I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
Naturally, these results apply to males and females averaged over a
group, and not to all individuals.
That's all a lot of people are saying. Also, the female babies preferred the face OR had no preference between the two, whereas the male babies had a preference for the mobile. That's pretty interesting.
Women aren't 50% of engineers because they have the choice not to be. We should look at our progressive Muslim brothers and sisters, they have found the answer!
A little oppression goes a long way towards equality! The threat of starvation and stoning is surely a better motivator than these (((quotas)))
Like I said(also true for every shitty country, including literally shitty countries like India,Bangladesh etc). Republican rape squads would solve your problems in a week.
When other factors are controlled for, then gender differences dominate. That's why the highest gender gaps between professions occur in the most egalitarian societies. Nordic countries.
The nurse-engineering gap is the same across the world. As for why women go into STEM more often in a few middle eastern countries it's likely because women in general have fewer paths to success and STEM is viewed as the best way.
So you're saying that in the countries where more women go into science/engineering, also in those countries proportionally more men go into nursing? So the nurse-engineering gap is the same?
What are you actually trying to say?
lol @ thinking I'm going to watch a 40 minute youtube.
What bullshit? Pointing out that you can't even hold together a coherent argument within the context of a single reddit thread?
Look, very few people outside /r/gendercritical would claim that men and women naturally have 100% identical preferences, but clinging to naive biological determinism and acting as though it's somehow the more justified scientific position is equally retarded.
Do you do this with other aspects of society? Glance at whatever the status quo in 2017 happens to be, and then declare that it's biologically determined and therefore not worth examining or trying to change?
What bullshit? Pointing out that you can't even hold together a coherent argument within the context of a single reddit thread?
The argument was perfectly coherent. Your illiteracy is not my incoherence.
Do you do this with other aspects of society? Glance at whatever the status quo in 2017 happens to be, and then declare that it's biologically determined and therefore not worth examining or trying to change?
No, but when the government obsesses over this difference at the expense of students, we have a problem.
And we have been trying, for a number of years now and it isn't fucking working.
It worked with law.
It worked with medicine.
Why isn't it working with engineering? Is your solution to double down on clearly false ideas?
My hypothesis is that engineering nerds are gross and weird. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, women are programmed by their ovaries to seek out high-value men with great genes. That means avoiding engineers at all costs. Statistics clearly show that women are so desperate to avoid contact with this male-failures, or malures, if you will, that they will do nearly anything instead, even marketing.
My theory is definitely correct and scientific, because I used the words biology and genes, instead of the words "society" and "culture" (which are unscientific things that don't exist and never affect anyone).
The only way we would ever get more women in engineering is if we could kill off enough of the male-ures and replace them with virile Chads to make engineering appealing to ovaries.
If Danmore’s memo is one of the better sourced forms of this argument, and Trump supporters like him, does this mean that the issue is in your head rent free?
Sorry, If this is the google guy I'm not interested in reading his delusional manifesto that seems to be written to prop up his conservative victim complex.
Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is an American political advocate who is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases. A Republican,[4] he is the primary promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate.[5] Prior to the November 2012 election, the pledge was signed by 95% of all Republican members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Republicans just haven't caught onto the fact their tacts end up increasing the size of government because they're completely irrational.
Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."[13]
1
Economist Paul Krugman summarized as: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan—and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."
"Small government" has been one of the major calling card of Republicans since the Tea Party. Just about the only thing Republicans consistently enlarge is the military.
I mean, that's a pretty legitimate thing to whine about no matter how pathetic you want to make it sound. Not only that, in a thread where you whine about women being biologically different from men is sexist
He got fired because employees sperging about gender difference and diversity is bad PR. He emailed it to his superiors incessantly for a long time, he only got fired when it was leaked.
Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes, and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors. Differences have been found in a variety of fields such as mental health, cognitive abilities, personality, and tendency towards aggression. Such variation may be both innate or learned and is often very difficult to distinguish. Modern research attempts to distinguish between such differences, and to analyze any ethical concerns raised.
But he just links the papers. You open the document, and it’s got a table of contents, some chat about google, and it’s into summaries of studies with lots of blue words. If you are too retarded to parse that, maybe you do deserve Trump in your head rent free.
Here’s an excerpt, I’ve lost all the links in copying it.
Personality differences Women, on average, have more :
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things , relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
There’s no way you can call that anything other than a straight up summary of the studies. Fucking mayo.
You know what? You're now the first person I've ever blocked on Reddit. I don't even mind people sperging out at me, but what I do mind is just the complete lack of real arguments and focus on political opinions over facts.
You're just boring.
To point out that conservatives are far better at making and understanding his argument than your kind. The people who are ignoring the science here are almost exclusively progressives, and the progressive establishment has some sort of fetish for diversity hiring.
Also to remind you that Trump is in your head rent free.
To point out that conservatives are far better at making and understanding his argument than your kind.
They don't. They have no concept of what they're talking about really. The only reason they're even on that side is because the progressives are on the other side, and even then they often take it too far.
The people who are ignoring the science here are almost exclusively progressives
Other than pointing out that you dismissed the manifesto out of hand because you disagreed with the author. If you weren’t so entertaining I would’ve just said “there are more studies linked in the google manifesto”, but I assumed I’d be able to get a rise out of you.
Other than pointing out that you dismissed the manifesto out of hand because you disagreed with the author.
No, I dismissed his personal opinions and not because I disagree with him, because I don't care about his opinions.
If you weren’t so entertaining I would’ve just said “there are more studies linked in the google manifesto”, but I assumed I’d be able to get a rise out of you.
Really? Because it seems to me you were just trying to screech at "progressives" as if I give a shit about your opinions in relation to said progressives.
I said “the google manifesto is one of the better sourced forms of this argument”, and you said “I’m not interested in reading his delusional manifesto written to prop up his conservative victim complex”.
You dismissed the claim that the manifesto was a well sourced form of the argument because you disagree with the politics of the author.
From there I just wanted to see how far the ride could go. Is this the point you concede you’re a biased tard with no actual objectivity?
I pointed out it was well sourced. You dismissed him due to his politics.
It is either:
1) A well sourced and phrased form of the argument, in which case you should read it if you have any interest in the topic(which you linking a study shows you do).
or
2) Badly sourced and phrased, in which case you should be able to dismiss it without ad hominem attacks against the author.
Which of the two is it? That’s a simple yes or no question.
I pointed out it was well sourced. You dismissed him due to his politics.
Again, I didn't dismiss the papers, I dismissed HIM. Because I do not care about his conservative victim complex.
Which of the two is it? That’s a simple yes or no question.
3) Dripping with his own personal ideology. The entire thing is a thinly veiled diatribe against diversity. I'm not going to read a single word he types, the only thing I care about is the papers.
I only lifted the sources off two pages in the comment where I linked a bunch. There are just as many studies linked in the manifesto which I didn’t put in the comment. Now that you’ve conceded an interest in the studies, are you willing to open the manifesto again to click the links(you don’t even have to read it, just click the blue words).
It’s not even a document written by him anymore, it’s a duplicate created by Vice from a bunch of leaked copies.
At which point will you admit that you’re so close minded you can’t begin to imagine agreeing with a conservative bogeyman on anything?
I will not be clicking on anything written by that person and as for your claim about "agreeing with a conservative" I've literally voted Republican before.
I'm not dogmatic on any level, whatsoever. I agree with conservatives on a few issues and have no problem saying that.
And after reading that article (somewhat) it seems the entire manifesto heavily relates to his personal opinions.
Which is exactly why I refuse to read it. All of the research that's been cited is research I've already read before, it's common research which is another reason I didn't click on it.
The only value the manifesto offers, within this context, is his opinions because I'm already familiar with the research.
Wait, you disagree with the idea that hiring for diversity is bad? Your initial comment seemed to promote the opposite.
I don't think hiring diversity is bad within reason. The problem is the extent to which SJWs take it. That being said, the people that claim there are no actual problems and that there isn't bias on some level against certain ethnic groups in certain fields are every bit as bad as the SJWs that greatly exaggerate that bias.
Also, I doubt you've read every study linked in the manifesto(there's only one way for you to improve that, and it involves opening the document).
Friend, I'm been in the anti-feminist community for a very long time and I promise you right now there is not a single study in that document I've not seen cited before.
So you've "been in the anti-feminist community for a very long time", but you vehemently disagree with "most anti-feminists", to the extent of refusing to read something that espouses their views?
Are you trolling? I've said multiple times I likely agree with much of what he says.
My problem with the manifesto is his "woe is me" conservative victim complex which is the same victim complex conservatives push in relation to many things, the most obvious being the media and science.
Here's his table of contents(since you won't open the document)
Reply to public response and misrepresentation
TL;DR
Background
Google’s biases
Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech
Personality differences
Men’s higher drive for status
Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
The harm of Google’s biases
Why we’re blind
Suggestions
And his tl;dr:
● Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety .
● This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
● The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
○ Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
○ Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
● Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
● Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Please tell me exactly where he's hiding his "woe is me victim complex". What if you've accepted his portrayal in the media mindlessly?
And then he got fired for expressing his conservative opinions 🤔
I really don't want to go into this with you, but you can't say science hasn't repressed the idea that gender fluidity might not be normal(my sex junk is so oh oh oh) and the media has certainly repressed the concept that marriage being between a man and woman for the purposes of procreation might be a good idea.
And then he got fired for expressing his conservative opinions 🤔
No, he got fired for a far more valid reason. Because after publishing that memo, there was not a single team he could be put on.
He had created a textbook hostile work environment.
Even if every single thing he said was perfectly accurate - you've still created conflict, you've still created a toxic environment. Engineering is a team game, and teams don't function as well in an environment like this.
I agree with most of what that guy said and if I was in charge of hiring people at google, or team building, I'd fire his ass on the spot. There's a time and a place for stuff like this, and internal company memos are not that place.
"Someone else made the same argument that I'm making with sources that I approve of but I'm going to call him a shitty wrong-political-alignment baby because wah wah"
pssshh those babies may have been only one day old and displayed sexual dimorphism in mechanical perception but prove they weren't exposed to sexism in the womb.
Their sexist parents probably talked about how unborn timmy is going to be an astronaut while sally is going to be a great homemaker. Fetus' can hear you know. We need prenatal women in STEM workshops.
Biology is a social construct. Without humans there would be no biology, hence everything we (((know))) is an illusion. Just like money, love, or genitals.
u/candydaze has to be functionally retarded or something. People buy construction sets for boys and dolls for girls because that's what they overwhelmingly want and ask for. Just because you're an outlier doesn't mean the average doesn't exist.
And blaming "society" for which classes students themselves choose to take, as elective courses? I thought engineers were supposed to be smart, but I guess not.
It this moment, I am euphoric, not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my ability to keep posting that one study where the roastie babies looked at faces for a long time.
Plz help, I want to swear allegiance to The Progressive Truth. Which of the following is true and which is heresy:
there are no meaningful sex-linked mental differences
transgenderism is real - people are really born with brains whose sex doesn't match the sex of their bodies, and this is such a big difference for them that the healthier option is for them to change their own genitals.
lmao got 'em 100% woke. BTW, I want to swear allegiance to The Progressive Truth. Can you tell me which of the following is true and which is heresy:
there are no meaningful sex-linked mental differences
transgender people are born with brains whose sex doesn't match the sex of their bodies, and this is such a big difference that hormone therapy and genital surgery is often medically necessary.
This isn't /r/gendercritical. Obviously there are meaningful sex-linked differences in the brain.
Where you retards jump the shark is claiming the existence of sex-linked differences means societal factors are negligible or negate the existence of discrimination.
If all those out of work coal miners in Appalachia would retrain as nurses (or hell, nursing aides), they could get avoid the black lung, get off welfare, and make pretty solid money. But they don't. I guess men are just too biologically handicapped to work in the accessory healthcare professions.
Where you retards jump the shark is claiming the existence of sex-linked differences means societal factors are negligible or negate the existence of discrimination.
I'm sure there are retards who think that. I accept that nature and nurture are key parts of socialization.
I guess I just disagree with the mentality of "we should always assume nurture until proven otherwise, and evidence sufficient to prove otherwise to our satisfaction will not exist in our lifetime."
I've known many woman who make very talented programmers, but if it were true that, on a distribution level, less women will like engineering work than other kind of work, then wouldn't the massive expenditure of resources to push women into the field for that 50% 50% ratio result in a lot of women needlessly going into a field they won't like?
I agree that we should incentivize people into training programs for roles that are in demand in the future. I don't accept the whole "if an industry is not 50-50% it is necessarily the result of institutional sexism and represents an urgent policy mandate" thing.
then wouldn't the massive expenditure of resources to push women into the field for that 50% 50% ratio result in a lot of women needlessly going into a field they won't like?
Sure, I mostly agree with that. I'll just say the following:
Nobody with any kind of realistic outlook is aiming for 50:50 ratio. Today, engineering is like 20% female, CS is maybe 25%. As recently as the 1980s, CS was close to 40% female, so that seems like a more reasonable goal?
You can change these fields, or at least the way these fields are presented in schools to make them more appealing to women (and also to men who aren't autistic human calculators). Harvey Mudd College revamped their CS curriculum to focus on real-world problem solving and they've now got 48.8% female CS majors., and HMC is not some joke college: it's one of the top engineering schools in the US and competes directly with schools like Caltech and MIT.
Harvey Mudd College revamped their CS curriculum to focus on real-world problem solving and they've now got 48.8% female CS majors.
Harvey Mudd also engages in massive AA for women in this field (women are something like 2.5x as likely to be accepted as men) and gives them perks like flying accepted women to the campus. Their program 'worked' in the sense that they got the numbers up, but I don't think it had much to do with changes to the curriculum nor would those changes do as much if replicated elsewhere.
In a related note: how much would it suck to be a male instructor at Harvey Mudd and realize your gender means you're never going to be promoted?
In a related note: how much would it suck to be a male instructor at Harvey Mudd and realize your gender means your career is essentially frozen?
Maybe as much as it sucks to be a female employee at lots of other jobs?
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by an "essentially frozen" career. There's no evidence men are being denied tenure, and if you're already a tenured professor at an elite school you've pretty much reached the highest pinnacle of your career ladder. You can do basically whatever you want without getting fired, and research anything you're interested in.
after a year in college in engineering i started meeting people not in the faculty and i was very pleased to discover they're regularly mocked by like every other faculty
Maybe kids like the things they like because of what people have given them in the past, what other kids are playing with, what they see their parents doing, or the millions of dollars that get spent on adds every year aimed at kids.
Or maybe girls just have a strand of easy bake oven DNA, but I doubt it.
You know there's a difference between being a mirror image of ShitRedditSays types and just acknowledging that humanity is not unique amongst sexually dimorphic species, right?
There are gender differences. Not all of them are down to socialization alone.
yeah, but it's also stupid to say "lol look at this dumb bitch who thinks the culture we grow up could influence our opinions and decisions" like /u/nmx179
Nah, what's stupid is saying "lol look at this dumb bitch who thinks our opinions and decisions aren't influenced by 1.2 billion years of sexually selected evolution" the way you are.
Obviously knitting is an atavism, related to removing parasites from each others (these tend to accumulate when you spend your days lazing around in your filth in a cave).
i understand your hateboner for me clouds your brain sometimes, but i literally started my comment by agreeing with the statement "There are gender differences. Not all of them are down to socialization alone."
And I never denied that culture can influence people's behavior, so i thought exaggerated, incorrect caricatures of each other's views were just what we were doing here.
And the entire 'society told them to' argument is putting the cart before the horse. Society wasn't conditioned by 'muh oppressive patriarchs', it is what it is. If more doll ads are geared towards little girls, it's because they provide better marginal utility on that investment than little boys do, same for more ads geared towards boys.
There's a reason the conventions are same across thousands of societies that were barely in contact till the advent of the internet and mass media and there's a reason none of the outlying matriarchal societies made it beyond the tribal phase.
Because men could overpower women. Now we don't base society around who can bonk other people on the head the hardest (unfortunately) but we are still descended from that.
Maybe it's that back when bonking on the head was an important job men became providers and we have just continued that trend past it's usefulness. Or maybe women have less wrinkles on their brain than the avg man.
The entire reason society was established was to take away advantage from those who were physically strong and make them subservient to the collective, the representatives of which have always been mentally strong. There can be women who take up that role, there have been plenty in fact. Even in societies as male dominated as piracy, there have been women who have risen to the top by their mental acumen.
There is no grand conspiracy pulling women down because they are physically weaker, it's just statistics that means they are on average, dumber. It's funny how you don't address the IQ curve at all, though, and base your argument solely on emotion.
Of course, you can continue to deny that it is because it hurts some people's feelings but truth is that high IQ scores correlate overwhelmingly to success in life, which is obviously a result of higher intelligence.
Only if you're a retard who thinks he's intelligent.
Seriously, mate, I live in a third world country that had a very tiny educated population, ~20% 60 years back. You think the 'struggle' in First World countries is bad? You should talk to more than half of our current middle class, they are all first generation learners. The kind of struggle they went through is something even your poorest would never face, and they prevailed despite all that, because they worked hard and they were intelligent. Fuck, there are people who could barely afford textbooks in my college, and they cracked an entrance exam where you have to be in the top 1% to get a decent seat, an exam where more than half their competitors came from privileged as fuck backgrounds. Intelligence and hard work is literally all it takes, but since complaining about the 'system' is all you retards can do, you'll keep at it. If you're from Somalia or something, I can understand that intelligence might not make you succeed. But if you are sitting in a Western country and bitching about the system, you should just keep yourself safe. If you can't make it there, you are a waste of space.
Monkey studies00107-1/abstract) show gender preference in toy play and sex-linked toy preferences shows up in infants before they are old enough to develop self awareness of gender
You have to remember that u/candydaze is likely severely autistic (hence the engineering and the feminism) and is likely trying to mislead us by what she thinks appears to us as an application of fact, like magic, but lacks the theory of mind to realize that we're not dumb animals and we can see right through her.
Nah you’re no autist. Your a perpetual complainer. You are going to be the go to “ anecdotal proof that engineering is sexist” person for the rest of your life.
It's like when crazy parents try to raise their kids as non-gender conforming as possible, but surprise surprise, Mary secretly loves Frozen, dolls, and pink, while John secretly loves action cartoons, action figures, and blue.
I dare you to wear a tutu in public and not be called gay. You like romance oh thats kinda gay, you like cooking oh thats kinda gay. Yea of course society has us into roles and its weird to be outside of that role. If you go around wearing a dress you will get some strange looks. Now same thing with careers. "Oh you make wedding dresses, thats kinda gay".
Not amount of Libertarian think of "free will" can escape you from the influences of society.
That analogy literally retarded. Society can call me gay all the fuck they want, why the fuck should they tell me who I am? You know who knows me the best? Me.
Boohoooooo I'm a failure because of my environment, it's definitely not because I'm a failure!
Boohoooooo I'm a failure because of my environment, it's definitely not because I'm a failure!
By using that logic are African Americans just all failures? Yep absolutely nothing to do with the residue of 100s of years of oppression. Or the fact that short men are a small fraction CEOs are just because short men naturally suck at being leadership positions?
Is u/lizzyh94 literally too stupid to understand that asking people out on dates is a normal thing that guys and girls do? Or does she just hate male engineers that much?
That was the best. You already have one thing in common, maybe you like the girl already and you just want to ask her out. Now this is being aggressive and sexist. White women are a mistake
Your comment shows your view. While arguing a point why not keep the insults out of it? Ask the girl out that's fine. Once she says no move on. But I doubt you're that forward.
It's hard to take people seriously when they start the argument with "but you see, the toys of the children!!! And one person one time said i shouldn't do this. This is society's fault!". Sometimes your parents know you're a retard and don't want you to take some civil engineering degree knowing you'd embarrass yourself and be another college dropout.
In my field of work that is supposed to be dominated by men more and more women are showing up and i honestly don't see sexism. There are some (ew gross) men that are unpleasant but you will always find this everywhere. If you think men are sexist only in stem field and this decreases the chances of brave womyn to go to work, you need to take a step back and think about what you want.
It's easier to dismiss problems that lie in grey areas by screeching "muh sexism" rather than to do something about the problems.
Now I'd like it if there were more people in STEM, and no people pursuing useless degrees that focus on """theories""" such as critical race theory, gender theory etc.
Are there sexists in the STEM fields ? Yeah there are.
Are the STEM fields themselves Sexist ? Fuck no.
STEM fields primarily function as meritocracies, where your gender doesn't matter for your ideas to be influential.
Now people might say, "But Shaggy, you're ignoring the fact that society conditions men into STEM fields while discouraging girls from getting into them. This is why we need feminism !"
I shall not dismiss your points. And honestly, I think anyone can succeed in STEM if you put the right effort in the right direction, irrespective of gender. But I don't agree that saying that "society" discourages girls from STEM. I think it has more to do with personal interests rather than "muh sexism" or "muh sexual dimorphism". It is better in fields of STEM to treat people as a individuals rather than lumping together based on race, gender, sexuality etc.
When you're in STEM fields, your identity doesn't matter, but your effort and intellect does. There is a reason why we don't have gender and race quotas in mathematics departments after all.
Every time I see people arguing (like in the linked thread) that genetics cannot be the cause for differences between men and women picking different careers I get irrationally mad.
We know for a fact that men and women are different in many ways. They have different voices, different genitals, different hormones, different skin texture, different body shape and so on. Those are fact. But to suggest that men and women might have different brains is implausible to these fucks.
I don't have evidence for either. But neither does modern science yet, so maybe don't be so quick to blame everything on society and dismiss any potential differences in the way men and women think.
/u/candydaze all the girls I knew as kids grew up playing with Lego, too. And Tonka trucks. And basically every other "boy" toy. Girls who like this aren't special or different or rare. Parents buy whatever their kids think is cool. Boy's toys are effectively universal. If anything, boys are probably more turned off by the bright pink colors of an Easy-Bake Oven than girls are of generic light-up swords.
Maybe a good deal of their interests are just, I dunno, ingrained in them from birth, and the stuff they ask their parents to buy them is based more on their self-image and desires than on "society made them do it!".
Also, I don't know any girls who regretted taking wood shop. They had a good time. Sounds like you're projecting an experience you had onto everyone else.
What I have seen is lots of girls pursuing harden STEM majors drop down to easier ones. Lots of potential chemists went to biology who then often went to some kind of therapy or technician certificate program. Seems more common than with guys to just wash-out entirely and change focus. But, then, that's just me projecting my experience onto others. Although the numbers seem to back-up that lots of them just lose interest in STEM and start to back off of it. Even those in majors where women are the majority.
My wife is really good at math, they got her to go into engineering (They being the university) she hated it and got out. Pretty much normal for most women in engineering.
If you don't think male and female brains have some fundamental differences, odds are you don't get laid much.
During my student time in electonic engineering school, we shared our building and some of the classes with chemical engineering students. Because of that it was 50/50 between guys and girls.
I can assure you u/lizzyh94, it's not because you have a vagina that people treat you differently, it's because you have absolutely no personnailty. Although they WILL treat you differently if they want to sleep with you ( I know, sex?...ew...gross...creepy...) but that's no really happening in your case as far as I understand from the time your classmates made a comment about girls you heard, took personnaly, but kept silent. Again, because no personnality.
I didn't think much of it at the time, but my mom witnessed it, and was absolutely livid
Still laughing at that. You're an adult, grow up.
234 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-05
I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
Snapshots:
This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is
/u/aivan021 - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is*
makes a massive mistake - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is
/u/lizzyh94 - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is*
gets her feefees hurt at the 'abhor... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 hexane360 2017-11-05
Snappie going for the kill
1 Alexlincoln2 2017-11-05
Bot really is sapient
1 Fuish 2017-11-05
Sapient and sentient.
1 22C9 2017-11-05
Snappy please, you're making me upset ;_;
1 shaneoffline 2017-11-05
Girls have feelings, boys don't.
Fight me.
1 0987654231 2017-11-05
Yup there's no way men and women could have different brains
1 SnackBier 2017-11-05
For humans evolution stops at the neck, didn't you know?
Anyways, gotta go and accuse people of science denial.
1 MoonCricketJamFace 2017-11-05
No, it stops at the skin.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
They'll literally never admit that men and women are just different.
There's a good paper on this very topic:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.1904&rep=rep1&type=pdf
1 zwiebelhans 2017-11-05
Saved that post. Great work!
1 parameciidae 2017-11-05
That's all a lot of people are saying. Also, the female babies preferred the face OR had no preference between the two, whereas the male babies had a preference for the mobile. That's pretty interesting.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Here's the thing though. Feminists constantly claim women aren't 50% of engineers due to social programming and that's clearly false.
On some level, this is biological. Does it apply to ALL women? No, but likely enough to keep the number of female engineers under 50%.
This combined with the fact girls experience higher levels of math anxiety than boys do paints a pretty clear picture they refuse to accept.
1 RobBobGlove 2017-11-05
Women aren't 50% of engineers because they have the choice not to be. We should look at our progressive Muslim brothers and sisters, they have found the answer!
A little oppression goes a long way towards equality! The threat of starvation and stoning is surely a better motivator than these (((quotas)))
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Women in those countries are actually more likely to go into STEM than western women, interesting enough.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2015/12/09/set-to-take-over-tech-70-of-irans-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/
1 RobBobGlove 2017-11-05
Like I said(also true for every shitty country, including literally shitty countries like India,Bangladesh etc). Republican rape squads would solve your problems in a week.
Probably should start by banning female drivers
1 GunOfSod 2017-11-05
When other factors are controlled for, then gender differences dominate. That's why the highest gender gaps between professions occur in the most egalitarian societies. Nordic countries.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-11-05
Postmodern feminism can't be checkmated since it refuses to acknowledge there is a board. Can't lose if you don't play, idiot.
1 parameciidae 2017-11-05
Sure. The people who say it's all social programming and the people who say it's all biology are both wrong.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Biology is a far more likely reason, and it's one supported by research.
There's a reason the nurse-engineering gap is pretty much the same across the entire planet.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
/u/pizzashill:
Also /u/pizzashill:
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Are you like retarded?
The nurse-engineering gap is the same across the world. As for why women go into STEM more often in a few middle eastern countries it's likely because women in general have fewer paths to success and STEM is viewed as the best way.
In western countries there are more paths.
Your illiteracy is the problem here.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
Yeah, so which is it? Is it the same everywhere, or do societal pressures impact women's choices?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Are you illiterate? The nurse-engineering gap is different than the total STEM gap.
I just explained to you why there are more women in science in a select few countries, they aren't the norm though.
There's an entire series on this very subject that explains it: https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70?t=1780
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
So you're saying that in the countries where more women go into science/engineering, also in those countries proportionally more men go into nursing? So the nurse-engineering gap is the same?
What are you actually trying to say?
lol @ thinking I'm going to watch a 40 minute youtube.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I linked you the youtube video at the correct time, the part in question is about 2-3mins long.
You can watch it and learn something, or keep up this bullshit.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
What bullshit? Pointing out that you can't even hold together a coherent argument within the context of a single reddit thread?
Look, very few people outside /r/gendercritical would claim that men and women naturally have 100% identical preferences, but clinging to naive biological determinism and acting as though it's somehow the more justified scientific position is equally retarded.
Do you do this with other aspects of society? Glance at whatever the status quo in 2017 happens to be, and then declare that it's biologically determined and therefore not worth examining or trying to change?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
The argument was perfectly coherent. Your illiteracy is not my incoherence.
No, but when the government obsesses over this difference at the expense of students, we have a problem.
And we have been trying, for a number of years now and it isn't fucking working.
It worked with law.
It worked with medicine.
Why isn't it working with engineering? Is your solution to double down on clearly false ideas?
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
My hypothesis is that engineering nerds are gross and weird. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, women are programmed by their ovaries to seek out high-value men with great genes. That means avoiding engineers at all costs. Statistics clearly show that women are so desperate to avoid contact with this male-failures, or malures, if you will, that they will do nearly anything instead, even marketing.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Well, that's as good a theory as "the education system oppresses women."
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
My theory is definitely correct and scientific, because I used the words biology and genes, instead of the words "society" and "culture" (which are unscientific things that don't exist and never affect anyone).
The only way we would ever get more women in engineering is if we could kill off enough of the male-ures and replace them with virile Chads to make engineering appealing to ovaries.
1 im-a-koala 2017-11-05
It look a lot of effort, but you managed to come out of this argument looking more retarded than /u/pizzashill.
1 elwombat 2017-11-05
Well now you're on Google's hiring black list.
1 RobBobGlove 2017-11-05
Female babies preferred faces, while male babies had a preference for rape.
1 parameciidae 2017-11-05
We didn't need a study to tell us that.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
If Danmore’s memo is one of the better sourced forms of this argument, and Trump supporters like him, does this mean that the issue is in your head rent free?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Sorry, If this is the google guy I'm not interested in reading his delusional manifesto that seems to be written to prop up his conservative victim complex.
1 Trajan_ 2017-11-05
What? He's not even conservative lmao.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
The guy from google? Pretty sure he was.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
He agrees with you. Better kill yourself because you're officially a Trumpkin today, pizza.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Might want to hold off on exposing your stupidity. Agreeing with someone on a few issues the right also agrees on does not make someone a 'Trumpkin."
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-11-05
Today, we are all Trumpkins
1 Trajan_ 2017-11-05
Libertarian actually. Says so in the first page of his paper.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
"American libertarian" just means "conservative that doesn't want to identify as a conservative."
1 Trajan_ 2017-11-05
Bit of a no true scotsman fallacy my dude.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Uh no, it's really not. It's just a fact.
1 Trajan_ 2017-11-05
[Citation Needed]
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Citation? reality.
Which party do libertarians vote for?
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-11-05
The Libertarian Party?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
No.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
My dude, this is just depressing how misinformed you are
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
How misinformed I am?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
Sounds like the opposite of the republican party to me
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
You know literally nothing about the republican party.
To be clear here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
Republicans just haven't caught onto the fact their tacts end up increasing the size of government because they're completely irrational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
1
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-05
"Small government" has been one of the major calling card of Republicans since the Tea Party. Just about the only thing Republicans consistently enlarge is the military.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
Mfw the military isn't part of the government to you mental retards
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-05
Mfw you think that American Libertarians actually care much at all about military enlargement.
Being called a retard by someone who believes that American "Libertarians" aren't just Republicans right of the moderates is rich.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
Mfw some tankie argues libertarians are the same as republicans, but would fight to the death that socialists aren't the same as democrats.
maintain your safety you cromagnon
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-05
Rofl, how am I at all a tankie? Or is that what your rodent brain reverts to whenever someone doesn't agree with you?
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
Okay well if you're willing to agree that then yes I'll say on a spectrum of left to right then you are probably correct.
I thought you were one of those "le both partiez is the same" tanike retards
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-05
lol, no
The other guy is right. American Libertarians are a subset of Republicans.
1 jaredschaffer27 2017-11-05
Imagine being this retarded publicly.
1 im-a-koala 2017-11-05
> anonymous poster on shitpost site
> publicly
1 Trajan_ 2017-11-05
Libertarian actually. Says so in the first page of his paper.
1 Curlgradphi 2017-11-05
He's a libertarian that identifies more with conservatives than leftists/liberals and was complaining that they're being oppressed at google.
1 Curlgradphi 2017-11-05
He's a "libertarian" who whines about liberals and leftists oppressing conservatives at google.
1 Juicy_Brucesky 2017-11-05
I mean, that's a pretty legitimate thing to whine about no matter how pathetic you want to make it sound. Not only that, in a thread where you whine about women being biologically different from men is sexist
1 Curlgradphi 2017-11-05
??
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-11-05
Yeah? I do that all the time and I'd say my views are fairly libertarian.
1 die_rattin 2017-11-05
Technically it was liberals and leftists oppressing everyone who didn't agree with them 100%, which to be fair was amply demonstrated by his firing
1 Curlgradphi 2017-11-05
He got fired because employees sperging about gender difference and diversity is bad PR. He emailed it to his superiors incessantly for a long time, he only got fired when it was leaked.
1 Wordshark 2017-11-05
He shared it once, in a closed (private) group
1 Curlgradphi 2017-11-05
No he didn't, I've listened to JRE where he talks specifically about how he kept sending it to higher ups and kept getting ignored or blown off.
Save correcting people for when you know what you're talking about.
1 cincilator 2017-11-05
He more or less said what you here did.
Also Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
Just to make a point about how retarded you are; here’s the other sources you could’ve used, as linked in his document:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf
http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959290021U?via%3Dihub
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/
https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf
http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.pdf
https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html
https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/#addressing
http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/
Please tell me again about how his manifesto is unsourced, unscientific, and irrational.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-11-05
Sex differences in psychology
Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes, and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors. Differences have been found in a variety of fields such as mental health, cognitive abilities, personality, and tendency towards aggression. Such variation may be both innate or learned and is often very difficult to distinguish. Modern research attempts to distinguish between such differences, and to analyze any ethical concerns raised.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I didn't say it was unsourced or unscientific. It's just the ramblings of a conservative with a victim complex.
Not someone I'd ever consider even looking at, next time just link the papers.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
But he just links the papers. You open the document, and it’s got a table of contents, some chat about google, and it’s into summaries of studies with lots of blue words. If you are too retarded to parse that, maybe you do deserve Trump in your head rent free.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I don't care about his opinions. He's irrelevant to me. A bitch conservative with a victim complex.
The papers will suffice, I'm not interested in reading his interpretation of those papers, his opinions on anything related to them.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
Here’s an excerpt, I’ve lost all the links in copying it.
Personality differences Women, on average, have more :
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
There’s no way you can call that anything other than a straight up summary of the studies. Fucking mayo.
You know what? You're now the first person I've ever blocked on Reddit. I don't even mind people sperging out at me, but what I do mind is just the complete lack of real arguments and focus on political opinions over facts. You're just boring.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I'm baffled as to what argument it is you're even making here.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
To point out that conservatives are far better at making and understanding his argument than your kind. The people who are ignoring the science here are almost exclusively progressives, and the progressive establishment has some sort of fetish for diversity hiring.
Also to remind you that Trump is in your head rent free.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
They don't. They have no concept of what they're talking about really. The only reason they're even on that side is because the progressives are on the other side, and even then they often take it too far.
Your point?
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸 🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸 👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 👌🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌 🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸🐸👌 🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸👌 🐸🐸🐸👌🐸🐸🐸👌🐸🐸🐸👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌🐸👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌 👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 🐸🐸🐸👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
So you have no actual point?
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
Other than pointing out that you dismissed the manifesto out of hand because you disagreed with the author. If you weren’t so entertaining I would’ve just said “there are more studies linked in the google manifesto”, but I assumed I’d be able to get a rise out of you.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
No, I dismissed his personal opinions and not because I disagree with him, because I don't care about his opinions.
Really? Because it seems to me you were just trying to screech at "progressives" as if I give a shit about your opinions in relation to said progressives.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
I said “the google manifesto is one of the better sourced forms of this argument”, and you said “I’m not interested in reading his delusional manifesto written to prop up his conservative victim complex”.
You dismissed the claim that the manifesto was a well sourced form of the argument because you disagree with the politics of the author.
From there I just wanted to see how far the ride could go. Is this the point you concede you’re a biased tard with no actual objectivity?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I dismissed him, again, because I don't care what he says. I'm not even going to read his manifesto.
Again, the papers will suffice.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
I pointed out it was well sourced. You dismissed him due to his politics.
It is either:
1) A well sourced and phrased form of the argument, in which case you should read it if you have any interest in the topic(which you linking a study shows you do).
or
2) Badly sourced and phrased, in which case you should be able to dismiss it without ad hominem attacks against the author.
Which of the two is it? That’s a simple yes or no question.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Again, I didn't dismiss the papers, I dismissed HIM. Because I do not care about his conservative victim complex.
3) Dripping with his own personal ideology. The entire thing is a thinly veiled diatribe against diversity. I'm not going to read a single word he types, the only thing I care about is the papers.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
But the manifesto is well sourced? You haven’t yet refuted that.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
It contains many sources, and those are the only things I care about. Nothing else.
In the future, just link the papers, not massive manifestos riddled with someone's personal ideology.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
I only lifted the sources off two pages in the comment where I linked a bunch. There are just as many studies linked in the manifesto which I didn’t put in the comment. Now that you’ve conceded an interest in the studies, are you willing to open the manifesto again to click the links(you don’t even have to read it, just click the blue words).
It’s not even a document written by him anymore, it’s a duplicate created by Vice from a bunch of leaked copies.
At which point will you admit that you’re so close minded you can’t begin to imagine agreeing with a conservative bogeyman on anything?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I will not be clicking on anything written by that person and as for your claim about "agreeing with a conservative" I've literally voted Republican before.
I'm not dogmatic on any level, whatsoever. I agree with conservatives on a few issues and have no problem saying that.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
But it's literally a document produced by Vice.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
And after reading that article (somewhat) it seems the entire manifesto heavily relates to his personal opinions.
Which is exactly why I refuse to read it. All of the research that's been cited is research I've already read before, it's common research which is another reason I didn't click on it.
The only value the manifesto offers, within this context, is his opinions because I'm already familiar with the research.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
Wait, you disagree with the idea that hiring for diversity is bad? Your initial comment seemed to promote the opposite.
Also, I doubt you've read every study linked in the manifesto(there's only one way for you to improve that, and it involves opening the document).
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I don't think hiring diversity is bad within reason. The problem is the extent to which SJWs take it. That being said, the people that claim there are no actual problems and that there isn't bias on some level against certain ethnic groups in certain fields are every bit as bad as the SJWs that greatly exaggerate that bias.
Friend, I'm been in the anti-feminist community for a very long time and I promise you right now there is not a single study in that document I've not seen cited before.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
So you're with Rawls, not Marx. Good job, you're basically a centrist.
What anti-feminist community is there which wouldn't agree with Danmore?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Uh, I'm ot saying they do. I'm saying I've seen the studies cited before, because they're the standard.
Most anti-feminists would fully agree with him.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
So you've "been in the anti-feminist community for a very long time", but you vehemently disagree with "most anti-feminists", to the extent of refusing to read something that espouses their views?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Are you trolling? I've said multiple times I likely agree with much of what he says.
My problem with the manifesto is his "woe is me" conservative victim complex which is the same victim complex conservatives push in relation to many things, the most obvious being the media and science.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
Here's his table of contents(since you won't open the document)
And his tl;dr:
Please tell me exactly where he's hiding his "woe is me victim complex". What if you've accepted his portrayal in the media mindlessly?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
The paper is riddled with the conservative victim complex dude.
The guy literally threw a tantrum because he didn't think his conservative opinions were accepted.
This is the same shit they try with the media and science.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
And then he got fired for expressing his conservative opinions 🤔
I really don't want to go into this with you, but you can't say science hasn't repressed the idea that gender fluidity might not be normal(my sex junk is so oh oh oh) and the media has certainly repressed the concept that marriage being between a man and woman for the purposes of procreation might be a good idea.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
No, he got fired for a far more valid reason. Because after publishing that memo, there was not a single team he could be put on.
He had created a textbook hostile work environment.
Even if every single thing he said was perfectly accurate - you've still created conflict, you've still created a toxic environment. Engineering is a team game, and teams don't function as well in an environment like this.
I agree with most of what that guy said and if I was in charge of hiring people at google, or team building, I'd fire his ass on the spot. There's a time and a place for stuff like this, and internal company memos are not that place.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
Oh ffs. If you take the purpose of humanity to be production of good offspring, an institution such as marriage becomes vital.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Last time I checked, humans having babies predates Christianity by a lot.
The world is also over populated, if anything we should be having less children.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
So does the concept of monogamy.
If we’re overpopulated, isn’t encouraging families of 2/2 the optimal solution?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Here's a wild thought: Let people do what the fuck they want to do and stop trying to police them.
Christians have no claim on marriage and they have no right to deny others marriage.
1 YiffMeAssange 2017-11-05
So people stop breeding, and we all die?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
How does "let people do what the fuck they want to do" = "stop breeding."
1 backltrack 2017-11-05
God I hate you
1 zahlman 2017-11-05
"Someone else made the same argument that I'm making with sources that I approve of but I'm going to call him a shitty wrong-political-alignment baby because wah wah"
t. you
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
No, a whiny bitch ass conservative decided to write a large manifesto crying oppression, dripping with his own ideology.
I have no interest in reading anything he writes.
1 freet0 2017-11-05
Yet more evidence that engineers aren't scientists
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-05
It's so crazy that they just won't admit that women are biologically better caregivers than Men and that custody should always default to the mother.
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
Do you have some citation showing women are better caregivers?
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-05
DNA
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
So you have no empirical research?
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-05
TIL Human DNA isn't empirical
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
That's what I thought. Good discussion.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-05
Dang, dude, are you angry or just dumb?
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I fail to see how asking someone for some academic papers supporting their argument makes me angry or dumb.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-05
Because this is /r/drama you dumb angry agenda poster
1 pizzashill 2017-11-05
I fail to see how this being /r/drama erases the fact you couldn't provide sources for your argument.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-05
MFW you think I was arguing with you
1 OnePercentOfMonster 2017-11-05
yes
1 _Sitty_Shoonerism_ 2017-11-05
pssshh those babies may have been only one day old and displayed sexual dimorphism in mechanical perception but prove they weren't exposed to sexism in the womb.
Their sexist parents probably talked about how unborn timmy is going to be an astronaut while sally is going to be a great homemaker. Fetus' can hear you know. We need prenatal women in STEM workshops.
1 RobBobGlove 2017-11-05
Biology is a social construct. Without humans there would be no biology, hence everything we (((know))) is an illusion. Just like money, love, or genitals.
1 Norci 2017-11-05
Not "you go into engineering, and you into phycology" different.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-11-05
There's a middle ground.
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
u/candydaze has to be functionally retarded or something. People buy construction sets for boys and dolls for girls because that's what they overwhelmingly want and ask for. Just because you're an outlier doesn't mean the average doesn't exist.
And blaming "society" for which classes students themselves choose to take, as elective courses? I thought engineers were supposed to be smart, but I guess not.
1 -huitzilopochtli- 2017-11-05
>engineers
>smart
1 wwaalleess 2017-11-05
Le stem
1 SuperiorExcess 2017-11-05
They're good at what they studied and braindead in any other field.
1 jet199 2017-11-05
Except terrorism.
1 subpoutine 2017-11-05
Why are so many terrorists STEMlords before they get wokedTM?
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
Because engineers can only think in childish absolutes (cf. this thread)
1 ProudLittleSeal 2017-11-05
LE BASED STEM haha masturbates to Neil deGrasse Tyson quotes superimposed on pictures of space
EDIT: thanks for the gold fellow science lover
1 SexAttack 2017-11-05
it's 4⃣2⃣0⃣ today😳😱but I'm not smoking weed🌿🍁😴😏🚬I'm smoking💨😜the gOD delusion😇😋🙏🏽📕because euphoria⬆️😍👐🏽😂is the highest you can get🙌🏽😤
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
It this moment, I am euphoric, not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my ability to keep posting that one study where the roastie babies looked at faces for a long time.
1 subpoutine 2017-11-05
DAE Borat’s cousin?
1 SexAttack 2017-11-05
Plz help, I want to swear allegiance to The Progressive Truth. Which of the following is true and which is heresy:
1 SexAttack 2017-11-05
lmao got 'em 100% woke. BTW, I want to swear allegiance to The Progressive Truth. Can you tell me which of the following is true and which is heresy:
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
This isn't /r/gendercritical. Obviously there are meaningful sex-linked differences in the brain.
Where you retards jump the shark is claiming the existence of sex-linked differences means societal factors are negligible or negate the existence of discrimination.
If all those out of work coal miners in Appalachia would retrain as nurses (or hell, nursing aides), they could get avoid the black lung, get off welfare, and make pretty solid money. But they don't. I guess men are just too biologically handicapped to work in the accessory healthcare professions.
1 SexAttack 2017-11-05
I'm sure there are retards who think that. I accept that nature and nurture are key parts of socialization.
I guess I just disagree with the mentality of "we should always assume nurture until proven otherwise, and evidence sufficient to prove otherwise to our satisfaction will not exist in our lifetime."
I've known many woman who make very talented programmers, but if it were true that, on a distribution level, less women will like engineering work than other kind of work, then wouldn't the massive expenditure of resources to push women into the field for that 50% 50% ratio result in a lot of women needlessly going into a field they won't like?
I agree that we should incentivize people into training programs for roles that are in demand in the future. I don't accept the whole "if an industry is not 50-50% it is necessarily the result of institutional sexism and represents an urgent policy mandate" thing.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
Sure, I mostly agree with that. I'll just say the following:
Nobody with any kind of realistic outlook is aiming for 50:50 ratio. Today, engineering is like 20% female, CS is maybe 25%. As recently as the 1980s, CS was close to 40% female, so that seems like a more reasonable goal?
You can change these fields, or at least the way these fields are presented in schools to make them more appealing to women (and also to men who aren't autistic human calculators). Harvey Mudd College revamped their CS curriculum to focus on real-world problem solving and they've now got 48.8% female CS majors., and HMC is not some joke college: it's one of the top engineering schools in the US and competes directly with schools like Caltech and MIT.
1 JasonJewnova 2017-11-05
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be
JUST. GAS. ALL. ROASTIES.
1 die_rattin 2017-11-05
Harvey Mudd also engages in massive AA for women in this field (women are something like 2.5x as likely to be accepted as men) and gives them perks like flying accepted women to the campus. Their program 'worked' in the sense that they got the numbers up, but I don't think it had much to do with changes to the curriculum nor would those changes do as much if replicated elsewhere.
In a related note: how much would it suck to be a male instructor at Harvey Mudd and realize your gender means you're never going to be promoted?
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
Maybe as much as it sucks to be a female employee at lots of other jobs?
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by an "essentially frozen" career. There's no evidence men are being denied tenure, and if you're already a tenured professor at an elite school you've pretty much reached the highest pinnacle of your career ladder. You can do basically whatever you want without getting fired, and research anything you're interested in.
1 nonplussed__ 2017-11-05
after a year in college in engineering i started meeting people not in the faculty and i was very pleased to discover they're regularly mocked by like every other faculty
1 schooldriver 2017-11-05
https://www.thequint.com/lifestyle/i-was-a-failed-engineer-sheer-will-saw-me-through-freeyourmind
1 nonplussed__ 2017-11-05
sometimes, engineers get sad
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
That's the type of person who ironically likes Big Bang Theory
1 youpostyoudie 2017-11-05
This is turning into conservative SRD.
Maybe kids like the things they like because of what people have given them in the past, what other kids are playing with, what they see their parents doing, or the millions of dollars that get spent on adds every year aimed at kids.
Or maybe girls just have a strand of easy bake oven DNA, but I doubt it.
1 Diogenes2XLantern 2017-11-05
You know there's a difference between being a mirror image of ShitRedditSays types and just acknowledging that humanity is not unique amongst sexually dimorphic species, right?
There are gender differences. Not all of them are down to socialization alone.
1 glmox 2017-11-05
yeah, but it's also stupid to say "lol look at this dumb bitch who thinks the culture we grow up could influence our opinions and decisions" like /u/nmx179
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
Nah, what's stupid is saying "lol look at this dumb bitch who thinks our opinions and decisions aren't influenced by 1.2 billion years of sexually selected evolution" the way you are.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
If men like making things, and women like relating to people, then how come women love knitting and men hate it? Checkmate, evopsychos.
1 HINDBRAIN 2017-11-05
Obviously knitting is an atavism, related to removing parasites from each others (these tend to accumulate when you spend your days lazing around in your filth in a cave).
1 glmox 2017-11-05
i understand your hateboner for me clouds your brain sometimes, but i literally started my comment by agreeing with the statement "There are gender differences. Not all of them are down to socialization alone."
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
And I never denied that culture can influence people's behavior, so i thought exaggerated, incorrect caricatures of each other's views were just what we were doing here.
1 glmox 2017-11-05
sure you didnt honey
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
Nice to see you cranking up the passive aggression in response to being shown wrong and stupid yet again.
1 glmox 2017-11-05
whatever you say dear
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
Nice to see you cranking up the passive aggression in response to being shown wrong and stupid yet again.
1 ThenTheGorursArrived 2017-11-05
Well there's this.
And the entire 'society told them to' argument is putting the cart before the horse. Society wasn't conditioned by 'muh oppressive patriarchs', it is what it is. If more doll ads are geared towards little girls, it's because they provide better marginal utility on that investment than little boys do, same for more ads geared towards boys.
There's a reason the conventions are same across thousands of societies that were barely in contact till the advent of the internet and mass media and there's a reason none of the outlying matriarchal societies made it beyond the tribal phase.
1 youpostyoudie 2017-11-05
Because men could overpower women. Now we don't base society around who can bonk other people on the head the hardest (unfortunately) but we are still descended from that.
1 aqouta 2017-11-05
men being physically stronger than women leads them to not allowing the women they control do engineering?
1 youpostyoudie 2017-11-05
Maybe it's that back when bonking on the head was an important job men became providers and we have just continued that trend past it's usefulness. Or maybe women have less wrinkles on their brain than the avg man.
1 ThenTheGorursArrived 2017-11-05
The entire reason society was established was to take away advantage from those who were physically strong and make them subservient to the collective, the representatives of which have always been mentally strong. There can be women who take up that role, there have been plenty in fact. Even in societies as male dominated as piracy, there have been women who have risen to the top by their mental acumen.
There is no grand conspiracy pulling women down because they are physically weaker, it's just statistics that means they are on average, dumber. It's funny how you don't address the IQ curve at all, though, and base your argument solely on emotion.
1 jet199 2017-11-05
IQ isn't a measure of inate intelligence.
1 ThenTheGorursArrived 2017-11-05
Yes, it kind of is.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/09/16/is-iq-a-predictor-of-success/#70d6231f3604
Of course, you can continue to deny that it is because it hurts some people's feelings but truth is that high IQ scores correlate overwhelmingly to success in life, which is obviously a result of higher intelligence.
1 glmox 2017-11-05
lol thats not how life works
1 ThenTheGorursArrived 2017-11-05
Only if you're a retard who thinks he's intelligent.
Seriously, mate, I live in a third world country that had a very tiny educated population, ~20% 60 years back. You think the 'struggle' in First World countries is bad? You should talk to more than half of our current middle class, they are all first generation learners. The kind of struggle they went through is something even your poorest would never face, and they prevailed despite all that, because they worked hard and they were intelligent. Fuck, there are people who could barely afford textbooks in my college, and they cracked an entrance exam where you have to be in the top 1% to get a decent seat, an exam where more than half their competitors came from privileged as fuck backgrounds. Intelligence and hard work is literally all it takes, but since complaining about the 'system' is all you retards can do, you'll keep at it. If you're from Somalia or something, I can understand that intelligence might not make you succeed. But if you are sitting in a Western country and bitching about the system, you should just keep yourself safe. If you can't make it there, you are a waste of space.
1 glmox 2017-11-05
is this pasta
1 ThenTheGorursArrived 2017-11-05
Depends, does that make you more or less likely to keep yourself safe?
1 glmox 2017-11-05
idk not like anything ever matters
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
Shhh... you'll frighten the undergrads who think getting straight As means they'll be all set for "success".
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
I can see how someone as stunningly stupid as you would deny that intelligence matters, but that doesn't actually make it so.
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2017-11-05
Watching Rick and Morty is.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-11-05
Aren't they actually smarter on average, just not on the high end.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2017-11-05
are you literally 'tarded?
1 youpostyoudie 2017-11-05
No, I have been tested and everything.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
I suggest you get a 2nd opinion on that.
1 ComedicSans 2017-11-05
We take degenerate retards of all persuasions, tyvm.
1 Trajan_ 2017-11-05
Post bussy or gtfo
1 princessCuck 2017-11-05
If that's so, why won't you take me into your bussy?
1 ComedicSans 2017-11-05
Because even we have standards.
1 Awayfone 2017-11-05
No true
1 im-a-koala 2017-11-05
hahahahhahahahahah
1 OniTan 2017-11-05
Justice for tyvm.
1 Awayfone 2017-11-05
Monkey studies00107-1/abstract) show gender preference in toy play and sex-linked toy preferences shows up in infants before they are old enough to develop self awareness of gender
1 youpostyoudie 2017-11-05
I concede
1 princessCuck 2017-11-05
You have to remember that u/candydaze is likely severely autistic (hence the engineering and the feminism) and is likely trying to mislead us by what she thinks appears to us as an application of fact, like magic, but lacks the theory of mind to realize that we're not dumb animals and we can see right through her.
1 candydaze 2017-11-05
Hi, nope, no diagnosis of autism. Thanks for the armchair assessment.
1 princessCuck 2017-11-05
Okay, autist.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
u/candydaze's reply is exactly what an autist would respond with.
Checkmate, atheists.
1 zwiebelhans 2017-11-05
Nah you’re no autist. Your a perpetual complainer. You are going to be the go to “ anecdotal proof that engineering is sexist” person for the rest of your life.
1 SexAttack 2017-11-05
/u/candydaze if you ever shore up the dyke system make sure to NOT send us photos thanks.
1 OniTan 2017-11-05
While you whined about sexism, I studied the bridge.
1 princessCuck 2017-11-05
While you were raging about trannies on /r/drama, I mastered the law.
1 John_Kvetch 2017-11-05
This is completely not the most autistic thing you could have replied, no siree
1 godofdae 2017-11-05
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif
1 cincilator 2017-11-05
Dunno about autism but take a look at this:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2017-11-05
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
Girls aren't autistic. It's genetic.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-11-05
All men are soulless autistic robots the same way all women are neurotic bi-polar Betazoids.
it's just something we prefer not to talk about. Except for the most male brained autismos, they have a hard time picking up on social cues.
1 godofdae 2017-11-05
It's like when crazy parents try to raise their kids as non-gender conforming as possible, but surprise surprise, Mary secretly loves Frozen, dolls, and pink, while John secretly loves action cartoons, action figures, and blue.
1 LefthandedLunatic 2017-11-05
I dare you to wear a tutu in public and not be called gay. You like romance oh thats kinda gay, you like cooking oh thats kinda gay. Yea of course society has us into roles and its weird to be outside of that role. If you go around wearing a dress you will get some strange looks. Now same thing with careers. "Oh you make wedding dresses, thats kinda gay".
Not amount of Libertarian think of "free will" can escape you from the influences of society.
1 Juicy_Brucesky 2017-11-05
That analogy literally retarded. Society can call me gay all the fuck they want, why the fuck should they tell me who I am? You know who knows me the best? Me.
Boohoooooo I'm a failure because of my environment, it's definitely not because I'm a failure!
1 snappleteadrink 2017-11-05
Dang this guys a real lone wolf, hes just like really above it.
1 LefthandedLunatic 2017-11-05
By using that logic are African Americans just all failures? Yep absolutely nothing to do with the residue of 100s of years of oppression. Or the fact that short men are a small fraction CEOs are just because short men naturally suck at being leadership positions?
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-11-05
Not all, one of the even became president.
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
Is u/lizzyh94 literally too stupid to understand that asking people out on dates is a normal thing that guys and girls do? Or does she just hate male engineers that much?
1 ltedt 2017-11-05
That was the best. You already have one thing in common, maybe you like the girl already and you just want to ask her out. Now this is being aggressive and sexist. White women are a mistake
1 nmx179 2017-11-05
It's fascinating how even girl nerds like u/lizzyh94 think guy nerds should be sexless, dickless robots.
1 incineratechicken 2017-11-05
It only comes back to hurt lard barges like u/lizzyh94 in the end, since beta nerds are the only ones desperate enough to dick her down anyway.
1 ricesnot 2017-11-05
Your comment shows your view. While arguing a point why not keep the insults out of it? Ask the girl out that's fine. Once she says no move on. But I doubt you're that forward.
1 Going_up_the_Country 2017-11-05
Why should they?
You chicken-fucker.
1 Fucking_That_Chicken 2017-11-05
hey now
1 umar4812 2017-11-05
You're a rockstar.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-11-05
Get your game on
1 OnionBits 2017-11-05
GET
CUCKED
1 Fuish 2017-11-05
*CLUCKED
1 shallowm 2017-11-05
Literally sexual harassment.
1 -huitzilopochtli- 2017-11-05
literally every girl i know in research is an autistic tomboy with zero femininity in them.
really makes you think.
1 ltedt 2017-11-05
It's hard to take people seriously when they start the argument with "but you see, the toys of the children!!! And one person one time said i shouldn't do this. This is society's fault!". Sometimes your parents know you're a retard and don't want you to take some civil engineering degree knowing you'd embarrass yourself and be another college dropout.
In my field of work that is supposed to be dominated by men more and more women are showing up and i honestly don't see sexism. There are some (ew gross) men that are unpleasant but you will always find this everywhere. If you think men are sexist only in stem field and this decreases the chances of brave womyn to go to work, you need to take a step back and think about what you want.
1 ShaggyO_0Rogers 2017-11-05
It's easier to dismiss problems that lie in grey areas by screeching "muh sexism" rather than to do something about the problems.
Now I'd like it if there were more people in STEM, and no people pursuing useless degrees that focus on """theories""" such as critical race theory, gender theory etc.
Are there sexists in the STEM fields ? Yeah there are.
Are the STEM fields themselves Sexist ? Fuck no.
STEM fields primarily function as meritocracies, where your gender doesn't matter for your ideas to be influential.
Now people might say, "But Shaggy, you're ignoring the fact that society conditions men into STEM fields while discouraging girls from getting into them. This is why we need feminism !"
I shall not dismiss your points. And honestly, I think anyone can succeed in STEM if you put the right effort in the right direction, irrespective of gender. But I don't agree that saying that "society" discourages girls from STEM. I think it has more to do with personal interests rather than "muh sexism" or "muh sexual dimorphism". It is better in fields of STEM to treat people as a individuals rather than lumping together based on race, gender, sexuality etc.
When you're in STEM fields, your identity doesn't matter, but your effort and intellect does. There is a reason why we don't have gender and race quotas in mathematics departments after all.
1 LemonScore 2017-11-05
/u/lizzyh94 are you a tranny
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-11-05
Lemon at the bottom with the legit correct response.
1 ItsSugar 2017-11-05
What else is new, amirite?
1 LemonScore 2017-11-05
kek
1 ricesnot 2017-11-05
All these comments. Yup, I'm on reddit.
1 do0rkn0b 2017-11-05
These are the differences:
Speed
Violence
Momentum
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-05
ITT: /r/drama's resident engineering retards seriouspost the shit out of the fact that girls hate them.
1 LefthandedLunatic 2017-11-05
This thread is more proof that /r/Drama is /r/CringeAnarchy for people who claim to hate /r/CringeAnarchy.
Sub went downhill when PK left us :(
1 Unfunny_Twat 2017-11-05
Every time I see people arguing (like in the linked thread) that genetics cannot be the cause for differences between men and women picking different careers I get irrationally mad.
We know for a fact that men and women are different in many ways. They have different voices, different genitals, different hormones, different skin texture, different body shape and so on. Those are fact. But to suggest that men and women might have different brains is implausible to these fucks.
I don't have evidence for either. But neither does modern science yet, so maybe don't be so quick to blame everything on society and dismiss any potential differences in the way men and women think.
1 TheCodexx 2017-11-05
/u/candydaze all the girls I knew as kids grew up playing with Lego, too. And Tonka trucks. And basically every other "boy" toy. Girls who like this aren't special or different or rare. Parents buy whatever their kids think is cool. Boy's toys are effectively universal. If anything, boys are probably more turned off by the bright pink colors of an Easy-Bake Oven than girls are of generic light-up swords.
Maybe a good deal of their interests are just, I dunno, ingrained in them from birth, and the stuff they ask their parents to buy them is based more on their self-image and desires than on "society made them do it!".
Also, I don't know any girls who regretted taking wood shop. They had a good time. Sounds like you're projecting an experience you had onto everyone else.
What I have seen is lots of girls pursuing harden STEM majors drop down to easier ones. Lots of potential chemists went to biology who then often went to some kind of therapy or technician certificate program. Seems more common than with guys to just wash-out entirely and change focus. But, then, that's just me projecting my experience onto others. Although the numbers seem to back-up that lots of them just lose interest in STEM and start to back off of it. Even those in majors where women are the majority.
So, so much for your theory.
1 Chicup 2017-11-05
My wife is really good at math, they got her to go into engineering (They being the university) she hated it and got out. Pretty much normal for most women in engineering.
If you don't think male and female brains have some fundamental differences, odds are you don't get laid much.
1 ChateauJack 2017-11-05
During my student time in electonic engineering school, we shared our building and some of the classes with chemical engineering students. Because of that it was 50/50 between guys and girls.
I can assure you u/lizzyh94, it's not because you have a vagina that people treat you differently, it's because you have absolutely no personnailty. Although they WILL treat you differently if they want to sleep with you ( I know, sex?...ew...gross...creepy...) but that's no really happening in your case as far as I understand from the time your classmates made a comment about girls you heard, took personnaly, but kept silent. Again, because no personnality.
1 zahlman 2017-11-05
People actually believe this actually happens in the current year.