arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/tech/ - technology


formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1494511173394.png (25.94 KB, 850x646, cs_women.png)


What the hell happened?


Bit of a butterfly effect I'd say. Started with early computers being primary marketed as toys for boys in the 90's then that lead to the media portraying programmers as the nerdy boy who sits alone on his computer like in the matrix or hackers. Just didn't appeal as much to women. That combined with the fact because young boys were given more computer games as toys early on gave them a head start to learn the basics by the time the started their higher education would lead to it seeming like CS is easier for men when really they just had a head start. I've read that this is why many universities have started adding several different levels of intro courses for new students that way even students with no programming experience can learn to be successful at CS.


File: 1494513149357.png (94.36 KB, 326x481, all-seeing-why.png)

>this is why many universities have started adding several different levels of intro courses for new students that way even students with no programming experience can learn to be successful at CS.
>this is why they're starting kids off with Microsoft Visual Basic


looking at the chart itself, that second dip aligns fairly well with the first generation to have grown up with widespread in-home access to personal computers, video games, and the internet.

women tend to be better at socialising. this is descriptive rather than prescriptive; of course there are outliers, but on average when taken as a group.

and, unlike the other three fields on this chart, a student who was isolated and stayed inside as a child is more likely to be invested in computers, and computer science by extension (though they're not really the same thing, the concepts overlap for people, and that's all that matters).

computer science is more likely to be composed of isolated-as-a-child students, and those isolated people are more likely to be men.

there's also a compounding effect at work. that is, when the number of women in a field is at such a low minority, boosting numbers becomes increasingly more difficult as women who enroll in computer science courses are more and more isolated from other women.

it's p' dang lonely, honestly, and the only way to avoid going crazy is to take other courses / be involved in unrelated activities as well.

and no, it's not that "men have a headstart over women". the vast majority of people coming into CS courses, regardless of gender, have no clue about computers at all (and most of them graduate not much better off). the difference is that more men feel themselves to be "computer-affiliated".

ugh X_X


File: 1494609440586.jpg (48.54 KB, 960x960, Yktq1St.jpg)

Maybe people just choose different things? Is it really that hard to believe?

Why is vet care and nursing so female dominated?


0b11111111 GET!

There was one (really, really stupid) TedTalk I listened to that blamed pre-collegiate computer science education programs for the demographic gap between fucking white males and women/pocks – if only they made it more relatable to and fun for the everyday person instead of plunking something as intimidating and scary as the source code for Java's Hello World program in front of them! Then people who aren't White and Nerdy like Weird Al would take computer science classes and see how fun it is to make all of the cool toys that programmers get to make!

I agree that computer science education for high schoolers sucks, but my idea of a good introductory computer science course (albeit maybe not one appropriate for high schoolers) is SICP, not "Fun With Python! XD".


Maybe we're missing the point, and the OP's question was, how did the 70s come around? That's definitely what I'm curious about, maybe because I'm in the blue about something American culture-wise, it is US data, after all.
Such a sharp rise does seem to me at first glance like either a methodology/legal/nationwide policy thing, and, if not, like something pretty artificial, caused by some other intervention of sorts; I've always thought of deep societal changes as of something more incremental than explosive.
What happened? Was there some singular event that triggered it, or some other sudden, explosive changes?
I don't want to speculate too much, since I have zero expertise in the matter, but maybe the sudden rise was indeed caused by an intervention of sorts, and the observable fall later is just reversion to the normal state?
Is this chart from a larger paper on the matter? What's the name?


If only high schools used SICP. That would have made the class much more enjoyable, as the people there just to play games on the computers would fail/drop out immediately.
I too am curious. I know at some point, it was considered OK for women to do software as long as men did hardware.


>this is why they're starting kids off with Microsoft Visual Basic

Most places I've seen use stuff like Scratch then introduce them to either Java or Python


For anyone wondering this is where the chart came from

The thesis of the article is that marketing of the first personal computers in the 80''s were targeted towards boys, plus there is research showing families more often bought computers for boys rather than girls regardless of skill or interest. Leading to less computer exposure for girls than boys that created a skill gap when they got to university. Making women who tried to purse studies in computers feel behind from the start making them pick another career.


>push for gender equality
>women fall for the meme and join compsci
>women realize they don't actually like it
>numbers start to drop again

simple as that


the question then is. . . why do women dislike compsci compared to men? And the answer is far more difficult.

Seems to have a sensible point. Computer science is, relative to say, physical science, a far newer field. Its possible that targeting pc's at boys by a few companies would be rather more impactful than making other toys related to other, more established areas. The article also makes some notes about presentation in pop culture, with a large number of films about geeky young men, making the computer culture appear to be centered around such figures.

Speaking from personal experience, it seems that if a trend like this starts, it is easy to let it grow and expand. Being the only female student in a class with a male professor can be incredibly awkward and off putting, and probably would lead to a spiraling effect where fewer women in cs leads to fewer women wanting to go into cs, et cetera.

As time goes on the culture can be expected to grow to be less comfortable and welcoming. And in a field as new as CS, and as growing as cs, it is probably easy to rebuild the culture, more so than in more established feilds.


I have had 3 girlfriends tell me they are interested in programming, once I give them some starter tools, none of them follow through. Not sure if it's intimidating, culturally biased, or they just decide they don't like it.


File: 1495752383662.jpg (212.71 KB, 1563x1084, KayMcNultyAlyseSnyderSisSt….jpg)

>I have had 3 girlfriends tell me they are interested in programming, once I give them some starter tools, none of them follow through. Not sure if it's intimidating, culturally biased, or they just decide they don't like it.
Why don't you ask them?


they never really wanted to talk about it so i dropped it.


>the question then is. . . why do women dislike compsci compared to men? And the answer is far more difficult.

For the same reason they (mostly) dislike STEM in general. The average woman is bored to tears by talk about NAND gates and matrices.
Boys preferring to play with tech and girls preferring people can be observed in babies and even other primates, so you can safely rule out cultural influence.

Programming and being a "nerd" has become the cool, hip thing today with shows like BBT and gaming becoming mainstream. Actually following through with the work associated with these things is another matter entirely.


and that explains the drop off how?


I daresay the average man is bored to tears by that point, too.


>Actually following through with the work associated with these things is another matter entirely.

You can cosplay and larp on a budget by pretending to be a nerd. Nevermind that you can't even understand the weather man, as long as you wear those big glasses, it's okay.


I already said it here >>415 - I believe that word got around that a carreer in STEM isn't just sunshine and roses.

Of course, but let's say 10% of men are heavily interested in tech, but only 2% of women (fantasy numbers) - that means that there will be 5 times more men than women in tech fields. It's simply a matter of quantity, not quality.


File: 1496056556506.jpg (31.08 KB, 547x397, 1347883397672.jpg)

having lived through that second major dip as a "woman in computer science", i can attest that, at least for that part, your explanation does not suffice. there was / is a lot a lot more to it.

the average man is completely unable to follow a talk about NAND gates and matrices. it's less a matter of competence and more one of "feeling affiliated with computers". the majority of guys entering computer science programs today aren't there for the computer science; they're there because they like reddit and Computer Games.


that women tend to adapt better to lateral, relational, human-oriented tasks while men tend towards lone-wolf, "autistic" (as in stand-alone), focussed tasks is definitely true.

that is to say, in general, men focus on fiddly bits and technicalities and women on "the big picture" and interfacing.

obviously, stem fields are a little biased towards the former category, but there is still a place for both. in computer science, teams of just men tend to forget about the "human element", doing things like designing programming languages that have lots of "cool" one-off features that don't integrate well or languages that are biased in favour of the underlying system rather than being made intuitive for the end user programming in them. and, in computer engineering, teams of just guys tend to run off and do there own things, creating pieces that do lots of clever, sometimes hackish, things on their own, but that don't tie together at the end and have to be held together with duct tape and fervent wishing, with again human-facing elements added as somewhat of an afterthought, despite their playing a role in basically any software project out there.

so there is definitely a place for women in computer science, or at least stereotypical "female problem-solving", as there is in other stem fields. why the sudden drop-off then? as best i can tell, it's from what was initially an "invasion of guys". that is to say, men who where not skilled with computers and were not interested in theoretical computing started flooding into computer science departments. video games were heavily marketed towards boys, and the arrival of home computing and game consoles made computers and games into things one mostly used alone, or with one or two others, rather than in a social setting as they had been previously (arcades / mainframes), further removing them from the "archetypical female". these factors made for a generation of socially maladapted boys, who until that time had relied on comic books etc, turn to computers and video games, and this generation grew to college-age right around the time of that second major dip.

so the big difference between comp sci and other stem fields, then, is that comp sci, or at least entering comp sci fields, is very popular for this category of men who would not otherwise be interested in stem careers, while biology / meteorology / astronomy / etc etc are composed primarily of students with actual interest in those fields. basically:

1. comp sci gets huge number of boys who don't care about comp sci, just games and reddit / 4chan / whatever
2. girls, being less interested in games / reddit / 4chan / whatever, don't have this same bias, and so are limited to only those girls who are actually interested in comp sci
3. the boy to girl ratio imbalance leads to an environment where it really sucks to be a girl a lot of the time, giving many of those girls motivation to leave and do something else.


If those percentages (or something like them) were correct, then it seems that there shouldn't have been a 20 year period where growth in cs matched growth in other areas, and those other areas should also probably not be growing (well, maybe law, I don't really know much about life as a law student). People would figure out that they hated it rather sooner than that, I should hope.

I'm not sure if you've spent a lot of time in other fields, physical sciences or whatever, but they are often very computer centric these days–if you shy away whenever 'tech' appears, you are going to be horribly handicapped and probably not interested in very much of your field's research. Yet apparently, according to the graphic, women are decently well represented in physical science. This is matched in my personal experience, I haven't done a careful count, but in the science courses I have taken there are plenty of women, men too, but it is far more balanced, or certainly far more female, than what I have seen of CS courses at the same places.

So…what's the difference between astronomy/geology/chemistry and CS? That is the question. It clearly is not that women as a whole are not interested in "STEM", there is something specific about CS that makes it different from other fields in that umbrella. It seems to me that difference is likely largely cultural.


That acronym is awful, the acronym is only about subjugating math and science for the production of widgets. STEM is an acronym only useful for capitalists: not for mathematicians, not for scientists, not for engineers.
STEM is about putting down pure math and pure science, only focusing on what can make a profit.


>biased in favour of the underlying system rather than being made intuitive for the end user
trying to escape the reality of whats actually being done to force it to fit into fuzzy, contradictory human intuition is not a good thing


knowledge of how to algorithm etc is essential for being able to program well, yes. that's not what i mean. i'm talking about languages which sacrifice intuition in favour of laziness on the part of the language programmers (or, more often, language designers just not stopping to think how a thing could be made more intuitive). sometimes ease-of-use needs to take second-place to fiddlibits in order to make things fast and efficient, yes. the world today, however, is filled with computer languages that are neither fast and efficient nor intuitive, all because of the general discrepancy in workflow styles mentioned above. they're designed with a "you know what would be cool?!" approach, taking mostly pre-existant bits and pieces borrowed from other places and one or two original ideas and duct-taping them together, without giving enough thought to making all the parts fit together nicely and make a well-rounded whole.


You'll love the newest iteration, STEAM. The A is for, you guessed it, art.


>the boy to girl ratio imbalance leads to an environment where it really sucks to be a girl a lot of the time, giving many of those girls motivation to leave and do something else
Yeah, just finishing my bachelor's degree. I would really hate if half of my university would offer me to do my homework for free, because there is one female per 20 males, while like 10 of these 20 never even had a girlfriend in their life.

I would say that more than two thirds of females dropped out anyway, they ended up shocked that they have to do their final tests themselves, this of course didn't end up very well, if you didn't do jack the whole semester. Not saying that males didn't fail, but at least they didn't fail across the whole board.

>comp sci gets huge number of boys who don't care about comp sci, just games and reddit / 4chan / whatever

Sure, but they at least care about tech, I would say that most dumb as a brick ones dropped immediately, there was nobody to get them through it for free and people deciding on marks weren't that lenient
>girls, being less interested in games / reddit / 4chan / whatever, don't have this same bias, and so are limited to only those girls who are actually interested in comp sci
Or those who are interested in money. I was very curious my first year and was asking most of the people why they chose CS (and I also wanted to know somebody with the same passion as me) and some girls just told me that they heard it pays well. Well you, it pays well if you actually get get past the first 6 semesters.


I find it hard to believe you're any less likely to get boys going into compsci because money though.


>Sure, but they at least care about tech
Not true at all. A lot of people going to university these days, for any field, care only about becoming millionaires, not about learning.
No one wants a PhD. Everyone wants a bachelor's and six-figure income. Sometimes I wish it was possible to force people uninterested in PhDs to go to vocational or technical schools, not universities. It'd benefit everyone involved. But I'm not an authoritarian.
But I see you mentioned that in the last part of your post. Capitalist idiocy is common to people of both genders though.


Because Computing science is far more mathematically rigorous now than it was 40 years ago, and women cannot into math.


if thats true its not because of sex psychology or genetics.


File: 1497399118810.jpg (284.79 KB, 1487x2048, QbR32El.jpg)

The "girls can't do math" meme is only present in the West. Say that in China or India and you'll get, "What the fuck are you talking about? Why would boys be better at math?" On the contrary, girls typically perform slightly better than boys on standardized math tests.


How do you know that? You don't know if the claim itself is true, and yet you are convinced about the underlying causes of it.

If that is true, then we should consider that this meme might not contribute to the difference in numbers between men and women in STEM fields, because the stats for China do not seem to be better than those for the US. I don't know about India, but if the popular claim that this meme originates from different and, according to some, subjectively "lower" status of women in traditional culture of western countries, then I would presume that it should be even worse in India.
I would not be shocked if what you said were true for some countries in central Asia though, like Kazakhstan, because they do seem to lack some of these differences in proportions present elsewhere.

>On the contrary, girls typically perform slightly better than boys on standardized math tests.

Well, whenever numbers suggest that members of one group are more likely to be good at something than members of other group, we should always consider the posibility that the numbers themselves are prejudiced, like with culture- and ethnicity-related disparities in IQ tests being caused by racism, and God forbid anything else, or the "less women in STEM fields" thing, which can't possibly have any other explanation than sexism. Or that the whole thing is a manipulation and the numbers themselves are purposefully wrongly interpreted, and thus mean nothing. Like, you know, the "gender pay gap" meme.
To be honest, I don't think that we could seriously judge the statement that "girls can/can't do math" at all, because we would first have to define doing math. Standardized math test is hardly a universal description for "doing math". Is "studying mathematics in college" a definition of doing math? Not necessarily, either. Are female mathematics students performing better, worse, or the same as their male counterparts? How much pure computation, the abilities at comprehending different problems, memory recall, and other factors, play in each type of "doing math"? If any group falls short in any factor, is it because it's members are worse at doing something intrinsically, are worse due to external factors, or simply don't want to utilize their full potential as much as other groups? Most likely it will be a combination.
To tell you an anecdote, I have been told by one person teaching mathematics in deaf kids school, that, among the standardized excercises used in the nationwide exams, they would most often have problems with the text-heavy excercises containing easy mathematics - the specific grammar used in some of these excercises would often seem incomprehensible to them, because they would not encounter these kinds of phrases in other texts, and phonic language-specific figurative phrases usually do not make sense to someone whose first language is sign language.
Is it shortcoming on the part of those that designed the test? Maybe it's a "comorbidity" of sorts with poor reading comprehension? Would that mean that deaf people are worse at math? Or are they discriminated against?
In short, whose fault is that?
What we are observing is what part of which population goes in the so-called STEM fields, how do they perform academically, and then, how many of them are in the workforce, and how do they perform there. We do not know to what extent any difference is caused by psychological, cultural, biological, or any other, factors. Often times, we even don't have the possibility to pin down a correlation of any kind, let alone find out what causes what.
However, many people already seem to know, they have a moral judgement of the phenomenon passed, and they are determined to go against it. And we will never get anywhere if we assume that we already know what's going on, or outright dismiss, a priori, half of possible causes.
If people want to back their identity politics anywhere they are, they will continue to produce nothing but propaganda material claiming that everything is the fault of discrimination perpetuated by the evil WASPs.
By the way, I am so glad that these people tend to keep to things like social sciences and psychology, and stay out of STEM fields, instead focusing on prejudiced research and screeching because there aren't enough women in STEM fields.
The Americans also have the unique possibility of ignoring the causes of disparities and just extending it's governmental "affirmative action" quotas onto other groups, just like certain European countries did with the disparities in higher education in 1930s - they ignored the possibility of pondering as to why there would be unproportionally more Jews than their fellow nationals in higher education, and just slapped a limit for university admission on the Jews. That way, everyone was equal.


> the "less women in STEM fields" thing, which can't possibly have any other explanation than sexism
Strongly disagree.
I believe it's cultural and it's as simple as that.
Boys are generally more prone to be pulled by technical matters while girls are more inclined towards the aesthetical.
I don't think there's any more to it and we blow it out of proportion, and trying to "solve" the "problem" of not enough women in STEM is sexism and probably accounts for the fact that there is a perceived income gap between it (STEM) and other fields.
However, women are not coerced by universities or the STEM community (to the extent of my knowledge) to pursue a career in the field, if anything, it may be out of peer pressure and such unrelated (to the academic structure) issues.
There are fields which are mostly populated by women which have a high income rate as well.


Perhaps there is sexism within the social mechanics of particular universities or research groups. And that is a problem no bigger or smaller than the tight insider trading that is also often found in academia.
However, when you see the influx of new students in STEM fields and also those who get past the first two semesters, the rate of men-women is usually very high on the side of men.
Women are completely free, moreso in modern society, of choosing their field of study; no more coerced by tradition that guys whose parents want them to be lawyers. Yet with complete liberty of choice, women at large decide to go for less technical and usually more aesthetical or nurturing subjects, mostly because that seems to be their inclination.
To think that men and women are identical would be stupid, since we are biologically different, and it is exactly our biology that makes us inclined to different subjects, and which makes us think different in almost every aspect of our lives.
It is no secret that women are usually more oriented towards emotion while men are more practical. Note I'm not saying either is superior to the other. I am neither saying that either men or women are less capable of one or the other, only that biologically our inclinations are statistically more balanced towards either side.

I kind of dislike this sort of argumentation because people lose their soykaf very fast without stopping to think about things, always on the lookout to call one either a sexist or a feminist nazi.
I may be wrong in some parts, but I just wish people didn't have the tendency to lean so much towards extremes as if it were a religion.


>To think that men and women are identical would be stupid, since we are biologically different, and it is exactly our biology that makes us inclined to different subjects, and which makes us think different in almost every aspect of our lives.

While I agree there is biological difference, abstracting it to far ends up in some god given essence that has a logical conclusion in current human condition which is equally stupid. It is just dogmatic thinking that cant account for change because it presupposes unchangeable god given human nature while whole human history and society shows us man conquering nature and himself with technology and society and consequently changing it and himself.

Every force that is chaotic and accidental for us will eventually be subdued and comprehended. Our outside world trough technology, and ourselves trough society; and in the same time outside world trough society and ourselves trough technology.


But calculating and such used to be seen as "women work" and only in somewhat recent years the meme "women cannot into math." appeared.


>god given essence
>cant account for change
>unchangeable god given human nature
I never said that but ok.

I never even implied that it's static and set in stone, and you conveniently ignored that I said
>I am neither saying that either men or women are less capable of one or the other

All I ever said is that less women in STEM is not a field, it's just that they're not interested in technical subjects because they are generally more inclined towards the aesthetic.
Again, nothing is stopping women from pursuing careers in STEM and indeed many do.


>that less women in STEM is not a field
s/field/problem/ lol


>Strongly disagree.
I thought the sarcasm was noticeable.
Someone not sarcastic about it would say that "cultural" and "sexist" is not in any way mutually exclusive, but rather, the culture itself is sexist.
Which is kind of stating the obvious, men and women are culturally different. That's where their point lies, that women receiving different upbringing is oppressive against them, and the upbringing is the cause for differences in things such as numbers of each sex in STEM fields.
And yes, such a view, to be logical, must necessary contain the judgement of traditional female role as inferior. Which is funny that the egalitarians usually believe, also, that masculinity is somehow evil and toxic, and yet women should be more like men.
Obviously, egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.
I believe that soundness of this revolt is already being negatively verified and the experiment has resulted in failure, though it might be disputed based on point of view.

I think there is a substantial difference between controling and harnessing something, and attempting to sidestep it, ignoring it. Not to get too deep into this, and end up talking about fundamentals, like in couple other threads, but I would not be so quick to reject nature as something that we simply overcome and forget. I am of the opinion that man stays the same, and some things stem from physical nature of reality that we live in and are not side-steppable. We merely transform the nature a little bit, give it a new paint job. All the basic drives that man has are still there. To harness them, we have to mind their original direction, as going completely against it is fully counter-productive.
To go with a parallel, men may compete intelectually, financially, socially or whatever to woo mates instead of engaging in physical struggle, but the wooing is still there just as much.
The marketing fuckers don't create new drives in consumers, but use existing ones, often very primal, and tap into them, sometimes make them hypertrophic and overexaggerated, but it still stems from quite basic needs. You don't need a new iJunk because you need iJunks, but because you were made to believe that iJunks signify a status in tribe to which you aspire, or whatever. The creating of new needs is more proverbial, it is a simplification of what actually takes place.
And so, I would say that we will not see the abolition of social differences steming from biological diversity among people. Certain physical traits might become insignificant over time, but as long as there is reproduction, there will be gender differences.
Even more than that, the theoretical merging of gender roles would seem to me as regressive, not developmental, because categories, specialization, developing new subgroups with inherent differences, et caetera; that is, higher degree of complexity in structure, is exactly what development is. Or, at least, not to be cargo-cultish, it is a hallmark of it, and inevitably follows development anywhere it goes. Therefore, there is nothing to gain from any merging of social significance of sexes, on the contrary, it is a loss.
Inb4ing any arguments regarding freedom of individual, well, more complexity does limit freedom, if we use freedom meaning positive freedom; ability to do something. At some level, complexity does entail that things have, from the very beginning, different qualities that they didn't decide on - stem cells in a developed human are not the same as embryonic stem cells which can become anything just as much.
With humans, however, this sort of predetermination is not unyelding, and people can go against trends. Therefore, it is not fully a limitation on freedom, but an obstacle on the preferred course for a minority of a group not preferring the route made easier for them by default.
The crux of what I'm saying is, I object to your underestimation of nature as purely chaotic, accidental, something to be conquered, something of no value to us. It's not dogmatic, regressive, something put there for no reason, but a part of greater order that you ignore, because it stands in the way of your presupposed notion (which you didn't outright state, so I may be countering something that you did not say to begin with) that technological development and more individual freedom go hand in hand.
Not to go full Kaczynski, but cyberpunk is dystopian for a reason, and the big, looking far ahead tech companies' obsession with the concept of hivemind is a real thing, not just our literary fiction wet dream.


My post was low effort and bad tautologies . Let me correct myself.

I agree there are certain limitations in nature but not as a metaphysical concept but relation of their practical application. Constructing some archetype in psychology is only useful as its conformation in reality. While this construct is useful - it is only useful in current circumstances and material conditions which are always acceptable to change. My opinion is that man by modifying nature changes these circumstances.

Therefore I don't think there is any inherit biological limitation that is not after all product of endless chain of events and therefore is not some abstract metaphysical concept but something acceptable to change.

If I can assume from your attitude expressed in a bit on marketing that being a slave to "tribal drive" that ultimately is our nature - is something you look down on. We can further speculate that by applying enough will you can prove in practice that you can act contrary to that nature; Develop thinking that will go beyond something accidental.

My opinion is same with gender roles, they are not a fixed essence but a product of development. If something proves beneficial to woman as a group and in wider sense humans it should not be a dogma to pursue it.


women are given all the chances they need to succeed, men are fucked in academia.
a chick can go and suck the teacher off and hey look she did really well on that math test.


Sexual dimorphism is definitely a thing, and its a fair point that to some degree the roles of the individual people in society are going to be different simply as a result of the differences that tend to arise among humans.

Nevertheless, it seems somewhat crazy an idea that just because something is done a certain way, that must be the best way, the only way, and the way the advances the interests of the community with the greatest efficiency. That there is difference between different divisions of our population behooves us to reconsider how we operate to best make use of those divisions, and not to refrain to some mode of thought where what has been done in the past.

There is some reason for the existence of sexism in our society. I am sure there are quite a few research papers which already deal with this question, of how and why it came about, and how and why it is what it is today. But oftentimes behaviors seem to arise that are disregarding of any societal interests in favour of personal gains, convenience, et cetera. Even if some systems that exist today were well justifiable from the perspective of efficiency some centuries ago, things have changed a good deal in our environment, our technological power.

We can delude ourselves into believing we live in a meritocracy, if we want, where the most skilled individuals do the most important work in their respective fields, and all who are equally capable are treated with equal respect.

But that is an inaccurate picture and doesn't at all reflect what our society is actually like. People are perpetually impacted by, and treated differently as a consequence of how people perceive them, based on gender, how you dress, how you speak, whether you smell like strawberries or like rotting meat.

No doubt if we lived in a more meritocratic system there would be gender imbalances in some, many, or all areas. But as it is, there are so many other factors involved that it becomes unreasonable to believe any imbalance in a given field is not, at least in part, attributable to causes apart from inherent physical suitability.



Do you really actually believe that women get into academia by sexual favours, you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about women, I don't
how you got that chip but your resentment seems
like it's clouding your judgement.

You make big claims but don't back them up.



That is not even important, women should fuck off already, too much of their whining with their "equality"

[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]