The glass cyberceiling
suckmysav
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336889457.html
If you've been following the progress of the current gender war that has
engulfed the western world for the last 40 years then you will have read
this sort of article before. Even if you are only a consumer of the
mainstream media you will have read this sort of bilge before, but probably
don't conciously remember doing so. This sort of article pops up in the
media with regular monotony. One feminist or another exhorts the sisters to
go out and do things that they really don't want to do and then blames men
for them not doing it. The problem that the feminists face today is that
they are increasing numbers of men and women who recognise the old feminist
games and have woken up and are noticing what is happening out there. We
have learnt to spot the old tricks a mile away and we are quite prepared to
point out the logical fallacies not to mention the stark hypocricy that are
ever present in Feminist propaganda pieces to anyone who is willing to
listen.
Feminists are doomed to ultimate failure in their efforts to gain equality
of outcome in professions where males and females are simply not interested
in competing*. Females may be "equal users of technology" but most girls
have little to no interest in learning the nuts and bolts of how it works
let alone expending the amount of personal energy required to learn it
properly. Your average teenage boy on the other hand . . .
As far as the ridiculous assertion that the number of people using a
particular technology should have some sort of relevance to the numbers of
people working to provide that particular technology then I find myself
asking why it is that Phillipa isn't writing articles about the lack of
female road diggers too? Last I heard women were "equal users of roads" but
you don't see a 50/50 split in jobs digging ditches do you? Come to think of
it, women generate at least half the garbage in the world so why arent we
seeing articles demanding 50% female representation amongst garbage
collectors? Where are all the garbage-women Phillipa! The collective needs
them!
But no, the female supremists aren't interested in equality of outcomes for
_those_ sort of jobs, no sireee sir. They have their sights set only on high
paying professional jobs where they don't have to get their hands dirty or
do anything considered to be even a little bit 'yucky'. If that were not the
case then you would expect to see women clamouring for positions down in the
coal mines, which is dangerous, dirty work, but pays as well as or better
than IT. But the simple fact is that you just don't see women like Phillipa
writing articles about the dearth of females donning overalls and developing
black-lung in order to put food on the plates of their families do you?
Never.
On the other hand, men need haircuts just as much as women do, so where are
all the male hairdressers? And what about teachers and nurses? The Feminist
philosophy that binds this article together betrays the Communist roots of
Feminism and is reminiscent of Stalin and his disasterous five year plans.
Stalin tried to bend nature to fit the needs of the Communist Party and the
Feminists are doing no less here. Urged on by her feminist ideology,
Phillipa cherry-picks the professions that she wants to see increasingly
occupied by women all the while demonstrating no regard whatsoever for the
basic human nature of the people who are meant to be acting out her
Stalinist employment-theories in their own very real lives. Just as Stalin
refused to acknowledge the role of the seasons in the production of crops,
the Feminist true believer continues to maintain that the numbers of people
employed within particular professions has nothing to do with the interests,
wants, needs and abilities of the people taking those jobs and everything to
do with bosses "employing people like themselves".
Phillipa talks of "alarm bells" when confronted with the basic facts that
women are _choosing_ not to study IT at university, but what does she really
mean? Ask yourself this question. What exactly are these alarm bells warning
of and to whom is the warning meant? Simply put, the "alarm bells" signify
the failure of Feminism to convice women to spend their lives in the way
that feminists require them to, rather than living their lives in the myriad
ways that women naturally want to live them.
You will have to forgive me if I'm not overly concerned about that.
The simple fact is that men by-and-large don't want to be hairdressers and
likewise women don't want to know how to build and maintain computers*. The
only thing that should concern us here is to ensure that the opportunity to
enter either career is available to any person, regardless of who or what
they are. We should not be worrying about the percentages of men vs women in
a particular profession as that is more often than not a factor of the
choices made by men and women and not an indication of "discrimination".
__________________________________________________________________
Society
news:3fe27416$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> In response to the article "The glass cyberceiling" as found at
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336889457.html
>
>
> As far as the ridiculous assertion that the number of people
> using a particular technology should have some sort of
> relevance to the numbers of people working to provide
> that particular technology then I find myself asking why it is
> isn't writing articles about the lack of female road diggers
> too? Last I heard women were "equal users of roads" but
> you don't see a 50/50 split in jobs digging ditches do you?
Excellent point, sir.
When road construction can be done by push button
in an air conditioned room, we will hear how much
women have always wanted to do that job.
> Come to think of it, women generate at least half
> the garbage in the world
Good observation, Brett. Taking it a bit further, I note
that women consume 85% of goods (and likely
most of the stuff that comes wrapped) so you are
being generously low in your estimate of how much
of the trash is due to women, Brett.
> so why arent we seeing articles demanding 50% female
> representation amongst garbage collectors?
Because then women might risk breaking one of their
polished nails. (Btw, who is more likely to use nail polish,
perfumes, and dress in delicate, expensive to care for
fabrics, the proletariat or the luxury class? The feminist
answer, of course, is "women are oppressed." ;-)
> Where are all the garbage-women Phillipa! The collective
> needs them!
>
> But no, the female supremists aren't interested in equality
> of outcomes for _those_ sort of jobs, no sireee sir. They have
> their sights set only on high paying professional jobs
> where they don't have to get their hands dirty or do anything
> considered to be even a little bit 'yucky'. If that were not the
> case then you would expect to see women clamouring for
> positions down in the coal mines, which is dangerous, dirty work,
> but pays as well as or better than IT. But the simple fact is
> that you just don't see women like Phillipa writing articles
> about the dearth of females donning overalls and developing
> black-lung in order to put food on the plates of their families do you?
> Never.
Well said, Brett.
Lessee, is Phillipa perhaps insinuating that women are
too stupid to see all those grand opportunities in
IT and computer engineering?
Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
of the art history majors are women.
The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering
with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571
per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
New York: Berkley Books, 1996
page 11. [emphasis Farrell's]
> [...] Urged on by her feminist ideology, Phillipa cherry-picks
> the professions that she wants to see increasingly occupied by
> women [...]
"Cherry picks." Yup, feminists certainly do have their
double standards! Notice how Phillipa is concerned about
getting more wimmins in clean indoor jobs inside nicely
air conditioned rooms. No working the loading dock for
her girls!
> Phillipa talks of "alarm bells" when confronted with the basic
> facts that women are _choosing_ not to study IT at university,
> but what does she really mean?
Uh, that Phillipa is against allowing women to choose for themselves?
No woman should be authorized to stay at home
to raise her children. Society should be totally
different. Women should not have that choice,
precisely because if there is such a choice,
too many women will make that one.
Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma"
(a dialog between de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan)
_Saturday Review_, 14 June 1975, p.18
Cited by Christina Hoff Sommers in
_Who Stole Feminism?_, p.256-7.
> Ask yourself this question. What exactly are these alarm bells
> warning of and to whom is the warning meant? Simply put,
> the "alarm bells" signify the failure of Feminism to convince
> women to spend their lives in the way that feminists require
> them to, rather than living their lives in the myriad ways that
> women naturally want to live them.
Clearly the sex with more lifestyle choices would be
the sex less represented in the least desirable set of choices.
Simple quantitative psychology fieldwork (i.e., practical
economics) will verify that. (Duh! So maybe the feminists
are the ones who are as stupid as they imagine women
to be. ;-)
Today's reality is that women have more socially acceptable options
than do men:
She can work full time.
She can stay at home full time.
She can work part time and stay at home part time.
His socially acceptable options are:
He can work full time.
(After Warren Farrell in _Why Men Are The Way They Are_)
> You will have to forgive me if I'm not overly concerned about that.
>
> The simple fact is that men by-and-large don't want to be
> hairdressers and likewise women don't want to know how
> to build and maintain computers*.
What if all computers were painted that Barbie(tm) doll
shade of pink? ;-)
> The only thing that should concern us here is to ensure
> that the opportunity to enter either career is available to
> any person, regardless of who or what they are. We should
> not be worrying about the percentages of men vs women in
> a particular profession as that is more often than not a factor
> of the choices made by men and women and not an indication
> of "discrimination".
Men certainly do not have the same opportunity to
be homemakers, child raisers, or school teachers as
do women. Obviously, there's a great need for
a jumbo State sponsored social program to coerce
women into supporting men who choose to be the
stay-at-home (SAH) spouse! Gee, the silence
among feminists like Phillipa with a media mouthpiece
for such an important social reform is conspicuous!
--
Phil Donahue was on the TV in the waiting room
of an auto shop where I was getting an oil change.
The topic was "Men who stay home with their kids."
When the mechanic came to tell me my car was
ready, he stopped to watch the show. "What do you
think of that?" I asked, fully expecting him to
say something about child rearing not being "real
man's work". "I'd love to do that," he answered,
"but my wife took that job. She didn't even ask.
She just took it."
from _If Men Have All the Power How Come Women
Make the Rules_ by Jack Kammer,
www.rulymob.com - publishers. (1999) page 88.
Hot Frog
>
> Lessee, is Phillipa perhaps insinuating that women are
> too stupid to see all those grand opportunities in
> IT and computer engineering?
>
> Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
> their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
> sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
> major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
> of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
> might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
> to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
> engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
> of the art history majors are women.
>
> The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
> vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
> when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
> would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering
> with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571
> per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
>
> Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
> New York: Berkley Books, 1996
> page 11. [emphasis Farrell's]
As someone here pointed out earlier this year, if you measure ability at
mathematics, there are approximately 7x as many men to draw from as women
in the upper percentiles. Measured as a percentage of the 90th
percentile in mathematics, there are actually more women in engineering
than men. It is just that a substantially smaller percentage of women
have the natural ability to succeed in the field, so they are weeded out
by poor grades and failure. They naturally gravitate toward work where
they can talk about doing things rather than actually doing things.
Magic Nose Goblin
That's for damn sure.
Society
news:a0133f8d.0312...@posting.google.com...
>
> Hot Frog wrote...
> >
> > As someone here pointed out earlier this year, if you measure
> > ability at mathematics, there are approximately 7x as many
> > men to draw from as women in the upper percentiles.
> > Measured as a percentage of the 90th percentile in mathematics,
> > there are actually more women in engineering than men.
Hmm. Now that's an interesting metric, Hot Frog!
> > It is just that a substantially smaller percentage of women
> > have the natural ability to succeed in the field, so they are
> > weeded out by poor grades and failure.
Or the underqualified wimmins end up making pretty
web pages and such like. :-) Else, they end up making
sales calls to sell 'sex appeal' instead of the product!
> > They naturally gravitate toward work where they can talk
> > about doing things rather than actually doing things.
>
> That's for damn sure.
Such would explain why 98% of personnel in Personnel
Department jobs -- at each level from clerk to Director --
are women!
--
All excuses for feminism depend on the stupidity
of their swallowers.
suckmysav
"suckmysav" <bre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:3fe27416$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...