[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 113, Issue 22
From: |
Cinder Roxley |
Subject: |
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 113, Issue 22 |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:50:43 -0500 |
On September 18, 2019 at 5:38:58 AM, Isaac David
<[1]isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info> wrote:
The latter isn't necessarily a consequence of the former, which you
seem to imply. Evidence shows there's a negative correlation between
the fairer a society is for women and the amount of women getting into
STEM. This would be explained by biologicaly-rooted dimorphic interests
that flourish the best under free conditions. _Most_ (cis) women would
rather excel at other areas if given the opportunity, and that's fine.
Men aren't discriminated against just because women dominate fields
such as psychology and nursing.
It's a bare fact in psychology that _sex_ produces differences in
domain-specific intelligences, even though general intelligence may be
the same (at least for our species).
Utter nonsense given that it was women who pioneered computer
programming. “Tedious” computing and calculating was seen as “woman’s
work” for most of the 20th century. Software development was considered
“soft work” and for women supposedly because men had
"biologicaly-rooted dimorphic interests” in the higher paying “hard
work” hardware engineering sector. There was no gender disparity in
software until the 1980’s not coincidently around the same time that
corporations realized proprietary software could generate massive
profits for them. There were no "biologicaly-rooted dimorphic
interests” in software development until it was a huge moneymaker, and
then as per their modus operandi, became dominated by white American
males.
References
1. mailto:isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 113, Issue 22,
Cinder Roxley <=