• 'You're too hot to be an engineer'
    75 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;48892886]I would say people who demand gender quotas severely over estimate societal conditioning. Society can't determine what you will like or what you want to do, it can only make you feel comfortable or uncomfortable when you try to do it.[/QUOTE] Well you're half right. People on the progressive left who want to fix inequality with gender quotas do overestimate social conditioning, but I can't see how it's true that social conditioning doesn't effect your desires and ambitions.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;48892853]sexual dimorphism in humans in a manner that isn't just genitalia? yes, because there is literally nothing that PROVES girls are just inherently more x and y; all of it can be attributed to society. Even the research posted previously doesn't prove that it's an inherent trait; you severely underestimate the power of societal conditioning[/QUOTE] Well, for starters, sexual hormones have a significant impact on behavior. To say that all your sex impacts is your plumbing is ignorant and simplistic. The physical differences along with the vulnerability 9-month long pregnancy entails are enough reason for significant differences in psychology. This is something I find idiotic with gender studies, they assume that everything aside from genitalia is gender-neutral in its natural state and that any non-physical dimorphism is due to artificial gender roles. I don't see why we should consider that a scientific approach when nobody seems to be willing to back that supposition.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48893062]Well, for starters, sexual hormones have a significant impact on behavior. To say that all your sex impacts is your plumbing is ignorant and simplistic. The physical differences along with the vulnerability 9-month long pregnancy entails are enough reason for significant differences in psychology. This is something I find idiotic with gender studies, they assume that everything aside from genitalia is gender-neutral in its natural state and that any non-physical dimorphism is due to artificial gender roles. I don't see why we should consider that a scientific approach when nobody seems to be willing to back that supposition.[/QUOTE] Because one word will make everything to say moot: biotruth
[QUOTE=Yahnich;48893115]that's because we have no reason to think that the sexes differ enough mentally to attribute stuff like "liking science" to it[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Yahnich;48893115]not to mention the actual physical differences like women having less spatial intuitiveness than men can be [URL="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915080431.htm"]taught[/URL][/QUOTE] You claim there's no biological difference but then prove there's a difference.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48892887]Boys and Girls play with dolls. The way they play with dolls is different, which resulted in different types of dolls for each costumer group, not the other way around. [/QUOTE] Yes, but they are NEVER marketed as "dolls" to boys, they call them "action figures" or something instead. In which case they are still completely different products. I'm gonna tell you an anecdotal story here to highlight my point. I grew up with a sister, 2 male cousins, and a girl cousin, we were all in the same age range, only few years apart. We used to play together with any toys, dolls, prams, guns, everything. We would dress up dolls and play house and at later fight with them. However as we got a bit older, and it happened fast in like a year or so, a it felt like a wedge was driven between us because us boys would get teased for playing with dolls with the girls and the girls got teased for running around outside with BB guns. Eventually we hardly played together at all except for ball games. The moral of the story is that there wasn't anything driving me or my peers to prefer one type of toy or play over another until someone taught us that. Nothing instinctively driving girls and boys to play different. At young age all children are a blank slate, even how to play is learned from parents, TV, ads and so on. It's easier to market products to a single demographic, nowadays you get the same fucking toys that comes in boys and girls editions. They want you to buy 2 toys, one for your son and one for your daughter (hypothetically). [QUOTE=Ragekipz;48892887]Where the fuck do you live? More than ever girls are being raised to be their own person and follow their dreams. Unless their dreams involve being housewives, in that case they're traitors of the movement. [/QUOTE] Or unless your dream is becoming an engineer if you're a woman. Well maybe my post does sound like I time travelled from 1950's, but just because things are looking up in a few countries doesn't mean that the plight is over everywhere. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;48892887] Gender roles WORK. It got us this far and it got loads of other animals far as well. On top of that, you should read this to understand the whole pink x blue thing [url]http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141117-the-pink-vs-blue-gender-myth[/url][/QUOTE] I don't know about that. I can't argue exact statistics but I'm sure at least 80% of the entire human history was shaped by men, if you call that working fine than I will argue no further. I don't know where you're going with the colour thing as the article only backs my point, children don't have a preference either way it could be green x yellow or black x white for all I fucking care. The point still stands, we are thrusting kids into a specific group and a specific mindset.
Relevant [video=youtube;p5LRdW8xw70]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/video] Not much for arguing, though. So I'm gonna stay mostly out of it.
women get nearly more than enough incentives nowadays to go into stem some are essentially just being pushed into it whether they like it or not, removing their freedom of choice
[QUOTE=Yahnich;48893115]that's because we have no reason to think that the sexes differ enough mentally to attribute stuff like "liking science" to it, especially considering the 'evolutionary aspects' of our differences are meaningless in today's society, we're not hunter-gatherers any more. not to mention the actual physical differences like women having less spatial intuitiveness than men can be [URL="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915080431.htm"]taught[/URL] again, i'll admit there's probably some part of it, but in my opinion it's heavily based in society and education because "biotruths" is the laziest answer (that doesn't even have any proof afaik besides anecdotal evidence and conjecture) also there's this [URL="http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/gender-gap-boggles-even-physicists-69622"]article[/URL] that shows tests between boys and girls differ between countries; same genes, different cultures [editline]13th October 2015[/editline] like none of u guys going ROFL ITS LITERALLY SEXUAL DIMORPHISM has shown me any researched facts and god knows ive been trying to look some up[/QUOTE] That's different from: [QUOTE]there is literally nothing that PROVES girls are just inherently more x and y; [B]all of it can be attributed to society[/B][/QUOTE] But nice to see that you're admitting there's some nuance to it. My main qualm was with you saying there was literally no difference between sexes other than genitalia, I was simply pointing out that common sense dictates that it is simply not that clear cut, I don't need to show you peer-reviewed publications to demonstrate that. As for the extent to which those natural tendencies play a role in uneven gender distribution, I don't really know. I'd say that the fact we actually see more gender polarization in more developed and egalitarian societies, where there are also massive communication campaigns to bring more women in STEM fields, points toward that distribution being the natural tendency. Perhaps you have another explanation to that, though.
I was impressed that she was an engineer until I saw that it was a software engineer. Not bad, but I was thinking like mechanical engineer or aerospace engineer.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48892766]Because with everything else being equal, boys and girls will be attracted equally to every area of study; just like how right now the amount of people with blonde hair who study engineering should be in the same proportion to the amount of people with brown hair who study engineering. As in, gender shouldn't be disproportionate, just like another genetic trait, hair colour, isn't.[/QUOTE] The problem is, that just by talking about boys and girls you're creating a situation which is not equal. The sexes aren't the same. There's different draws, some small differences in problem solving and stuff that's often rooted in biology. It's actually fairly common to see STEM fields very popular among women in countries where female dominated jobs are less valued, where sexism is much higher. In countries were the societal and economic valuations between typically male and typically female dominated jobs evaporate, you see a lot less draw towards stem fields among women.
you can say that to men probably too
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48892693]The thing is that, with all else equal, fields like engineering should be attracting an equal amount of boys and girls. The problem is biases and perceptions, a degree of sexism, mean that such fields of study are disproportionately biased towards men.[/QUOTE] ...or maybe people don't want to go to X because they just don't want to? almost no women here go to programing, and tbh, I don't blame them, its boring as fuck People usualy go for whatever they want to go because its either their best strongest choice, or what they like the most, or the best they can get. I highly doubt there are a lot of cases of "no daughter of mine is gonna do men's work"
[QUOTE=kweh;48908735]...or maybe people don't want to go to X because they just don't want to? almost no women here go to programing, and tbh, I don't blame them, its boring as fuck People usualy go for whatever they want to go because its either their best strongest choice, or what they like the most, or the best they can get. I highly doubt there are a lot of cases of "no daughter of mine is gonna do men's work"[/QUOTE] Or maybe because kids are raised to believe that programming is a career for men only?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48914033]Or maybe because kids are raised to believe that programming is a career for men only?[/QUOTE] Or maybe programming is not all "milk and honey", is highly competitive and stresfull, with employers often having ridiculous requirements, you can get stuck in front of the desk forever and you are required to learn new technologies constantly, etc... ?
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48914418]Or maybe programming is not all "milk and honey", is highly competitive and stresfull, with employers often having ridiculous requirements, you can get stuck in front of the desk forever and you are required to learn new technologies constantly, etc... ?[/QUOTE] Implying that the only jobs women go after are "milk and honey", and implying that women aren't competitive, can't handle stress, can't meet harsh job requirements, can't handle a desk job and can't constantly be improving their skills and knowledge? Gee no wonder some jobs are disproportionately held by certain genders, if people are still being raised in modern society to believe that the capabilities of women are inferior to those of men.
[QUOTE=Humin;48893252]Relevant [video=youtube;p5LRdW8xw70]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/video] Not much for arguing, though. So I'm gonna stay mostly out of it.[/QUOTE] Have you guys watched this video? It's really good and explains all of this stuff. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48919791]Implying that the only jobs women go after are "milk and honey", and implying that women aren't competitive, can't handle stress, can't meet harsh job requirements, can't handle a desk job and can't constantly be improving their skills and knowledge? Gee no wonder some jobs are disproportionately held by certain genders, if people are still being raised in modern society to believe that the capabilities of women are inferior to those of men.[/QUOTE] Or maybe people (both men and women) enjoy having free time and a lifestyle that isn't highly stressful and soul destroying. In the past 50 years, female happiness has gone down in western countries even as the social situation and employ-ability of most women has improved. On top of this, 1st world countries where women have more freedom to choose whatever career they wish have more women going into- I guess what you would call 'traditional' female jobs (like nursing, teaching, social work, psychology, veterinary science, beauty science). The only countries with close to gender parity in STEM are places like Pakistan (which coincidentally, has a very misogynistic culture and workplace environment), where STEM jobs are the only positions that make money and the people doing those jobs are miserable. In the countries with the most gender parity in every other field of employment, such as Sweden (one of if not THE most gender egalitarian countries in the world), there are still a minority of women in STEM and a minority of men in fields like nursing. Why does Pakistan have more gender parity in STEM than Sweden? This doesn't coincide with the hypothesis that there would be total gender parity in those fields if not for societal factors that affect only women, because if it were the case then the number of women in those fields in the west would have increased within the last 50 years as societal attitudes have changed. Instead we have seen the percentage of women in STEM in most western countries decrease in the last 50 years as working conditions have gotten worse and worse in those fields. Men are, for whatever reason, expected to do things by society that make them miserable or else they aren't a 'real man' or whatever. Maybe the problem isn't that women are underrepresented in STEM, but that men are over-represented because they are expected to do jobs that everybody (or at least the vast majority of people) hates and find miserable (no offense people in STEM). That certainly makes more sense given the situation we're in. Men are, on average, less happy than women (although women are starting to catch up). Men also make up the vast majority of suicides related to depression (about 80% of all suicide victims are men).
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48919791]Implying that the only jobs women go after are "milk and honey", and implying that women aren't competitive, can't handle stress, can't meet harsh job requirements, can't handle a desk job and can't constantly be improving their skills and knowledge? Gee no wonder some jobs are disproportionately held by certain genders, if people are still being raised in modern society to believe that the capabilities of women are inferior to those of men.[/QUOTE] The gender gap in programming is somewhat bigger then the gap in other IT areas. Programming is somewhat of an interesting profession, because a lot of programmers start very young, or at least long before any university or college is going to teach you too. They can all tell you a boring story about their Commodore 64 and how they wrote Hello World in basic, and fucked around with computers for 8 years until they dropped out of college, because somebody offered them something better. Even in university, most people who din't drop programming after the introductory course, where people who knew what they where doing when they walked in. If you're looking to figure out why the gender gap is so much bigger then other areas of IT, you're probably looking for why males are more likely to align with programming at a younger age.
[QUOTE=Cold;48921009]The gender gap in programming is somewhat bigger then the gap in other IT areas. Programming is somewhat of an interesting profession, because a lot of programmers start very young, or at least long before any university or college is going to teach you too. They can all tell you a boring story about their Commodore 64 and how they wrote Hello World in basic, and fucked around with computers for 8 years until they dropped out of college, because somebody offered them something better. Even in university, most people who din't drop programming after the introductory course, where people who knew what they where doing when they walked in. If you're looking to figure out why the gender gap is so much bigger then other areas of IT, you're looking for why males are more likely to align with programming at a younger age.[/QUOTE] It's why I previously said in this thread or another thread that gender equality has to begin in the home and in early schooling.
Do people just skip over my posts or something?
[QUOTE=Zyler;48921510]Do people just skip over my posts or something?[/QUOTE] Like I'm gonna read a wall of text which, with formatting on this device, has a [i]seventeen line parapraph[/i].
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48921557]Like I'm gonna read a wall of text which, with formatting on this device, has a [i]seventeen line parapraph[/i].[/QUOTE] But it's an actually well considered response to your arguments. Don't get all huffy at people on this forum if you refuse to actually take the time to read stuff that I don't have time to format all pretty-like, it's not like most people have the time or the will to adapt to your every whim just to have an internet argument. Here, I'll fix it for you, gimme a sec. EDIT: There, I fixed it. If you can't handle (what is on my screen) a 4 line paragraph then you shouldn't be trying to have thought-out arguments on the internet in the first place on your shitty smartphone.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48921557]Like I'm gonna read a wall of text which, with formatting on this device, has a [i]seventeen line parapraph[/i].[/QUOTE] No wonder we get so many quality threads on FP if people can't be arsed to read paragraphs of [I]seventeen fucking lines[/I].
[QUOTE=_Axel;48923097]No wonder we get so many quality threads on FP if people can't be arsed to read paragraphs of [I]seventeen fucking lines[/I].[/QUOTE] I think that's just Antdawg.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;48918260]so what you're saying is that women can't hack it; furthering the belief it's for men only and that only (mostly) men can take jobs like that? because why else would you bring that up[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Antdawg;48919791]Implying that the only jobs women go after are "milk and honey", and implying that women aren't competitive, can't handle stress, can't meet harsh job requirements, can't handle a desk job and can't constantly be improving their skills and knowledge? Gee no wonder some jobs are disproportionately held by certain genders, if people are still being raised in modern society to believe that the capabilities of women are inferior to those of men.[/QUOTE] The way you try to put words in my mouth tells a lot about another problem here. Also, I see you don't really read the posts, so whatever...
[QUOTE=Yahnich;48923374]no the point was that you're mentioning something is stressful and highly competitive and phrasing it in a way that clearly means you think women can't handle it. if that was not your point i'd love to hear why you mentioned it, because then it's just a random fun fact that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, because that'd mean both men and women should be equally turned off from the field[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of being able to handle it or not, it's a matter of personal preferences. Perhaps on average women are put off by that kind of stressful jobs, in any case that doesn't mean women can't do it, otherwise there wouldn't be any women at all in STEM fields. As with anything else, average preferences only serve to explain global trends like gender disparity, you can't generalize it to the entirety of the population.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;48923374]no the point was that you're mentioning something is stressful and highly competitive and phrasing it in a way that clearly means you think women can't handle it. if that was not your point i'd love to hear why you mentioned it, because then it's just a random fun fact that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, because that'd mean both men and women should be equally turned off from the field[/QUOTE] It's not that they can't do it, it's that they generally prefer not to; that's the point that he was making, that was also the same point _Axel and I made in our posts. [b]Are you like AntDawg? Do you not read posts that have too many words in them?[/b] [b]Well then, prepare your eye-holes[/b], because I'm going to take this in baby steps: Less women go into courses in college and university that have to do with specific areas of STEM like programming because they choose not to go into those courses, it's not that they are going into the courses and then flunking out. In fact, women do better than men in education across the board, so the women who go into STEM probably do better than men who go into STEM. I'm going to reiterate this point, because you seem to be having trouble with it: They're not failing STEM, they're choosing not to go into STEM in the first place. They don't go into STEM because they don't want to go into STEM. They are choosing to go into courses other than STEM. Can I repeat this again in any other way? They have a personal preference of not going into STEM. That's why there's less women in STEM, because not as many women go into STEM. Is this getting through now? When Antonio says that women might not want to go into STEM because it is stressful and competitive, he isn't proposing that women are too stupid to handle stressful and competitive environments, he is proposing that less women deliberately choose to go into stressful and competitive environments when there are other options that aren't stressful and competitive and still make the same amount of money. This reasoning is plain to see: There are less women going into STEM because less women choose to go into STEM, so there must be a reason that they choose to not go into STEM. Maybe they choose not to go into STEM because it is unnecessarily competitive and stressful and there are other options that make the same amount of money that aren't? The real question here isn't why so few women go into STEM, but why so many men go into STEM when it is obviously a sub-optimal career choice. Somehow you have managed to twist and convert this reasoning of "Women choose not to go into STEM, maybe because they have a personal preference of not going into stressful environments" and managed to twist it into "Women are incompetent stupid idiots who cannot handle competitive and stressful environments". Perhaps that says more about you than it does Antonio. And people still haven't responded to my post previously where I gave an alternative answer, I guess nobody likes to read a four line paragraph.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48926932]It's not that they can't do it, it's that they generally prefer not to; that's the point that he was making, that was also the same point _Axel and I made in our posts. [b]Are you like AntDawg? Do you not read posts that have too many words in them?[/b] [b]Well then, prepare your eye-holes[/b], because I'm going to take this in baby steps: Less women go into courses in college and university that have to do with specific areas of STEM like programming because they choose not to go into those courses, it's not that they are going into the courses and then flunking out. In fact, women do better than men in education across the board, so the women who go into STEM probably do better than men who go into STEM. I'm going to reiterate this point, because you seem to be having trouble with it: They're not failing STEM, they're not choosing to go into STEM in the first place. They don't go into STEM because they don't want to go into STEM. They are choosing to go into courses other than STEM. They have a personal preference of not going into STEM. That's why there's less women in STEM, because not as many women go into STEM. Is this getting through now? When Antonio says that women might not want to go into STEM because it is stressful and competitive, he isn't proposing that women are too stupid to handle stressful and competitive environments, he is proposing that less women deliberately choose to go into stressful and competitive environments when there are other options that aren't stressful and competitive. This reasoning is plain to see: There are less women going into STEM because less women choose to go into STEM, so there must be a reason that they choose to not go into STEM. Maybe they choose not to go into STEM because it is unnecessarily competitive and stressful and there are other options that make the same amount of money that aren't? The real question here isn't why so few women go into STEM, but why so many men go into STEM when it is obviously a sub-optimal career choice. Somehow you have managed to twist and convert this reasoning of "Women choose not to go into STEM, maybe because they have a personal preference of not going into stressful environments" and managed to twist it into "Women are incompetent stupid idiots who cannot handle competitive and stressful environments". Perhaps that says more about you than it does Antonio. And people still haven't responded to my post previously where I gave an alternative answer, I guess nobody likes to read a four line paragraph.[/QUOTE] Yeah and less women choose to go into STEM because people are still being raised in society today, like AntonioR, to believe that it's a man's job, that women can't handle it, and that women who study it do not meet societal norms in some way. Oh and then there's the fact that the male culture that dominates STEM is abusive towards women, with women often on the receiving end of sexual harassment when working in those fields. It shows that sexism still exists when women are choosing to not go into STEM. In an equal society, men and women would proportionally choose to go into STEM. It has nothing to do with it being too-competitive for women to handle (sexism on your part, by the way), especially as women can and do follow other very-competitive career paths.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48927003]Yeah and less women choose to go into STEM [b]because people are still being raised in society today, like AntonioR[/b][/QUOTE] No, you're wrong. That isn't what Antonio was saying. You just responded to an entire post where I explained what he was saying and somehow managed to get it wrong, AGAIN. Are you deliberately misinterpreting the actual writing on the page? Are you just lacking in basic reading comprehension? You are reading things that aren't there. You aren't just putting words in people's mouths, you are attempting to shovel barrels of hay into their mouths with a pitchfork in order to create a proto-strawman. What do you actually see when I type this? Are long words like "preferences" too much for you to handle? Just read this bit, and I mean ACTUALLY read it: [QUOTE]Somehow you have managed to twist and convert this reasoning of "Women choose not to go into STEM, maybe because they have a personal preference of not going into stressful environments" and managed to twist it into "Women are incompetent stupid idiots who cannot handle competitive and stressful environments". Perhaps that says more about you than it does Antonio.[/QUOTE] Now tell me, in exact words, what the above quote says. [QUOTE] It has nothing to do with it being too-competitive for women to handle (sexism on your part, by the way), especially as women can and do follow other very-competitive career paths. [/QUOTE] I literally just said that women who go into STEM do better than men who go into STEM, and that it WAS NOT the case that they were flunking the courses and that it WAS NOT too-competitive for women to handle. Here's the exact quote: [QUOTE]Less women go into courses in college and university that have to do with specific areas of STEM like programming because they choose not to go into those courses, it's not that they are going into the courses and then flunking out. In fact, women do better than men in education across the board, so the women who go into STEM probably do better than men who go into STEM.[/QUOTE] Do you hear the word NOT and somehow blank out in your reading comprehension? If you somehow see any sign of a negative statement and view it as a positive one (i.e. you see me saying 'No' and think it means 'Yes', like you're doing repeatedly here), I'd be worried about you showing up at bars and shit man. I'm going to ask a serious question here. Do you have some kind of mental disorder, i.e. ADD, ASP, BPD or something like that which might cause you difficulties in basic reading comprehension? Are you on any kind of medication, like painkillers or anti-psychotics that could cause you to have trouble focusing on words on a page?
Ah, the 'do you have some kind of mental disorder' comeback. Very mature. I like how you were whinging that people were ignoring your posts, then you go and completely ignore the substance of my post (only quoting part of the first sentence and the last sentence, and actually ignoring every argument), and then you go and ask if I have a mental disorder?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48927114]Ah, the 'do you have some kind of mental disorder' comeback. Very mature. I like how you were whinging that people were ignoring your posts, then you go and completely ignore the substance of my post (only quoting the first and last sentence, and actually ignoring every argument), and then you go and ask if I have a mental disorder?[/QUOTE] You haven't made an actual argument, you've just assumed things about what everybody has written without actually reading the posts (which you've admitted to) and then called everybody who disagreed with you sexist based on some strawman you've managed to construct through a lack of basic reading comprehension. [b]I'm asking if you have a mental disorder because you seem to lack basic reading comprehension.[/b] Your mindless rambling is based on the false premise of what you think people in this thread have said, which is not what people have actually said. Based on that false premise, everything else you've managed to conclude is wrong. In a more simple way: Here's what people have said: "There are less women choosing to go into STEM than men, maybe they have a preference of not going to STEM because it is needlessly stressful compared to other career choices that they prefer because they aren't stressful. That is maybe one possible reason why those individual people chose to make that individual choice." Here's what you think people have said: "You think that women are weak and stupid and unable to compete in the competitive environment of STEM" Now, if you actually read my post and other people's posts, you'd have seen the bit where I said women usually do better than men in STEM environments and that they DO NOT have trouble in the competitive environment, you'd also see _Axel's post where he stated that it's a matter of personal preferences, not skill or competence. [editline]18th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Yahnich;48927153]and you clearly don't seem to understand that the choices you make are like 90% related to how you're raised and how you view your place in society; in a truly equal society an equal amount of women should choose to go into STEM, this point is what doesn't seem to penetrate you skull. we KNOW women aren't choosing stem, that's the issue you nitwit. because both genders should be equally (dis)couraged of going into every degree within reason; i'd accept it if it was a 60-40 ratio because hey maybe there's some factors we just can't change but you're not going to convince me that a 80-20 ratio is perfectly normal and within reason for a degree that is pretty gender neutral! gender studies is for example one of the very, very few degrees where i'd actually expect an excess of women, because it's completely about women and their role in society so, to bring you up to speed, the discussion is about WHY are women not choosing for the degree; saying it's stressful and highly competitive is dismissive and misses the point, because both genders should be equally discouraged to go into the field then. so why are men doing it and women not? if men are being encouraged to do shit jobs because they should be ok with suffering that is an equally shitty reason why there's a gender disparity!!!!!! [editline]18th October 2015[/editline] like you just spent 4 paragraphs saying the same 1-2 sentence point, nice job mate[/QUOTE] I'm repeating myself (as I said, in baby steps) because you guys (or atleast Antdawg) aren't getting one very simple point here. [QUOTE] so, to bring you up to speed, the discussion is about WHY are women not choosing for the degree; saying it's stressful and highly competitive is dismissive and misses the point, because both genders should be equally discouraged to go into the field then. so why are men doing it and women not? if men are being encouraged to do shit jobs because they should be ok with suffering that is an equally shitty reason why there's a gender disparity!!!!!![/QUOTE] I agree, why are you disagreeing with me if you agree with my point. What are you actually arguing here? You'e agreeing with me that you agree with me. Which is good, because I agree that you're agreeing that you agree with me. We agree with eachother. We agree. There's no argument here because we agree with each other and always have agreed for the duration of this conversation. This is why it seems like you guys lack basic reading comprehension, you're agreeing with everything I say and yet somehow trying to disagree with me by putting words in my mouth, arguing that I've said the opposite to what I've actually said. Let me repeat that again, [b]YOU AGREE WITH ME, YOU'VE BEEN IN AGREEMENT WITH ME THE WHOLE TIME, YOU JUST THINK I'VE SAID SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY/WRITE/TYPE/WHATEVER.[/b] See how I put that in big capital letters and it all bold-like? Maybe AntDawg will actually be able to read it, and I mean REALLY read it this time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.