Feminism

[Malthus]

once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

Heh. My first thought on that, too.

I don't think that the Feminists "won" in that the sexes currently share equality on a statistical basis, so much that their aspirations - that equality was a desireable goal, that people should have control over their own sexuality, bodies and destiny unhindered by gender - became mainstream and so uncontroversial (at least, among most people).

In short, in the pre-Feminist past, Spicy's side of the argument would have appeared closer to the social consensus. Now, it's the outlier. In that sense, Feminism has "won", but obviously in so "winning" it did not necessarily eliminate actual existing inequalities.

[Maximus]

An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic.

Right, and the intersection with Mathematics is probably why it has become more dominated by men. Math does have a long tradition of male dominance.

[merithyn]

You're reading the wrong things into that.  It's not like I'm cutting her off if she decides to major in pre-med or anything.  I just want to raise her to be a proper young lady (albeit one that can appreciate sports, shoot accurately, and generally think for herself) is all.

But don't let any of that get in the way of your FEMINAZI RAGE

You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

[Malthus]

An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

[derspiess]

You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage", toots.  Not me.

[merithyn]

It's antiquated to think that being a doctor is a "male role".

But it's just plain factual to point out that in the "trades, transportation equipment operators" fields women only made up 8% of the work force in Alberta in 2007 (Google FTW!).

I don't think I claimed to be a "enlightened modern man".  I'm just a man.  I want what's best for my kids, not for my kids to necessarily be blazing social pioneers.

Just because there are few of either gender in a field does not mean that they have to be a social pioneer in order to go into it. They just have to show a desire and an aptitude to do so. That's what equality really is, and it's the kind of attitude that you're showing here that is holding society back far more than people that derspeiss. He can be dismissed as fringe. You, on the other hand, claim to believe in equality, yet live your life in a way that perpetuates the problem.

[Malthus]

An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic.

Right, and the intersection with Mathematics is probably why it has become more dominated by men. Math does have a long tradition of male dominance.

Why though would it go from 20% to 10%? It always had a high math component.

[Barrister]

An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

For junior lawyers I'd say it's 60/40 in favour of women.

[garbon]

I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing

Don't know why:  nursing is big bucks especially as a traveling nurse, and it's tons of ass soup.

Yeah. Nursing is actually a great gig on the money front.

[merithyn]

Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic.

Right, and the intersection with Mathematics is probably why it has become more dominated by men. Math does have a long tradition of male dominance.

This is an area that just infuriates me, in particular the bolded part. Logic is not something that women are traditionally bad at, even in the classical sense. In fact, in my logic class in college, women scored the highest grades.

The math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably. Obviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women. There is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

[Grey Fox]

I'm new to the thread. Summary, please?

[merithyn]

You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage".  Not me.

My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

[garbon]

You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage", toots.  Not me.

So you'd be entirely mute on the subject if your daughter wanted to become a doctor or was not behaving like a "proper young lady"?

[Malthus]

I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing

Don't know why:  nursing is big bucks especially as a traveling nurse, and it's tons of ass soup.

Yeah. Nursing is actually a great gig on the money front.

Bump it up to "nurse practitioner", you get much better pay, and you don't have to clean out bedpans so much as well. 

[Admiral Yi]

There are thousands of companies with CEOs, and yet less than 4% of them are women. That's not really an outlier, imo.

I don't doubt that in time it will happen. What I question is how long it will take, especially if women can be and often are shamed for continuing to demand equality.

Or more to the point, especially as the overwhelming majority of women would have no shot at these quota CEO slots.  Women are a slight majority of the electorate; if they were to all unify and state that the condition for their electoral support is legislation that mandates a distribution of CEO positions according to demographic distribution of the genders, that would be the law.

But what's in it for the waitress, the stripper, the retiree, or any of the other 99.99% of women that would have no possible expectation of being handed a CEO position by the Committee on Gender Fairness in the Workplace?

There's also the issue of principle.  Women are now a majority of enrolled undergraduates and enrolled law school students.  Either women are acting on the principle of purely equal outcome, in which case they would also have to support a *reduction* in women in school, or they would be acting out of brute political strength.  That might further erode your hypothetical support.

It would be analogous to affirmative action for blacks: a tiny elite minority would benefit from the support of the majority, except that in this case the ratio of beneficiaries to supporters would be even smaller.