~ archived since 2018 ~

We Should Give Up Encouraging Girls To Do Science, Says Glasgow University Professor Dr Gijsbert Stoet

July 14, 2014
273 upvotes

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/12/girls-science_n_5580119.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I thought this comment was especially keen:

"We need to have a national debate on why we find it so important to have equal numbers. Do we really care that only five per cent of the programmers are women?

"Well, actually, I don't care who programmes my computers. A wealthy, democratic society can afford to let people do what they want.

"What is better? To have 50 per cent of female engineers who do not really like their work but say, 'Yeah, well, I did it for the feminist cause.' Or do you want three per cent or female engineers who say, 'I really like my job'?"

As usual, the comments on that article are a cesspool of stupidity.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title We Should Give Up Encouraging Girls To Do Science, Says Glasgow University Professor Dr Gijsbert Stoet
Author InscrutablePUA
Upvotes 273
Comments 250
Date July 14, 2014 4:20 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/we-should-give-up-encouraging-girls-to-do-science.17912
https://theredarchive.com/post/17912
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2an1xd/we_should_give_up_encouraging_girls_to_do_science/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]bertstare10111 points112 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

CAN WE STOP LINKING TO HUFF PO? Screen shot it at most, disregard posting it at best.

[–]1mcdehuevo18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I could not agree more. It's Jezebel-lite.

[–]Luke666808g0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, it's a fuckin tabloid gossip rag.

blah blah blah do not delete etc etc.

[–]Luke666808g178 points179 points  (61 children) | Copy Link

"Clare Thomson, diversity manager at the Institute of Physics"

Diversity manager!!?? DIVERSITY MANAGER!!!?????? AT THE INSTITUTE OF RATIONAL/LOGICAL/MATERIALISTIC GOD DAMN PHYSICS!!!!!!!?????????????

[–][deleted] 103 points104 points  (51 children) | Copy Link

I don't get the huge hard-on in academia for ''diversity''. Who gives a shit?!

As long as there are no discriminatory measures in place for the admission process and it is based purely on a credentials/meritocratic scale, then what's the problem?

[–]81080978 points79 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Well when you hit them with the fact that all the options are open for them they start babbling about "cultural barriers". In other words the classic feminist old tale of excusing the lack of female agency and accountability. That's why we "need" to "encourage" girls: i.e. give them a free ride by wasting resources and time on a gender that doesn't want or like the work. They just want the job and the pay without earning it: in other words feminism.

[–]GeneralKraeg12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

For men that want to get into teaching or work with kids there is a "cultural barrier" in the sense that people will have feelings that he has ulterior motives; also a single accusation or incident could have a large impact on his career.

This is just to say that a cultural barrier isn't a fairy tale, it just doesn't apply to women at all in STEM fields, on the contrary: they're actively encouraged socially and financially.

[–]CornyHoosier8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In the school district that my mother teaches in, as of last year, men only make up (1) high school principle, (1) high school PE teacher and (1) high school history teacher. Again, that's for the whole district (1 kindergarten, 4 elementary schools, 1 middle school and 1 high school). There is literally not a single male working in elementary or junior high.

There was a male high school band director last year but he was terminated because a parent complained that he was sending her teenage daughter texts at night. I found out (mom being a teacher and all) that he had texted the girl late at night, but it was because the entire band had gotten back really late from a competition and the girl had never "checked out" that she left. He still had a timestamp and everything of the conversation when he showed it to a review board. However, the school decided it didn't want to tarnish its image so let him go (The guy had health problems, a pregnant wife and two children).

Every man has asked himself the exact same thing ... why would I want to teach children? All it takes is for a child to lie and at a minimum you lose your job, license, career and education.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

However, women in engineering have completely different objections for not going into engineering.

Why would I be an engineer? It would be really hard and boring! I would be surrounded by awkward nerds! What do you mean I have to give up my weekends and stay up late to study!

[–]yself44 points45 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I once did an exit interview for graduating seniors in the department of engineering for a small community college. Think of it like a focus group. We had five graduating seniors that year, four women and one man. All four women complained about their perceptions of the department's prejudicial treatment against them as women. The school had a woman President and women held about 90% of the top level administration jobs at that school. Get that, 4 women out of 5 in the graduating class, and they still complained about cultural prejudice in a school with the top tier administration positions packed full of women!

[–]dancingwithcats0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

How did you have graduating seniors at a community college? I thought they were all two year institutions? Genuinely curious.

[–]yself1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I said community college in the generic sense, because practically all of the students come from the local community. This particular school offers a full four year degree though. Many students do only two years and then they transfer to a different school. That explains why only five students graduated from the department that year. Most of the students had transferred elsewhere to graduate with their four year degree.

[–]theredpillager0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Many community colleges (actually probably most) offer full degrees. I can't think of any in the cities I've lived in, other than places like ITT Tech and DeVry, that don't. What they offer is cheaper tuition and prices for a degree from a less-renowned institution.

[–]CornyHoosier2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I got a 4 year degree from ITT Tech.

Degrees don't mean shit anymore, companies just want a piece of paper that says you were there for four year. I've beaten out many people from much more prestigious colleges because I beat them in people skills, experience and ambition.

[–]jkonine1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Queens College in New York is probably better than 70-80% of private institutions, yet is a community college in the CUNY system.

The vast majority of the student body are Koreans who could easily get into NYU or even Columbia, but choose not to saddle themselves down with insane levels of debt. It used to be only 3 grand for yearly 30 credit tuition..

[–]widec0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Still is in Canada for native citizens. Closer to 4 grand really, but the 790 dollar rebate if you're recently out of high school really cuts the cost for many students.

[–]KendosBowGun-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Queens college is a four year institution. You may be thinking of Queensborough community college, which is also in the CUNY system.

[–]NailedHim9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Men drop out of college at an inordinate rate when compared to women and the explanation they give for that is also "cultural barriers". Feminists always want to blame cultural or social factors for stuff. It's perfectly possible that men's brains aren't as adapted for sitting still and learning from a teacher or sitting still and studying on their own. Unfortunately, that's just happens to be the only way to learn the material.

[–]Tqbfjotlds 23 points23 points [recovered] | Copy Link

It's perfectly possible that men's brains aren't as adapted for sitting still and learning from a teacher

A male brain is very well adapted to doing that, that is why most programmers are men. The ability to sit and think in depth about a specific problem objectively is a strength of male psychology.

However, education material is purposely tailored to make it difficult for boys by making them talk and study about abstract things like feelings and emotions. I've seen a Grade 1 math addition worksheet that is so full of talking about feelings of a person that it is difficult to understand what problem it is asking you to solve.

[–]RPDBF3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Would you say younger kids though are adept at sitting still and learning? They pump these kids full of drugs so they can sit still and pay attention. My theory has always been because young kids instincts aren't to sit down and be well behaved but to be in the outdoors hunting ect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say any kid can sit still long enough if they are engaged enough. Have you ever seen kids watch cartoons or play video games? They can sit still and pay attention the whole day without a problem to the point where they skip meals.

They are forced to go into a hostile environment and the material is boring as fuck and made as generic as possible in order to accommodate everyone. If they have questions, they have to wait a long time to receive an answer, or are mocked for asking a weird question, which eventually completely discourages them from questioning anything. They aren't given enough breaks or physical exercise, are fed awful food or refuse to eat anything at all, and their peers are just as bored and sick of this shit as they are. Then on top of that they are given a ridiculous amount of homework that is just as menial or worse as what they did all day.

You know the biggest factor to how well a kid does at school? The effort of their parents to individually tutor them outside of school.

[–]manwhy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Grade 1, as in, the year after kindergarten? What's the age of these children? Also, why is there any mention of somebody's feelings on math worksheet? Who thought this was a good idea, and when?

[–]snobocracy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember, they don't see it as "wasting resources", cause they're the ones who get to take them home in the form of a fat tax-payer funded paycheck.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How did you pull feminism out of diversity? Diversity does not mean feminism. Diversity may include a look at gender, but that is only one part of diversity, the other parts are race, economic status, country of origin, etc.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Diversity is nice and all, but forced diversity, like feminism, is a form of Marxism. It levels the playing field, which isn't so great as it sounds. It rewards the incompetent and punishes the proficient.

[–]KnightOfDark2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As long as there are no discriminatory measures in place for the admission process and it is based purely on a credentials/meritocratic scale, then what's the problem?

The problem is that there is an ongoing, subtle form of discrimination in the admission processes. As shown for example in this study, there is a tendency to subconsciously consider male students slightly more competent than female students. As such, if a male student and a female student have identical credentials, the male student is more likely to be accepted.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

The major problem with using race as a factor for admittance is that while it is correlated with low SES and a poorer primary education, it is ultimately irrelevant. What of the white kids who grew up in poor predominantly black neighborhoods and received the same lack of educational opportunities? They are not only ignored by this kind of positive discrimination, they are actively discriminated against in an unfair way. And what of the black students who come from high SES families and have gotten high quality primary education? Should they really be given a leg up just because they're black?

Race shouldn't be considered a factor if the rationale is correcting a lack of opportunity. Low SES and the quality of primary education should be considered a factor instead.

The only argument that seems to have any merit when it comes to using race as a factor for admittance is the argument that students learn outside the classroom from their fellow students and a racially diverse student body will expose them to various cultures and end up enhancing their education.

[–]EqusG4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree completely.

But it's easier to use race and it makes the university's image look better. All you have to do is check a fucking box and a quick application review in many cases. It requires 0 effort on the universities part. Actually looking into need and SES would, on the other hand, require effort.

However, I definitely feel like it's a problem; using race and not SES allows for abuse of the intention of the system.

From my experience as someone who went through a professional school that practices affirmative action, all of the non-white and asian students came from extremely affluent families. Actually, they were the richest of all of us, by an extremely large margin. I mean, the majority of people that get into big wig schools and programs have rich parents, but most of the affirmative action students had parents that were multi millionaires (One had a father that was a CEO and the other a Neurosurgeon) and they drove benz and BMWs to school and accumulated parking tickets they never paid.

I feel like affirmative action misses the mark entirely, aside from being borderline racist. It doesn't benefit the target audience it's supposed to benefit. It should be helping disadvantaged people. But really, from what I've seen at schools that use it, it isn't. It's just a free ride for affluent people of color so the university can look good for being 'so diverse'.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All of the non-white and asian students came from extremely affluent families.

This is really the problem with Affirmative Action. The help ends up going to people who really didn't need it in the first place while the people who were actually disadvantaged don't get the help they need.

Furthermore it ends up hurting even the affluent people of color who it ends up benefiting because there is such a fear among companies and institutions of being sued for racial discrimination in the event that a new hire doesn't end up panning out and gets either fired or passed over for a promotion/tenure. As such they are more likely to hire a questionable white candidate over a questionable person of color.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Race itself plays a part in educational opportunity independently of SES.

This would imply racial essentialism, i.e. that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. Or it would imply nationwide institutional racism towards black people.

Either way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[–]manwhy-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nurture argument: It doesn't particular matter if one race is inherently inferior to another, only that there is a strong connection between traits. For example, malnutrition and poverty, and poverty and Blacks.

Nature argument: What kind of person gets sold into slavery by your own people, anyway?

[–]subcover-4 points-3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Instead of having to go to college with these pathetic blacks, they should just have a field trip to the ghetto.

Actually what's happening at some selective schools is that they still give a massive advantage to blacks, but they fill a lot of those slots with African immigrants. They would have to give an even bigger advantage if they tried to find "African Americans" for those slots.

And in this case there is some benefit to diversity, as the African continent is representsd, along with America, Europe and Asia. Not enough to justify doing it, but a little bit of benefit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, top colleges are not letting Jamal from the 'hood in. They are mostly accepting African immigrants or middle class blacks. African Immigrants are actually doing better than Asian Americans on average. Colleges just want to be able to claim that they accept everybody, but they really don't want to pollute the student body with too much poor people. They just need the statistics to look nice.

[–]manwhy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, poverty is correlated with certain...deficiencies. Whether the deficiencies cause the poverty or the poverty causes the deficiencies is another matter.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, just that there is a trend.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's because they don't want to let them in. Let's be real, Jamal from the 'hood won't have the academic savvy to endure four-years at a top-tier university.

There are assistive non-profits that bring "'hood" folks on the trajectory to gain admittance to top-tier colleges or even prep-school. The Steppingstone Foundation comes to mind.

But again, if you're talking about legit 'hood folks whom have a subpar education with a derogatory attitude, then obviously they don't have the mindset or academic acumen to be in college just yet.

[–]subcover4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your description of race in admissions is misleading. Good try .... The facts are: (1) blacks are favored in college admission. They will be admitted to many colleges with much lower scores (vastly lower) than whites would need, but (2) blacks will do slightly worse than whites with the same scores -- let alone whites with the higher scores whites would need to be admitted.

Your hypothetical has point (2) backwards. And it way understates the magnitude of (1).

So "affirmative action" admission of blacks isn't to find the most talented students and correct for a slight prediction error of tests. It's to provide a massive giveaway to blacks at the expense of whites and asians, even though they end up with less talented students.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, thanks. I had no idea they took those things into account. Not sure how I feel about it, but it makes sense from the side of the academics to want to admit those who are more likely to succeed.

Though I can't help but feel that those statistics can be somewhat discriminatory when implemented.

[–]ExistentialDread4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Progressives making busywork for themselves. You have to remember that equality and tabula Rasa are religious beliefs to these people.

[–]gprime3123 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A meritocracy is sexist. /s

[–]redditcdnfanguy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude, it's just the standard Marxist attack on straight white males.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There ARE discriminatory measures. It's called affirmative action.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

As long as there are no discriminatory measures in place for the admission process

But the political leftists don't see it this way. In their minds, all people are exactly equal, therefore if a black person or a woman performs worse on an entrance exam than a white person or a man, then the entrance exam must be inherently racist/sexist and must be changed until the results are equal.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because nature forbid we all have varying levels of intelligence and mental proficiency.

If liberals truly believe this then they are as stupid as those under the 70 IQ scale.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I study Biophysics in Poland. Majority of students in my Biophysics courses are women. My Electromagnetism PhD lecturer is a woman and she's brilliant. The person responsible for the whole module of labs is a woman and she rules it with a stern hand. My next year Biochemistry PhD lecturer is a woman. My university admitted 2 women for 1 of every man(Albeit majority of it is some filology language studies).

I feel my diversity is doing fine.

[–]1kick6-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that academia is very left, and the left holds equality as gospel. So the fact that the numbers don't show equality means there is something very very wrong that needs to be fixed. It can't be that equality is wrong (which is what the facts show), it must be something else.

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Their mantra is bitching and complaining.

Their success rate among bitches and complainers?

99.9 fucking percent.

Planet Earf: it's where we be.

[–]vaker-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I give you a hint. Diversity is not a goal. It's a tool.

[–]rcglinsk-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that leads to freshmen classes consisting almost completely of white and East Asian students. At least at the most elite schools. Also hardly any women in the hard subjects.

I know, that's circular reasoning. But that's the reason.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

that's what happens when you're forced to hire women, they create redundant jobs.

[–]Dreamtrain2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only diversity in science should be in (well fundamented) hypothesis and theories. Not in skin or gonads.

It's not that women aren't in science because it's a "men dominated" field, they just aren't interested in it in the first place, even in my field (software engineering), the amount of women who enrolled in college was about one to four (which went down to 1 to 10 by the time of graduation), the rest flocked to marketing, business administration and the ones majority of women in engineering went to industrial engineering (which are joked to be honorary MBAs where I am from). We didn't have psychology but you can be damn sure women would go there if there was.

Instead they should ask themselves why at the job fairs or aptitude courses girls aren't saying they want to code or do science research or whatever. In my degree, the few women who stuck to computer engineering ended up avoiding the abstract areas like programming, circuits and what not over things as tech support, functional support, IT-related administrative tasks and what not. And I think that's perfectly ok, they are making this choice based on their preferences and aptitudes, that's what they like, there was never any "patriarchy oppression" if anything the few girls that did stick with us got taken care as if they were our little sisters. What is not ok is when they have to force their shit into things just cause "not enough women in it". If anything that's sexist and goes against the preferences of women themselves.

[–]Panzer_Geist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the United Kingdom. Gone are the sexist, racist days of Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell and Sir Isaac Newton. Now is the dawn of multiculturalism, feminism and all the wonderful Cultural Marxist ideas that the venerated school of 68 blessed the western civilization with. We don't care about the quality of the science - it's more important that a feminist, transsexual, black, Muslim did the research. What he... she? IT actually was researching doesn't matter.
Science and engineering is sexist. It's traditionally white, Christian and male. It must be offered on the altar to the new god of liberalism and kumbaya.

God how I abhor what our "civilization" has become.

[–]1InscrutablePUA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Politics find its way into every organization.

[–]tallwheel-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone needs to make up useless money-wasting positions so that all the young ladies graduating with women's studies degrees have some way to make ends meet after college.

[–]analrapeage-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like the onion. Men have built this incredible world of technology science and logic only to watch political correctness and a world of falsehood shame them into hiring diversity managers

[–]sculd-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Btw, Physics is rational and logic-driven, but it is not materialistic(def. "Excessively concerned with material possessions; money-oriented") by any mean. Just my 2 cents.

[–]Luke666808g-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think I meant mechanistic.

blah blah blah do not delete this etc etc.

[–]Jade19663 points64 points  (48 children) | Copy Link

I'm a woman who studies physics. I became interested in the subject after being exposed to the double slit experiment in a science class in 9th grade. I never had anyone besides my own mother attempt to deter me from studying physics and math. In fact, I got a lot more help than most of the men around me through minority scholarships.

None of my professors or male peers ever treated me as less competent or inferior for being female.

I fully support equal opportunity for men and women to pursue scientific careers. Equal opportunity means that a person's success is based on their own merits, not their gender. Expecting equal outcomes just isn't the same thing. It is playing a numbers game at the expense of those who are more competent but are passed over in favor of the more rare types.

That said, I think the big question is whether the fact that there are less women in science is due to correlation or causation of a difference in anatomy. It is possible that less women go into science partly for cultural and societal reasons rather than only biological ones.

Until it is proven whether or not the reason for the discrepancy is purely biological, it would be wise to assume correlation and not causation.

[–]Sherlock--Holmes8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Why does it have to be purely biological? Can't it be partially biological? In this world I've lived I have known very few (if any) behaviors to be caused purely by a single thing. But since we're talking about living beings biology and genetics should be included in every theory regarding behavior, because evolution doesn't discriminate like we humans do.

[–]Jade1962 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure part of it is biological. After all, just like girls develop verbally earlier than boys, boys develop spatial and problem solving skills earlier than girls. Boys tend to get an early start on skills that are useful to the sciences.

[–]Sherlock--Holmes1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the big question is whether the fact that there are less women in science is due to correlation or causation of a difference in anatomy.

I'm sure part of it is biological.

You just answered the question.

[–]Jade1961 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are some biological factors, but are they entirely to blame for the lack of women in the sciences? What proportion is due to biological differences?

I know that >1% of the cause is biological. That's about it.

[–]Sherlock--Holmes1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We agree. I'd like to add:

Biological factors are not entirely to blame. However, the societal reasons that are partly to blame, (to some undetermined degree) are partly a consequence of biological factors themselves. The cultures are self-perpetuating because of the biological templates from doing it for so long.

[–]CptDefB15 points16 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I fully support equal opportunity for men and women to pursue scientific careers. Equal opportunity means that a person's success is based on their own merits, not their gender. Expecting equal outcomes just isn't the same thing. It is playing a numbers game at the expense of those who are more competent but are passed over in favor of the more rare types.

I came to say this, specifically, the bolded.

Until it is proven whether or not the reason for the discrepancy is purely biological, it would be wise to assume correlation and not causation.

How is this proof going to be achieved without generations of sample data? Why is the sample data we have so far inadequate? Another individual in this thread, taking on the tone of trying to "disprove" some general statements, quoted the following generally understood statistic of our last 15 years or so.

The top 2 major declarations for females are business and health sciences. Women earn more bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees than men

Is this not a reflection of equal opportunity at work? Do the worlds of business and medicine not only pay well, but also involve fair amounts of highly technical data, while being predominantly male fields? What's interesting to note is that in most cases, these women still end up working for men, and have no problem with that. Yet I've heard rumblings of America's CEO pool needing more women... like, wtf kind of nonsense is this?

Anyone arguing that girls are incapable is, I think, just as silly as trying to argue that we need to do more to enable them. We've done a hell of a lot for girls, to the point where our boys are now falling behind (see the above stat), and yet here we are still talking about how to push women into STEM when they generally don't go anyway.

That doctor is entirely correct. Social Construct... what a fun term for people to throw around in semi-intelligent debate. There are so many constructs in place, and yet people talk about the insignificant ones, as opposed to the ones that are genuinely holding back everyone.

[–]Jade19613 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Boys and men are definitely getting the short end of the stick overall when it comes to education. Men are getting less degrees overall and aren't doing as well in elementary or high school when compared to women. The pendulum has swung too far, and in almost every area of education, women are advantaged.

Men and boys do need more attention in education than women at this point. Women do seem to be at an advantage in education overall. However, there are particular areas in which women are still extremely underrepresented.

In the past, there were far less women in fields like biology, but now women make up the majority of biology students (undergraduate and graduate). It isn't silly to ask whether or not there are less women in fields like computer science, engineering, and physics for non-biological reasons. After all, there were practically no women in biology before and now over half of the graduates are women. They didn't suddenly evolve new brains in the past hundred years.

[–]CptDefB16 points17 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This is a fair reply. If only because the cyclical nature of the truth is in your post.

It isn't silly to ask whether or not there are less women in fields like computer science, engineering, and physics for non-biological reasons.

No, but...

The pendulum has swung too far, and in almost every area of education, women are advantaged.

Exactly. Doing more to enable women isn't going to get us any closer to 50/50 across everything. Not in our lifetimes. However, leaving the door open to non-biological reasons leaves all sorts of room to point blame at ghosts, which society loves to do. All in the name of politically correct good intentions, which is why social construct gets thrown around so much.

After all, there were practically no women in biology before and now over half of the graduates are women. They didn't suddenly evolve new brains in the past hundred years.

Excellent, so everything we've done to help so far is working. Why is women in STEM still an issue?

edit: I realize the last one is more rhetorical than anything... there's most likely a bigger agenda (probably $$ or control) that keeps this issue in our social narrative.

[–]Jade19610 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of women in STEM in some fields but there are few in others. People are concerned there are still some barriers to entry or deterrents of some sort.

I think it would be premature and unscientific to just blame women's biology and say that women will never be represented in more similar numbers to men in those fields. There isn't enough evidence to support that. (Although it is true that men do seem to be born with inherent advantages that lend themselves to the sciences.)

But I agree that women's under representation in a small number of fields does not need to be the foremost issue in gender equality in education. I'm far more concerned about the drugging of young boys for not acting like girls.

EDIT: Feminism does get quite a bit of financial support, so I wouldn't be surprised if the "there's less women in STEM" thing is just one of the few ways left for them to make themselves seem needed and worthy of more $.

[–]CptDefB2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

EDIT: Feminism does get quite a bit of financial support, so I wouldn't be surprised if the "there's less women in STEM" thing is just one of the few ways left for them to make themselves seem needed and worthy of more $.

As with most things in the meta of our lives, this is probably the crux of the issue. Otherwise, there'd be an equal push for women in mines, shafts, tunnel systems and drilling platforms. There are subsidies through trade grants/bursaries, but women in trades is a debate that faded away a couple years ago.

I'm glad women are finding a place to fit, and I admit you've had to shoehorn yourselves into place most of the time. "Women's Issues" are generally way out of control though... then again, I suppose that's why you're here.

Good chat, good chat.

edit: >I'm far more concerned about the drugging of young boys for not acting like girls.

I lol'd. Comedy/Tragedy.

[–]subcover2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On one hand, "feminism" gets money to push this stuff, so we hear their haranguing to give more "opportunities" to women.

On the other hand, the fields pay well and once in the job a woman is nearly impossible to fire for technical underperformance, so women see it as a way to make more than they otherwise could, and get to work with a bunch of guys too, typically guys who will be quite beta and not critical of the woman's looks and personality.

So it's not just the fault of institutions, but also of women exploiting the system thus created, that we have women taking slots and consuming resources in STEM that they should not be entitled to.

[–]subcover0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a lot of evidence showing that women's IQ's have much less standard deviation around 100 (or whatever a population mean is) than men's do. So most of the very low scores and very high scores are from men. In the tails, assuming Gaussian distributions for both men and women, this becomes extremely significant.

I think this is very strong evidence. Physics, especially theoretical physics, absolutely requires strong abilities in abstraction and problem solving. Probably being in the top 1% of the population is not enough. This ability is more or less the essence of "g", the traditional understanding of culture-free IQ. Therefore in the upper tail of the distribution, there will be far more men than women capable of doing theoretical physics.

And it's for a reason that is specifically independent of culture.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CptDefB0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmmm... I wonder why that is... /s

[–]mysocalled_pants1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not trying to "disprove" anything. I'm offering actual evidence in refutation of Nieman's sweeping and baseless generalizations which all basically imply that women shouldn't be allowed certain basic freedoms. I'm more than happy to listen to scientifically based arguments against my points.

[–]CptDefB0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Disprove and refute are synonymous.

That said, general statements are general statements. Trying to disprove them is like trying to disprove Vanilla as the best flavor of ice cream. There will always be a, "No, Chocolate!" or, "No! Strawberry!!"

Further, the only one you sufficiently countered was the one I quoted. The other stat, 25% of men/women voting Republican, still alludes to 75% voting "liberal, green, useless parties", in a country that is trying to push the Bible into the education system, while keeping people fooled/misdirected/confused/ill informed via the Red vs Blue style political system. Ron Paul anyone? Elections of 2000? False Flag events? Please. The way your people vote doesn't even matter.

[–]mysocalled_pants0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're correct about disprove and refute; my mistake.

I don't understand what this commentor is trying to add to the conversation. Furthermore, every response to one of my comments in this thread has been sideswiped into red-herring territory. What do general patterns of American voting have to do with female political acumen specifically?

[–]CptDefB0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Specifically?

The feminist narrative that secures votes.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Let's assume that there really are "societal pressures" (every SJW's favourite term) keeping women out of the sciences.

If societal pressure is all it takes to discourage a woman, then science doesn't need her.

If she can't handle a bunch of people telling her to get back in the kitchen, then how is she going to handle sitting in a laboratory for hours on end titrating solutions to exact measurements, or staring at several thousand lines of code hunting for the one bug that's causing her entire program to seg fault?

Frankly, I think the fact that men seem to be less susceptible to societal pressures is pretty telling about our biology as well.

[–]Jade1960 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

One of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived, Emmy Noether had to struggle to get any job in mathematics at a university and to this day has practically no notoriety because she was a woman.

Things aren't that severe in this day and age, but I do wonder what more she'd have been able to do with more renown.

If she hadn't been determined as all hell to keep studying math, the world might not yet know how to unite symmetries and their corresponding conserved quantities, essential knowledge to gauge theory and creating a "theory of everything".

[–]subcover2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Kudos for hanging on through calculus and Newtonian physics and electromagnetic theory and all the rest probabily including a math course requiring abstract proofs, until you could even learn quantum theory. You showed perseverence of course, but more importantly, technical ability. There are a few technically capable women, and as we see, they have no "sexist" barriers.

There's such a huge gap between "isn't that interesting, let's talk about it in an equal and inclusive way" in a high school class, and learning the formalism and doing hard work solving problems, year after year, that happens in professional training to develop a scientific mind. Such a big difference that I wonder if HS science (or especially middle and elementary school science) is even worth spending time on. I have kids in those grades.

Well it worked for you, so that's a datapoint of success.

[–]Jade1961 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When I first started college and studying actual calculus-based physics, I had a very difficult time. Most of the men who were in my program seemed to find the introductory physics classes extremely easy, but I didn't.

I'm not sure if it was that I was a year younger than they were when they were freshmen, that my high school had terrible math and science course quality, or if the reason was more biological.

At this point, it all comes a lot more naturally, but it was a struggle in the beginning. I've always found verbal stuff really easy, and math and science came only after a lot of hard work.

However, now I deal better with abstract math than most people I know. So, it isn't like I'll struggle more than others the rest of my life.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That said, I think the big question is whether the fact that there are less women in science is due to correlation or causation of a difference in anatomy. It is possible that less women go into science partly for cultural and societal reasons rather than only biological ones.

Hence the good ol' Nature vs Nurture problem.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is possible that less women go into science partly for cultural and societal reasons rather than only biological ones.

No it's not. Man have different brains - 10% larger, 6.5 more intelligence-related gray matter and very different brain wiring. Just as men have evolved to be physically larger and stronger sex to better fulfill the role of a food provider and increase the chances of survival of them and their offspring, which is a visually obvious fact - similarly they are both on average and in extremes better intellectually equipped to solve abstract problems, orient in space and persist in their goals. The only reason why the latter point is not generally accepted as self-evident (there is plenty of evidence which gets ignored for PC) is because it runs against the enforced equality-of-outcome agenda that Marxist elites jam down everyone's throats.

[–]Jade196-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are obviously biological reasons behind men's greater presence and achievement in science. However, there have been female scientists who have done substantial work.

Women can be scientists even if fewer women have the capacity or interest to do so.

The statement you quoted is me saying that yes there are biological reasons for the lack of women in science, but social norms and pressures may be skewing this further. There may be more than only biology at work here.

[–]subcover0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reaonably substantial work with perhaps one exception.

Emmy Noether did truly substantial work, independently, in mathematics.

All other female scientists were mainly diligent. This includes Marie Curie, who was trained by her husband and rose to the position of full collaborator and eventually project leader when it came to the project of isolating radium.

To compare her with, say, Karl Gauss, is like comparing the moon to the sun.

[–]rr_rr_rr1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can I recommend this: http://vimeo.com/19707588 a Norwegian documentary on gender differences and Biology.

Called Hjernevask - Norwegian for brainwashed - it explores the role that biology plays in gender identity and outcomes. In 8 parts, it asks why Norway, the most equal country in the world, has such divergence in what women and men choose as a career - more so than far less equal countries.

It was so successful in exposing the craziness that there are no biological differences that it caused the closure of the Nordic Gender Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Gender_Institute after some not minor public kerfuffle.

[–]Anderfail0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It already has been proven to be mostly biological, feminists just choose to ignore the data.

[–]Jade1961 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you cite your sources for this claim?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Check out this graph:

http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/iq-by-college-major-gender.png

(Source: http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/)

When I see this, I immediately think of the IQ bell curve difference between men and women. Here's an article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html) and an accompanying graph (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4ify7vDXrDs/S-WDH4AQlDI/AAAAAAAAFw0/Zs8C5h8ZW88/s640/male_female_bell_curve_.png) on the matter.

Some quotes from the article:

For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require.

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.

Also an interesting quote:

in almost 110 years of Nobel Prize history, only two women have ever won the Prize for physics, only four have won the Prize for chemistry and why no women at all have ever won the coveted Fields Medal for mathematics in eight decades of trying.

This itself is quite telling of the seemingly biological differences in mental capacity in certain subjects. However, what will likely strike you as utterly improbable is that slightly more women won Nobel Prizes between 1901 and 1950 than 1951 and 2000. I can't find the source on this, but you could easily compile the data yourself.

So much for feminism, right? The above Nobel Prize factoid goes to further support the data about IQ. Surely, Nobel Prizes require an extremely high level of intelligence. And... when men at the third standard deviation (145 IQ, considered the "entrance" to genius IQ territory) outnumber women eight-to-one, it's no surprise that men seem to be ubiquitous in areas of technological advancement (STEM). And the ratio is only further skewed the farther you out you tread on the right tail of the bell curve.

This isn't to say that women are worthless in STEM fields. There are plenty of qualified women in STEM. They are underrepresented, like you said... but what of it? They're underrepresented in these fields because they're underrepresented at the upper echelons of intelligence. And that's purely biological and genetic.

[–]anonlymouse4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The first chart is misleading. It's Quantitative SAT that's being extrapolated to IQ. It should just be presented as Quantitative SAT scores by gender and major.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would like to see a source on this as well.

[–]ExpendableOne-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's biological, and I don't see how the brain could even be predisposed for certain things that the brain would have no knowledge before/during it's development, or how DNA might be encoded for very specific/complex advantages between one gender to another. If anything, these are dispositions that would be learned through life experiences and development, just as in any other field or discipline.

It also seems pretty clear to me that this disparity has nothing to do with discrimination, since the science fields offer so many incentives and encouragement to women and since the male majority in science fields would like nothing more than to see more women in STEM fields, if not simply just share an interest in basic math/science. I have never met any woman who had a legitimate interest in science but then decide "I don't like STEM fields because guys there discriminating against me", as this couldn't be further from the truth. Instead, they leave STEM fields because they find it boring, because they find the material too difficult to learn or because they are bored with, or unattracted to, the men in those fields.

So, if anything, what seems to be leading this disparity, instead, is differences between social positions that men and women benefit from. For starters, women often associate sciences with meek/unfit/nerdy men, which more often than not seen with ridicule or disdain from the female majority. Law, finance, business or medicine all used to be male dominated fields but they aren't as much anymore. These position seem more attractive to women because they epitomise "alpha" qualities for themselves and present ample opportunities for these women to meet the type of "alpha men" they have learned to find desirable. There is often a lot of prejudice and hatred directed towards men in science, if not all things "nerdy", by women(something which is typically driven by a mix of anti-intellectualism, religious/conservative values, male gender roles/expectations and misandry).

Another reason for the disparity is that women have a lot of other social/romantic opportunities granted to them the moment they reach adulthood that might lead them to pursue other alternatives. Men who enter science fields would stereotypically be the type of men who grew up receiving very little positive reinforcement from social situation compared to your average woman, and therefore find social opportunities to be less valuable to them. Why pick a field of employment that offers very few social opportunities when women, as a whole, tend to be far more socially desired and accepted around the time they would be picking their careers? This would mean giving up on a lot more social opportunities and rewards that are available to them in their youth, that wouldn't be as readily available to your average man.

Another factor to this would be that women, in general, would also have far less pressure to be independent or to be providers(if it is ever even expected of them at all), and would still have plenty of opportunities to fall back on the support of a man for making poor career choices. A lot of men might find themselves going into stem fields because they believe it's good money and job security, even if they might have other passions elsewhere like art, history or philosophy, simply because these other paths are too much of a personal risk to be viable. Being independent and a financial provider is something that has long been expected of men, or that men believe is necessary to be successful in love, and that can be a major factor to their decision. Women, on the other hand, can not only afford to be unsuccessful(financial success hasn't historically been a big factor for a woman's romantic success) but could even afford to fail completely if they have access to the financial support of other men. They can choose to prioritize excitement, fun and personal fulfilment, at the age of their sexual/physical prime, over long hours and potentially boring work. This would also be why men might prioritize starting their careers as soon as possible, instead of pursuing higher levels of education(which is generally more fun/social than the work place) and mass debt.

[–]Jade1960 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The bodies of boys and girls develop at different rates, and so do their brains. They often benefit from different learning styles.

[–]rr_rr_rr0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's biological, and I don't see how the brain could even be predisposed for certain things that the brain would have no knowledge before/during it's development,

Remove the first part (I don't think it's biological) and the second part is what science is all about - testing an idea or concept or hypothesis.

http://vimeo.com/19707588 is a great start in answering how, and the other 7 parts are also worthy of a watch.

[–]ExpendableOne0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've seen the video before but didn't really find it conclusive enough.

[–]rr_rr_rr0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sooooooooo, you didn't follow up? You know this stuff doesn,t come to you, right?

[–]Try_219 points20 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

how long before this guy is forced to resign? There's no greater sin in academia than expressing an honest opinion.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

He looks like a total lady killer. I am not surprised at all by his opinions: they probably stem from him being rejected sexually his whole life. It takes a special person to want to get a PhD. Usually those people live in their heads and have no idea about anything below their necks. And women? Forget about it.

Also, it looks like he has devoted some of his career to the controversies between the intellectual abilities between men and women, no doubt a passion he discovered in the depths of despair. What better way to rationalize your failure with women than to say they are just too stupid and different to understand you?

[–]Try_22 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What better way to rationalize your failure with women than to say they are just too stupid and different to understand you?

But that's not what he's saying. He's saying there's no point to colleges encouraging women into STEM just to achieve "equality" if they don't want to be there. It's such a banal opinion, and you've totally misinterpreted it.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about his motivations for having the opinion in the first place, and his motivations for doing research into the cognitive differences between men and women which are on his CV. It's purely conjectural on my part, but one has to wonder what motivates people to pursue that line of work. I do not believe in purely intellectual curiosity. There is usually something behind it pushing it to the surface, in this case, I think it is his traumatic experiences with women.

[–]Try_21 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You are apparently an armchair psychologist. What does it say about a person who posts anonymous comments on Reddit just to insult a person's supposed motivations for undertaking a particular field of research and attributing to that person a motivation of sexual frustration without any objective or verifiable evidence to support the conclusion? Hmmm? What does that say about a person?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I said it was pure conjecture. I guess it says I am honest?

[–]Try_20 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you're projecting some of your own insecurities onto him.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've met people like him. I've met PhD students who are in "relationships" together and live with one another, but do not have sex or do not show any affection. Some of these people are bonkers. Some of them are basically asexual. They live completely in their heads. This is just how I imagine this guy to be.

[–]DegenerateAsshole64 points65 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Let women study what they want. Fuck it, give them scholarships based on gender and whatnot. The result will be the same: the vast majority of successful scientists, engineers and programmers will always be men.

[–]Senior ContributorRedPope81 points82 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Top schools have limited slots. If you're wasting those slots on unmotivated women, you are undermining the institution.

Haha, who am I kidding? These institutions undermined themselves 10+ years ago. America succeeds only because we brain drain the rest of the world. None of my doctors were born with Anglican names. Every software engineer of merit that I've worked with was either self-taught or an immigrant.

[–]LineOfCoke10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the best teachers at my inner city public school were from fucking Sierra Leone.

[–]NailedHim20 points21 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Did you see that article about the guy who gave a homeless guy a laptop and offered to teach him to code? Dude wrote a ride sharing app. Still homeless though...

[–]Senior ContributorRedPope45 points46 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I had a FWB who was a single mom. She had a $30k hospital back office desk job. Always bitching about money. She was educated, well read, and far more computer savvy than most women.

I offered to help her break into software QA. (With a medical insurance company I'd contracted for -- she used their software daily!) A couple months study, 3-4 books, and my reference would have doubled her money. Zero interest. She changed the topic every time. She wanted a shoulder to cry on, not a solution to her problems.

Women ain't men. For all his other problems, that homeless guy had 100X her drive.

[–]NailedHim23 points24 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

On the other hand my niece is a kick ass programmer. Little girl of 13 totally messes with her computer all the time. But not on youtube or facebook like you'd expect a teenager. Does some pretty hilarious stuff in C#. She's smarter than me in a lot of ways. She also wrote her own strange little website (strange in that I don't really get kid slang or how they communicate). Anyway, I was kind of her mentor in this stuff so she comes to me one day and says she doesn't want to spend her time coding anymore and doesn't need the book I gave her on web design.

Turns out she's been getting picked on for liking this stuff. It's not girl stuff according to the other kids at school. Which totally pissed me off. But there's nothing I can really do. Fucking shame. I was gonna give her my old Perl book too because she wanted to put some new features on her site.

Anyways, if she'd been a guy no one would have given her any shit about coding and I'd still be her favorite uncle (I take pride in being cooler than my twin). It's total bullshit. I have no idea how common these shenanigans are in other places in the US but they likely screwed my niece out of a very useful skill set.

[–]1mcdehuevo11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is one issue I kind of agree with, but I also think is more complicated than on the surface. A boy who spent his time programming would still get shit about it for being a "nerd", but in this day and age with all the rich, successful nerds out there, that's probably somewhat less intense. However, the key difference to me is that I think a boy is less likely to make a major decision about what he's interested in based on people giving him shit. Girls just plain place much more importance on their social standing, and I'm not sure there's anything to be done about that. It's a double-edged sword, and this is the negative edge; it probably also keeps lots of girls out of really bad stuff.

In summary, I'd say that in an individual case like your niece, I completely understand the frustration, but I still think the overall point of OP's article is right: socially engineering the crap out of STEM in order to achieve perfect numeric equality is wasteful and ultimately fruitless.

[–]subcover5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Society" has no responsibility for her desire to remain cool to her social group of other girls. We're constantly told it's creepy for us to try to change anything about them, but when it comes to this, suddenly we have an obligation?

I don't think so. Hands off is hands off.

Going thru high school, I was in the advanced math track. Every year there were less and less girls. In senior year our BC Calculus class had five boys and one girl. I thought she was going fine, but she didn't seem comfortable talking about the material (we thought maybe it ws our personalities but no ...) after about a month she dropped back to AB Calculus. So then there were no girls, and we raced on ahead.

Women do not have the technical abilities that technically talented boys do. Lawrence Summers got booted out of the Presidency of Harvard for saying this, but it's true. Actually it's obviously true and very well supported statistically.

Girls may appear to have similar abilities at young ages, but their intellectual growth slows down much earlier. We all know that women mature faster than men, men in their 20's are still growing up, etc. So your niece may have stopped with C# in part because it was starting to seem very hard to her. If that's not true of your niece, it's a trend that is definitely true statistically.

[–]RPDBF0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyways, if she'd been a guy no one would have given her any shit about coding

Not that im disagreeing with this but if she was a boy they'd probably just call him a nerd. Even kids are always jealous at people smarter/ more successful. Only after High School did some of the people I knew change there opinions from being smart is nerdy/weird to being smart is cool.

[–]2elysius0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyways, if she'd been a guy no one would have given her any shit about coding

False. Male nerds have been picked on for ages for having nerdy interests. It's "unmanly", so it eats away at the same root identity issues as "it's not girly".

As a result of this peer-pressure, some nerds give up their nerdy interests, but most don't. In contrast, it seems almost every girl gives up their "non-girly" interests due to peer-pressure. What gives?

The answer is that, as it turns out, men and women are different. Women are more socially attuned than men, for reasons that I shouldn't have to expound if you're here in TRP.

On the other hand, men are more prone to give themselves to their interests. For example, autism, which is the result of an overly-male mind, is characterized by obsessive interests.

So I don't have sympathy for cases where people stop doing what they like/love because of external pressures. These people are flakers, they are the ones who would quit when things got tough or not "fun" enough for their tastes, regardless of the opposing forces. Peer-pressure when they are kids, having to pay the bills when they are older, a nagging spouse, an annoying boss, it's all the same. Demanding fields are better off without these people. Let them slide down the pole and agglomerate in middle management and bullshit jobs like social media, which is all we can expect from them.

If we really want more women in non-female areas, we have to teach them personal responsibility, self-reliance and accountability, which are the antidotes to external pressures. And that's exactly the opposite of what this "you-go-girl" culture is doing. Progressivism in general, really.

[–]Anderfail-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women follow the crab analogy. When one separates themselves and makes them more appealing, the others always try to pull them back down. It's amazing how often it happens. This is why women make catty comments and always cut each other down.

[–]Casanova-Quinn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[–]rpkarma4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Every software engineer of merit that I've worked with was either self-taught or an immigrant.

Same here. It doesn't even surprise me anymore, to the point where if someone tells me they studied CS I just assume they're going to be average unless otherwise specified.

[–]subcover-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

CS is a field of math. Programming is a different skill, relying on quickness and a memory for random facts, and not needing the ability of mathematical abstraction.

[–]jolly--roger1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

change "programming" into "software engineering" and trust me, having abstraction is a must

[–]rpkarma-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nailed it, exactly. I would have thought a CS/SE (in aus) degree would help, and yet the former seems to hinder while the latter is neutral (or good, some guys are pretty decent with a Software Engineering degree)

[–]subcover-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not that the recipients of affirmative action aren't motivated. They are just less able. They (and it's all such groups, especially blacks and women) tend to work very hard in school and are able to cover for a lot of technical inabilities with verbal tricks.

But they just don't have the problem solving abilities of white and asian men who were excluded so they could have their seats. And if the school develops those abilities somewhat, those excluded students would have developed their abilities too, thus ending on a higher level.

There is no benefit to society from having code written or machines designed by black or female people. And it rarely happens anyway -- those who were passed through are given administrative or other jobs and profit making companies still expect men (to whom such alternate roles are not offered) to do that intellectual heavy lifting.

[–]incraved-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Couldn't agree with you more

[–]Daslayah4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lots of women in Biomedical sciences though.

[–]EqusG-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

And I don't think it's a bad thing.

I'll expand on that; I would bet a lot of it has to do with motherhood as an evolutionary trait and the distractions provided by family and children. Most of the men that rise to the top of fields in science, mathematics etc don't have 'lives'. If they do, the women are doing all of the work. These guys dedicate their entire lives to their craft. They don't have much time for anything else. Many of them are extremely lonely.

And I don't envy that. If anything there's obviously something special about being a mother, given how many women will describe being a mother as the greatest thing that has ever happened to them.

Maybe a woman will never win a fields medal. And...who gives a fuck? I'd rather a woman be happy with her life rather than dedicate everything just to proving you can have a vagina and win a fields medal at the same time.

[–]redbluepilling21 points22 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We should encourage everyone to embrace science. It's equality and actually fucking contributes to the advancement of society.

How about science scholarships for just being from Mississippi or Kansas. Literally, take this money and learn yerself some that there evolooshun and moon-tides.

[–]t21spectre2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think we should have scholarships for a specific group, be it gender (usually women), race (usually non-white), national origin, etc. It does two things, first it's discrimination, second, it says to that group that they can't do it on their own merits like the others do and they need an extra helping hand in getting there.

[–]Mightyskunk6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As usual, the comments on that article are a cesspool of stupidity.

Well, it is Huffington Post.

[–]TRPCypher32 points33 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Fuck huffpost, not clicking that shit. But I'll comment anyways.

Been a progger for 20 years now. Guess how many women I've worked with (as programmers)? 3

Two were asian, and really good at it actually, the other was some crazy old cat lady spinster that was slow as fucking molasses and would flip out if you called her on it. Most annoying office-mate to date, hands down. Heh, she was so annoying we pranked her constantly to see if she would melt down, she usually did. Best was when we took the noisemaker doohookie (pardon the technical parlance) out of a musical greeting card and shoved it down inside one of her cube walls. Many lolz

[–]Sherlock--Holmes10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

At first I was wondering what a progger was. My first guess was "press release (PR) blogger."

I'm a professional programmer of 26 years. I've known ZERO excellent female programmers. I've known perhaps 6 respectable female programmers that could write in very high-level languages that were hard workers and got a lot done.

[–]t21spectre6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is commonplace in all STEM fields, you will have some skilled and competent women in the profession, but when it comes to the cream of the crop aces that are amazingly talented they are always men.

[–]TRPCypher1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. This isn't to say that there are no places in IT for women though. I've know many great female Help Desk Techs, Business Analysts, UX designers... which are jobs that utilize female strengths.

[–]tallwheel0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A progger is obviously a prog-rock musician.

[–]DocTomoe19 points20 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, that's a dick move, and if I was your PM, your next annual employee meeting would be hell. RPers - and my team members - should be better than bullying.

[–]jmottram086 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you were his PM, you should first address the problem of a shitty team member that doesn't pull her weight.

[–]DocTomoe0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree. Actually, I would kick her out if the team - to protect her, and to make my team perform instead of harassing each other. And then, I would kick out the gang leader. I expect a certain degree of professionalism from people on my team, regardless of their co-workers.

[–]jmottram08-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I expect a certain degree of professionalism from people on my team, regardless of their co-workers.

And I expect a certain degree of professionalism from my team members and my PM. Neither of which were acting professional.

I am not saying the "prankster" is a great person... but he is literally one of the best in the situation he was in.

[–]TRPCypher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol, well, yeah looking back it was but at the time zero fucks were given. BTW, this was like 15 years ago so RP has nothing to do with it bro.

[–]tallwheel0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

No wonder there are so few female "proggers". All the male proggers are bullying them out of the profession by exercising the same hazing practices they would if it were a male progger who sucks at his job.

[–]TRPCypher1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Equality is a bitch huh? She was hazed because she was a cunt to work with it had nothing to do with her performance. In fact some of us tried to help her in that regard and all we got was attitude in return. Fuck her.

BTW, I've never experienced any hazing in my career nor have I witnessed any. Hazing is a jock thing not a geek thing imo.

[–]tallwheel2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

BTW, I've never experienced any hazing in my career nor have I witnessed any. Hazing is a jock thing not a geek thing imo.

I'm in the IT field too, and it's pretty much all guys. I wouldn't say we necessarily "haze", but we do rip on each other all the time. If someone says something weak, they will be mocked and shamed until they toughen up.

[–]TRPCypher0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you think that's hazing then yeah I guess we do but that's pretty fucking lame hazing. I played football from 10yrs old thru HS and have a very different take on what hazing is.

[–]tallwheel1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Whatever you want to call it. It's all on the same continuum in my opinion.

And in case you didn't catch it, my first comment was meant to be ironic. You treated her the same as you would a shitty male programmer, so it really isn't sexism.

[–]TRPCypher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. It came off as patronizing.

fuckthisbotinitsrobotanus

[–]2Overkillengine10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

As usual, the comments on that article are a cesspool of stupidity.

Huffington Post, naturally.

I could give a damn if a woman wants a STEM career as long as she puts in the actual effort and earns the position the same as any man instead of coasting in on some vaginal privilege/diversity legislation.

[–]FuriousMouse9 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

A study at Georgia State University found that female students who took an introductory philosophy course simply deemed "the course less enjoyable and the material less interesting and relevant to their lives than male students."

I think this is the exact reason for which we have "gender imbalances" in various fields of work/study.

As men, we have 6.5 times the amount of grey matter in our brains than women (not a joke, look it up) which is what we use to think logically.

It is simply inconceivable that this fact does not cause natural gender differences in mental capabilities.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

As men, we have 6.5 times the amount of grey matter in our brains than women[2] (not a joke, look it up) which is what we use to think logically.

Which is why I laugh when women say "we're just as logical as men!" it's like no, no you're not.

[–]1InscrutablePUA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are pretty damn logical when it comes to their own self-interest.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]dvrzero0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wouldn't it imply that they are less likely to recognize things like that in general? Wouldn't it then not be willful ignorance?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

An introductory course in philosophy is probably going to be a course in the introduction to western, analytic philosophy, which begins with Plato and probably ends with Dewey or Russel or something, and is basically the project of separating mind from body, and especially the intellect from the emotions, for about 2000 years. Western philosophy up to that point was completely dominated by men. I don't know what was on the professor's syllabus, but I imagine it did not include any prominent and competent female philosopher's of the 20th century, which would include G.E.M. Anscombe and Martha C. Nussbaum, who write logically and thoughtfully about emotions and other philosophical topics like epistemology and ethics.. It's hard enough to keep anyone interested in philosophy, and therefore it isn't any wonder that women lose interest in an intro philosophy course.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, equality of opportunity is enough, equality of outcome should not be socially engineered.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

we should encourage everyone to do science and do it with specificity. but not with the goal of having forced equal representation ( of unequal reward for talent)

[–]CouldntFindGudName 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy Link

insert one incometent female in an area where men do all the work.

.

wait till they make a break through.

.

claim females helped achieve it, "womym powah".

.

use the above statistic to claim women are as smart as men and can do anything they want.

.

Rinse and repeat.

This is what feminists do, they find a male space, insert one female and when there is a female they try to change all the rules. They're like parasites. Edit - grammar

[–]rredfox2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I started reading the red pill and I made it a goal to not try to change my coworkers just because I am the only woman at this programming shop. Its hard because at first some would tell me they can't talk about the same stuff around me. I presume its because of fear of sexual assault allegations or hostile work environment or something. But the guys I work with aren't dicks. I'll be OK with dick jokes and witty banter and teasing each other constantly. I join in too. But I'm not trying to act like one of the boys either. I have my own unique perspective because I'm female, but I don't think others should also have this perspective. That's silly.

[–]anonlymouse1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BroseppeVerdi1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You never realize how batshit insane modern feminism is until you see it butt heads with truly egalitarian values.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Do we really care that only five per cent of the programmers are women?

It isn't that we're forcing women into jobs they don't give a fuck about, it's that women aren't encouraged to perform in math or science. Those kinds of engineering dreams usually die right around sexual maturity. We glorify stupidity and emphasize looks.

Our information outlets are designed to enforce gender roles and women are made well aware early on that no one gives a fuck what your profession is so long as you are sexually viable.

[–]3NO_LAH_WHERE_GOT0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a true facet of our reality.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the women you ask for are the women you get

[–]Hokuto199x0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

In every species I can think of where there are two sexes they differ in important ways biologically, yet we seem to think of ourselves as some kind of exception. We seem to want to insist that men and women doing different things stems from the media or from society. That might be a little of it. Some people may behave differently because of what society's expectations are, but it's reasonable to think some of those expectations may just be rooted in our natural differences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it's funny that we focus on the gender divide rather than the intellect divide... idiots abound on both sides.

You're right in that it's fucked up to go against evolution. That said, as a species, we are now facing more complex situations than any other animal alive has faced. It's difficult to say one way or the other what the best way to live is... however, if someone is talented at something, does it matter if it's a man or a woman?

I'm not saying that under any circumstances a woman who is unqualified should be doing a thing that a qualified man could be doing... but given that there's no evidence of women being intrinsically incapable, is there a reason to prevent a qualified lady from being a part of innovation?

[–]Hokuto199x0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think the divide is intellectual. I think it's emotional. They feel drawn to different fields than men in most cases, and in a lot of cases they are more driven by feels than men. My LTR is in STEM, does well academically, gets paid for work-study as a research assistant and has already been offered a position in a graduate program if she does ok on the GRE. That's just not what most women feel compelled to do. There are those that do, and they definitely should. Anyone who has the aptitude for doing real science should be pursuing it. We need to tap every great mind possible to advance as a species.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that women are just as capable of emotional control as men, but they aren't taught it.

Men are taught from a young age that crying is weakness and you don't do it in front of other people. Men are taught that you don't let your chemicals do your thinking for you. Men are encouraged to be strong, physically and emotionally. Men are told by society that it is their responsibility to raise and provide for a family's worth of people.

Women, though? No one really gives a fuck what women are doing and that's part of why you wind up with emotional, unreasonable, sex-hostage-taking psychos-without-math-skills running around.

Nature and nurture.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

TLDR but to answer your first question, no, don't be the asshole putting words in other people's mouths.

However, it isn't a surprise that women don't step to the forefront of technology/science/math when there's no reason for them to. They're never going to BE smarter or more successful for as long as their sex appeal gets them through life.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

any time i can make you feel like an idiot for wasting your time pissing in an ocean of piss just let me know

[–]subcover-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's mainly that, overall, women cannot perform in those fields. They lack the abilities required. No wonder they don't enjoy it.

[–]ben0wn4g31 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Why is this allowed on TRP. This isn't about sexual strategy or self improvement.

ITT: women hating.

[–]anonlymouse4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not women hating at all. Why should women be forced to do something they don't want to do because of stupid feminist ideology?

[–]ben0wn4g30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't disagree with that. But people are not posting well thought out points like that, they are posting like bitter little girls. This thread is the sort of thread that creates TRP hate.

[–]anonlymouse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There'd be TRP hate regardless. If they didn't have something like that to point to, they'd just make it up.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ben0wn4g30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree but there is a lot of general unfounded women hate in this thread.

[–]subcover1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's pretty well founded actually. Rather than complain about it, refute the assertions if you can.

[–]hipst0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I second this assertion.

Quit giving those bluepill fembot bastards ad revenue.

Oh, and obligatory: THEY HATE US BECAUSE MISOGYNY, SHITLORD!

[–]nourathrowway-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Gender roles and accepting that men and women arent identical is at the heart of TRP. This sub is NOT just about self improvement. Go read the damn sidebar and RedPillSchools recent "welcome noobs stfu" post where he calls out shit posts like yours.

[–]ben0wn4g30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Read some of the shit in here and tell me it's not just bitter hate.

[–]nourathrowway0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course it is. Step 1 of seeing the world for what it is.

[–]Niemamnick0 points1 point  (35 children) | Copy Link

Women are allowed to vote...they vote for liberal, green, useless parties.

Women are allowed to write books...they write about sex, masochism, or stupid topics.

Women are allowed to choose the men they date...they date thugs, criminals and then marry a chump they cheat on.

Women are allowed to study...they go for gender studies, sociology, pedagogy and stuff no one really needs.

Women are allowed to do science...they claim this and that study is sexist.

[–]mysocalled_pants21 points22 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Women...vote for liberal, green, useless parties

In 2012, 24% of American female voters identified as Republican, 25% of males ( source )

Women...go for stuff no one really needs

The top 2 major declarations for females are business and health sciences. Women earn more bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees than men ( source )

Your other statements are not refutable, because they are nonsensical and impossible to prove. Got anything else?

[–]LibertarianLibertine8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, I reckon móst women that identify as Republicans, are married to a republican.

Either way, here in Europe, where we have a larger diversity of parties, it can easily be said that the majority of women votes for socialism.

[–]mysocalled_pants0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, sure. People do tend to marry within their preexisting political beliefs. Here in America, I vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate without first consulting a dude.

[–]LibertarianLibertine1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women also tend to be heavily influenced by their partner when it comes to political decisions.

[–]mysocalled_pants0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you know?

blah blah words to get the bot to leave me alone

[–]LibertarianLibertine0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Broscience.

blah blah more words to get rid of the bot

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Political leaning has more to do with class than it does gender.

[–]LibertarianLibertine0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah... I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. Obviously social class is a factor as well, but that doesn't mean gender should be disregarded.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mysocalled_pants2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I respect your frustration with our educational system, and I share it. Boys and girls alike should experience a learning environment that celebrates each child's unique talents and personality. However, it seems quite ridiculous to claim (as Niemam implies) that women are bad at everything but oh ok they're good at college so that must be because anti-male oppression, and besides they don't study anything that matters. Just...wat?

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mysocalled_pants0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, here is what s/he wrote:

Women are allowed to study...they go for gender studies, sociology, pedagogy and stuff no one really needs.

"Stuff no one really needs" is IMO a patently ridiculous and hyperbolic statement to make about the so-called liberal arts. Your claims that female academic success is mainly due to anti-male policies is of a piece with /u/Niemamnick 's attitude, and the rest of your argument is a bizarre fantasy of role reversal with a gratuitous Obama jab, followed by some red-herring stuff that has nothing to do with education. I am in 100% agreement that men face unique challenges in many sectors of American society. What I cannot understand is why each side is dead set on claiming the victim card, and unwilling to listen to one another's concerns.

[–]subcover0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Boys and girls alike should experience a learning environment that allows them access to useful things to learn, and organizational and disciplinary supports in the childhood years when they are not yet responsible for decisions about how they spend their time.

Some of the special snowflake stuff can go by the wayside, and we don't want to pay for it.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mysocalled_pants0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

So what's your metric for determining value?

[–]Heuristics0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

patents

products

lives saved

enemies vanquished

[–]NailedHim4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

If you're a republican then how have you never heard of Ayn Rand?

Edit: Also, hypergamy is a tendency to procreate with those with superior genes...

Also, I'm pretty sure most teachers are women... which is apparently a useless vocation?

Also, if you're claiming that women are actually detrimental to the pursuit of scientific advancement... that's completely ridiculous. You might have an argument that men still contribute more in those areas but your complaint about women claiming studies are sexist? What the fuck does that even come from? Like, you read an article once by a feminist that you didn't like and now MOST women are like that? I uh... yeah. I'm pretty sure you're the one who doesn't understand how science works.

[–]LibertarianLibertine1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah yeah, NAWALT, but to be fair he points are valid for the majority.

[–]NailedHim0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

NAWALT? Most women are the way I was describing them. You're the one saying NAWALT. Except that most women vote liberal you are completely wrong in every category.

1 Most female authors do not write about sex or masochism... I'm not sure what "useless topics" are but I'm just assuming he means erotica in general.

2 Most women don't date thugs or criminals. Or at least they don't in the circles I travel in. And statistically way fewer than 50% of women cheat in their lifetimes. The number I've seen reported was 14-15% but even if you doubt that figure there's no way in hell it's off by 35-36%

3 The number one major for women is business followed by some kind of health science. Followed by humanities and finally education. There are more but you get the idea.

4 Tons of women are scientists and advance science in many ways. Carnegie Melon's incoming freshmen class boasted 40% of all computer science majors being women. For a while, more than half of new doctors were women. No matter what you say there are far more female scientists than there are women who yell "sexist" all day.

So YOU'RE THE ONE USING NAWALT. Women are mostly the way I was describing them with only a few outliers in your way. Seriously. When you say NAWALT you're essentially saying, "I don't actually have any facts or evidence and I am too lazy to look this shit up so I'm going to use an acronym because I've seen other people use it and get upvotes." Do you really want to be that guy?

[–]subcover0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So CMU gave a big admissions boost to any girl who was willing to try computer science? Is that what you mean by "boasted"?

MIT does it too.

[–]NailedHim0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So because I'm disagreeing with one poster who tried to get away with a bald faced lie I must also disagree with everything else that was said in the entire thread?

No dude. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[–]LibertarianLibertine0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Please note that I'm not the OP that you refer to when you say "you are completely wrong in every category"

I said NAWALT, because I believed that was the point you were trying to make by referring to Ayn Rand.

  1. Non-fiction is dominated by men.
  2. Women tend to go for a certain level of 'dangerous' or 'bad boys'. As for the cheating, yeah I believe it's less than 50%, though I can imagine it being higher than 15% for the generation born after 1980. (Big cultural difference) And in certain subcultures....

  3. I don't know where you get your data from, but at my uni the vast majority of women does sociology/psychology. Economics is 70+% men.

  4. I don't know, could be correct. shrugs

  5. I said NAWALT because you're entire reply was "Oh but there's Ayn Rand". Your recent post is far more explanatory.

And please, what do I care about fucking upvotes?

[–]NailedHim0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No worries. I hate how extreme everyone's view is becoming in this place. It's pretty much a circlejerk where people can say the most outrageous shit as long as it makes men look good or women look bad.

  1. The books that changed who I am as a person were fictional. I don't believe you can pigeonhole non-fiction into "useful topics" and fiction into "stupid topics".

  2. Well yeah women like bad boys. Men like to be violent, to start wars, and to commit crimes. There are plenty of "vices" that are beneficial evolved traits. I know it's the prevailing opinion here that women are the cause of all the world's problems but this just isn't true. Niemamnick is not presenting a balanced opinion, or even a valid one. I also don't believe that it's accurate to say that women cheat hugely more than men. Though statistics on this stuff is hard to come by. Human beings in general have a LOT of negative qualities. And they're not the qualities Niemamnick is trying to convey.

  3. My data was a Forbes article that I can't find right now so here's a Huffington post one that has the same data. Humanities/social science is actually higher on the list for men than women. But yeah, the most popular major for women is business. It's only counter intuitive if you spend too much time here soaking in all the confirmation bias.

  4. I am correct. Approximately half of all new physicians are women. It was briefly higher than 50% but has dropped to around 48%

  5. Fair enough.

Long story short. I think too many of the users here get all of their opinions about the world by looking at what other people here say. We are NOT an unbiased community. There's serious danger that the echo chamber here will further radicalize everyone. Especially when they don't have an accurate understanding of the way the world works. I mean, most of this stuff is basic statistics that could easily be looked up before giving an opinion.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NailedHim0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Most women aren't feminists... More women are scientists than are feminists. What you are saying is equivalent to me saying most men are murderers because a many men are murderers. Many women are murderers. Many men are also feminists.

Also, more women are in biology than men so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Like 60% of bio majors are women.

Additionally, I have no idea what 'balanced' means in the case. Are we talking about teaching that women can't get pregnant from rape or what? Because that's being taught in schools in Kansas as we speak. There was even some senator who felt confident enough in that fact that he said it on TV. Used to be you could get out of a rape charge if she ended up pregnant because it was thought that couldn't happen.

Fun times.

[–]subcover0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The argument about rape is that the woman would not be relaxed or emotionally receptive and therefore fertilization would not happen. I think the idea in more detail is that the chemical balance within the vagina would be changed to make fertilization much less likely.

Now I am not saying that argument is correct. But it's not obviously incorrect either, at least in a statistical sense. What is the evidence regarding the truth of that argument?

[–]NailedHim0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you for real? You are clearly not a any kind of biologist or you'd know this.

The incidence of pregnancy in rape is HIGHER than in consensual sex. Possibly because the way fear hormones mess with other hormones sometimes causes accidental ovulation. So not only is it false, it is literally the exact opposite of the truth.

You can't just make up an argument based on whatever understanding of evolution you happen to have an claim that's how things work. You have to actually figure this stuff out.

[–]NailedHim0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But it's not obviously incorrect either, at least in a statistical sense.

Seriously buddy. Are you really going to just try to float past that pseudoscience and then not say anything? All I'm asking for is an admission that stating unqualified opinions about matters of science is not prudent or mature behavior. Especially when the issue affects actual people.

If this is your attitude for all the intellectual pursuits in your life then it is likely you are full of misconceptions about the way the world works. Seriously, think about all the convictions you have and assert daily. Without any kind of rigor, how do you know your entire life is not based on lies?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women can write amazing books. You're being ign'nant, sir.

[–]LineOfCoke-5 points-4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

women are stupid, I dont think anyone is arguing that, but without my lady doctor, some dude would betouching my balls and thats gay.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because clearly having "diversity" and "equality" means we should just give passes to those who "should" be in the field? Have they considered that everyone in STEM fields have worked hard to get where they are?

[–]Gstreetshit0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You have to fight this type of shit like this guy is doing every step of the way. Do not be silent.

New Zealand is thinking about shifting the burden of proof to presumed guilt with men.

They have already legislated that the MPs must be 50% female!!! That means they don't allow free elections in their country anymore

Sweden is on track to be 3rd world tier in about 15 years. Feminist Party is making major headway. Want to enact all types of draconian policies against men.

In the U.S. you all probably know all the shit going on here.

tl;dr Men of the west are failing.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm forming my own country, called Manistan. We'll create an environment where the traditional family can thrive (i.e. a household can thrive on one income), rape accusations require more than a crying women on a stand and a stretched pussy, women can work and earn just as much as a man in whatever field they choose but there will be no quotas so it will be solely on merit, and we will have a national brewery with a 'free beer' ration for everyone in the country.

[–]Gstreetshit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds glorious. What form of governance were you thinking? Republic? NatSoc? Communal?

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"We must have 100% gender parity! But not me, those other bitches can do hard science and math."

I've literally never heard a competent STEMer woman whine about gender disparity.

[–]Misteralcala0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Call me a dick, but I think the reason women tend to not pursue scientific fields is because they are often based on logic and not feels. Women are emotional creatures and to me it would seem like sensory deprivation for them.

Could a woman get good gossip working in a sterile laboratory or writing code?

What would her friends think of her? Would such a job raise or lower her social value?

Do men want a woman that's more intelligent than them?

Isn't it just easier to do something more 'fun' and get a husband that does that sort of work?

If there are mostly men working there, will she be able to skate by on her pussy pass? Or will she be held to the same standards as them? (this thought makes their pussies pucker)

I think similar questions come into play when a woman decides on a career, and the answers to those questions determines their choice.

[–]cooltrip-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists demand a lot of things, but they return nothing in exchange...

... except for Alpha; for Alpha, feminists forget about feminism, they go absolutely masculinist, and they turn into submissive doormats.

[–]MooMooMooN-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1906164/thumbs/o-GIRLS-SCIENCE-570.jpg

You'd think they would at least wear hair nets around all that chemistry.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Amablue1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The idea isn't for force women into certain fields. It's to find if there are any barriers to entry (whether they're cultural, institutional, or otherwise) and remove them. If women are choosing to not enter a field at the same rate as men, we ought to identify why they're making that choice.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Because the vast majority of girls don't get all excited talking about how stars are formed, how 1s and 0s turn into Reddit, how a combustion engine works or how a skyscraper is built to stay stable. It doesn't mean they can't do it. It just means they don't want to. The opportunity is there. They just don't take it.

[–]Amablue1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The question is why they don't get excited. Is it biology? Is it due to a lack of role models? Is it due to gender roles? Is it due to unconscious bias that is shaping their interests?

It's ridiculously hard to isolate the source of behaviors in the first place. Anyone claiming to know what the cause is with any real level of certainty (especially when their evidence is based on anecdotes) is kidding themselves. Until we have a complete and working model of the mind that can explain behavior to the point that we can objectively conclude that women are somehow biologically predisposed to be disinterested in science we should not assume that to be the case. There are a ton of confounding factors at play, and some of which we can pretty definitely identify as sexist. We should fix those.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't want to say it is all culture and this is not my area of expertise by any means, but look at the cases of transgender people who grew up feeling the opposite sex and being interested in things typically associated with the opposite sex, some at an age when kids just want to play house or play cops and robbers. Kids are assholes, so I don't doubt that some girls interested in coding and such get flack for it, but no more than the guy who is interested in ballet dancing I would wager.

[–]Amablue1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It sounds like you're arguing that people get flack for stepping outside what is considered normal for their gender, which I totally agree with. We should work to end that sort of behavior, whether it's taunting the girl messing with a unix command line or the guy dancing to the sugarplum fairy suite.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I would agree with this. I know women I respect more than most men and I never judge a woman before I get to know her, even if I do feel like most modern women are lacking in accountability and a few other qualities. I think that should be the approach is encourage people to understand people have different interests and as long as it's not hurting anyone else, let them do it. What I do have a problem with is quotas in a work place. That goes for sex, race, anything. I believe in merit, even though I understand that is pretty idealistic and not always applicable to the real world.

[–]Amablue0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What I do have a problem with is quotas in a work place.

I'm fairly certain this is illegal. Do you know any place that actually does this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

http://www.businessinsider.com/compulsory-quotas-for-women-2013-1

FTA: "France, Norway, and Spain have introduced compulsory quotas in the work place to force companies to place women in leadership roles. As early as 2003, a law was passed declaring that Norwegian companies set aside 40 percent of boardroom positions for women by 2008."

http://sites.psu.edu/rclsurabhi/2014/03/27/gender-quotas/

FTA:"Over the past few years, several countries in Europe introduced gender quotas for companies. It started with Norway, which set the quota at 40 percent for female directors, then moved onto Belgium, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Malaysia. The quotas all ranged from somewhere between 30 to 40 percent. While the threat was that non-complying companies could be dissolved, there were not many punitive sanctions placed. Other countries, such as Britain, Australia, and Sweden simply threatened the use of quotas if companies did not voluntarily hire more female leaders. Despite some opposition, gender quotas throughout the world are becoming increasingly important and popular, both in the public and private sectors."

http://mlkrook.org/pdf/FKP%20APSA%202009.pdf

Page 2 is relevant. I didn't read the whole article.

[–]Amablue0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, I thought you were talking about in the US

[–]iiMSouperman-4 points-3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

One of the comments - "So should we stop teaching boys to read books and be sensitive then?"

Yes, you should. Because "Boys being sensitive" only benefits women. It doesn't help society, and "reading books" doesn't further the human race in any way shape or form. I love how she's trying to compare the chance of an actual real life break through to "Feeling nice and cuddly teehee". What a stupid broad.

[–]MrRexels4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Reading books doesn't further the human race in any way shapre or form?

Mate I think you are lifting too much.

[–]iiMSouperman-4 points-3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't lift at all. And no, they really don't. There are far better ways for people to learn.

Edit: just to clarify, she is clearly referring to literature outside of general curriculum.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]iiMSouperman-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There is a vast difference in "the right type of books" - educational, ones that are part of a syllabus etc, and ones that she is quite clearly implying. She wouldn't specifically target "teaching boys to read books" if she was referring to standard educational practises, everyone reads SOME books at school/college/university. She is implying reading as a hobby must be taught to boys as equally as she thinks science must be pushed upon girls. She's out of touch with reality, and I hope you understand my P.O.V.

You can get a healthy mind without reading on your own time. Don't be too quick to assume literature is a particularly strong (if at all) intellectual pursuit.

I'm not implying books have a negative impact. I'm simply saying a) they are no where near as beneficial as people assume they are. And b) comparing sensitivity and hobbies to the next advances within science is utterly absurd and naive.

And as beautiful and succinct quote as that is, it is completely irrelevant to the usage of books in modern society. Literature is swiftly becoming an outdated past-time, and we don't need to read about History to learn from it.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]iiMSouperman-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I meant read from books*

Not really focused at the minute, I just find her comparison to be incredibly asinine.

Hope I don't come across as a dick, as I said - bit busy at the moment. I just find books as a whole, primarily the pedestal society puts it's readers on... just.... moronic.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter