Kai, madam Mindfulness

Shooting all over the place yet missing your mark.

You were asked: Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis? To which you answered a resounding NO.

Mindfulness:

The answer to this question is NO!.

Now you say :

I have NEVER denied the possibility of a biological basis and I have NOT INDIRECTLY but DIRECTLY stated that genes play an important role

Are these answers from different people?

ApexTitan:
Kai, madam Mindfulness

Shooting all over the place yet missing your mark.

You were asked: Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis? To which you answered a resounding NO. Now you say :

I have NEVER denied the possibility of a biological basis and I have NOT INDIRECTLY but DIRECTLY stated that genes play an important role

Are these answers from different people?

You make me want to hit my head against a wall. Patience, do not abandon me please. Let me not give up on this boy. Focus on his potential, focus on his potential.

Look:

You asked:

Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis?

I answered:

No.

A no means that the gender disparity is NOT COMPLETELY cultural and it appears that THERE IS a biological component.

Then I said:

I have NEVER denied the possibility of a biological basis and I have NOT INDIRECTLY but DIRECTLY stated that genes play an important role.


Now explain to me where you see a contradiction between the answer and the sentence above (bold).

Doublex is here and she will like what she sees.

Mindfulness:
Doublex is here and she will like what she sees.

yes my sister great and accurate posting

Mindfulness:


You make me want to hit my head against a wall. Patience, do not abandon me please. Let me not give up on this boy. Focus on his potential, focus on his potential.

Look:

You asked:

Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis?

I answered:

No.

A no means that the gender disparity is NOT COMPLETELY cultural and it appears that THERE IS a biological component.

Then I said:

I have NEVER denied the possibility of a biological basis and I have NOT INDIRECTLY but DIRECTLY stated that genes play an important role.


Now explain to me where you see a contradiction between the answer and the sentence above (bold).

Now I see clearly. You admit to the possibility of a biological bias in gender vocational choices. Progress!!!

In that case the gender disparity in STEM should not be seen as a problem - it will always be no matter the number of cultural adjustments that are made. Tell that to the members of the equalist ideology who are hell bent on "fixing" the problem. This has been the thrust of all my posts on this subject.

Are we in agreement?

ApexTitan:


Now I see clearly. You admit to the possibility of a biological bias in gender vocational choices. Progress!!!

I can't admit anything i have never denied.

In that case the gender disparity in STEM should not be seen as a problem - it will always be no matter the number of cultural adjustments that are made. Tell that to the members of the equalist ideology who are hell bent on "fixing" the problem. This has been the thrust of all my posts on this subject.

It is a problem as there is a shortage of skills in these fields in several countries. Since biology is NOT THE ONLY factor behind the disparity, it is only logical to increase the numbers by tackling the environmental factors. Now, the aim is not to have a 50-50 distribution of males and females but to have more females in such fields by narrowing down the gap to some extent.

Are we in agreement?

We are getting there.

Mindfulness:


I can't admit anything i have never denied.



It is a problem as there is a shortage of skills in these fields in several countries. Since biology is NOT THE ONLY factor behind the disparity, it is only logical to increase the numbers by tackling the environmental factors. Now, the aim is not to have a 50-50 distribution of males and females but to have more females in such fields by narrowing down the gap to some extent.



We are getting there.

Sure, men and women should be given fair and equal opportunities in education but treating the skills shortage in STEM mainly as a gender issue is only going to run into more problems down the road.

From a cost benefit perspective when you consider all the money, resources and effort expended in order to encourage girls - many of whom we agree are naturally disinclined, into STEM and compare that with those who actually make the choice (due to true passion) to remain in the field doubts arise as to if this is the most effective route to address the skills shortage issue.

Because a great number of women – even those in STEM, have the desire to start families and raise children there will be challenges on their part to put in the same amount of time for their vocation as their male counterparts and this may lead to compromises in the quality of work being put out. This is already playing out in some areas.

You want to solve a skills shortage problem? Tackle everyone without making this a gender problem, results will be far more reaching this way.

ApexTitan:


Sure, men and women should be given fair and equal opportunities in education but treating the skills shortage in STEM mainly as a gender issue is only going to run into more problems down the road.

From a cost benefit perspective when you consider all the money, resources and effort expended in order to encourage girls - many of whom we agree are naturally disinclined, into STEM and compare that with those who actually make the choice (due to true passion) to remain in the field doubts arise as to if this is the most effective route to address the skills shortage issue.

Good point! Let us talk about the cost benefit perspective.

Do you know how much money countries have spent to encourage girls into STEM?

I just know that many countries spend a relatively low amount of money in terms of percentage of GDP on education. And I also know that money can do a lot for schools in EVERY respect.

Because a great number of women – even those in STEM, have the desire to start families and raise children there will be challenges on their part to put in the same amount of time for their vocation as their male counterparts and this may lead to compromises in the quality of work being put out. This is already playing out in some areas.

Well, men also want families but do not face these challenges, why is that so?

You want to solve a skills shortage problem? Tackle everyone without making this a gender problem, results will be far more reaching this way.

I agree but every group specific problem has to be tackled differently.

Mindfulness:
No, this is not the conclusion they reached, this is what they measured.

Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children.

I remain unenlightened as to the point you are making - Asian kids had bigger heads than white kids, who had larger heads than black kids, and IQ co-related, regardless of overall mass. This changes nothing in my reply o my position.

Mindfulness:
Unfortunately, there are many more studies that show the same. Asians score best at IQ tests and Blacks are at the other end of the spectrum.

"Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Neither does this

Mindfulness:
TV, nature or nurture?

I could be nature or nature and nurture, but it is certainly not nurture alone - and in terms of brain size and relative advantage, as you've ably evidenced, nature is enthroned from the get go !

Men have a natural edge when it comes to STEM field study and participation.

Mindfulness:
I have already answered your question. The brain size differences are measured by taking into account the proportion to the rest of the body.

A short Chinese man who has a smaller brain than a tall African (American) man has a larger brain when the proportion to the rest of the body is taken into account.

I believe the study was clear that "the rest of the body" had no absolute effect? My reading, was that the brain capacity was independent of body size. But whatever, my view and position remains unchanged.

Mindfulness:
Irrelevant.

Totally relevent;

1. If nature dictates that men have greater cranial capacity than women, does that make men more intelligent/ Does it mean they possess higher IQ's

2. Is the seemingly superiority of black athletes due to nature or nurture?

Mindfulness:

Good point! Let us talk about the cost benefit perspective.

Do you know how much money countries have spent to encourage girls into STEM?

I just know that many countries spend a relatively low amount of money in terms of percentage of GDP on education. And I also know that money can do a lot for schools in EVERY respect.

Why should countries spend money to specifically encourage girls to take up STEM courses?

Mindfulness:
Well, men also want families but do not face these challenges, why is that so?

Again you mis-think this. Men and women typically have families in conjunction - not independently. A narrative that always views the two in isolation is bound to fail.

And, the natural inclination to have children is greater in women, the initial bond with the child is also greater, meaning the obvious thing is for maternal care to take initial precedence - The desires of women and choices of families simply reflect this reality - nature, nature, nature.

Mindfulness:
I agree but every group specific problem has to be tackled differently.

The lack of women in STEM is not a problem - your ideology insists it is for poorly founded equalist notions.

Trying to coral women into stem is a problem. As Stillfire has noted the drop-out rate is way high? That's because women are being herded down routes they are not actually inclined to go. When they realise this, they simply drop out, or opt out if already qualified.

Re-engineering to accord with ideology as opposed to reality will come at cost - it always does. If a river flows one way and you insist on it flowing in a different direction, there will be a cost involved. Forcing women into STEM is bad for women and STEM.

As to your worship of IQ, this is quite odd. IQ alone does not capture the measure of a man, and is no metaphor for his worth. Things such as compassion, tenacity, vision, all play important - and it could be argued - greater parts.

Why have your large headed Asian men not led the world in inventions and technology? Or in establishing lasting civilisations?


TV

TV01:

I remain unenlightened as to the point you are making - Asian kids had bigger heads than white kids, who had larger heads than black kids, and IQ co-related, regardless of overall mass. This changes nothing in my reply o my position.



Neither does this


I could be nature or nature and nurture, but it is certainly not nurture alone - and in terms of brain size and relative advantage, as you've ably evidenced, nature is enthroned from the get go !

Men have a natural edge when it comes to STEM field study and participation.


I believe the study was clear that "the rest of the body" had no absolute effect? My reading, was that the brain capacity was independent of body size. But whatever, my view and position remains unchanged.


Totally relevent;

1. If nature dictates that men have greater cranial capacity than women, does that make men more intelligent/ Does it mean they possess higher IQ's

2. Is the seemingly superiority of black athletes due to nature or nurture?



Why should countries spend money to specifically encourage girls to take up STEM courses?


Again you mis-think this. Men and women typically have families in conjunction - not independently. A narrative that always views the two in isolation is bound to fail.

And, the natural inclination to have children is greater in women, the initial bond with the child is also greater, meaning the obvious thing is for maternal care to take initial precedence - The desires of women and choices of families simply reflect this reality - nature, nature, nature.


The lack of women in STEM is not a problem - your ideology insists it is for poorly founded equalist notions.

Trying to coral women into stem is a problem. As Stillfire has noted the drop-out rate is way high? That's because women are being herded down routes they are not actually inclined to go. When they realise this, they simply drop out, or opt out if already qualified.

Re-engineering to accord with ideology as opposed to reality will come at cost - it always does. If a river flows one way and you insist on it flowing in a different direction, there will be a cost involved. Forcing women into STEM is bad for women and STEM.

As to your worship of IQ, this is quite odd. IQ alone does not capture the measure of a man, and is no metaphor for his worth. Things such as compassion, tenacity, vision, all play important - and it could be argued - greater parts.

Why have your large headed Asian men not led the world in inventions and technology? Or in establishing lasting civilisations?


TV

@red

Because they want to and because they can.

Those following this thread will notice how the discussion takes on lesser and lesser the tone of victimhood and oppression. The realisation should spread that gender disparity is a normal feature of life, men will dominate certain fields and women will do so in others. The numbers and percentages will always be in a flux so the quest for parity is ultimately a snipe hunt.

ApexTitan:
Those following this thread will notice how the discussion takes on lesser and lesser the tone of victimhood and oppression. The realisation should spread that gender disparity is a normal feature of life, men will dominate certain fields and women will do so in others. The numbers and percentages will always be in a flux so the quest for parity is ultimately a snipe hunt.

You haven't answered my question.

Mindfulness:

@red

Because they want to and because they can.

And no one is denying them that right, the question is, is the justification rational or not? Is it, as some suspect, driven by the wrong-headed notions of the equalist, such notions beloved of bored and over-entitled middle-class Western women - and their enablers .

Mindfulness:
Unfortunately, there are many more studies that show the same. Asians score best at IQ tests and Blacks are at the other end of the spectrum.

"Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

...and another nail in your coffin on this issue question for you;

based on the evidence you supplied and rest your case on, are Africans less intelligent than African-Americans? Some 20% according to your evidence !

Quit worshipping IQ. It's a not very comprehensive or completely accurate construct purporting to measure human intelligence. It probably has it's value, but will at the very least contain some bias.

I suggest you graciously bow-out Mindfullness, you've painted yourself into a tight corner


TV

^{...do you actually answer questions or just pose them}

Mindfulness:

You haven't answered my question.

You mean these ones?

Do you know how much money countries have spent to encourage girls into STEM?

No. Whatever amount they are spending has so far achieved marginal or in many cases negative growth.

Well, men also want families but do not face these challenges, why is that so?

TV has already supplied the answer; the responsibility of child birth falls largely on the woman, this is different on the man for obvious reasons.

ApexTitan:


You mean these ones?


No. Whatever amount they are spending has so far achieved marginal or in many cases negative growth.




TV has already supplied the answer; the responsibility of child birth falls largely on the woman, this is different on the man for obvious reasons.

Who is they?

TV01:
[i][/i]
And no one is denying them that right, the question is, is the justification rational or not? Is it, as some suspect, driven by the wrong-headed notions of the equalist, such notions beloved of bored and over-entitled middle-class Western women - and their enablers .

Very rational.




.

..and another nail in your coffin on this issue question for you;

based on the evidence you supplied and rest your case on, are Africans less intelligent than African-Americans? Some 20% according to your evidence !
Quit worshipping IQ. It's a not very comprehensive or completely accurate construct purporting to measure human intelligence. It probably has it's value, but will at the very least contain some bias.

I suggest you graciously bow-out Mindfullness, you've painted yourself into a tight corner


TV

^{...do you actually answer questions or just pose them}

I am not worshipping IQ and I have never said it is a complete and accurate construct to measure human intelligence. In fact, these tests are quite simple so the question is why are other ethnic groups so much better?


I would appreciate it if you were able to pass your point across without having to use coffin and burial rhetoric. It does not make you sound very matter-of-fact but rather sentimental.

ApexTitan:


I see, so you are angling for an increase in percentage and not gender parity in STEM? What percentage should we take as acceptable then?

Again your argument falls apart when we look at societies that have removed or greatly reduced these cultural barriers, the women in those places are still not entering STEM in droves as was hoped. Courses in humanities, social sciences and arts still command the majority of women's interests there and the "issue" of under-representation remains. This remains an "issue" or a problem that must be fixed only because activists and the likes close themselves to the possibility of there being a natural/biological basis for the reason why these gender choices are made. There is evidence that strongly suggests such a natural bias, factor this possibility into your considerations then re-appraise the situation.

The funny thing about this topic is the group of women who know in their heart of hearts that they find mathematics or engineering boring and unappealing but because it is now seen as the corner stone of national development turn around and claim that it was because of men/society/culture that they were prevented from entering those fields. (Cue that comic oga TV put up in the beginning of this thread. )

I have strong faith in African women and would treat our issues independently of Western women.
To highlight our differences, as of the 19th century Western women were still regarded as non-legal beings who could not even vote, but African women could boast of the benefit of a balance of power between the sexes despite the society being patrilineal.
Fast forward to the 20th century, while Western women were changing the idea of womanhood through feminism, Victorian and colonial policies were being injected into Africa, thereby retrogressing the African female social, political leaderships. During the colonial period, the curricula emphasized domestic science for girls. Technological and scientific based education was not encouraged. The curricula for girls enabled them to become good housewives, rather than income earners.
Despite this and every other thing I have said, Nigerian female rates roughly match the Western counterparts. I don't need anyone to tell me that we can do excellently well if given the opportunities Western women have.

Stillfire:


I have strong faith in African women and would treat our issues independently of Western women.
To highlight our differences, as of the 19th century Western women were still regarded as non-legal beings who could not even vote, but African women could boast of the benefit of a balance of power between the sexes despite the society being patrilineal.
Fast forward to the 20th century, while Western women were changing the idea of womanhood through feminism, Victorian and colonial policies were being injected into Africa, thereby retrogressing the African female social, political leaderships. During the colonial period, the curricula emphasized domestic science for girls. Technological and scientific based education was not encouraged. The curricula for girls enabled them to become good housewives, rather than income earners.
Despite this and every other thing I have said, Nigerian female rates roughly match the Western counterparts. I don't need anyone to tell me that we can do excellently well if given the opportunities Western women have.

yeah,good points

Stillfire:
Despite this and every other thing I have said, Nigerian female rates roughly match the Western counterparts. I don't need anyone to tell me that we can do excellently well if given the opportunities Western women have.

Morning Stilly.. how far?

Deep down you do realise this is mostly wishful thinking don't you? !

If Nigerian women are given the opportunities that Western women have, thet'll do exactly the same thing Western women do - and pretty much what they themselves already do now

If Nigerian women are the beneficiaries of affirmative action, positive policy and financial incentives to to study STEM courses, and at the same time have an array of alternative choices, they will either;

1. Continue to take advantage of the enabling environment to enter STEM fields and then (a) drop out at higher numbers before completion (b) leave the profession in higher numbers after completion - many within a few years, and (c) add very little, if anything, to actual progression in these fields

2. Simply express a preference for other fields or specialities that are more in keeping with their inclinations and amenable to their lifestyle choices.

In wiring, there is little difference between any two groups of women - however you categorise them . Nigeria is way more likely to produce a Kim K before a Bill G.

To properly re-engineer society, you first have to re-wire women

Please don't, we love you as you are were


TV

TV01:

Morning Stilly.. how far?

Deep down you do realise this is mostly wishful thinking don't you? !

If Nigerian women are given the opportunities that Western women have, thet'll do exactly the same thing Western women do - and pretty much what they themselves already do now

If Nigerian women are the beneficiaries of affirmative action, positive policy and financial incentives to to study STEM courses, and at the same time have an array of alternative choices, they will either;

1. Continue to take advantage of the enabling environment to enter STEM fields and then (a) drop out at higher numbers before completion (b) leave the profession in higher numbers after completion - many within a few years, and (c) add very little, if anything, to actual progression in these fields

2. Simply express a preference for other fields or specialities that are more in keeping with their inclinations and amenable to their lifestyle choices.

In wiring, there is little difference between any two groups of women - however you categorise them . Nigeria is way more likely to produce a Kim K before a Bill G.

To properly re-engineer society, you first have to re-wire women

Please don't, we love you as you are were


TV

Lmao! TV01, why are you such a party pooper?
Don't worry. I will be the person to pour water on you when you faint as a result of hearing about the many inventions by Nigerian girls.

Stillfire:


Lmao! TV01, why are you such a party pooper?
Don't worry. I will be the person to pour water on you when you faint as a result of hearing about the many inventions by Nigerian girls.

there are few inventions already....
nigerian girls have already invented aristoism & the art of washing their bits in the food of their intended preys so as to put them under a spell.

coogar:


there are few inventions already....
nigerian girls have already invented aristoism & the art of washing their bits in the food of their intended preys so as to put them under a spell.

Lmao! No be science be that? To find the cure for wandering di.cks? In fact that needs to be patented.

Stillfire:


Lmao! No be science be that? To find the cure for wandering di.cks? In fact that needs to be patented.

goodluck, stillfire......

we will be here when NAFDAC starts arresting you guys for vagïnal poisoning.

Stillfire:


Lmao! TV01, why are you such a party pooper?
Don't worry. I will be the person to pour water on you when you faint as a result of hearing about the many inventions by Nigerian girls.

Invent, as in invention? Do you actually grasp the implication of that word. To create, originate or facilitate through ones own faculties and effort. And not just any old thing, something that will be useful & progressive at that

Stilly, please, lets be honest with each other, that is not even within the purview of pretty much any Nigerian male. Where is the enabling environment, the legacy, the tradition? Of building and maintaining sef, let alone creating.

Maybe in the murky past, but at this point in time, Nigeria does not have ambience required. Even those who attain off the back of what has gone before, do not do so in a climate of desperation and impoverishment. People look to sate their base needs first.

Sad innit? But that's the truth and Nigeria could well be a metaphor for black. Right now, there is litttle hope beyond Nigerians making refinements or progressing in fields already developed - and even this is typically in the enabling Wext.

The world today is not "black led" in any area of real significance. The best The best we can hope for is to excel in what obtains. Then press on to create that right environment.

Afterall, even the "Asian races" that Mindfulness lauded have created very little of note - but they have learnt to progress and excel even beyond the creators in some cases.


TV

ApexTitan:
Those following this thread will notice how the discussion takes on lesser and lesser the tone of victimhood and oppression. The realisation should spread that gender disparity is a normal feature of life, men will dominate certain fields and women will do so in others. The numbers and percentages will always be in a flux so the quest for parity is ultimately a snipe hunt.

Maybe there is a quest for parity because women have been told over the years that men are superior because they are different.

Even the tone of this thread at one point was that there was 'soft' STEM because women were more in those areas and there was 'strong' STEM.

The earlier we appreciate everyone's differences without some set thinking they are superior, the better for everyone of us.

AT one point, sumptuous women were seen as the deal and women were fed to be fat.

Today, women are told slim is superior and we have the statistics to show the number of women suffering from anorexia and other eating disorders

bukatyne:
Maybe there is a quest for parity because women have been told over the years that men are superior because they are different.

No, just that men and women are indeed different, and have different relative strengths, even though there is a very high degree of overlap. Which is demonstrable and makes absolute sense, whether you believe in creation or evolution.

And it's more like a quest for sameness, not parity. Equal opportunity and open access is all but universal.

bukatyne:
Even the tone of this thread at one point was that there was 'soft' STEM because women were more in those areas and there was 'strong' STEM.

IFF you were referring to my earlier post, it was "soft" and "hard". Hard being to involve more pure math, modelling and the like. Hard in a TEM sense - all of which play to mens strengths. Soft - for example medicine, bio-medicinal sciences - look for other things. No one asks about your bedside manner or empathy when it comes to coding. Check out the requirements for becoming a medical Dr.

bukatyne:
The earlier we appreciate everyone's differences without some set thinking they are superior, the better for everyone of us.

Which is totally ironic, as the move to equalise representation ignores that very fact of difference - what exactly is your point? Nobody has stated men are superior, just that men and women have different relative strengths, and when it comes to STEM, especially the more mathematical based ones, men have an edge. Please, show us where anyone has plainly said or even implied that men are superior to women

No one has said that women can't or shouldn't be allowed to do STEM, or all men are better than all women when it comes to STEM, or that women are inferior. We appreciate the difference and question forced and unthought through re-engineering in the name of equal representation.

bukatyne:
AT one point, sumptuous women were seen as the deal and women were fed to be fat.

Bogus - was it men that formulated or enforced that ideal? What on earth does this even have to do with questions of equality, superiority or not

bukatyne:
Today, women are told slim is superior and we have the statistics to show the number of women suffering from anorexia and other eating disorders

Likewise, is it men that peddle, or enforce, or shame women because of this - at least any more so than women? Everyone knows the typical man prefers curvy. Curvy 0! not obese. And no one is typically checking for anorexic chicks .

Case dismissed


TV

bukatyne:


Maybe there is a quest for parity because women have been told over the years that men are superior because they are different.

Even the tone of this thread at one point was that there was 'soft' STEM because women were more in those areas and there was 'strong' STEM.

The earlier we appreciate everyone's differences without some set thinking they are superior, the better for everyone of us.

AT one point, sumptuous women were seen as the deal and women were fed to be fat.

Today, women are told slim is superior and we have the statistics to show the number of women suffering from anorexia and other eating disorders

very true sister,its basically conditioned,its like how many people think those who know english are probably intelligent and even non-english speakers(even here on nairaland) would correct and make fun of a fellow nonenglish speaker,the question is WHY?because of the group(english white) that enforced their selfimposed superiority to the point whereby basicall all written sources of knowledge are in english...its a typical case of:an inferiority complex from the selfimposed superior group,therefore that group lashes out to the group(s) they want to 'make'(through physical and/or non-physical) feel inferior,thats why so much force they give.anyway great points 8-)

doublex:
very true sister,its basically conditioned,its like how many people think those who know english are probably intelligent and even non-english speakers(even here on nairaland) would correct and make fun of a fellow nonenglish speaker,the question is WHY?because of the group(english white) that enforced their selfimposed superiority to the point whereby basicall all written sources of knowledge are in english...its a typical case of:an inferiority complex from the selfimposed superior group,therefore that group lashes out to the group(s) they want to 'make'(through physical and/or non-physical) feel inferior,thats why so much force they give.anyway great points 8-)

True

And thanks

TV01:
No, just that men and women are indeed different, and have different relative strengths, even though there is a very high degree of overlap. Which is demonstrable and makes absolute sense, whether you believe in creation or evolution.

And it's more like a quest for sameness, not parity. Equal opportunity and open access is all but universal.

IFF you were referring to my earlier post, it was "soft" and "hard". Hard being to involve more pure math, modelling and the like. Hard in a TEM sense - all of which play to mens strengths. Soft - for example medicine, bio-medicinal sciences - look for other things. No one asks about your bedside manner or empathy when it comes to coding. Check out the requirements for becoming a medical Dr.

Which is totally ironic, as the move to equalise representation ignores that very fact of difference - what exactly is your point? Nobody has stated men are superior, just that men and women have different relative strengths, and when it comes to STEM, especially the more mathematical based ones, men have an edge. Please, show us where anyone has plainly said or even implied that men are superior to women

No one has said that women can't or shouldn't be allowed to do STEM, or all men are better than all women when it comes to STEM, or that women are inferior. We appreciate the difference and question forced and unthought through re-engineering in the name of equal representation.

Bogus - was it men that formulated or enforced that ideal? What on earth does this even have to do with questions of equality, superiority or not

Likewise, is it men that peddle, or enforce, or shame women because of this - at least any more so than women? Everyone knows the typical man prefers curvy. Curvy 0! not obese. And no one is typically checking for anorexic chicks .

Case dismissed


TV

I am mobile So I will just respond generally.

1. @Women not allowed to do STEM etc: I started this thread remember So I questioned the forced representation first which posters have brought nice points in favour of.

2. Re soft and hard STEM: I thought they were classified into biological and physical? Your soft and hard was to subtly ridicule the efforts put into the biological sciences (afterall, women populate the biological aka soft sciences So it must be soft)

3.@bold: That was a joke right? I do not know a more popular theme here.

4.@ women's looks: it was an analogy and I was not laying the blame on men; more on 'society' (whosoever makes up the ever present ghostly society).

It ties well into the superiority stuff....

When a big woman was seen as the deal, slimmer women were seen as suffering etc.

Now, a slim woman is the deal and bigger women are doing all to be slimmer.

Doublex also used the analogy of English as a language. Non-English speakers are seen as non-intelligent.

bukatyne:


Maybe there is a quest for parity because women have been told over the years that men are superior because they are different.

Even the tone of this thread at one point was that there was 'soft' STEM because women were more in those areas and there was 'strong' STEM.

The earlier we appreciate everyone's differences without some set thinking they are superior, the better for everyone of us.

AT one point, sumptuous women were seen as the deal and women were fed to be fat.

Today, women are told slim is superior and we have the statistics to show the number of women suffering from anorexia and other eating disorders

I hope we are not back to the "its all men's fault" and ignoring the role nature has in this.

Gender parity here is a futile course and those who are pushing for it are doing so not because STEM as a body of knowledge stands to gain anything in particular if more women got in it but because of the unhealthy competition between the sexes that their ideology prescribes.

Wouldn't you like to see more women in, if not out rightly dominating, not just STEM but in other fields too like the (combatant roles in the) military, female dominance in vocations like mining, auto-mobile repair (mechanics), fire fighting and construction? These are also areas that society has oppressed or conditioned women to shy away from, right? Let the full impact of this ideology come to the fore and we'll see if society is any better or stronger for it.

bukatyne:
1. @Women not allowed to do STEM etc: I started this thread remember So I questioned the forced representation first which posters have brought nice points in favour of.

Pele 0! Thread starter. At least this one was a bubbly child

bukatyne:
2. Re soft and hard STEM: I thought they were classified into biological and physical? Your soft and hard was to subtly ridicule the efforts put into the biological sciences (afterall, women populate the biological aka soft sciences So it must be soft)

As someone here says, I am responsible for what I write, not what you read, or read into it. In context we are discussing STEM, particularly the TEM aspect as that is proving the sticking point in term of female participation.

I actualy went back and checked - I referenced Bellongs post which touched on the higher mathematical type demands and specifically noted "TEM". Harder in this sense clearly meant the mathematical requirements.

I even went on to say that women could certainly excel in TEM, just unlikely to do so at the same rate as men, because of mens comparative advantage, and also womens choices. Nothing in that post - or any other - said men were superior to women, or vice-versa, just that they have different relative strengths.

Funny how you love to accuse people of picking snippets from a post, when you have done exactly that here ! If you have nothing else, then the bolded question remains unanswered.

bukatyne:
3.@bold: That was a joke right? I do not know a more popular theme here.

Again, your "equalist" led perspective colours your perception. Many have been discussing relative differences in wiring, strengths and choices - you read - or twist - that to mean claims are being made for superiority - again, I can't help your combination victim mentality/inferiority complex.

bukatyne:
4.@ women's looks: it was an analogy and I was not laying the blame on men; more on 'society' (whosoever makes up the ever present ghostly society).

This is still bogus - are men not judged on more? Their looks, height, pocket, status etc?

bukatyne:
It ties well into the superiority stuff....
When a big woman was seen as the deal, slimmer women were seen as suffering etc.
Now, a slim woman is the deal and bigger women are doing all to be slimmer.

Oily fish

bukatyne:
Doublex also used the analogy of English as a language. Non-English speakers are seen as non-intelligent.

More oily fish - no one said women are not intelligent - just that men and women have different relative strengths and preferences.

Do you have anything else - other than insinuation?


TV

ApexTitan:


I hope we are not back to the "its all men's fault" and ignoring the role nature has in this.

I started this thread, remember even though I have been MIA

ApexTitan:
Gender parity here is a futile course and those who are pushing for it are doing so not because STEM as a body of knowledge stands to gain anything in particular if more women got in it but because of the unhealthy competition between the sexes that their ideology prescribes.

They are doing so because women have been told over time that men are superior because of STEM amongst others. I have read that on NL severally.

Again, as some posters said here, more women are getting educated so they are pushing for more women in STEM so that there are naturally more STEM professionals.

ApexTitan:
Wouldn't you like to see more women in, if not out rightly dominating, not just STEM but in other fields too like the (combatant roles in the) military, female dominance in vocations like mining, auto-mobile repair (mechanics), fire fighting and construction?These are also areas that society has oppressed or conditioned women to shy away from, right? Let the full impact of this ideology come to the fore and we'll see if society is any better or stronger for it.

.

Moot point; we also want to see more boys as house helps, sales boys, sex slaves etc.