Women don’t have the “patients” for engineering
It takes MEN to build a bridge
Guys,
So the fellows over at MGTOWforums were pondering just why it is that there are so few women engineers. There were a number of theories advanced to explain this gender imbalance – women are “crap at math,” “their [sic] just too stupid,”“you can’t build a bridge with ‘feelings.’” (Snap!)
But it was shade47 who offered the most convincing theory. It all has to do with incentives:
Im an engineer myself and in my opinion women could be good engineers if they wanted to be but its a hard sell since they can make money by lieing on their backs and shitting out bastards. …
i dont think women above a five in looks would have the patients [sic] to deal with the hardship of actually studying when she knows that shell end up getting knocked up or married and stop working in approximately 5 years after graduation.
Ladies, focus on your womb turds and leave engineering to the geniuses who don’t know the difference between “patience” and “patients.”
Posted on July 22, 2011, in $MONEY$, idiocy, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 252 Comments.
All the talk of Marie Curie, plus XKCD linkage, urges me to drop this XKCD link about Marie Curie:
http://xkcd.com/896/
They have a Y chromosome, which is basically an X missing one little string of genes.
One “little string”?
The Y chromosome is one third of the size of the X chromosome.
All the talk of Marie Curie, plus XKCD linkage, urges me to drop this XKCD link about Marie Curie:
http://xkcd.com/896/
No, no, all the support for feminism by XKCD has been made null and void by this rape-apologist sexist piece of trash:
http://xkcd.com/642/
Johnny Pez - Oooh! Oooh! Okay, so how simple can a living organism be and still be considered a living organism? Is there some fundamental lower limit, or do organisms just get simpler and less organism-like until they’re just a bunch of long, chemically active molecules?
That’s almost not biology, that’s semantics. Or philosophy. I mean, arguably “a bunch of chemically active molecules” describes human beings.
However, these are some common criteria for considering a thing alive:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Men are not smarter than women. The reason women have less advancements in science and engineering is because men forcibly kept women from being educated. When you prevent higher education you also prevent the advantage. Seriously, you idiot guys don’t realize that as hateful as you are you can’t possibly be that stupid. Can you?
somali, you had me until the middle of your message
“Seriously, you idiot guys don’t realize that as hateful as you are you can’t possibly be that stupid. Can you?”
Not being able to separate the argument from your emotions aint smart, you know. The argument is still valid
“The reason women have less advancements in science and engineering is because men forcibly kept women from being educated. When you prevent higher education you also prevent the advantage. ”
If thats the case, we should see a dramatic surge of very talented women inventors, scientists, musicians and stuff. Time will tell.
Awww, nobody liked my links.
The Coalition for Research at UC Somebody’s Ass?
I’m so referring to UCSA every time one of these jokers mentions a number from now on.
Time will tell if patents for women boom? In the US, women have gone from around 2% of patents issued in the early 1977s to a little over 10% in 1998 (the US Patent office stopped its supplementary reports in 1998, but saw a 45% increase in women’s patents just between 1996 and 1998 alone http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/wom_98.pdf). Women remain extremely underrepresented in the fields that tend to receive the most patents, such as engineering, but have still made dramatic strides in percentage of inventions in just the past thirty years or so despite that.
yeah… plant & design patents…
@darksidecat
Only women are represented in every realm of modern day society, men have no representation.
The State actively represents women in education, employment, health, politics, ect. The State demands quotas for employment/education. The State actively represents/persues women in sports, education and employment. The State has agencies teaching women how to market themselves more effectively.
The corporate world under these guidelines must actively persue women for employment. The corporate world represents women in business. They must represent women in order to obtain State contracts.
The media represents/persues womens opinions on all social issues.
There is no State, Corporate or media enterprise/agency that recruits only men for education/employment ect. Men are never recruited because of gender, only women are. How can no representation be overepresentation?
Men, as individuals represent themselves. They use their own skill and resources to represent themselves.
Can anyone name an institution where men are represented/persued as a gender?
Can anyone name an institution where women are represented/persued as a gender?
Only women are represented as a gender in all walks of life.
I would add to that “list” the active encouragement/discouragement of participation in various activities, based in large part on being in keeping with “traditional” gender roles, behaviours, outward physical presentation, etc., deemed acceptable for the “diametrically opposed” genders, which has been so deeply woven into the fabric of some cultures for such a long period of time that it may appear to be biological or may indeed develop biologically sometimes (eg., development of various portions of the brain and its neural pathways).
Not until the spectre of selfishness, which still looms large over a woman who chooses a pursuit (including, but not limited to, a career) that cannot be put aside at the drop of a hat in order to primarily nurture and be readily available to take care of/focus upon the needs of others, dissipates to a much larger degree than it already has, will you see a surge of very talented women inventors, scientists, musicians, etc. Chances are, you will not see a dramatic surge, but perhaps a gradual increase as women are still, for the most part, not encouraged to devote their time to a pursuit that involves a greater amount of single-minded focus vs. pursuits that involve or can easily be set aside to focus upon/take care of others.
Some of the very pursuits or activities for which men have been (and, dare I say, still are) viewed as selflessly taking care of others are the same ones for which women, if they choose to do them, are viewed as being selfish.
Might I add that another possible reason that women have not been encouraged to pursue areas/activities which have been predominantly populated by men is to ensure that men remain motivated to continue pursuing those areas/activities. I mean, what better motivator, that’s always at the ready, than to tell a man/boy that he acts/does something/pretty-much-whatever “like a woman/girl”.
And please, don’t tell me that using that as a motivator should not be offensive to some women because it is certainly not an implication that men should or that some men do view women as inferior in everything; because if that is NOT the implication, then it wouldn’t be the great motivator that it is.
My mother went back to school in the 80′s to get her engineering degree. She was in her early 60′s.
Why? Because when she graduated from high school it was unheard of for a woman to do such a thing.
Last year the first woman-headed team won a Nobel Prize in science. It was in microbiology, one of the few scientific fields where women and men are about equally represented. Interestingly, the reason microbiology has so many women is that one microbiologist in the 1970s made a point of encouraging his female students and lab assistants to stay in science. That one guy’s support produced an entire generation of successful female microbiologists.
The team that won the Nobel consisted of two women and one man. One of the women was a former assistant of that guy in the 1970s, and the other woman was one of her assistants. The work that won them the Nobel was in “immortalizing” cells by manipulating telomeres, the nonsense strings of protein at the ends of DNA molecules that seem to be connected to aging.
Is winning a Nobel Prize a dramatic enough surge? I don’t know. People always move the goalposts.
Shaenon: That may be the first female headed team to win a prize in science. But Rosalyn Yallow was awarded the prize in 1977, for work she did as part of a pair. I don’t know, from her comments that one could say either of them, “headed” the team.
She was the second woman to win a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
(nb I’m acquainted with her son. I’d not say we were close, but we move in some of the same circles. If it weren’t for knowing him, I don’t think I’d know of her).
NWO: Since the gov’t forces this, why aren’t 50 percent of Staff Grade (majors, Lt. Cols and Cols) female? The Gov’t runs the military, and it’s had women in it since the 1970s (before that the women were in separate branches, The Women’s Army Corps, etc.), so it it’s mandatory, that would be the first place to see it, right?
Why is it that the Meg Whitman’s of the Business world are rare enough that they can say, “I was able to run a business” when they campaign for office?
Why are the Presidents of Universities overwhelmingly male?
Why aren’t the bankers half female.
You can’t say they can’t hack it, because you say the gov’t forces it to happen. People who hire, and promote people have to do that.
Unless it doesn’t, and you are lying
Way, way, way too many of my college friends who majored in science are leaving their careers, or willing to leave their careers, to have kids. I think it’s the single biggest roadblock to women in the sciences, and it constantly gets overlooked because it’s “their choice”-even though men aren’t expected to make a choice between family and career.
I attended an all girls school and when applying for college courses, everyone seemed to go for business, law, science, social studies etc. I was the only one that applied for computer games development. I was one of two girls in a college course of 50 people. I think with this subject, and others like engineering, there’s just a general lack of interest amongst women.
Katz, you´re right on all three
1. A lot of women who major in sciences leave their careers to have kids
2. Its their choice
3. Men are not expected to do that choice (are instead expected to support the kids and the woman)
Maybe this is cursing what a woman could do if she didnt want kids? maybe this is sabotaging whatever they are doing before they even start doing it? I know I wouldnt do well in X area if I knew I was going to quit beforehand.
Are kid-less, sterile, lesbian, single, whatever the case “not pregnant women” doing more important stuff in science etc?
I would add another reason why traditional roles sabotage women’s careers. One of my female relatives is, in fact, an engineer who worked in a very male-dominated research institute in the 1970′s. According to her, many men there married fellow scientists — and the women were then expected to use their education and expertise to promote their husbands’ careers; in other words, men straight up appropriated their work. Even girlfriends and mistresses often suffered the same fate.
Amused, right, men are evil! add that to the list.
Your assumption here “Maybe this is cursing what a woman could do if she didnt want kids? maybe this is sabotaging whatever they are doing before they even start doing it? I know I wouldnt do well in X area if I knew I was going to quit beforehand.” is what used to, and still does, keep a lot of women from getting hired in the first place, or getting promoted. Especially younger women. The people responsible for hiring assume the woman is going to either underperford, quit in a few years to have kids, or be unable to commit due to the pressures of childrearing.
I think the more important area of focus shouldn’t be what women are doing to sabotage themselves. Why not make being a parent and working more compatible? Parental leave for both parents, subsidized day care, encouraging fathers to do more than just “support the kids and the woman”, and take an active role in rearing their children, rather than just providing the funds alone.
Pecunium,
Why arent there at least half of women in the role of guitar players, musicians, girls in bands etc?
How about illustration? animation? computer programming? 3D? design?
I run a company in the videogames dev area. Its very, very rare to find a woman working on the field. Whenever I find one (that is good) I hire them
In the other hand theres plenty of women working perfectly fine in other areas (writing, administration, human resources, etc)
Most working enviroments are and were male dominated, because most of the work force was previously all male
Now that women have went into college etc for half a century or so, I say women just pick different areas of interest than men. I havent seen female discrimination or women not getting jobs or promotions due to gender in real life. I only hear such things as explanations of why it happens, but never witnessed it myself
filetofswedishfish,
I run a company and I have a bunch of friends who run companies. According to you, Im responsible for this. And Im not.
“Parental leave for both parents, subsidized day care,”
I havent been put in that position yet, but, truth is I dont generate enough money subsidize parental leave. I hire people because I need them to generate money for the company. Only big companies can afford to lose employees and keep running. For all the smaller fishes, money comes from workforce. Private companies are not charities = human labor is everything.
Actually yes you are-by refusing to let your employees, male and female, have time off to reproduce, you are treating your employees as nothing more then automatons, You can claim it is because “I lose money!” But ultimately it is “I do not want to share the income with my employees by letting them grow their own families.”
I run an office of 11 employees, we have a tight budget and they have not gotten raises in five years-but they have the time they need to have children and take care of those children. Sacrificing one lets them do the other.
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth,
Where did I say I “REFUSE”?
I said I dont generate enough money and you turn that into “treating employees as automatons” and making me a bad guy?
f*** off.
Why arent there at least half of women in the role of guitar players, musicians, girls in bands etc?
The most popular singers are women.
How about illustration? animation? computer programming? 3D? design?
There was an article in 2008 about that :
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/05/18/the_freedom_to_say_no/?page=full
It seems that math-precocious men are much more likely to go into engineering or physical sciences than women, while math-precocious women, are more likely to go into careers in medicine, biological sciences, humanities, and social sciences.
nomoreniceguy,
“The most popular singers are women.”
Well, yes, thats obvious. Same with actor roles / fama stuff, physical attractiveness and personality are more important than brains.
Checking the link
“while math-precocious women, are more likely to go into careers in medicine, biological sciences, humanities, and social sciences.”
Thats what seems to be happening. So, why? is it just a different set of interest / sensibilities? or is feminist right that the reason is the “bullying”?
Well, yes, thats obvious. Same with actor roles / fama stuff, physical attractiveness and personality are more important than brains.
These women that sing write their own songs and play music instruments, they are not stupid.
First you say that there is almost no women among musicians and now you admit that most musicians are women but they are stupid.
no more mr nice guy,
Read properly, cool? I said:
“Why arent there AT LEAST HALF of women in the role of guitar players, musicians, girls in bands etc?”
And Im not including “singers” because you dont need a math / rational / logic brain to sing. Otherwise most of the stars wouldnt be there.
“and now you admit that most musicians are women but they are stupid.”
In the same way most male singers are stupid. Hard to fight that fact, right?
Actually yes you are-by refusing to let your employees, male and female, have time off to reproduce, you are treating your employees as nothing more then automatons,(Elizabeth)
What a joke. What happens if the business only makes enough to pay the bills(mine included). Do I have to go into debt to insure that the employees arent more than automatons?
“Subsidized” generally means by the government, in some way. That way small companies as well as large have the ability to offer this to their employees.
“I run a company and I have a bunch of friends who run companies. According to you, Im responsible for this. And Im not.”
Just because I say these sorts of attitudes affect many women does not mean I’m accusing you and your friends of being sexist in your hiring practices. But, in the same vein, just because you and your friends aren’t sexist in your hiring practices, doesn’t mean that no hiring department is sexist.
In saying that women “just pick different” subjects than men, you’re conveniently forgetting the cultural background behind the choices women make. From early on, there are things presented as “ok for girls” and “less-ok-to-bad for girls”. Granted, you can reject this stuff, but a lot of people don’t because it’s hard to swim against the current. I was told beginning in grade school that girls just aren’t good at math. I’m passable at it, but I’m in a language field, so I don’t need much of it. I still get shock that I *play* video games, I can’t imagine if I designed them. my sister does- nobody assumes she’s skilled, or they assume she designs the “soft” girl games, like Angry birds, or any number of the really simple games you see for things like the DS. Those games have less prestige within the industry, and it’s a vicious circle that I could definitely see keeping women out of game design.
Do I have to go into debt to insure that the employees arent more than automatons?
Um, yes, treating people like human beings is a requirement for an employer.
YOHAMI, I don’t know what to make of any of your garbled, underpunctuated comments, so I’m not going to reply to them.
I love how YOHAMI and titfortat completely ignore Elizabeth’s second paragraph…
Alex, you mean this?
“I run an office of 11 employees, we have a tight budget and they have not gotten raises in five years-but they have the time they need to have children and take care of those children. Sacrificing one lets them do the other.”
Good for her!
Kaz,
“treating people like human beings is a requirement for an employer.”
For sure. But going into debt? no unless you can pay that later.
Im not arguing that people should be treaten like automatons. Elizabeth introduced that idea to mess with the dialog. I stand for social rights.
“YOHAMI I don’t know what to make of any of your garbled, underpunctuated comments, so I’m not going to reply to them.”
Thats fine by me.
*I meant Katz.
Hilarious, Im supposed to become an automaton so someone else can have kids and take time off, even though I would go into debt and not be able to raise my own family. You do realize some small businesses cannot afford to ‘share’ the profit because there really isnt enough to share. I know, that does make me a bad business person, but definately not a bad person.
I run a company in the videogames dev area. Its very, very rare to find a woman working on the field. Whenever I find one (that is good) I hire them
In the other hand theres plenty of women working perfectly fine in other areas (writing, administration, human resources, etc)
I sincerely hope you do take your female job applicants as seriously as your male applicants, but based on the second paragraph there, I’m inclined to doubt it. Personally, if I were going in for a job interview, and my prospective employer made it clear that he thought qualified women in my field were rare and that women are just naturally better suited to working as secretaries, I would run for the hills.
Well, no, in this shitty job climate, I wouldn’t. But I certainly wouldn’t have high hopes for whatever brainless clerical job you offered me.
(Where the hell do you live that most of the women you meet are secretaries? Are you a “Mad Men” character? I know there’s a lot of sexism in the video game industry, but yeesh.)
shaenon,
“Personally, if I were going in for a job interview, and my prospective employer made it clear that he thought qualified women in my field were rare and that women are just naturally better suited to working as secretaries, I would run for the hills.”
Sure, but why would I make “clear” that I think women are more suited to be SECRETARIES?
LOL that would make me a jackass. Im saying this kind of stuff here because theres a debate going and I want to share my views and get what other people think and perceives about this issue.
My partner in the company is a woman (ex girlfriend) and she´s very competent.
Just figured out the header.
Women don’t have the [i]patents[/i] for engineering.
But hey, we can do something about that!