist.
Down voted because she is lying. It isn't hard to see through her lies either, she is talking!
"A little pointed thing" says so much.
Oh, so there are differences between men and women ?
yes there are. Caroline Criado-Perez does not seem to believe in gender ideology. She knows that sex is real. She also rejects the term cis. The trans community attacked her for that
Women tend to live longer than men and consist the majority of the voter base. Keep this in mind when deciding who is really in charge.
How is your sexist comment relevant to the topic?
I liked new scientist.
Interesting topic but the presenter seems a bit biased. I don't appreciate the sarcastic-sexist jokes, nor strawman arguments, nor oversimplification of problems.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Yeah, you little pussybois sure are screaming about a video you couldn't watch.
who asked
Sex not gender
isnt this the chick who's dad owns a large super market chain? lmao
Doesn’t make the facts she’s presenting any less true….. would you be more receptive to these objective facts if she was from an underprivileged background? Or if she was a white male?
She begins on a good note...not blaming some cabal of misogynistic men for all the social issues experienced by women. Then goes on to pick the worst interpretations of sexual differences throughout the ages. Perhaps the worst possible form of aggression is to call the postal delivery person the "mailman"....why not "femailwoman"????? Sexism is everywhere, you just need to look for it.
@0:47 "Vast majority of data we've collected and continue to collect has been on men." This is just false. Take medicine for example, more women visit doctors on average than men. That data would be mostly about women. Men on average have been employed for longer periods on their lives. So it shouldn't be a surprise there is more data on them in terms of employment. Women shop more frequently than men, so their is more data on women's shopping habits than men's.
@1:25 "Most have been designed for men, and the result is that it doesn't work for women." This statement assumes men and women are vastly different beings; they are not. Take the app's example she uses, do you expect a women and men to play the same game differently? Do you expect the men and women would need different versions of the Amazon app when they shop? That would be ridiculous.
@2:05 How is this not 'white man is bad' BS?
@6:03 The reasoning to choose a 6 ft guy as a standard is to encompass the vast majority of people since most people are shorter than 6 ft.
@7:12 Here is an example of projected malice. Someone did a really good job of showing the anatomical chart. They had to pick a sex. So the implied reasoning of hers is that 'the male was picked because of sexism?" You need better evidence than story telling. Plus, why is she adding 'standard' and 'deviant' to the posters. How is that not her own projections?
@8:10 Here is the bullshit idea that visibility equals representation. So lack of visibility means representation to her.
She is just an ideologue that ascribes the worst intents to people, and probably cherry pick data to support her ideology. Never trust an activist to tell you the whole truth about their campaign.
Most data collected is on men even despite what you said about women more often go to doctors. She's talking about research and studies. She showed a bunch of examples you ought right ignored. She described underrepresentation in studies on the cardiovascular system even though women are at higher risk. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2737103?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0 this is a paper on the existence of sex bias in research.
She doesn't assume that men and women are vastly different. She demonstrates it with numerous examples of differences between our anatomy by pointing to the fact that body armour doesn't protect key areas because of breasts or differences in hips. She also referenced the fact that this has been reseachered by others pointing to the fact that they've found only 5% of women have equipment that fit properly.
@@KManAbout Where is this research? All I see is claims stated as facts. The research I have seen had terrible methodology.
@@DumpPhysicist I literally posted a link. Maybe if you did some reading and listening you get the evidence you desired.
@@KManAbout Relax, I missed because of this terrible interface. I read through it, and it fails to address how effective are recruitment rates. Since these are clinical trials, they have to recruit people to participate. It is not just a selection of the participants by the researchers. So it is too early to claim sexism when another less nefarious reason can explain it. Here an article about the issue: www.psypost.org/2012/01/how-participation-rate-in-studies-may-affect-interpretation-of-results-9485
more gender based agitation propaganda?
Trema T. Sad you don’t know how fucking ridiculous you sound.
Trema T. Oh, her feminist peers reviewed it and liked it so it must be true.
It’s hilarious to me how females generally can’t talk about anything without referencing it to another person. “So and so likes her.” “This person approves of her.” Wow, that totally must make it true.
Trema T. Do you know the first thing about economics? Keynesian economics? I doubt it. Keynesians no doubt reviewed her shit, and their track record is terrible when it comes to having any idea what’s going on in the world.
Trema T. Do I believe in science? Science means using the scientific method. Macroeconomic uses mathematical models to predict human behavior (extremely poorly). Slapping the word science on something like gender bullshit doesn’t make it scientific.
Science = scientific method. If something isn’t subject to the scientific method, it isn’t science. End of story. You can label feminist bullshit whatever you want, but it’s won’t change the fact that that’s all it is. Most people realize that, which is why feminism is crashing and burning so hard. You people are insane, marching against fake oppression, fake discriminatory pay gaps, all while wearing vagina hats. Lol. I love seeing your destructive movement descend into irrelevancy.
I was looking for unbiased information about gender gap, but this is a collection of punctual facts to create a bias in the audience. I would like to see both sides of the data put together to have a proper general view not only the extremes. Both sides have plenty of punctual facts to show, showing only half of the truth does not help to achieve opportunity equality.
The fact you assume she hasn't adequately reviewed the relevant data says everything 🤯🤯
@@rachelfennelly4155 well, I have reviewed the data. I assume that you haven't because you assume that about me. I suggest you not to trust me or anyone and read the peer-reviewed studies, the more the better.
Good quote "collection of punctual facts to create a bias in the audience" ... btw she received her Honorary Phd in campaigning what she does very well, yet not data science.
Participation in medical studies is voluntary. Have you considered that more men than women are willing to participate?
Yes. She talked about that in her book.