Hole lotta hate

Ithiliana–November26,2011 @8:40am

It is already happening, albeiit at an embryonic level! Do you really think that I am the only man in the entire world who is critical enough of feminists and your deranged “gender equality” to start looking for alternatives like dolls or plush fluffies? Do you think that the many millions, if not billions of $$$ assigned to robotics research, AI, and auto-heuristic and self-correcting software won’t have ENORMOUS commercial possibilities in these areas when it passes a certain point. There are already robotic “pets”, which cuddle, which “sleep”, which “recognise” different people, and “respond” to commands making millions of $$$ per year for their manufacturers and sellers. I don’t know when a “sexbot” will be availble, but given the number of men who are sick and tired of the likes of you feminists, and the shortage of acceptable women available (prostitutes, STDs, police entrapment and blackmail, and so on…) who are NOT the answer, eventually some cybernetic alternative, possibly tied into an already existing video game (“Capture a floozie” version 1.1, Girlcapture v. 2.0, and perhaps for those men who have a high level of frustration and hostility against women, along with poorly developed social skills, I suppose “Slut rape 1.3” or something of that sort, revolting as it is, will make some enterprising gamester, AI entrepreneurs a fortune in the next two or three decades. If enough men want it, believe me, it will be developed! Far larger industries–in terms of the economies of their times– became affordable and profitable when they became necessary! Believe me, if more women continue to be feminists, and continue to reject traditional womanhood, YOU FEMINISTS AND MODERN WOMEN will all be as obsolete as horses and buggies were once the automobile became commercially affordable. You can still keep your beloved memories of “strong women”, maenads, amazons, and other pests, but feminism will have NO future!

Damn… the MRA Double Period.

Curses.

s, along with the malignant influence of cinema, books and magazines, and of course, lobotomyvision acting on her 24/7 without respite.

Yes, my little girl watches television constantly.

As for the dangerous books, Should I NOT let her read the Rothbard, or the Friedman, Or the Long (uh-oh, feminist!), or the Tucker (Uh oh, proto feminist AND voluntary socialist!) or is that acceptable? Even in my own libertarian lady house, do I have to be super careful here?

So, despite my daughter’s talents in and enthusiasm for math and science (I had how bright she is confirmed to me by many MALE teachers, fear you not!), I should… What?

Zhnxy: DKM is wrong about the position of women in physics (like everything else)!

Though, of course as is true with all disciplines, white women have benefitted more, but there has been PROGRESS and probably will be more later on if your daughter still wants to pursue that field!

http://luxsci.net/zhenya/WomenInPhysics/US_2IUPAP_FINAL-NEW.pdf

Looking back over the past half century, women have made extraordinary progress in terms of their participation in
physics in the United States. In the last decade alone, the percentage of women earning a Ph.D. in the United States
has gone from 11.3% in 1994 to 13.0% in 2001 and a record high of 18.0% in 2003.1 In 2003, women also accounted
for fully 21% of the newly enrolling physics graduate students in the U.S., indicating that the numbers receiving
Ph.D.s may continue to increase. However, some interesting trends underlie these data. For example, the percentage
of U.S. women who received Ph.D.s in 2003 still hovered around the 13.0% mark. Yet, what seems to be a recent
dramatic increase of women physicists was driven, in part, by the large participation of foreign women in Ph.D.
programs in the U.S. It is also true that the actual number of Ph.D.s awarded to women between 1994 and 2001
decreased, but this was offset by an even larger decrease in the number of such degrees awarded to men. The numbers
of women receiving Ph.D.s increased in both 2002 and 2003. Finally, while women’s participation in physics has
been steadily increasing, it still lags behind the increases seen in other physical sciences, with the exception of
engineering, which shows a trend similar to physics.

U.S. women of non-European descent are particularly underrepresented in physics. These women of color (WOC)
face particular challenges of invisibility and alienation in U.S. physics. For example, between 1995 and 2001, of
approximately 3800 physics bachelor degrees awarded annually, African-American and Hispanic women were granted
an average of only 1.5% and 0.6% each year, respectively. At the Ph.D. level, between 1997 and 2003, of
approximately 1100 degrees awarded each year, African-American and Hispanic women received an average of 0.5%
degrees annually. In 2001, no Ph.D.s in physics were granted to Native Americans or Native Alaskans.1 Not
surprisingly, representation of WOC also suffers in academia. This fact also applies to Asian-American women, who
are generally better represented at the bachelor’s and Ph.D. levels in physics. According to a 2002 survey conducted
by Donna J. Nelson, in the “top 50” U.S. physics departments, only 23 Asian, 8 Hispanic/Latina or Chicana, and no
African-American, Native-American, or Native-Alaskan women were reported as faculty members.3 Clearly, in the
specific context of physics, there is an interaction between race/ethnicity and gender that works to exclude WOC.
Further interesting trends for U.S. women physicists in academia emerge in the AIP study.1 In an examination of
the “pipeline” in physics, the report notes that women disproportionately leave physics between completion of high
school and receiving an undergraduate degree. Less than one-fourth of physics bachelor’s degrees are awarded to
women while they make up nearly half of high school physics students. Despite their high participation in high school
physics they are a smaller percentage of the group of students that takes the Advanced Placement (AP) physics exam.1
Clearly, university and college physics departments need to pay closer attention to fostering a welcoming environment
and to improving undergraduate curricula and instruction in order to retain more young women at this critical point in
students’ education. Fortunately, the gender gap is diminished once the students move on to graduate level, where
retention rates for men and women are similar. Some of the most encouraging news in the study is the percentage of
women pursuing academic careers in 2002, where their representation at various stages of the academic ladder—5% of
Full Professors, 11% of Associate Professors, and 16% of Assistant Professors—is commensurate with past degree
production. However, among the top 50 NSF-ranked science and engineering departments, physics had one of the
three lowest percentages of female assistant professors in elite departments: 11.2%, compared with the national
average of 16%.3 For women in astronomy the situation is better with 26% of Ph.D.s awarded to women and nearly
double the percentage of women faculty in astronomy at each academic level, as compared with Ph.D. recipients in
prior years (10%, 23% and 23% respectively, 2003). 1 In 2001, women comprised 13% of the physical and related
sciences Ph.D.s working in business or industry and approximately 11% of the physical and related sciences Ph.D.s
working in the federal government. 2

Given the undeniable progress that women in physics have made in the U.S., there are still challenges that remain
to be addressed. Among the group of employed science and engineering doctorate holders in 2001 women are less
likely to be married (67.2% of women vs. 83.2% of men), although they are also twice as likely to be divorced (11.8%
vs. 5.8%). Women are approximately twice as likely to have a spouse who is employed full time (84.4% vs. 45.9%)
and the majority of these spouses have technical careers requiring at least a bachelor’s degree (50.2% vs. 31.1%).1
This means that the dual technical career or “two-body problem” has a disproportionate effect on women pursuing
careers in physics. Even though the statistics presented discuss marriage in particular it is reasonable to generalize
this issue to women physicists trying to balance a personal relationship with the desire to have a successful career. A
number of strategies have been proposed to address this issue including split positions, spousal hiring programs,
alternative academic positions, and long-distance commuting.4 Although many societal pressures may underlie these
issues, including the still-prevalent view of women as the primary caregivers in a family (caring for children, aging
parents, a spouse or partner) and the unfortunately persistent myth that women have less intrinsic aptitude for science
and math (“hard” sciences), the fact is that technical careers have a different impact on the lives of women who pursue
them relative to their male colleagues.

Women of color in the U.S. face additional challenges in studying and working in the predominantly white male
environment of physics. As undergraduates, they often lack opportunities to do research and are unlikely to encounter
WOC role models. Further, they frequently sense that they are not considered competent or intelligent because their
physical appearance does not comply with prevalent images of the “standard” physicist. 5 At the graduate level,
African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American women (among others) often do not persist in science because they
receive no encouragement, which can effectively “produce the same result as active discouragement.” 3 Among those
who do receive Ph.D.s, their alienating graduate school experiences often lead them to seek employment outside of
academia. 7 The AIP study states, “Minority women especially represent a great, untapped resource.” 1 To draw on
this resource, much greater attention and effort are needed to recruit, retain, and serve minority women in physics.
It is now generally recognizedthat the future health of physics in the U.S. depends on ensuring that all capable and
interested students are invited, encouraged, and helped to see the broad range of careers they can pursue with a physics
degree. It is especially urgent to cultivate the talent and ideas of women, minorities, and others who are traditionally
underrepresented and underserved in physics.

DKM: CItation needed.

I gave a link to a pdf for my claim that you are wrong wrong fucking wrong in your claims about women and physics.

Names, pictures, links, or it’s just a product of your deranged imagination and wish fulfillment.

Meller: If I determined the programming, it would be VERY different…

No doubt, but the Gor novels don’t have that much difference between them, it would get a bit repetitive.

What is “Fascinating Womanhood”? Do I wanna know?

Meller: You are, once again, missing the fundamental point here – Not everyone likes or wants the same things you like or want!! You like traditionally feminine, submissive women. There are tons of such women out there – admittedly, mostly in religious groups like Mormon fundamentalists and Quiverfull communities, but such women do exist. Won’t you please devote your time to finding you perfect furry sub and quit whingeing on about how horrible modern women are on a feminist blog?

And hey, this avowed feminist just put a homemade pizza in the oven. Has you head exploded yet?

DKM: Silly boy, you practice unisexism and a unigender model, wanting all women to conform to a very narrow fluffy standard of behavior and sexual attraction.

We’re all about expanding the rainbow so that there can be women expressing gender hundreds of ways, including masculine women, and ditto sexualities — HUNDREDS.

Not one boring on “leave it to beaver”model you want.

SO you could accuse us, but it would be as laughable as all your other accusations and claims (and also wrong wrong fucking wrong).

KathleenB: No, we, it seems, are missing the point, REAL Women and REAL Men (which we aren’t, no matter what it might appear to look at our bodies) all want to live in the Mellerian Gender Utopia.

Intelligent people also all agree with him on Politics.

Since we are at variance, Q.E.D. we are not REAL People, ant lack intelligence. If we were either of those things, we’d agree with him.

Question Begging, anyone can do it, and everything is easier when a Scotsman does it.

Their website is fascinatingwomanhood.net

You probably don’t WANT to know, Molly Ren, but you may well NEED to know what they are saying. Look at feminism as the disease, and fascinating womanhood, along with the Surrendered wife; (website being http://www.Surrenderedwife.com) as the cure.

And sister, are you badly infected!!