Guys,
So the fellows over at MGTOWforums were pondering just why it is that there are so few women engineers. There were a number of theories advanced to explain this gender imbalance – women are “crap at math,” “their [sic] just too stupid,”“you can’t build a bridge with ‘feelings.’” (Snap!)
But it was shade47 who offered the most convincing theory. It all has to do with incentives:
Im an engineer myself and in my opinion women could be good engineers if they wanted to be but its a hard sell since they can make money by lieing on their backs and shitting out bastards. …
i dont think women above a five in looks would have the patients [sic] to deal with the hardship of actually studying when she knows that shell end up getting knocked up or married and stop working in approximately 5 years after graduation.
Ladies, focus on your womb turds and leave engineering to the geniuses who don’t know the difference between “patience” and “patients.”
Chemistry, aka cooking? MOTHERFUCKING SERIOUSLY?
I forget–are you one of those trolls who claims to believe what he says, or one of those who admits he’s just fucking with us? Because if it’s the former, I think you just blew your cover.
The one thing you could probably really offend me with is if you call someone a troll who posts hateful and stupid things but believes them.
That’s a stupid & wrong notion of the word troll.
You just use it in a way old media does it, like trolls = “the bad people on the internet”. Stupid. I hate old media, they did the same thing with the word hacker.
There are not two types of trolls, that’s your stupid untrue distinction… may a curse fall onto you that you have never a serious Interned discussion in your life!
Trolls never believe what they say, that’s a necessary condition.
The only other troll beside the trollus officinalis (= doesn’t believe what he says and just wants to fuck with you) and it’s subspecies (like the trollus officinalis disruptivus or the trollus officinalis perseverans), is the trollus concernus, but he also doesn’t believe what he says (though he at least has a serious goal and just doesn’t do it because he’s bored).
So, I’m just a trollus officinalis… though I still believe that black people are more likely to be drug dealers and Islam will take over 😀 😀
@molly:
@Pecunium: I feel like Marc being dishonest is more accurate, but taking him seriously is much more fun for mocking purposes. 😉
Yeah, taking trolls seriously is exactly the right way to deal with them!
Interned discussion 😀
I think more than the “patients” or “capacity” is the interest.
The brain is very potent. Both men and women in all the IQ ranges can do stuff.
I think if there isnt a huge amount of women doing X, it must be more about drive / orientation / desire. Now if that drive / orientation is cultural or biological, Im not sure yet.
It’s cute when NWO tries to act like he knows something about neuroscience.
Why do women who have just one X chromosome instead of two suffer from Turner’s syndrome? It seems still much better to be male than to be a woman with Turner’s syndrome, but in males one X chromosome is missing, too.
Yeah… people will talk about how easy biology is compared to the “harder” sciences, and then they’ll say stuff like this like it makes sense.
Extremely simplified answer: male mammals do not have a missing X chromosome. They have a Y chromosome, which is basically an X missing one little string of genes. A partial chromosome produces entirely different genetic conditions than a missing chromosome.
Turner Syndrome (one unpaired X) is the only example of the latter that occurs in humans; a fetus with this syndrome always develops as physically female, so obviously it only affects women. I don’t know why the lack of a final chromosome triggers the specific symptoms of Turner, but they’re actually relatively minor and manageable compared to some other chromosomal disorders.
I love talking biology! It’s just like making soup stock! (Which I already did last night, so now I’m all revved up to talk biology.)
Oooh! Oooh! Okay, so how simple can a living organism be and still be considered a living organism? Is there some fundamental lower limit, or do organisms just get simpler and less organism-like until they’re just a bunch of long, chemically active molecules?
NWO: Cause, effect. It’s possible that the inferior parietal is larger in some men because they use it more. If Marie Curie used hers more (sort of the way some men have larger muscles in one arm.. I’m sure you’re familiar with that phenomenon) it would also be enlarged.
Since women were discouraged from doing the sorts of mental activity which would foster inferior parietal development of course there will be fewer who show it.
You are showing a classic case of either post hoc thinking, or confirmation bias. Perhaps both.
Shaenon: Thanks for saving me having to explain the XY (and if you look at that pair you can see it) function. I’d guess turner’s is a lack of co-ordination for lack of the second half of that chromosome pair.
One of my favorite examples in that area is calico cats, which are almost always female; and come from the need to suppress certain duplicated traits which cause the color regions in the cat to be random (among other things),because each gene activation is non-determinate. I think that’s why the first cat cloned (in 2002?) was a calico. It allowed them to show that God wasn’t predetermining things. Had the color pattern been exactly the same, THAT would have been the real shock.
Turner Syndrome (one unpaired X) is the only example of the latter that occurs in humans; a fetus with this syndrome always develops as physically female, so obviously it only affects women. I don’t know why the lack of a final chromosome triggers the specific symptoms of Turner, but they’re actually relatively minor and manageable compared to some other chromosomal disorders.
98% of fetuses with Turner’s syndrome are miscarried. Why?
It’s cute when NWO tries to act like he knows something about neuroscience.
You can drop the last two words. To wit (I know I shouldn’t engage, but this stuff is so completely from Mars):
Title IX in STEM will do the same, estimates are for ever 1 woman added 10 men will be cut.
Estimates from where? The Coalition for Research at UC Somebody’s Ass?
The University of California has gone one step further, all STEM classes have been cut while womens studies, gender studies, ect. have been expanded.
Um, I live a few blocks from UC Berkeley, and as far as I can tell they’re still teaching STEM classes. Berkeley is famous for science and mathematics. (Also, women’s studies and gender studies are the same department, Gender & Women’s Studies, so it’s a bit disingenuous for you to list them as though they were two things.) Where did you get this peculiar idea?
Thanks for letting us know that science is only for boys, though.
Men are more athletically inclined, to even the score men are discriminated against.
So… treating men and women equally is discrimination against men. I figured that was the underlying logic here.
It was awesome seeing the U.S. women’s team make it to the World Cup finals, wasn’t it?
Title IX in NASA
http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/compliance_program.html
Okay… so this is a webpage noting that NASA, as a government program, is not allowed to discriminate in its educational programs. It also mentions that NASA has never received a Title IX compliance complaint.
I would love to hear what’s wrong with this. When school groups go to NASA presentations on space, do you want the girls to be sent out to the hallway?
How can women being “given” preference over men in all realms of society by State mandate be considered equal opportunity?
Because it’s not preference; it’s equal treatment. You’re arguing that men should be given preference and women discriminated against because, I dunno, you want the government to give you stuff, I guess.
How can an infringement on mens right of property, (wealth), be used to openly discriminate against men be considered anything but exactly what it is? Usuping a mans right to property.
I… don’t even know what this means. You know that women are allowed to have money now, too, right? It’s this terrifying new development, probably caused by Title IX.
All the talk of Marie Curie, plus XKCD linkage, urges me to drop this XKCD link about Marie Curie:
http://xkcd.com/896/
They have a Y chromosome, which is basically an X missing one little string of genes.
One “little string”?
The Y chromosome is one third of the size of the X chromosome.
All the talk of Marie Curie, plus XKCD linkage, urges me to drop this XKCD link about Marie Curie:
http://xkcd.com/896/
No, no, all the support for feminism by XKCD has been made null and void by this rape-apologist sexist piece of trash:
http://xkcd.com/642/
Johnny Pez – Oooh! Oooh! Okay, so how simple can a living organism be and still be considered a living organism? Is there some fundamental lower limit, or do organisms just get simpler and less organism-like until they’re just a bunch of long, chemically active molecules?
That’s almost not biology, that’s semantics. Or philosophy. I mean, arguably “a bunch of chemically active molecules” describes human beings.
However, these are some common criteria for considering a thing alive:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Men are not smarter than women. The reason women have less advancements in science and engineering is because men forcibly kept women from being educated. When you prevent higher education you also prevent the advantage. Seriously, you idiot guys don’t realize that as hateful as you are you can’t possibly be that stupid. Can you?
somali, you had me until the middle of your message
“Seriously, you idiot guys don’t realize that as hateful as you are you can’t possibly be that stupid. Can you?”
Not being able to separate the argument from your emotions aint smart, you know. The argument is still valid
“The reason women have less advancements in science and engineering is because men forcibly kept women from being educated. When you prevent higher education you also prevent the advantage. ”
If thats the case, we should see a dramatic surge of very talented women inventors, scientists, musicians and stuff. Time will tell.
Awww, nobody liked my links.
The Coalition for Research at UC Somebody’s Ass?
I’m so referring to UCSA every time one of these jokers mentions a number from now on.
Time will tell if patents for women boom? In the US, women have gone from around 2% of patents issued in the early 1977s to a little over 10% in 1998 (the US Patent office stopped its supplementary reports in 1998, but saw a 45% increase in women’s patents just between 1996 and 1998 alone http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/wom_98.pdf). Women remain extremely underrepresented in the fields that tend to receive the most patents, such as engineering, but have still made dramatic strides in percentage of inventions in just the past thirty years or so despite that.
yeah… plant & design patents…
@darksidecat
Only women are represented in every realm of modern day society, men have no representation.
The State actively represents women in education, employment, health, politics, ect. The State demands quotas for employment/education. The State actively represents/persues women in sports, education and employment. The State has agencies teaching women how to market themselves more effectively.
The corporate world under these guidelines must actively persue women for employment. The corporate world represents women in business. They must represent women in order to obtain State contracts.
The media represents/persues womens opinions on all social issues.
There is no State, Corporate or media enterprise/agency that recruits only men for education/employment ect. Men are never recruited because of gender, only women are. How can no representation be overepresentation?
Men, as individuals represent themselves. They use their own skill and resources to represent themselves.
Can anyone name an institution where men are represented/persued as a gender?
Can anyone name an institution where women are represented/persued as a gender?
Only women are represented as a gender in all walks of life.
I would add to that “list” the active encouragement/discouragement of participation in various activities, based in large part on being in keeping with “traditional” gender roles, behaviours, outward physical presentation, etc., deemed acceptable for the “diametrically opposed” genders, which has been so deeply woven into the fabric of some cultures for such a long period of time that it may appear to be biological or may indeed develop biologically sometimes (eg., development of various portions of the brain and its neural pathways).
Not until the spectre of selfishness, which still looms large over a woman who chooses a pursuit (including, but not limited to, a career) that cannot be put aside at the drop of a hat in order to primarily nurture and be readily available to take care of/focus upon the needs of others, dissipates to a much larger degree than it already has, will you see a surge of very talented women inventors, scientists, musicians, etc. Chances are, you will not see a dramatic surge, but perhaps a gradual increase as women are still, for the most part, not encouraged to devote their time to a pursuit that involves a greater amount of single-minded focus vs. pursuits that involve or can easily be set aside to focus upon/take care of others.
Some of the very pursuits or activities for which men have been (and, dare I say, still are) viewed as selflessly taking care of others are the same ones for which women, if they choose to do them, are viewed as being selfish.
Might I add that another possible reason that women have not been encouraged to pursue areas/activities which have been predominantly populated by men is to ensure that men remain motivated to continue pursuing those areas/activities. I mean, what better motivator, that’s always at the ready, than to tell a man/boy that he acts/does something/pretty-much-whatever “like a woman/girl”.
And please, don’t tell me that using that as a motivator should not be offensive to some women because it is certainly not an implication that men should or that some men do view women as inferior in everything; because if that is NOT the implication, then it wouldn’t be the great motivator that it is.
My mother went back to school in the 80’s to get her engineering degree. She was in her early 60’s.
Why? Because when she graduated from high school it was unheard of for a woman to do such a thing.
Last year the first woman-headed team won a Nobel Prize in science. It was in microbiology, one of the few scientific fields where women and men are about equally represented. Interestingly, the reason microbiology has so many women is that one microbiologist in the 1970s made a point of encouraging his female students and lab assistants to stay in science. That one guy’s support produced an entire generation of successful female microbiologists.
The team that won the Nobel consisted of two women and one man. One of the women was a former assistant of that guy in the 1970s, and the other woman was one of her assistants. The work that won them the Nobel was in “immortalizing” cells by manipulating telomeres, the nonsense strings of protein at the ends of DNA molecules that seem to be connected to aging.
Is winning a Nobel Prize a dramatic enough surge? I don’t know. People always move the goalposts.