User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is STEM work too technical in nature for women?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Men possess five times the capacity for technical thinking.

    0 0%
  • No. Women are just often socialized to pursue other fields of endeavor.

    5 100.00%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Are Women Too Dumb For Tech?

  1. #21
    Points: 49,511, Level: 54
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 1,139
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cthulhu's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72948
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The spaces between cognitive thought and passive nightmares
    Posts
    13,841
    Points
    49,511
    Level
    54
    Thanks Given
    10,369
    Thanked 8,079x in 5,392 Posts
    Mentioned
    577 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Why do feminists never complain about the unequal representation of women in fields that aren't intellectually celebrated, well compensated, or safe, like farming, fishing, logging, etc.?
    Hard werk!

    Sent from my evil cell phone.
    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

    Ephesians 6:12

  2. #22
    Points: 100,746, Level: 77
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,804
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156220
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    8,575
    Points
    100,746
    Level
    77
    Thanks Given
    10,232
    Thanked 7,643x in 4,358 Posts
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dr. Who wrote:
    Females are subliminally influenced away from technical fields. For one thing, females are bombarded with messages that tell them that they are primarily valued for their appearance, not intelligence. Secondarily in fiction i.e. books, tv and movies, women who excel in technological or scientific fields are portrayed as geeks i.e. Bones, NCIS etc., whereas males with phenomenal technical and/or scientific ability are often portrayed as far more mainstream i.e. Ironman, Charles Xavier...
    This is a noteworthy point. It's not simply parents who do the encouraging or discouraging, the legitimizing and de-legitimizing, in the mindsets of the youth. It is also their peers, their schools, their media.

    It is not disputable that girls are systematically trained by some combination of these to think that they are dumber. The average girl feels that she is dumber than her male counterparts by age 6, even though she is already outperforming them academically!

    Ethereal wrote:
    Why do feminists never complain about the unequal representation of women in fields that aren't intellectually celebrated, well compensated, or safe, like farming, fishing, logging, etc.?
    I don't know, why don't men often complain about the relative lack of male representation in such attractive fields as nursing, house cleaning, child care, fast food, prostitution, secretarial work, etc.?

  3. #23

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,032, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200763
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,918
    Points
    473,032
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,033x in 24,872 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    It is not disputable that girls are systematically trained by some combination of these to think that they are dumber. The average girl feels that she is dumber than her male counterparts by age 6, even though she is already outperforming them academically!
    (Note: comments omitted)

    Systematically trained? I sure didn't get that out of the article. I can't speak for other people, but the young girls (now women) that grew up with my children completely and totally refute this notion. I live in a very conservative, moderately well-to-do, highly educated area of Ohio. The children of our friends, my kids, their friends -- 95% girls, excelled, took advanced degrees and looked down on the lesser, 'dumber' (their words not mine) boys.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  4. #24
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433307
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,896x in 54,714 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    This is a noteworthy point. It's not simply parents who do the encouraging or discouraging, the legitimizing and de-legitimizing, in the mindsets of the youth. It is also their peers, their schools, their media.

    It is not disputable that girls are systematically trained by some combination of these to think that they are dumber. The average girl feels that she is dumber than her male counterparts by age 6, even though she is already outperforming them academically!



    ...

    Stereotypes are a part of culture, they are not systematically trained or taught. What, do you think some educational entral planners in DC sit down and devise a system and then push it down through the educational system?
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  5. #25
    Points: 11,417, Level: 25
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Dangermouse's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    26435
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    1,750
    Points
    11,417
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    1,143
    Thanked 737x in 528 Posts
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    (Note: comments omitted)

    Systematically trained? I sure didn't get that out of the article. I can't speak for other people, but the young girls (now women) that grew up with my children completely and totally refute this notion. I live in a very conservative, moderately well-to-do, highly educated area of Ohio. The children of our friends, my kids, their friends -- 95% girls, excelled, took advanced degrees and looked down on the lesser, 'dumber' (their words not mine) boys.
    The BBC did a prog on kids and gender a little while ago. By seven, the girls have a limited self-image of inferiority vs boys, picked up from societal (and even subconscious parental) pressures.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/pro...boys-and-girls

    Girls are labeled "bossy", where a boy would be "showing leadership"... The was even a study where adults treated babies differently if they were dressed in pink or blue, offering girls or boys toys depending on the clothing colour.
    Last edited by Dangermouse; 11-06-2017 at 12:37 PM.
    News: Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people.

    They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Dangermouse For This Useful Post:

    IMPress Polly (11-06-2017)

  7. #26
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433307
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,896x in 54,714 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    The BBC did a prog on kids and gender a little while ago. By seven, the girls have a limited self-image of inferiority vs boys, picked up from societal (and even subconscious parental) pressures.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/pro...boys-and-girls

    Girls are labeled "bossy", where a boy would be "showing leadership"... The was even a study where adults treated babies differently if they were dressed in pink or blue, offering girls or boys toys depending on the clothing colour.

    Societal not systematic.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. #27
    Points: 11,417, Level: 25
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Dangermouse's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    26435
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    1,750
    Points
    11,417
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    1,143
    Thanked 737x in 528 Posts
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Societal not systematic.
    Societal, systemic.
    News: Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people.

    They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

  9. #28
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433307
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,896x in 54,714 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    Societal, systemic.
    Do you mean it's planned, that some educators sit somewhere in meetings and decide let's treat girls one way and boys another? Do you really think it's that sinister?
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. #29
    Points: 7,433, Level: 20
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 317
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Devil'sAdvocate's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    97
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    616
    Points
    7,433
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    159
    Thanked 87x in 71 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    So recently, I posted a topic (primarily) about the dwindling economic opportunities for women, both here in the United States and increasingly worldwide, and how this trend is being led by the technology sector. People (men) responded by contending that it's unnatural for women to want to work in technical fields like technology, science, math, and engineering.
    I'd argue that "tech" work is too dumb for women, and were I a female soporanino sipping chardonnay on the French Rivera, the last thing I'd envy is sitting in a cubicle forced to read a list of computer specs.

    Given that a man reading a resume of job description of an ugly "tech job" would shrivel the average woman's vagina faster than a ripe grape in the Sahara desert, what women who isn't borderline suicidal would want to bother with rubbish work like that to begin with if she had any choice in the matter?

    (And if she doesn't, what does that make her other than a slave?)

    (Apparently, it has become more unnatural in the last 30 years.) So what do you think it is that keeps women from majoring in these fields today? Is it primarily our emotionally-driven brains or might it instead primarily be the way we are socialized?
    No, the reality is that 'tech work' is too dumb for the human condition (particularly women, but not exclusively). At a bare minimum, a good number of industrial jobs require little more than rote memorization or compliance and require little to no actual creative work beyond just memorizing technical or industry jargon, which even a 5 year old can do if they spend enough time in mindless repitition, as spelling bees demonstrate.

    Post-industrial work and education allegedly became dumbed down to their current state after the Industrial Revolution, when society accepted a "McDonald's" model of education designed for mass efficiency (Entrepreneur David Kaufman explains this in his book, The First 20 Hours).
    Last edited by Devil'sAdvocate; 11-21-2017 at 05:38 PM.

  11. #30
    Points: 7,433, Level: 20
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 317
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Devil'sAdvocate's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    97
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    616
    Points
    7,433
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    159
    Thanked 87x in 71 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Why do feminists never complain about the unequal representation of women in fields that aren't intellectually celebrated, well compensated, or safe, like farming, fishing, logging, etc.?
    Well modern "feminism" in the silly "let's get women into tech" sense is primarily corporate propaganda which just appropriated some of the concepts of feminism from the 60s and turned it into trendy 'ad' slogans. (Much as how businesses in the past have approrpiated or ideals which are trendy, such as religion in their marketing).

    This has been a trend since after WWII, when using "empowering" slogans to convince women to work for the military-industrial complex was trendy; corporations realized how much more they could maximize profits by tailoring their marketing to women using the language of 'feminism'.

    The truth is that this is just "McFeminism" and it's essentially to feminism what televangelist and megachurches are to Christianity.

    If a 'feminist' decides she 'wants to be in tech' because a white-male dominated corporation told her that tech is 'empowering', then she's just letting herself be controlled by men, as she's letting male corporate and media executives decide what is empowering for her, rather than deciding it for herself.
    Last edited by Devil'sAdvocate; 11-21-2017 at 05:40 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts