OK, I'll upgrade my commitment to 9-10 months plus breastfeeding, which brings it up to, what, 2 years max?:) And don't forget pumping and saving milk, but that's also a bit of a modern convenience.
Women may be designed to actually give birth, but that doesn't mean they have to be in charge of raising the children afterward. It is, technically, a 9-10 month commitment on the outside, and after that, men are just as qualified to raise children, if *they* can get over their gender roles phobias. Happy family, happy society, yay, we all win.
Too few women in Maths/Engineering is "broken." Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is "fine."
That's not true. Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education. The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher. And that's a win for everyone. Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
Also, re:
If you look at a Psychology, Social Science, or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them.
Try taking a look at MA/MS/PhD enrollment in those fields. Much closer to 50/50. No one really cares about undergraduate degrees.
There is actually an entire field called quantitative psychology that is very math and statistics intensive, but all applied. If she's not interested in math-for-math's-sake, this is a viable option, because you use math (including calculus and probability) regularly, but it's applied, so you don't feel like you're just stuck doing math.
I don't know of anyone who gets an academic scholarship these days. My mom and my father-in-law got them in the late 70s with only good grades, but I couldn't get much more than the standard California "congratulations, you had more than a 2.0 GPA, we'll give you $3000 per year" grant when I went to college in the late 90s with a 4.0 GPA, high SAT score, and plenty of extra-curricular activities. Scholarships now go to athletes and under-represented groups, not to good students.
Because enhanced cognitive abilities is not something you can reasonably describe as a "problem." Yeah, you know, when you take a drug like cocaine or PCP, you also have "positive" effects like euphoria. That doesn't mean that there aren't also many negative effects, like engaging in risky behavior or hangover-type things. The positive effects are why people take drugs, not because you end up incoherent with brain damage and living on the streets after years of heavy drug use. If they are correctly talking about abuse, they are describing those negative effects, not the positive effects. Description of drug abuse is not a judgment or a moral decision.
I have no idea where you got your "definition" of drug abuse. It sounds like you're describing using drugs to abuse someone else ("without the informed consent"), which is not at all the standard use of the phrase. Clinicians use "drug abuse" to describe drug use (legal or otherwise) that is problematic. This means that it has a noticeable negative impact on social or physical life. Like people who are alcoholics and are unable to go to work because they're drunk. This is drug abuse. The article and/or summary may or may not be using the term drug abuse correctly, but your definition is completely off-base. It's not a question of right or wrong, so get off your high-horse.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'll upgrade my commitment to 9-10 months plus breastfeeding, which brings it up to, what, 2 years max? :) And don't forget pumping and saving milk, but that's also a bit of a modern convenience.
Women may be designed to actually give birth, but that doesn't mean they have to be in charge of raising the children afterward. It is, technically, a 9-10 month commitment on the outside, and after that, men are just as qualified to raise children, if *they* can get over their gender roles phobias. Happy family, happy society, yay, we all win.
Too few women in Maths/Engineering is "broken." Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is "fine."
That's not true. Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education. The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher. And that's a win for everyone. Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
Also, re:
If you look at a Psychology, Social Science, or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them.
Try taking a look at MA/MS/PhD enrollment in those fields. Much closer to 50/50. No one really cares about undergraduate degrees.
There is actually an entire field called quantitative psychology that is very math and statistics intensive, but all applied. If she's not interested in math-for-math's-sake, this is a viable option, because you use math (including calculus and probability) regularly, but it's applied, so you don't feel like you're just stuck doing math.
I don't know of anyone who gets an academic scholarship these days. My mom and my father-in-law got them in the late 70s with only good grades, but I couldn't get much more than the standard California "congratulations, you had more than a 2.0 GPA, we'll give you $3000 per year" grant when I went to college in the late 90s with a 4.0 GPA, high SAT score, and plenty of extra-curricular activities. Scholarships now go to athletes and under-represented groups, not to good students.
I have no idea where you got your "definition" of drug abuse. It sounds like you're describing using drugs to abuse someone else ("without the informed consent"), which is not at all the standard use of the phrase. Clinicians use "drug abuse" to describe drug use (legal or otherwise) that is problematic. This means that it has a noticeable negative impact on social or physical life. Like people who are alcoholics and are unable to go to work because they're drunk. This is drug abuse. The article and/or summary may or may not be using the term drug abuse correctly, but your definition is completely off-base. It's not a question of right or wrong, so get off your high-horse.