The different incarceration rates based on gender correlate to testosterone. Higher testosterone results in more violent behavior in both men and women, and the more violent the crime, the more likely to get harsher sentences instead of, say, community service or posting a peace bond. And given that men have much higher levels of testosterone, this would explain the higher male prison population. It's pretty obvious. There's even an expression that sums it up - men think with their dicks. Don't see the currency of expressions of women thinking with our vaginas, which highlights the disparity of testosterone influencing decisions and actions between men and women.
Higher testosterone levels are related to criminal violence and aggressive dominance among women in prison, says a Georgia State University study released Sept. 23.
The study, published in the September-October issue of Psychosomatic Medicine, measured testosterone in 87 female inmates at a maximum security prison. Their criminal behavior was scored from court records, and their prison behavior was assessed from prison records and staff interviews.
Testosterone was found related both to the violence of the women's crimes and to the aggressive dominance of their behavior in prison. This finding was further supported by assessing how an inmate's age corresponded to her behavior and testosterone levels.
As the amount of the hormone measured decreased in older prisoners -- testosterone declines with age -- so did the aggressive dominance. But the study concluded that testosterone, not age alone, was the significant factor; older inmates who had high hormone levels were not less aggressive or dominant.
"The key to this study is it shows testosterone is linked to dominance in both criminal behavior and behavior in prison," says Dr. James Dabbs, a professor of psychology at Georgia State University and lead researcher on the project.
The findings, by Dabbs and Marian Hargrove, are similar to those in studies of male prisoners. This indicates testosterone's effects on behavior are the same in women as in men, says Dabbs. Testosterone levels were highest among male inmates convicted of violent crimes such as rape, homicide and assault. These men also violated more prison rules.
Consider that both chemical and surgical castration reduce the rate of repeat pedophile offenders from 50% to between 2% and 5%. Testosterone clearly plays a role.
Wrong. Skin colour is the #1 determinant of court case disposition. And it's not "social justice types... making assumptions about people based on their physical characteristics" - it's the way the world works, same as when the same resume is submitted with both a male and a female name, people evaluate the male name's resume as more qualified, same as when a resume is submitted with both a white-sounding name and a black-sounding name, the white-sounding name is seen as more qualified. Same with the wage gap - there's a wage gap based on gender, and one based on skin colour.
Hedy Lamarr got the patent, patent number 2292387. Look it up. Her name is one of two on the patent, but it's also the first name on on the first image of the patent, and on the second image it's just her, et al. Her co-patent-holder said Lamarr was the primary inventor. No distortion involved, except on your part. No exaggeration on my part. You just can't believe that a woman can invent and get a technical patent, can you? Why do you hate real life so much?
Your activism, limited as it is, isn't "charity work".
Volunteering at the local food bank, a registered charity, 3-4 days a week certainly is charity work. Sure, it's also activism - helping ensure that 800-900 people eat better is the sort of activism that shows real dividends. It's also a great way to do something constructive since I started collecting my pension early at 60.
You might want to try doing charitable work instead of wasting your time watching reality TV
That's what jobless people like you do; so don't project your own habits onto others.
Tsk tsk tsk. I don't watch reality TV. Never saw the point in it, seeing as it's anything but. Anyone who believes that reality tv is real probably also thinks the same for pro wrestling.
I'm officially retired, and like all retirees, can do anything I want with my free time. I choose to do charity work. What's your excuse for your conduct?
Where the hell did I ever advocate for eugenics (even for you, because it's not necessary: you're never going to breed anyway)? Pointing out a problem situation isn't advocating in favour of it. And as for lies, you're the one who just passed yet another whopper.
I will, however, cop to favouring some forms of censorship. We have laws here against hate speech, and I think that's a good thing. And in case you haven't noticed, both Facebook and Google now censor certain types of posts (Facebook) and videos (youtube).
And as for militancy, I have engaged in both peaceful protest and legal action - for what I believe in. That's both my right and my responsibility in a democracy. As for "being militant" against you, I'm just giving you back some of what you've served me.
Why? Because you have a problem with transsexuals. You don't believe that we can possibly be happier as women than we were as men, probably because you believe that men are innately superior to women. Even your military and your current secretary of defense don't buy into that any more, not about women, and not about transsexuals. Tsk tsk. Times have changed, society has evolved, and you've done neither.
Sure, I'll give you four examples. One of my former co-workers is a case in point. I had warned him 10 years ago that if he didn't change, he'd be a 40 year old virgin. He didn't change, and now he is. He exemplifies the type of guy who couldn't get laid if he walked into a women's prison with a stack of pardons. Oh yes, I almost forgot - he still lives with his mom, always has, and will until the day she dies.
I also know a few guys outside IT whose entire life outside work is gaming. One is in his 30s, he actually had a girlfriend a few years ago - but she got sick and tired of coming in second to video games. Lives in mom's basement. Another one is a former friend of a relative, who spends all day gaming, He's in his mid-40s, doesn't work, doesn't want to work, says "why should I when welfare pays for a roof over my head and an internet connection?" Games allow him to ignore his failure to grow the f*ck up. And let's face it, after a few decades not working, he's unemployable. And he's doomed to staying single.
None of them is grounded in the real world. They may fantasize about getting a girlfriend, but it's going to remain just fantasies. They're totally secluded from any opportunities to interact with people in real life (maybe they think that their Facebook friends are "real friends").
And now I'll reach back in time to show that this is not new. Back in the DOS days there was a guy who would show up at the restaurant once in a while for breakfast. His total life was devoted to developing a "universal printer driver" for DOS. Year after year. Didn't give up even when Windows came to the fore. By that time, he was so psychologically invested in getting rich off his program and then enjoying all the benefits of same that even when Windows 3.1 was replaced by Windows 95, he kept plugging away. Oh - almost forgot - it was written in BASIC.
Contrary to your assertion, I don't hate men. You can ask any of the guys I have supper with once or twice a week. Some I work with, others are friends, or friends of friends. There's one who shows up sporadically and ends up with his nose buried in his phone playing games from the moment he sits down pretty much to when he gets up to leave. Another example of someone using games to self-isolate, to live in their own safe bubble.
And I'm sure there are women who are just as bad. Addicted to Facebook or Twitter or Candy Crush or whatever. It really pisses me off when I visit other women for a get together and they ALL have their faces buried in their phones or tablets (and so do their kids). And the topic of conversation? Who's posted what... After a while, I just quietly leave. I know when I'm beat.
One of my sisters has the perfect solution. When everyone meets up at a restaurant, the first one to look at their phone pays everyone's lunch.
There are plenty of people who are now isolating themselves because it's easier than ever. Today, if you so choose, you can be alone even in a city of millions. Many of these people either no longer have the necessary social skills for actual interaction, or increasingly they never learned them.
The poster went out of their way not to mention the sex of everyone else because it would have proven my point. If he had wanted to undermine it, he could have given the number of women - unless it was zero. Got it now?
I specifically did NOT mention the people who may be working on any particular sitcom, whose motives may vary. The purpose of the sitcom itself is to make money, as I said. And you can be sure that not everyone who works on a sitcom really gives a shit about changing society for the better via a sitcom - it's first and foremost a job.
And you're wrong - movies without morals sell. Or have you forgotten about pr0n? Snuff films? Pretty much any movie that glorifies violence? In the last case, it's the killing, the wanton destruction of property, the body count, etc. that sell. Same with the news - "if it bleeds, it leads." Not the ending where the "bad guys" get their comeuppance. Otherwise, Hollywood could skip all those special effects and just cut straight to the end.
Maybe you should learn to read. Here's what you wrote (emphasis added):
people who fit the stereotype
Wow, you're conflating various stereotypes into a Big Bang caricature. I thought only Hollywood correlated video game enthusiasm with coding competency.
Contrast that with what I actually wrote (emphasis added):
It's not just IT - take a look at all the guys now in their 20s and 30s (and 40s) whose "social life" is limited to playing video games with other guys or by themselves.
There are plenty of guys whose life outside of work centers around video games. It's not limited to any one type of job.
You might want to try doing charitable work instead of wasting your time watching reality TV. I find charity work to be very edifying. Plus, not only are you helping others, but you also meet other people who value volunteer work over reality TV. I stand by my sense of priorities.
Since there is no such thing as the "typical" man or woman, just aggregate averages, you're wrong. Also, there are zero males with tetrachromatic vision.
As if we are the last generation of humans and nobody is young.
In case you haven't been keeping tabs, millennials are way poorer than previous generations. Stuck with huge educational debt, having to compete in the rip-off gig economy with its' higher overhead (no employer health insurance, you've got to pay both your income tax and the employer's share, etc) and uncertainty, zero-hour "contracts" from employers who refuse to commit to a minimum number of hours but want them there immediately when called, entry-level and menial jobs being automated | off-shored | totally eliminated, crappy internships that lead nowhere, if they're not stuck living with their parents they are going to be more concerned with covering their basic expenses every month than in buying an 8k TV.
So that leaves the older generations - who have about as much use for an 8k tv as they do for 3d tv. As your vision normally deteriorates with aging, an 8k tv is overkill if you're sitting at a normal tv viewing distance.
Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?
Have you ever watched a television program? Every episode of every cartoon or sitcom comes with a message. Those messages are often intended to advance cultural development, although they usually are fairly trite and boil down to the golden rule.
If you believe that you're just another oblivious moron. The purpose of every sitcom - every TV show, every movie, every "free" search engine lookup or social media account - is to MAKE MONEY. They use different means to attract different audiences, but the goal is always to make money.
If they could make money selling their grandmother's blood, they'd do it, and take a deposit on the bottle. If soylent green was profitable, they'd be pushing it and how wonderful it is to end your life early.
Fixed that for you. Just because whites have a get-out-of-jail-free card based on skin colour, where white rapists escape prison and get off with a slap on the wrist and blacks have to worry about being shot by cops for "walking while black" doesn't mean that white crime rates are lower.
In real life, very few women are competent at anything technical
What do Caroline Herschel, Ada Lovelace, Mary Somerville, Mary Anning, Lise Meitner, Emmy Noether, Jocelyn Bell, Rosalind Franklin, Vera Rubin, and Hedy Lamarr (among others) have in common? They each made extraordinary scientific discoveries that went unrecognized because they were women, many of them having to endure male colleagues taking credit for their work, then winning Nobel prizes for it. Even Marie Curie - sadly the only woman scientist anyone can ever think of - was dismissed as little more than her husband’s assistant, her Nobel prizes contested by fellow scientists. On December 10, 1911, Marie Curie won her second Nobel, the only person ever to win two Nobels in two different sciences, yet a hundred years later, in 2011, no women were among the nine Nobel winners in the sciences, and women remain severely underrepresented in the STEM professions — science, technology, engineering, and math.
A 2010 report by the American Association of University Women, based on decades of research, concluded that bias and stereotypes still impede the female pursuit of scientific subjects from grade school through academia. Vivian Gornick’s book of interviews with scientists, Women in Science: Then and Now, provides detailed accounts of the discrimination experienced regularly by professionals. Glaring proof of such prejudice was infamously provided by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University at the time, who in a creepy, eugenics-ish statement asserted at a 2005 conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce that women had “issues of intrinsic aptitude.”
Just look at Hedy Lamarr. She wasn't just an A-list actress - she also invented and patented, among other things, spread-spectrum communications - in 1941. That's more than 75 years ago.
Is there any profession that Hollywood portrays even remotely accurately?
There's always the presidency. It's pretty much like any reality TV show. Poorly scripted repetitive trash catering to the lowest common denominator. But what else can you expect when you cater to people's ignorance and baser urges?
First, look around you. We all know people who fit the stereotype, and they seem to cluster around tech more than other fields, because tech is a "safe space" for guys who are inept at interacting with others, especially with women. That there are fewer women is secretly, to them, a huge bonus. Far fewer reminders of their inadequacies, of what they can't have.
As for your question of why would teenagers want to go into such a career, there are plenty of alienated, self-isolating teenage boys who are attracted to the idea of working somewhere without the social challenges that rub their noses into the fact that someone who spends all their time on computers and video games with like-minded and like-afflicted guys is, over the long term and in the larger scheme of things, a loser.
Before tech, these guys would have gone into other socially isolating jobs, as a reassuring distraction that they've got nothing much going on otherwise.
It's not just IT - take a look at all the guys now in their 20s and 30s (and 40s) whose "social life" is limited to playing video games with other guys or by themselves.
In the past, these guys didn't have such activities (coding and video games) to retreat into, so often life would eventually intrude insistently enough that they'd develop at least some wider interests, and by dint of continuous exposure lose some of their fear of women. Not any more.
We're conducting a vast experiment in eugenics - will those "bros" who fail to breed in sufficient numbers eventually drop out of the gene pool, leaving the human race more resistant to becoming compulsively focused on a very limited set of activities, or is it like gambling and other addictions, where there will always be a sucker born every minute? Or will women, who hold the keys to future generations, continue to exercise their prerogative of barring entry to those they find unsuitable as partners? This, as much as the toxic environment towards women in much of tech, may help explain why women tend to look to other fields.
After all, how many women want their children to grow up socially isolated and with limited soft skills due to their nerd father's example?
The stereotype of the socially inept "brogrammer" is VERY accurate. And it's what companies like Google and Facebook want - self-isolating male drones who can expend all their energies on work because they have no home life outside of video games, no social life outside of their bro-mates, no significant other, no kids, can be easily replaced with other drones, moved at a moment's notice because they have no ties in the larger community, and don't have much in the way of other options because interview terribly for jobs outside the field (it's obvious they are so obsessed with demonstrating their imagined superiority in their habitual pissing contests that they wouldn't be a good fit anywhere else).
We've all either met them, worked with them, or (in the cases of people who deny the accuracy of the stereotype) are them.
How is it a lie that Trump hasn't passed a budget yet? Or pretty much anything, for that matter? You're just another fat, embittered loser. And obviously you care what I think, or you wouldn't have replied to it. As I said, loser.
Still haven't figured out how porn, even the highest quality (how would you even tell) can ever be as good as sex. About the only advantage is it's available on demand and doesn't come with the baggage of a relationship. But then again, so does a carton of ice cream.
Slashdot Mirror
The different incarceration rates based on gender correlate to testosterone. Higher testosterone results in more violent behavior in both men and women, and the more violent the crime, the more likely to get harsher sentences instead of, say, community service or posting a peace bond. And given that men have much higher levels of testosterone, this would explain the higher male prison population. It's pretty obvious. There's even an expression that sums it up - men think with their dicks. Don't see the currency of expressions of women thinking with our vaginas, which highlights the disparity of testosterone influencing decisions and actions between men and women.
Higher testosterone levels are related to criminal violence and aggressive dominance among women in prison, says a Georgia State University study released Sept. 23.
The study, published in the September-October issue of Psychosomatic Medicine, measured testosterone in 87 female inmates at a maximum security prison. Their criminal behavior was scored from court records, and their prison behavior was assessed from prison records and staff interviews.
Testosterone was found related both to the violence of the women's crimes and to the aggressive dominance of their behavior in prison. This finding was further supported by assessing how an inmate's age corresponded to her behavior and testosterone levels.
As the amount of the hormone measured decreased in older prisoners -- testosterone declines with age -- so did the aggressive dominance. But the study concluded that testosterone, not age alone, was the significant factor; older inmates who had high hormone levels were not less aggressive or dominant.
"The key to this study is it shows testosterone is linked to dominance in both criminal behavior and behavior in prison," says Dr. James Dabbs, a professor of psychology at Georgia State University and lead researcher on the project.
The findings, by Dabbs and Marian Hargrove, are similar to those in studies of male prisoners. This indicates testosterone's effects on behavior are the same in women as in men, says Dabbs. Testosterone levels were highest among male inmates convicted of violent crimes such as rape, homicide and assault. These men also violated more prison rules.
Consider that both chemical and surgical castration reduce the rate of repeat pedophile offenders from 50% to between 2% and 5%. Testosterone clearly plays a role.
Wrong. Skin colour is the #1 determinant of court case disposition. And it's not "social justice types ... making assumptions about people based on their physical characteristics" - it's the way the world works, same as when the same resume is submitted with both a male and a female name, people evaluate the male name's resume as more qualified, same as when a resume is submitted with both a white-sounding name and a black-sounding name, the white-sounding name is seen as more qualified. Same with the wage gap - there's a wage gap based on gender, and one based on skin colour.
Hedy Lamarr got the patent, patent number 2292387. Look it up. Her name is one of two on the patent, but it's also the first name on on the first image of the patent, and on the second image it's just her, et al. Her co-patent-holder said Lamarr was the primary inventor. No distortion involved, except on your part. No exaggeration on my part. You just can't believe that a woman can invent and get a technical patent, can you? Why do you hate real life so much?
I find charity work to be very edifying.
Your activism, limited as it is, isn't "charity work".
Volunteering at the local food bank, a registered charity, 3-4 days a week certainly is charity work. Sure, it's also activism - helping ensure that 800-900 people eat better is the sort of activism that shows real dividends. It's also a great way to do something constructive since I started collecting my pension early at 60.
You might want to try doing charitable work instead of wasting your time watching reality TV
That's what jobless people like you do; so don't project your own habits onto others.
Tsk tsk tsk. I don't watch reality TV. Never saw the point in it, seeing as it's anything but. Anyone who believes that reality tv is real probably also thinks the same for pro wrestling.
I'm officially retired, and like all retirees, can do anything I want with my free time. I choose to do charity work. What's your excuse for your conduct?
Where the hell did I ever advocate for eugenics (even for you, because it's not necessary: you're never going to breed anyway)? Pointing out a problem situation isn't advocating in favour of it. And as for lies, you're the one who just passed yet another whopper.
I will, however, cop to favouring some forms of censorship. We have laws here against hate speech, and I think that's a good thing. And in case you haven't noticed, both Facebook and Google now censor certain types of posts (Facebook) and videos (youtube).
And as for militancy, I have engaged in both peaceful protest and legal action - for what I believe in. That's both my right and my responsibility in a democracy. As for "being militant" against you, I'm just giving you back some of what you've served me.
Why? Because you have a problem with transsexuals. You don't believe that we can possibly be happier as women than we were as men, probably because you believe that men are innately superior to women. Even your military and your current secretary of defense don't buy into that any more, not about women, and not about transsexuals. Tsk tsk. Times have changed, society has evolved, and you've done neither.
Sure, I'll give you four examples. One of my former co-workers is a case in point. I had warned him 10 years ago that if he didn't change, he'd be a 40 year old virgin. He didn't change, and now he is. He exemplifies the type of guy who couldn't get laid if he walked into a women's prison with a stack of pardons. Oh yes, I almost forgot - he still lives with his mom, always has, and will until the day she dies.
I also know a few guys outside IT whose entire life outside work is gaming. One is in his 30s, he actually had a girlfriend a few years ago - but she got sick and tired of coming in second to video games. Lives in mom's basement. Another one is a former friend of a relative, who spends all day gaming, He's in his mid-40s, doesn't work, doesn't want to work, says "why should I when welfare pays for a roof over my head and an internet connection?" Games allow him to ignore his failure to grow the f*ck up. And let's face it, after a few decades not working, he's unemployable. And he's doomed to staying single.
None of them is grounded in the real world. They may fantasize about getting a girlfriend, but it's going to remain just fantasies. They're totally secluded from any opportunities to interact with people in real life (maybe they think that their Facebook friends are "real friends").
And now I'll reach back in time to show that this is not new. Back in the DOS days there was a guy who would show up at the restaurant once in a while for breakfast. His total life was devoted to developing a "universal printer driver" for DOS. Year after year. Didn't give up even when Windows came to the fore. By that time, he was so psychologically invested in getting rich off his program and then enjoying all the benefits of same that even when Windows 3.1 was replaced by Windows 95, he kept plugging away. Oh - almost forgot - it was written in BASIC.
Contrary to your assertion, I don't hate men. You can ask any of the guys I have supper with once or twice a week. Some I work with, others are friends, or friends of friends. There's one who shows up sporadically and ends up with his nose buried in his phone playing games from the moment he sits down pretty much to when he gets up to leave. Another example of someone using games to self-isolate, to live in their own safe bubble.
And I'm sure there are women who are just as bad. Addicted to Facebook or Twitter or Candy Crush or whatever. It really pisses me off when I visit other women for a get together and they ALL have their faces buried in their phones or tablets (and so do their kids). And the topic of conversation? Who's posted what ... After a while, I just quietly leave. I know when I'm beat.
One of my sisters has the perfect solution. When everyone meets up at a restaurant, the first one to look at their phone pays everyone's lunch.
There are plenty of people who are now isolating themselves because it's easier than ever. Today, if you so choose, you can be alone even in a city of millions. Many of these people either no longer have the necessary social skills for actual interaction, or increasingly they never learned them.
The poster went out of their way not to mention the sex of everyone else because it would have proven my point. If he had wanted to undermine it, he could have given the number of women - unless it was zero. Got it now?
I specifically did NOT mention the people who may be working on any particular sitcom, whose motives may vary. The purpose of the sitcom itself is to make money, as I said. And you can be sure that not everyone who works on a sitcom really gives a shit about changing society for the better via a sitcom - it's first and foremost a job.
And you're wrong - movies without morals sell. Or have you forgotten about pr0n? Snuff films? Pretty much any movie that glorifies violence? In the last case, it's the killing, the wanton destruction of property, the body count, etc. that sell. Same with the news - "if it bleeds, it leads." Not the ending where the "bad guys" get their comeuppance. Otherwise, Hollywood could skip all those special effects and just cut straight to the end.
Maybe you should learn to read. Here's what you wrote (emphasis added):
Wow, you're conflating various stereotypes into a Big Bang caricature. I thought only Hollywood correlated video game enthusiasm with coding competency.
Contrast that with what I actually wrote (emphasis added):
It's not just IT - take a look at all the guys now in their 20s and 30s (and 40s) whose "social life" is limited to playing video games with other guys or by themselves.
There are plenty of guys whose life outside of work centers around video games. It's not limited to any one type of job.
You might want to try doing charitable work instead of wasting your time watching reality TV. I find charity work to be very edifying. Plus, not only are you helping others, but you also meet other people who value volunteer work over reality TV. I stand by my sense of priorities.
Still failed to address the issue - how is it a lie that Trump hasn't passed a budget and as such, cannot take credit for any job creation to date?
Since there is no such thing as the "typical" man or woman, just aggregate averages, you're wrong. Also, there are zero males with tetrachromatic vision.
That is the dumbest argument ever.
As if we are the last generation of humans and nobody is young.
In case you haven't been keeping tabs, millennials are way poorer than previous generations. Stuck with huge educational debt, having to compete in the rip-off gig economy with its' higher overhead (no employer health insurance, you've got to pay both your income tax and the employer's share, etc) and uncertainty, zero-hour "contracts" from employers who refuse to commit to a minimum number of hours but want them there immediately when called, entry-level and menial jobs being automated | off-shored | totally eliminated, crappy internships that lead nowhere, if they're not stuck living with their parents they are going to be more concerned with covering their basic expenses every month than in buying an 8k TV.
So that leaves the older generations - who have about as much use for an 8k tv as they do for 3d tv. As your vision normally deteriorates with aging, an 8k tv is overkill if you're sitting at a normal tv viewing distance.
Nice to see one of my stalkers finally admitting that trans women are not men. But you really need to get over your obsession.
Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?
Have you ever watched a television program? Every episode of every cartoon or sitcom comes with a message. Those messages are often intended to advance cultural development, although they usually are fairly trite and boil down to the golden rule.
If you believe that you're just another oblivious moron. The purpose of every sitcom - every TV show, every movie, every "free" search engine lookup or social media account - is to MAKE MONEY. They use different means to attract different audiences, but the goal is always to make money.
If they could make money selling their grandmother's blood, they'd do it, and take a deposit on the bottle. If soylent green was profitable, they'd be pushing it and how wonderful it is to end your life early.
In real life most whites are either criminals
Fixed that for you. Just because whites have a get-out-of-jail-free card based on skin colour, where white rapists escape prison and get off with a slap on the wrist and blacks have to worry about being shot by cops for "walking while black" doesn't mean that white crime rates are lower.
In real life, very few women are competent at anything technical
Really?
What do Caroline Herschel, Ada Lovelace, Mary Somerville, Mary Anning, Lise Meitner, Emmy Noether, Jocelyn Bell, Rosalind Franklin, Vera Rubin, and Hedy Lamarr (among others) have in common? They each made extraordinary scientific discoveries that went unrecognized because they were women, many of them having to endure male colleagues taking credit for their work, then winning Nobel prizes for it. Even Marie Curie - sadly the only woman scientist anyone can ever think of - was dismissed as little more than her husband’s assistant, her Nobel prizes contested by fellow scientists. On December 10, 1911, Marie Curie won her second Nobel, the only person ever to win two Nobels in two different sciences, yet a hundred years later, in 2011, no women were among the nine Nobel winners in the sciences, and women remain severely underrepresented in the STEM professions — science, technology, engineering, and math.
A 2010 report by the American Association of University Women, based on decades of research, concluded that bias and stereotypes still impede the female pursuit of scientific subjects from grade school through academia. Vivian Gornick’s book of interviews with scientists, Women in Science: Then and Now, provides detailed accounts of the discrimination experienced regularly by professionals. Glaring proof of such prejudice was infamously provided by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University at the time, who in a creepy, eugenics-ish statement asserted at a 2005 conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce that women had “issues of intrinsic aptitude.”
Just look at Hedy Lamarr. She wasn't just an A-list actress - she also invented and patented, among other things, spread-spectrum communications - in 1941. That's more than 75 years ago.
Is there any profession that Hollywood portrays even remotely accurately?
There's always the presidency. It's pretty much like any reality TV show. Poorly scripted repetitive trash catering to the lowest common denominator. But what else can you expect when you cater to people's ignorance and baser urges?
There are two black male security analysts at my company. That's a 5 person department, and they are the highest achieving. Shut up.
So 100% male. Got it.
First, look around you. We all know people who fit the stereotype, and they seem to cluster around tech more than other fields, because tech is a "safe space" for guys who are inept at interacting with others, especially with women. That there are fewer women is secretly, to them, a huge bonus. Far fewer reminders of their inadequacies, of what they can't have.
As for your question of why would teenagers want to go into such a career, there are plenty of alienated, self-isolating teenage boys who are attracted to the idea of working somewhere without the social challenges that rub their noses into the fact that someone who spends all their time on computers and video games with like-minded and like-afflicted guys is, over the long term and in the larger scheme of things, a loser.
Before tech, these guys would have gone into other socially isolating jobs, as a reassuring distraction that they've got nothing much going on otherwise.
It's not just IT - take a look at all the guys now in their 20s and 30s (and 40s) whose "social life" is limited to playing video games with other guys or by themselves.
In the past, these guys didn't have such activities (coding and video games) to retreat into, so often life would eventually intrude insistently enough that they'd develop at least some wider interests, and by dint of continuous exposure lose some of their fear of women. Not any more.
We're conducting a vast experiment in eugenics - will those "bros" who fail to breed in sufficient numbers eventually drop out of the gene pool, leaving the human race more resistant to becoming compulsively focused on a very limited set of activities, or is it like gambling and other addictions, where there will always be a sucker born every minute? Or will women, who hold the keys to future generations, continue to exercise their prerogative of barring entry to those they find unsuitable as partners? This, as much as the toxic environment towards women in much of tech, may help explain why women tend to look to other fields.
After all, how many women want their children to grow up socially isolated and with limited soft skills due to their nerd father's example?
The stereotype of the socially inept "brogrammer" is VERY accurate. And it's what companies like Google and Facebook want - self-isolating male drones who can expend all their energies on work because they have no home life outside of video games, no social life outside of their bro-mates, no significant other, no kids, can be easily replaced with other drones, moved at a moment's notice because they have no ties in the larger community, and don't have much in the way of other options because interview terribly for jobs outside the field (it's obvious they are so obsessed with demonstrating their imagined superiority in their habitual pissing contests that they wouldn't be a good fit anywhere else).
We've all either met them, worked with them, or (in the cases of people who deny the accuracy of the stereotype) are them.
How is it a lie that Trump hasn't passed a budget yet? Or pretty much anything, for that matter? You're just another fat, embittered loser. And obviously you care what I think, or you wouldn't have replied to it. As I said, loser.
It must be rough going through life where everything is a blurry mess.
Yes, it is. Until you consider the alternative ...
Still haven't figured out how porn, even the highest quality (how would you even tell) can ever be as good as sex. About the only advantage is it's available on demand and doesn't come with the baggage of a relationship. But then again, so does a carton of ice cream.
As the population ages it will matter less and less. It's not like you can get 8k eye implants.
and pr0n can be really a turn off in high resolution.
It's a self-correcting problem, because the more you watch, the worse your vision gets.