Female parity with men in male dominated fields - my theory on the real explanation

MeatCurtainRod · 2016-02-09T16:41:04+00:00

No. The ONLY reason women are 'allowed' into male dominated fields is because of feminism. They aren't there because they want to be there, have earned a spot, or accomplished something with their relevant skills. It is because feminism fucked up the whole "equal opportunity" thing into "equal outcome".

Now, I'm all for equal opportunity. But what the fuckup is trying to implement "equal outcome" instead. These women go into these fields with full handouts due to political incentives, pushing out fully capable and much better qualified men out of the limited sized field, who are only in because they have a pussy, and then drop out of the field because they find it boring.

I'm not shitting you on this gong show, because this is a common occurrence. There are so many incentives that give free handouts that waste tax payer money to women to enter into these fields, but what they don't realize, is they simply don't want to, and will only do this because they get free handouts. If you don't believe me, look into an already highly corrupted feminist society, the UK. Google what happened to chemistry majors in their universities. Look at what happens when feminism gets their way in political academia. If you are too lazy to google; several universities shut down chemistry because they found too few graduates. When you have 100 seats, reserve 50 of them for women, and by the end of the program find that there are 50 female dropouts AND 50 better qualified male students who NEVER got their chance just because they have a penis, they might wanna reevaluate feminism.

No, it isn't what you think. The problem is simple. Feminism. I can't stress this enough: feminism thinks the best approach of diversifying the workforce is to ENSLAVE women into these jobs that they simply don't want. There is a reason why people choose the jobs they choose, because they WANT to. Feminism doesn't understand that. Women DON'T WANT to go into engineering, or into the army as a whole, which is why there are a LOW percentage of them in those fields. If they don't want to, don't force them ffs. Worse, the consequences is that half the people (men who were drafted out due to having a penis) who would have made excellent members of the workforce will have NO shot at their life's calling, who were much better qualified and much better suited. I can't tell you of how many cases I've seen in university that a dude needs to score 300 points higher than a girl to enter into a program, otherwise they will consider the girl who scored 400 over the guy who scored 650. Why? Because of penis. Yet there are no incentives to get more men into education or nursing or social work or any of the female dominated disciplines.

batfish55 · 2016-02-09T13:05:58+00:00

What?

Women are 'allowed' into male dominated fields because the feminist movement won't STFU about women not being allowed into men's spaces.

Males dominate certain fields for the same reason men make more than women: the work is harder (construction), requires more education (STEM), or is more dangerous (cop, soldier, firefighter), and women don't want to do those things. Males don't dominate these fields because women are excluded, women make conscious decisions to not enter them.

As for women banging their superiors, see: Hypergamy.

On a side note, it's always a bad idea to dip your wick in the company ink.

Words-Are-Wind · 2016-02-09T19:55:28+00:00

This idea seems insane. I don't know where you're from, but here in America I've worked for both fortune 500s and non fortune 500s and they aren't having any of that shit. I never seen a contract that didn't require me to sign a document saying that I acknowledge that flirting and even "unwanted eye contact" whatever the fuck that is, are grounds for dismissal. There are people so paranoid about it they refuse to be left alone with women, because even the accusation of flirting is enough to get your ass tossed out. Think about that for a second... if told to have something done by a certain deadline, there are men that would rather go home early and risk missing the deadline, than to stay at the office late to finish up the work while left alone with a female coworker. No man who signed one of these documents would go out of his way to hire women. They are hiring women in male dominated fields mostly due to quotas, not because there are a bunch of thirsty dudes in the office.

Samantha_Cruz · 2016-02-09T12:48:17+00:00

generals are not normally in front line combat positions (they MAY have come up through those positions but are certainly not in one by the time they make General) so they aren't likely to get much, if any, sexual benefit from adding women to those particular roles and i am pretty sure most of them recognize that having women in these roles would lead to diminished effectiveness which does directly reflect on their performance.

They would clearly get a 'sexual benefit' by adding women in some positions but i don't see where that would lead to the more recent drive to open all combat postions.

Title	Female parity with men in male dominated fields - my theory on the real explanation
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	5
Comments	4
Date	February 9, 2016 12:30 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/44wg9u/female_parity_with_men_in_male_dominated_fields/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/female-parity-with-men-in-male-dominated-fields-my.186987 https://theredarchive.com/post/186987

Comments