Yes. Men possess five times the capacity for technical thinking.
No. Women are just often socialized to pursue other fields of endeavor.
"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
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.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...
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!
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.?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.?
(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
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
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.
IMPress Polly (11-06-2017)
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?)
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.(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?
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.
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.