Women represent only 20% of computer science and 22% of undergraduate engineering degrees. And, in 2018, women accounted for only 38% of applications to full-time MBA programs.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT. It's that simple. According to data from UCLA, the percentage of incoming female students interested in majoring in computer science peaked in the early 1980s. There is very little interest in women getting involved in IT related fields, and when they do (at least in my experience with 10 years of teaching the stuff) as soon as it gets hard a good chunk of them just nope out of there for an easier major.
2001, my highschool teachers desperately trying to get boys to take Home Economics (cooking and sewing) and girls to take Design Techology (shop class). Despite their attempts to propagandize us, both classes end up skewed with 90% stereotypical gender ratios.
The girls lining up for the milling machine: Tomboys, autists, lesbians.
The boys lining up for the sewing machine: Flaming homosexuals and autists stroking their cocks at the thought of being in a room full of girls.
I never said it was useless at all. In fact, it's virtually certain that more of the kids who took home economics got more use out that education than the kids who took shop, regardless of whether they're male or female.
But I was not making a value judgement on the content of each class. I was making a simple observation about the sort of activities that naturally appeal to the overwhelming majority of males, and the overwhelming majority of females.
Women in the United States have indeed earned more bachelor's degrees than men since the mid-1980s.
Nonetheless, women remain underrepresented in lucrative fields like engineering, computer science and management.
Cool wording, propagandist scum. When women are overrepresented for decades, it's because they've "earned" it. In the precious few fields where men have an advantage, it's because women "remain underrepresented". Even the word "remain" is insidious, because it suggests that men being allowed to have any form of power is an old fashioned idea that needs to be fixed.
In the 60's they said "don't discriminate against blacks" and "don't discriminate against women" and today they're saying "do discriminate against whites" and "do discriminate against men".
"Don't discriminate" is a moral principle because you can apply it to everybody and it's a good result more or less. "Do discriminate" is immoral because if you apply it everywhere then you get Nazi Germany.
discrimination isn't bad. it's good. it serves your purposes against infiltrators and subverters who hate you and want you dead. your enemies will ruthlessly exploit your reasonableness if you allow them to. reserve it for your people. people that share your values.
It absolutely DOES benefit females. It benefits everyone. It just doesn't allow people to duck personal responsibility and live a consequence-free hedonistic lifestyle. The end result is still better for them though, even though they might not like it.
Oh, and it also doesn't benefit politicians who want a dumb and compliant voter base (a result of hedonism), or anyone who wants black people to kill themselves (Sangerites).
I meant the actual decision, not it being reversed. Allowing women to commit murder simply because they feel like it is how we got this crop of modern women who all worship themselves and can do nothing but engage in hedonism.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT. It's that simple. According to data from UCLA, the percentage of incoming female students interested in majoring in computer science peaked in the early 1980s. There is very little interest in women getting involved in IT related fields, and when they do (at least in my experience with 10 years of teaching the stuff) as soon as it gets hard a good chunk of them just nope out of there for an easier major.
"Women belong in the laboratory! Not the kitchen!"
"But I like the kitchen."
"I SAID GET BACK IN THE LABORATORY AND MAKE ME A FUCKING EXPERIMENT YOU DUMB BITCH"
“Women like social jobs”
“Omg I’m going to tweet this to my 20k followers and get you canceled misogynist!”
"God damnit, mom"
This is one of my wife's favorite videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCftJ8Hf0kI
I literally stopped the video and said, "Wait! That's true! YOU BITCH!"
Boy, the BBC really fucked up on the satire on this.
2001, my highschool teachers desperately trying to get boys to take Home Economics (cooking and sewing) and girls to take Design Techology (shop class). Despite their attempts to propagandize us, both classes end up skewed with 90% stereotypical gender ratios.
The girls lining up for the milling machine: Tomboys, autists, lesbians.
The boys lining up for the sewing machine: Flaming homosexuals and autists stroking their cocks at the thought of being in a room full of girls.
HEY!
I took Home Economics because I couldn't cook for shit. I learned how to actually use an oven and make pasta, which has served me well.
I never said it was useless at all. In fact, it's virtually certain that more of the kids who took home economics got more use out that education than the kids who took shop, regardless of whether they're male or female.
But I was not making a value judgement on the content of each class. I was making a simple observation about the sort of activities that naturally appeal to the overwhelming majority of males, and the overwhelming majority of females.
Cool wording, propagandist scum. When women are overrepresented for decades, it's because they've "earned" it. In the precious few fields where men have an advantage, it's because women "remain underrepresented". Even the word "remain" is insidious, because it suggests that men being allowed to have any form of power is an old fashioned idea that needs to be fixed.
Well, it might help against gender discrimination, but I doubt that our fight with ESG's is anywhere near over.
Was thinking about when liberals broke bad.
In the 60's they said "don't discriminate against blacks" and "don't discriminate against women" and today they're saying "do discriminate against whites" and "do discriminate against men".
"Don't discriminate" is a moral principle because you can apply it to everybody and it's a good result more or less. "Do discriminate" is immoral because if you apply it everywhere then you get Nazi Germany.
discrimination isn't bad. it's good. it serves your purposes against infiltrators and subverters who hate you and want you dead. your enemies will ruthlessly exploit your reasonableness if you allow them to. reserve it for your people. people that share your values.
Anything taken to the extreme is bad. Breathing is bad, if you do it too much you'll pass out.
Point is when taken to like 95% how bad is it? In a society you shouldn't have like more than like 2% bad people.
Do you mean like Roe v. Wade?
Roe vs Wade absolutely does not benefit females. They're just too stupid and shortsighted to realize it.
It absolutely DOES benefit females. It benefits everyone. It just doesn't allow people to duck personal responsibility and live a consequence-free hedonistic lifestyle. The end result is still better for them though, even though they might not like it.
Oh, and it also doesn't benefit politicians who want a dumb and compliant voter base (a result of hedonism), or anyone who wants black people to kill themselves (Sangerites).
I meant the actual decision, not it being reversed. Allowing women to commit murder simply because they feel like it is how we got this crop of modern women who all worship themselves and can do nothing but engage in hedonism.
I misinterpreted your statement. My bad.
Can't be blamed. Whenever anyone talks about "Roe" anymore they're talking about the reversal.