you would be correct if feminism wasn't baking pro woman/anti-man bias, which is sexism as well, into the culture while crying victim. When this is gone, then your statement would be acceptable, ad hominems and all.
the problem is that whatever she says is taken as truth by default, and the males in the situation are facing guilty until proven innocent. Crapola like VAWA back this. If men are treating them this way, then they haven't earned the mens' respect. men do it to men too you know. no, they don't hit on each other, but guys who can't walk the walk when they talk the talk are similarly shunned. Of course women bitch when they aren't given immediate accolades just for existing in the room. They expect support with social interaction and consensus while men earn each other's respect with acts. This is something women don't often understand about men. They need to learn it if men and women are to survive in the work place. unfortunately feminists only care about modifying men's behavior to suit them while propping up womens' whims as intrinsic empowerment.
What the fuck dude. What. The. Fuck. Women are attractive because they are attractive. If you don't have the mental discipline to set aside sexual attraction and deal with a co-worker as a person and not a set of orifices, then it's YOU who's the problem. A woman gets harassed and you think SHE STARTED IT by being ATTRACTIVE? What is she supposed to walk around in a burqa? I for one, can enjoy the scenery without getting handsy or passing comments, and if I think something I might say or do is inappropriate, I suppose my "feminist training" kicks in, and I judge for myself whether it's appropriate or not
1. Strawman argument. ad hominem. I never said I or anyone see women as orifices. This accusation is just a stupid shaming tactic. There's a BIG difference between intrinsic attractiveness triggering occasional unwanted attention, and blatantly shining it on to manipulate, and/or prop up petty narcissism, then complaining about unwanted attention. My language made it obvious I'm talking about the latter, which makes up the majority of anecdotal examples I've seen. In fact, this kind of thing is dramatized in the media quite a bit as 'girl power' moments, complete with the woman gloating about how she managed to extract some favor from a guy.
2. It doesn't really matter who starts it because it takes both to keep it going. My example stated that she probably had a part in it if lots of guys were coming on to her. Despite what paranoid feminists claim, 99.99% of guys ARE capable of controlling themselves. I also said that 'harassment' is very loosely defined these days. To me harassment starts when it gets physical without permission. Words are irrelevant. Feminists are so busy redefining masculinity and demanding male behavior take on feminine imperatives that they haven't considered that changes in their own behavior would also benefit interaction. Examples include controlling feelings, placing insecurities in perspective, and growing thicker skins. Dishing shit is easy, and women have mastered this already. Taking it is a whole other story. This oversensitivity breeds unstable people and explosive situations that blow completely out of preportion, like this conversation. I can't even explore the topic without you immediately playing the victim and flying off the handle.
3. not a burqa, that's pretty stupid. how about not tight pants and a blouse that shows off substantial cleavage for the purpose of using her attractiveness to manipulate guys to her benefit? why dress provocatively otherwise? If she doesn't intend to attract that kind of attention, then maybe this woman should be made aware of her unconscious behavior and its consequences. While vehemently defending their empowerment as justification to act as they please without consequence, feminists sure have made sure society brainwashes guys into being ashamed for what comes naturally to them! Usually using all sorts of shaming tactics and fallacies...more than that, they made sure guys can be punished at whim like the bad dogs they are. Anyway, all rhetoric aside, it's just really hard to have any sympathy at this point. The whole situation today makes both genders behave like idiot, insecure, entitled adolescents.
So what? It's supposed to be a workplace, not the Love Boat. Once again, if you can't reign in your mating impulses, it's not someone else's problem if they can conceal theirs better. Spend some time with females in a non-"I wanna fuck you" context. Read a few books about "the male gaze".
no kidding.. it isn't the love boat. so put some clothes on, turn down the sensitivity knob and learn to put verbal rubbish in perspective, like males have had to long before there was a homo sapiens sapiens. We're all equals here, supposedly, so if they can do it, you can too. Anyway, feminists have no right to demand that men not dictate femininity while they work at redefining masculinity and male behavior to be what they want it to. It's blatantly hypocritical.
I'm sure she'd say that...and it would prove my point: women are no better than the male archetypes they whine about, and thus deserve no extra sympathy. Hypocrites deserve no respect, male or female.
So what? you want legal protection from stupid comments/people? I don't think that's really attainable without a police state, and even then... Stand up for yourself. If they think less of you because of it, they are stupid fools. If they're groping or touching you, I have no problem with you defending yourself, physically if necessary. However, your discomfort does not justify bypassing due process like VAWA and other nonsense allows. You were harassed? prove it...and if it's so bad that you're ready to sue, this should be fairly easy. Unfortunately, the definition of 'harassment' keeps expanding every year as women's groups demand zero tolerance for male behavior in growing numbers of contexts. Men will not be eunuchs for the same reason women won't be, no matter what the feminists say about social constructs.
If you've got a lot of guys harassing you, maybe your behavior is playing a role too. See this is another area that irks me: apparently men are the sole proprietors of sexual non-verbal cues and women are just helpless, molested bystanders. This just isn't true. Women started it when they set themselves up to look attractive in the first place (which 99% of women do, of course). From what they do in the morning before work, to the way they carry themselves walking down the hall or sitting in a meeting, to the way they speak, all play into this. As a male, I can tell you this: when a woman is interested, it's very obvious. when a woman is not interested, but is flattered, she is obvious, even when she vehemently denies her interest. men can see that, so they pursue. they have their nature just as women have theirs. Since I don't know how you dress or any details of your situation, I can't comment further, but this is generally what I've seen go down. This is the same thing as the highschool cheerleader that complains about guys staring when she's got nothing on but low cut shorts and a tight tshirt. She's been taught that men owe her whatever behavior she wants, when the reality is that we can't control another's behavior, only our own. Of course, what she really wants is the attention of the 'hot guys' and not the 'losers.' It doesn't work that way.
I happen to find women who take advantage of this mandated upper hand even more inappropriate than a stupid comment. I've seen more than one woman manipulate her way out of trouble she's caused by blaming a man for it (and of course the feminist trained males just believed her and he was raked over the coals for it). Another even held threat of accusation over a man as a means to gain advantage in bonuses. The more attractive the woman, the more likely this is to work, and these sorts of women use this to flatter the men whom they are sexually attracted to and/or are useful idiots, while sticking it to the guys they find unattractive/contemptuous (eg the hs example above). I have zero respect for this. If victimization is claimed by a party, it has no business opportunistically victimizing others, especially when the victim's victimizing occurs in the same context, in this case being gender discrimination.
Has it occurred to you that building systemic pro woman bias into the culture actually makes any existing gender bias against women's technical abilities worse? The status quo demands that men at least wonder about the actual abilities of female coworkers/bosses/hires because they don't know for sure if they earned their way, or if they were given free rides in education and in corporate life by crappy politics. These kinds of people care more about the appearance of equality than objective measurement of relevant abilities and earning respect.
It's not just about child custody. It's also about property rights assignment and alimony awards. Feminists have no problem holding on to tradition if it benefits their camp. In terms of rape accusations, all it takes is an accusation to destroy a man's respectability. No real evidence is required. The victim's name is suppressed while she and her lawyer can trot out his name in public for all to ridicule, before judgment is even passed. This coupled with the fact that male instinct to distrust other males in regards to women is so strong, and so strongly encouraged by feminism, that I'd go as far to say that it's impossible for a male accused rapist to get a fair trial, period.
Then of course there's the issue of women getting lighter sentences for the same sorts of crimes, including domestic violence and child abuse, despite the fact that women account for slightly more than 50% of the former, and nearly 50% of the latter. From slapping, to throwing tantrums, to genital mutilation, to murder, it's always assumed by bystanders that it's the man's fault. When a woman is mutilated, it's weeklong media coverage aghast at a horrible crime. When a man is mutilated, it's weeklong media coverage on morning talkshows (mostly run by women) ridiculing the guy for being literally emasculated. I think that feminists are just so locked into their 'suffrage' that they don't see or care about the collateral damage they are causing...or maybe the stereotypes are largely correct when they say most feminists are just irrationally angry women (or stockholm syndrome men).
The commercial media is run by women nowadays. As you know, the majority of marketing and communications majors are female and have been for quite some time. These include jobs writing scripts for TV shows and movies. Nowadays we have 100lb women tossing around 230lb men like they're mannequins. In every role that men would traditionally take, the directors go to great lengths to ensure women are placed instead. If that wasn't enough, the characters are made extremely misandric. This is especially true in soaps, which are targeted to appeal to female ego and interests anyway, but also in cop shows (L&O:SVU comes to mind especially) and law dramas like the good wife. Don't even get me started about shows like glee. After about 1990 or so, there isn't a single, NEW, modern, positive, assertive, confident male role model depicted that isn't borderline gay. Programming, including commercials, routinely depict men as overweight, out of date, idiot fathers/boyfriends/husbands who are often ridiculed in front of their kids by their forward-thinking, smart, 'multitasking' wives/daughters. Fashion advertisements are another example. The male models depicted are only a few shades away from crossdressing at times. Add it all up and it's pretty obvious, men, from boyhood, are being 'told' by this crapola that they are barely human, and that their masculine attributes must be corrected for by feminizing themselves as much as possible. It's not just an attack on men, it's an attempt to redefine masculinity for the interests of a group who, among other things, demands femininity not be defined by men.
I suspect these days the anti-male stuff actually starts in kindergarten via promotion/demotion of behaviors, but I was referring to the sex ed program in junior high and highschool. While I have no issue with practical advice like condom use, STD prevention and other things, I do have a problem with the social propaganda that goes along with it. Boys are told, because they have the penis, they are solely responsible and to keep it in their pants or else.. the girls are told what to do when they get pregnant...like they have no control over the process. Unfortunately, this is good advice, because it's how adult men and women are treated by the largely feminist lobbied-for sexual behavior law.
Sexism. This is the heart of the matter. Sexism is the use of gender as a judged attribute. This can either be relevant or not. A healthcare provider ne
Yet, can they avoid doing what they say men have done to them? Can they avoid succumbing to the lure of using their power to repress/ridicule/destroy men as they 'redefine' masculinity?
to me this sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. When I say 'feminism' I'm referring to people who think that women are inherently victims and must be propped up by men, and to the political and social organizations who want to bake this bias into law, finance education, and any other societal structure that controls access to success. I don't really know what you mean by '3rd wave' but all the feminist arguments I've heard equate equality with 'social justice' while using that as a guise for equal+ treatment in any situation considered beneficial, usually without having to live up to as many of the rational standards put in place to earn it. For example, lets take a first wave big one: voting. Feminists wanted the right to vote, but I don't see them trying nearly has hard to get themselves on the draft, something men have to do if they want to vote in federal elections. This is not equal at all because the whole point of tying the draft to voting was to ensure that anyone who votes also has skin in the game so to speak. You don't want large voting majorities who can indirectly vote for war when they don't have to take the risk of having to serve.. It's already bad enough with politicians getting their kids out of military service after they've just authorized yet another 'police action' in the mid east.
I agree. There's just so much bullshit associated with higher education these days, from the application process, to the requisites for graduation, that I seriously question its rigor. It seems more about politics and memorization than creating and measuring ability in targeted fields, and I suspect the ivy leagues are the gravest offenders.
Boys weren't just 'encouraged' from a vacuum. they were encouraged by male teachers, brothers, fathers, uncles etc who also have similar interests. Hell, I wasn't encouraged by my father at all. I was interested in machines from a very very young age. Men feel good trying to master an understanding of the world around them. Women are satisfied mastering social interaction. Nothing wrong with these biases either, despite what feminists say about gender being a made up social structure. Gender is something that cuts right down to the chromosomes. Feminists are quite wrong here, factually and conceptually.
I was with you until the last paragraph where it seems like a stockholm syndrome took over. Being hit on is NOT harassment no matter what feminists say. Seriously, it is not mens' fault those women weren't happy in IT or psychologically secure. I know I would be equally at odds in nursing, daycare, education, marketing/communications jobs, and any other area that women dominate. The office politics would be incompatible with my male temperament and worldview. I would not consider this dynamic a fault of the women working there because the genders attack work differently according to their different biases. The same was probably true for these women.
The problem I have is that when women are unhappy, it's apparently a 'social injustice' but when men are unhappy or discriminated against by anti-discrimination efforts run-amok, it's a non issue that men should just deal with. On top of that, men are expected to 'man up', and support a government structure that props women up when they don't measure up. Yuck. An equitable system would permit individuals of both genders to pursue their interests without discriminating against OR artificially promoting one over the other. The fact this promotion attempt is often based on the very same attribute claimed as the negative discriminator in the first place really makes the hypocrisy stand out.
it is not a 'shortage'. it's just not a 50/50 split that is not due to irrational discrimination. this is ok, no matter what the feminists tell you because it means women are freely choosing other paths, proving that feminists got what they claimed they wanted: free will for women.
Women shoudln't be discriminated against nor should they be 'encouraged' at the expense of qualified men solely due to gender. The people who (probably) helped create WOSB in the first place are the discriminators when they say stupid shit like "women bring a special something to $ACTIVITY_X if only men would let them", like the raging hypocrites that they are. Gee, where are these people when the job up for grabs is coal mining or something similarly less 'glamorous'?
In the case of IT, it's just one of those examples where most men are more interested in technical matters than most women are. This is ok.
it's not our job to discredit them.. it's their job to prove their points logically and with quantifiable evidence. that article is a litany of opinionated misandry.
It's clear that masturbation has an impact on how we think of women.
Commenters, I realize this study might miss some important points, but please don't reject it out of hand. We do need to stop watching porn. It's just not needed. You won't even miss it at all.
yet your post lacks any justification. it's not men's fault women aren't happy with them. enough of this feminist 'concious men' garbage.
um.. liberals hate video games too, just for different reasons. zomg violence! zomg misogyny! zomg competition for histrionic women! (as this article claims)
Slashdot Mirror
you would be correct if feminism wasn't baking pro woman/anti-man bias, which is sexism as well, into the culture while crying victim. When this is gone, then your statement would be acceptable, ad hominems and all.
the problem is that whatever she says is taken as truth by default, and the males in the situation are facing guilty until proven innocent. Crapola like VAWA back this. If men are treating them this way, then they haven't earned the mens' respect. men do it to men too you know. no, they don't hit on each other, but guys who can't walk the walk when they talk the talk are similarly shunned. Of course women bitch when they aren't given immediate accolades just for existing in the room. They expect support with social interaction and consensus while men earn each other's respect with acts. This is something women don't often understand about men. They need to learn it if men and women are to survive in the work place. unfortunately feminists only care about modifying men's behavior to suit them while propping up womens' whims as intrinsic empowerment.
What the fuck dude. What. The. Fuck. Women are attractive because they are attractive. If you don't have the mental discipline to set aside sexual attraction and deal with a co-worker as a person and not a set of orifices, then it's YOU who's the problem. A woman gets harassed and you think SHE STARTED IT by being ATTRACTIVE? What is she supposed to walk around in a burqa? I for one, can enjoy the scenery without getting handsy or passing comments, and if I think something I might say or do is inappropriate, I suppose my "feminist training" kicks in, and I judge for myself whether it's appropriate or not
1. Strawman argument. ad hominem. I never said I or anyone see women as orifices. This accusation is just a stupid shaming tactic. There's a BIG difference between intrinsic attractiveness triggering occasional unwanted attention, and blatantly shining it on to manipulate, and/or prop up petty narcissism, then complaining about unwanted attention. My language made it obvious I'm talking about the latter, which makes up the majority of anecdotal examples I've seen. In fact, this kind of thing is dramatized in the media quite a bit as 'girl power' moments, complete with the woman gloating about how she managed to extract some favor from a guy.
2. It doesn't really matter who starts it because it takes both to keep it going. My example stated that she probably had a part in it if lots of guys were coming on to her. Despite what paranoid feminists claim, 99.99% of guys ARE capable of controlling themselves. I also said that 'harassment' is very loosely defined these days. To me harassment starts when it gets physical without permission. Words are irrelevant. Feminists are so busy redefining masculinity and demanding male behavior take on feminine imperatives that they haven't considered that changes in their own behavior would also benefit interaction. Examples include controlling feelings, placing insecurities in perspective, and growing thicker skins. Dishing shit is easy, and women have mastered this already. Taking it is a whole other story. This oversensitivity breeds unstable people and explosive situations that blow completely out of preportion, like this conversation. I can't even explore the topic without you immediately playing the victim and flying off the handle.
3. not a burqa, that's pretty stupid. how about not tight pants and a blouse that shows off substantial cleavage for the purpose of using her attractiveness to manipulate guys to her benefit? why dress provocatively otherwise? If she doesn't intend to attract that kind of attention, then maybe this woman should be made aware of her unconscious behavior and its consequences. While vehemently defending their empowerment as justification to act as they please without consequence, feminists sure have made sure society brainwashes guys into being ashamed for what comes naturally to them! Usually using all sorts of shaming tactics and fallacies...more than that, they made sure guys can be punished at whim like the bad dogs they are. Anyway, all rhetoric aside, it's just really hard to have any sympathy at this point. The whole situation today makes both genders behave like idiot, insecure, entitled adolescents.
So what? It's supposed to be a workplace, not the Love Boat. Once again, if you can't reign in your mating impulses, it's not someone else's problem if they can conceal theirs better. Spend some time with females in a non-"I wanna fuck you" context. Read a few books about "the male gaze".
no kidding.. it isn't the love boat. so put some clothes on, turn down the sensitivity knob and learn to put verbal rubbish in perspective, like males have had to long before there was a homo sapiens sapiens. We're all equals here, supposedly, so if they can do it, you can too. Anyway, feminists have no right to demand that men not dictate femininity while they work at redefining masculinity and male behavior to be what they want it to. It's blatantly hypocritical.
I'm sure she'd say that...and it would prove my point: women are no better than the male archetypes they whine about, and thus deserve no extra sympathy. Hypocrites deserve no respect, male or female.
So what? you want legal protection from stupid comments/people? I don't think that's really attainable without a police state, and even then... Stand up for yourself. If they think less of you because of it, they are stupid fools. If they're groping or touching you, I have no problem with you defending yourself, physically if necessary. However, your discomfort does not justify bypassing due process like VAWA and other nonsense allows. You were harassed? prove it...and if it's so bad that you're ready to sue, this should be fairly easy. Unfortunately, the definition of 'harassment' keeps expanding every year as women's groups demand zero tolerance for male behavior in growing numbers of contexts. Men will not be eunuchs for the same reason women won't be, no matter what the feminists say about social constructs.
If you've got a lot of guys harassing you, maybe your behavior is playing a role too. See this is another area that irks me: apparently men are the sole proprietors of sexual non-verbal cues and women are just helpless, molested bystanders. This just isn't true. Women started it when they set themselves up to look attractive in the first place (which 99% of women do, of course). From what they do in the morning before work, to the way they carry themselves walking down the hall or sitting in a meeting, to the way they speak, all play into this. As a male, I can tell you this: when a woman is interested, it's very obvious. when a woman is not interested, but is flattered, she is obvious, even when she vehemently denies her interest. men can see that, so they pursue. they have their nature just as women have theirs. Since I don't know how you dress or any details of your situation, I can't comment further, but this is generally what I've seen go down. This is the same thing as the highschool cheerleader that complains about guys staring when she's got nothing on but low cut shorts and a tight tshirt. She's been taught that men owe her whatever behavior she wants, when the reality is that we can't control another's behavior, only our own. Of course, what she really wants is the attention of the 'hot guys' and not the 'losers.' It doesn't work that way.
I happen to find women who take advantage of this mandated upper hand even more inappropriate than a stupid comment. I've seen more than one woman manipulate her way out of trouble she's caused by blaming a man for it (and of course the feminist trained males just believed her and he was raked over the coals for it). Another even held threat of accusation over a man as a means to gain advantage in bonuses. The more attractive the woman, the more likely this is to work, and these sorts of women use this to flatter the men whom they are sexually attracted to and/or are useful idiots, while sticking it to the guys they find unattractive/contemptuous (eg the hs example above). I have zero respect for this. If victimization is claimed by a party, it has no business opportunistically victimizing others, especially when the victim's victimizing occurs in the same context, in this case being gender discrimination.
Has it occurred to you that building systemic pro woman bias into the culture actually makes any existing gender bias against women's technical abilities worse? The status quo demands that men at least wonder about the actual abilities of female coworkers/bosses/hires because they don't know for sure if they earned their way, or if they were given free rides in education and in corporate life by crappy politics. These kinds of people care more about the appearance of equality than objective measurement of relevant abilities and earning respect.
It's not just about child custody. It's also about property rights assignment and alimony awards. Feminists have no problem holding on to tradition if it benefits their camp. In terms of rape accusations, all it takes is an accusation to destroy a man's respectability. No real evidence is required. The victim's name is suppressed while she and her lawyer can trot out his name in public for all to ridicule, before judgment is even passed. This coupled with the fact that male instinct to distrust other males in regards to women is so strong, and so strongly encouraged by feminism, that I'd go as far to say that it's impossible for a male accused rapist to get a fair trial, period.
Then of course there's the issue of women getting lighter sentences for the same sorts of crimes, including domestic violence and child abuse, despite the fact that women account for slightly more than 50% of the former, and nearly 50% of the latter. From slapping, to throwing tantrums, to genital mutilation, to murder, it's always assumed by bystanders that it's the man's fault. When a woman is mutilated, it's weeklong media coverage aghast at a horrible crime. When a man is mutilated, it's weeklong media coverage on morning talkshows (mostly run by women) ridiculing the guy for being literally emasculated. I think that feminists are just so locked into their 'suffrage' that they don't see or care about the collateral damage they are causing...or maybe the stereotypes are largely correct when they say most feminists are just irrationally angry women (or stockholm syndrome men).
The commercial media is run by women nowadays. As you know, the majority of marketing and communications majors are female and have been for quite some time. These include jobs writing scripts for TV shows and movies. Nowadays we have 100lb women tossing around 230lb men like they're mannequins. In every role that men would traditionally take, the directors go to great lengths to ensure women are placed instead. If that wasn't enough, the characters are made extremely misandric. This is especially true in soaps, which are targeted to appeal to female ego and interests anyway, but also in cop shows (L&O:SVU comes to mind especially) and law dramas like the good wife. Don't even get me started about shows like glee. After about 1990 or so, there isn't a single, NEW, modern, positive, assertive, confident male role model depicted that isn't borderline gay. Programming, including commercials, routinely depict men as overweight, out of date, idiot fathers/boyfriends/husbands who are often ridiculed in front of their kids by their forward-thinking, smart, 'multitasking' wives/daughters. Fashion advertisements are another example. The male models depicted are only a few shades away from crossdressing at times. Add it all up and it's pretty obvious, men, from boyhood, are being 'told' by this crapola that they are barely human, and that their masculine attributes must be corrected for by feminizing themselves as much as possible. It's not just an attack on men, it's an attempt to redefine masculinity for the interests of a group who, among other things, demands femininity not be defined by men.
I suspect these days the anti-male stuff actually starts in kindergarten via promotion/demotion of behaviors, but I was referring to the sex ed program in junior high and highschool. While I have no issue with practical advice like condom use, STD prevention and other things, I do have a problem with the social propaganda that goes along with it. Boys are told, because they have the penis, they are solely responsible and to keep it in their pants or else.. the girls are told what to do when they get pregnant...like they have no control over the process. Unfortunately, this is good advice, because it's how adult men and women are treated by the largely feminist lobbied-for sexual behavior law.
Sexism. This is the heart of the matter. Sexism is the use of gender as a judged attribute. This can either be relevant or not. A healthcare provider ne
Yet, can they avoid doing what they say men have done to them? Can they avoid succumbing to the lure of using their power to repress/ridicule/destroy men as they 'redefine' masculinity?
to me this sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. When I say 'feminism' I'm referring to people who think that women are inherently victims and must be propped up by men, and to the political and social organizations who want to bake this bias into law, finance education, and any other societal structure that controls access to success. I don't really know what you mean by '3rd wave' but all the feminist arguments I've heard equate equality with 'social justice' while using that as a guise for equal+ treatment in any situation considered beneficial, usually without having to live up to as many of the rational standards put in place to earn it. For example, lets take a first wave big one: voting. Feminists wanted the right to vote, but I don't see them trying nearly has hard to get themselves on the draft, something men have to do if they want to vote in federal elections. This is not equal at all because the whole point of tying the draft to voting was to ensure that anyone who votes also has skin in the game so to speak. You don't want large voting majorities who can indirectly vote for war when they don't have to take the risk of having to serve.. It's already bad enough with politicians getting their kids out of military service after they've just authorized yet another 'police action' in the mid east.
what am I supposed to say to this? lol socialists? lol old people are inflexible fools?
come on...
you've got a point..
I agree. There's just so much bullshit associated with higher education these days, from the application process, to the requisites for graduation, that I seriously question its rigor. It seems more about politics and memorization than creating and measuring ability in targeted fields, and I suspect the ivy leagues are the gravest offenders.
you have a point, but the implications are probably toxic to feminist ears.
Boys weren't just 'encouraged' from a vacuum. they were encouraged by male teachers, brothers, fathers, uncles etc who also have similar interests. Hell, I wasn't encouraged by my father at all. I was interested in machines from a very very young age. Men feel good trying to master an understanding of the world around them. Women are satisfied mastering social interaction. Nothing wrong with these biases either, despite what feminists say about gender being a made up social structure. Gender is something that cuts right down to the chromosomes. Feminists are quite wrong here, factually and conceptually.
I was with you until the last paragraph where it seems like a stockholm syndrome took over. Being hit on is NOT harassment no matter what feminists say. Seriously, it is not mens' fault those women weren't happy in IT or psychologically secure. I know I would be equally at odds in nursing, daycare, education, marketing/communications jobs, and any other area that women dominate. The office politics would be incompatible with my male temperament and worldview. I would not consider this dynamic a fault of the women working there because the genders attack work differently according to their different biases. The same was probably true for these women.
The problem I have is that when women are unhappy, it's apparently a 'social injustice' but when men are unhappy or discriminated against by anti-discrimination efforts run-amok, it's a non issue that men should just deal with. On top of that, men are expected to 'man up', and support a government structure that props women up when they don't measure up. Yuck. An equitable system would permit individuals of both genders to pursue their interests without discriminating against OR artificially promoting one over the other. The fact this promotion attempt is often based on the very same attribute claimed as the negative discriminator in the first place really makes the hypocrisy stand out.
it is not a 'shortage'. it's just not a 50/50 split that is not due to irrational discrimination. this is ok, no matter what the feminists tell you because it means women are freely choosing other paths, proving that feminists got what they claimed they wanted: free will for women.
no. not even close. most women just don't care about how the computers in their lives work. they have other priorities. that's fine.
Women shoudln't be discriminated against nor should they be 'encouraged' at the expense of qualified men solely due to gender. The people who (probably) helped create WOSB in the first place are the discriminators when they say stupid shit like "women bring a special something to $ACTIVITY_X if only men would let them", like the raging hypocrites that they are. Gee, where are these people when the job up for grabs is coal mining or something similarly less 'glamorous'?
In the case of IT, it's just one of those examples where most men are more interested in technical matters than most women are. This is ok.
I agree with your assessment except for the partisan bias.. Both parties are to blame.
just because someone has no college degree doesn't mean they're useless.
it's not our job to discredit them.. it's their job to prove their points logically and with quantifiable evidence. that article is a litany of opinionated misandry.
It's clear that masturbation has an impact on how we think of women.
Commenters, I realize this study might miss some important points, but please don't reject it out of hand. We do need to stop watching porn. It's just not needed. You won't even miss it at all.
yet your post lacks any justification. it's not men's fault women aren't happy with them. enough of this feminist 'concious men' garbage.
expand your darwinian analysis to include the other traits these 'adept' people have.. I guarantee it's not as pretty as society says it is.
um.. liberals hate video games too, just for different reasons. zomg violence! zomg misogyny! zomg competition for histrionic women! (as this article claims)
could make the same argument about those who fund tripe articles like this cnn piece.
spoken like a true mangina.. pathetic. you are a product of this broken society, you just don't realize it.