/sci/ - Science & Math

>the more you train women to be idiots, the more idiotic they become
wow, it's a mystery

>>11674541
sexual dimorphism and the declining need (or increasing realization of the lack of need) for people in STEM

>>11674541
Your sex influences your interests.
It's also why fields like psychology are overwhelmingly populated by women.
It's not a black and white thing obviously, there are women in stem and men in natural sciences. But it's a general trend.

Non-STEM jobs pay better for women in more gender equal societies, so women who want to make more money have more jobs to choose from.

>>11674541
>in countries that empower women
Like pic related?

>>11674574

When you give the sexes more freedom to do whatever they want, they'll have more opportunities to do what they want.
Here's a hint, that's not STEM for females.

>>11674541
Most women are not interested in science and very few are very interested in science. In countries where they are oppressed they study stem to emancipate themselves, but in countries where they are free they do what they want: study wamnens herxstory, parrot sociology, suck dicks, eat chocolate cake.

>>11674616
The reason people drink water is because evian amd nestle advertise it

>>11674616
demand and supply

>>11674541
>8 unique IPs in a non-kosher thread
Wow, I’m surprised the
>muh /pol/
guy hasn’t showed up yet.

>>11674554
This, speak to a saudi woman in a burka. Way smarter than any sweedish girl.

Women dumb men smart

>>11674541
fuck off, /pol/ incels. pokimane was in engg.

>>11674714
>dumb retarded ewhore was engineering
I had a girl like her in my class half Asian too she cheated hardcore wouldn’t be surprised if pokimane did also.

>>11674715
poki dropped out btw. clearly she was too smart for engg.

>>11674774
She didn’t cheat enough. Asians love cheating. She should of listened to her Asian genes more and cheated so she wouldn’t drop out.

>>11674662
>>11674650
NOOOOOO, these magazine companies force the girls to buy them, they never style their mags to what sells at all.
They are the ones driving the market, not the consumers

>>11674802
>magazines influencing the population and the population influencing what the magazine publishes are mutually exlusive explanations

>>11674541
>What's the scientific explanation for this?
That the study is clearly funded by the Patriarchy as a means of disseminating false results!

>>11674541
You won't find one. Not because academia is controlled by SJeWs as the /pol/tards would suggest, but because its extremely difficult to quantify social pressures and how people respond to them. One could hypothesis that in nations where women are more oppressed, they more actively seek to compensate for their lower status by obtaining more wealth/prestige - the flip side being that in less oppressive nations women are more subject to social conditioning because they don't feel they are lacking in social standing.

>>11674802
The point you're trying to make is demonstrably wrong though, just look at how shit like social media algorithms shape people's interests. Content creators go out of their way to try suite the algorithm rather than the algorithm figuring out what people actually like

>>11674866
>this is your brain in marxism

>>11674937
That's totally why there's no studies about any other kind of social pressures! Oh wait, that's just bullshit.

Males are more into abstract things and tools, females are more social. This is even true in monkeys.
In a society with completely even opportunities people will just end up doing whatever they want so more men will be in STEM

>>11674951
That doesn't disprove his argument. Either they cater to the algorithm because their content won't get pushed unless you do regardless of whether it caters to the audience's interests, because the algorithm really has no idea beyond whatever faulty metrics it reads, or the algorithm actually accurately pinpointed that audiences want clickbait, in which case catering to the algorithm is catering to the audience. Are you trying to say that Youtube's algorithm is actually just a tool they're using to push certain kinds of videos? I mean, I think they WISH it were, but it's so poorly implemented, I doubt it.

>>11674954
In which way does marxism relate with thinking that while the population demand influences the media suply, the media supply also influences individuals of the population?

who invented sexism?

>>11674541
women don't want to work in STEM

>>11674951
>Content creators go out of their way to try suite the algorithm rather than the algorithm figuring out what people actually like
and that has adversely affected yt's bottom line repeatedly. in fact karen wojicici has admitted that her algo tweaks and b&s have hit revenues over and over because ppl don't want to watch their "authoritative" corporate approved bs.

>>11674951
>Content creators go out of their way to try suite the algorithm rather than the algorithm figuring out what people actually like
and that has adversely affected yt's bottom line repeatedly. in fact karen wojicici has admitted that her algo tweaks and b&s have hit revenues over and over because ppl don't want to watch their corporate approved bs.

>>11675017
https://reclaimthenet.org/susan-wojcicki-unpopular-mainstream/
>YouTube CEO: Users don’t like “authoritative” mainstream media channels but we boost them anyway

>>11674541 (OP)
Women don't do math when they don't have to

SHOCKING

>>11674541
More gender equality means women have a better position in those countries. This translates to women choosing career paths that they will enjoy and interest them which tend to be the social sciences.

>>11674541
Bitches don't have to overcompensate.

>>11674802
This reminds me how some years ago it was super woke to criticize magazines and advertisements for photoshopping models. Then normies figured out they could install similar apps on their smartphones and now they all shop their own pictures twice as hard.

>>11674714
And she's not anymore. You're just proving OP's point.

Everything you know about gender politics in the West is actually paradoxical and the exact opposite of what is repeated in the mainstream. Since women care more about women than men care about men (and women certainly don't care about men), everything is framed as a uniquely female issue that people need to address and fix.

e.g. The gender gap isn't because of discrimination in the workplace, it tracks closely with hours worked and occupation chosen, it's because women actually have the freedom to choose. They can be a provider or pick a low key career and marry a provider, that is socially acceptable. It is not socially acceptable for a man to be low earning, it can sometimes be a death sentence for his relationship prospects, and so he must be driven. Men are getting fucked here, but women have the loudest voice.

Similarly, there's the notion that society somehow devalues women or treats them badly. It doesn't track with the fact that men are 3x more likely to commit suicide, 4x more likely to die a violent death, are the virtual entirety of hazardous job and military deaths, and continue to be subjected to fairly barbaric (legal) procedures like circumcision, while a single instant of female circumcision draws headlines and uproar.

Society may be ran by men, but it is built to serve women. This is a product of an outsized female presence in the democratic process, and their own willingness to perpetually push "female first" agendas where men are not willing to do the same.

Because they are too much involved into bitching about it and getting a gender studies degree to compensate for their oppression

>>11674541
maybe because they choose to not do STEM?

>>11674541
The only sensible answer is that it probably has negligible effect, and we certainly don't have enough data to prove that this is causation and not just fake correlation.

>>11675585

It's actually a pretty strong and significant correlation if you look at the data. I can't find the article now, used to have it bookmarked on another browser. Women in places like India are earning way more than Swedish women.

>>11675599
How many different countries (societies) involved.
The probability is conditional on the society itself as a whole, not just on the "feminism" part. You'd need at least 30 different countries of each type to even start having a decent sample size". That's the reason why social "sciences" aren't taken seriously by anyone in hard sciences.

Gender equality develops into the opposite detemination of difference feminism

>>11674541
They are free to be themselves and do not feel the pressure to seek high status to secure themselves a high status man.

>>11674541
>more gender equality
how is a qualitative thing like this measured?

>>11674802
>>11674866
>>11674951
It depends on the topic though. The schools try everything to brainwash people into being race creationists and deny human evolution, but it doesn't work. Advertisement can how ever create consumer trends, and they can create paraphilias through porn

>>11675892
you know in some countries, women are forced to wear burkas, must submit to their husbands, have their genitals horrifically mutilated to control their sexuality, and in other nations they're free to take half of their husbands wealth after doing the bare minimum of wifely duties and aren't expected to do much in general, while being net tax burdens. are you getting the picture?

also OP, some of it is women being more interested in people vs things, some of it is women not having to work as hard in wealthier nations, but women also have a lower mean IQ of about 5 points as well as a narrower standard deviation, so simply looking at the different distributions you would predict a lower proportion given success in STEM has a minimum cut off of around 115 IQ, obviously increasing quite dramatically as you move up the ladder. same reason blacks, hispanics etc are under represented. if you are interested in a fully fleshed out paper on this, see Nyborg 2005.

>>11675487
good post. I would only say that society is ran by a SMALL proportion of elite men, which is actually what women demand - they want tall men who are better than them as husbands, they don't want to be number one themselves (except lesbians and other hardcore feminists, a small minority of women overall)

When there is a choice women don't choose to become engineers and/or can't compete with men for the positions.

This is natural and good for the society.

>>11675487
This

>>11674997
I’m guessing he’s referring to base and super-structure?

>>11675921
That's why I use xhamster.

Men wouldn't go into stem either if they were able to be taken care of by others like women are.
Nobody really likes science but autists.
I'd be studying philosophy right now if I was allowed to do whatever I wanted.

equality is a lie.

how many female ditch diggers and sewage workers are there?

we have simply swapped over- and under-classes

more equality = more government services so people don't starve to death

women become electricians, engineers and plumbers when they live in countries that will actually let them starve or let their children die from an injury because those occupations are stable and generally pay well

>>11674704
Don't hide, I know you are a shill.

>>11677569
But if you work at a starbucks and no one is around to see it, do you really exist?

>>11674714
The problems some people have are truly astounding.

>>11674541
>New study
>he didnt watch Hjernevask A DECADE AGO

https://youtu.be/4kqc5-C-AMM

>>11674541

>>11674616

>>11676841
It's also owned by mindgeek. The own all the big tube sites

>>11674541
When you're not forced to get a STEM job to make a living, and have a strong social net, you're free to choose less stressful careers. STEM fucking sucks if you want good work-life balance.

Because the truth is that most women are not interested in math and science. The pursuit of a stem degree should not be because Obama told you to, or you want to make tons of money. It should be because you have the drive and the special brain to do it.

>>11674616

>wait a minute... those boys are doing something else
>I WANT THAT. I WANT THAT THING THEY'RE DOING, I WANT TO BE INCLUDED, NOW I WANT TO FORCIBLY CHANGE IT AND MAKE THEM DO WHAT I WANT.

>>11678000
>magazines are not driven by sales but rather it's a huge conspiracy by all magazine creators to make women dumb and to make boys interested in "things"
I guess it's that patriarchy we keep hearing about.

>>11674714
Majoring in engineering has the same credentials as winning a 3rd grade spelling bee. Notice how the biggest science autists are mediocre looking men (and sometimes women), pokimane was destined to fail and wi be forgotten after she gets one wrinkle on her face.

>>11674541
I think it's more cultural. Feminism is born from the culture of privileged and flaky early modern European ladies (not the working-class). When you improve 'gender equality' in some country you are essentially colonising them with this among other things, making their women entitled and incompetent, and also non-committal (to hard work and relationships).

Another idea, gender equality goes with overall standard of living, which produces entitled and incompetent people who haven't the mentality for STEM.

>>11678142
Men can't rely on society or family to support them, so they need to be more competent and humble.

>>11674711
I'm gonna venture a guess that you've never talked to either

>>11674937
The only good comment in this thread.

>>11675950
>general intelligence = 0
Make sense of this please. Is 3 300 iq?

>>11674937
>>11678210
>its extremely difficult to quantify social pressures and how people respond to them
>YOU'RE STRAIGHT BECAUSE SOCIETY TELLS YOU TO
>gays are gay because they were born that way

You fucking brainlets are driving me fucking crazy

>>11674541
sexual dimorphism of the brain in homo sapiens

>>11674541
Roasties don't want to study nerd shit

>>11674541
Guys trend to be more interested in things, while women trend to be more interested in caring. When men and women are free to do what they want, that is the result.

>>11678220
notation is retarded. Also, isn't it usually assumed there's more stupid men as well?

>>11674541
fake right wing propaganda

>>11678289
It's really not.
This is phenomenon has been known about for decades. The more egalitarian a country becomes, the more men and women stick to their roles

>>11678289
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-women-equality-preferences-20181018-story.html

https://reason.com/2018/10/26/personality-and-equality/

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-personality-differences-sexes-largest-gender.html

https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/10/12/wider-gap-between-male-female-personalities-in-most-gender-equal-countries/139452.html

>>11678289
pleonasm

>>11674616
>>11674937
>>11674951
>>11674997
>>11675585
>>11678142
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638300000321

Sex differences in human neonatal social perception

Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

>>11678978
www.nature.com/articles/srep19669

Experience-independent sex differences in newborn macaques: Females are more social than males

Human females exhibit greater social interest and skills relative to males, appearing in infancy, suggesting biological roots; however, male and female infants may be treated differently, potentially causing or amplifying sex differences. Here, we tested whether sex differences in social motivation emerge in infant monkeys (n=48) reared in a controlled postnatal environment. Compared to males, females at 2–3 weeks looked more at conspecifics’ faces (d=0.65), especially the eyes (d=1.09) and at 4–5 weeks exhibited more affiliative behaviors (d=0.64), including gesturing, looking and proximity to familiar and unfamiliar human caretakers. In sum, converging evidence from humans and monkeys suggests that female infants are more social than males in the first weeks of life and that such differences may arise independent of postnatal experience. Individual differences in social interest have wide-ranging developmental consequences, impacting infants’ social interaction quality and opportunities for learning. Understanding the evolution of sex differences and their developmental emergence is necessary to best support infants with varying levels of sociality.

>>11678980
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis

From an early age, most children choose to play with toys typed to their own gender. In order to identify variables that predict toy preference, we conducted a meta‐analysis of observational studies of the free selection of toys by boys and girls aged between 1 and 8 years. From an initial pool of 1788 papers, 16 studies (787 boys and 813 girls) met our inclusion criteria. We found that boys played with male‐typed toys more than girls did (Cohen's d = 1.03, p < .0001) and girls played with female‐typed toys more than boys did (Cohen's d = −0.91, p < .0001). Meta‐regression showed no significant effect of presence of an adult, study context, geographical location of the study, publication date, child's age, or the inclusion of gender‐neutral toys... Findings are discussed in terms of possible contributions of environmental influences and age‐related changes in boys' and girls' toy preferences. Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin.

>>11678985
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210014491

Sex differences in chimpanzees' use of sticks as play objects resemble those of children

Sex differences in children's toy play are robust and similar across cultures 1, 2. They include girls tending to play more with dolls and boys more with wheeled toys and pretend weaponry. This pattern is explained by socialization by elders and peers, male rejection of opposite-sex behavior and innate sex differences in activity preferences that are facilitated by specific toys [1]. Evidence for biological factors is controversial but mounting. For instance, girls who have been exposed to high fetal androgen levels are known to make relatively masculine toy choices [3]. Also, when presented with sex-stereotyped human toys, captive female monkeys play more with typically feminine toys, whereas male monkeys play more with masculine toys [1]. In human and nonhuman primates, juvenile females demonstrate a greater interest in infants, and males in rough-and-tumble play. This sex difference in activity preferences parallels adult behavior and may contribute to differences in toy play [1]. Here, we present the first evidence of sex differences in use of play objects in a wild primate, in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We find that juveniles tend to carry sticks in a manner suggestive of rudimentary doll play and, as in children and captive monkeys, this behavior is more common in females than in males.

>>11678985
Fetuses are able to hear and sense much of the world beyond the womb. When they are born they've already been exposed to gendered cultural influences. Now that ultrasound can be used to identify the sex of the fetus before birth, parents end up influencing the development of the fetus's gender identity before it is even born. This is why infant boys and girls have different preferences.
Also we're not macaques. We're home sapiens. There are reasons why biology gives our respective species different names.

Sexual dimorphism includes interests

>>11678220
Probably represents number of standard deviations from the mean.

>>11678997
But do you have any evidence of that?

If you could prove that, it would show that not only is culture more relevant than your opponents think, but also that abortion is definitely morally wrong, since fetuses are thinking persons capable of understanding complex cultural ideas.

>>11674568
Right, but why did the trend get more gray for awhile, then the more gray area we pushed the more black and white it got

>>11678997
lmao

>>11678997

>>11674541
The explanation is that women are the privileged sex.

Men who enter into STEM are not doing it because they are goal-oriented people looking to make a difference in the world. They are doing it to attain social status, material wealth, and sexual partners. Women can skip all the hard work and have those things much more easily.

The very question is absurd. Like.. in countries where we give women even more power than they already have, why do fewer of them work 60 hour weeks at highly stressful jobs?

I'll bet in more "gender equal" countries the fewer women trash collectors you'll find too.

>>11674569
fourth post best post

>>11678997

>>11679087
That's the point.

>>11674568
>It's not a black and white thing obviously, there are women in stem and men in natural sciences.
Nigger what the fuck do you think "natural sciences" means? Physics is a natural science. Chemistry is a natural science. Astronomy is a natural science.

>natural science (plural natural sciences)
>Any science involved in studying phenomena or laws of the physical world: physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and so on.

>>11674777
More likely she discovered that being an ewhore was even easier, and far more profitable, than cheating.

>>11679163
Are you by any chance autistic? It's obvious that they mixed up a word.

>>11679206
No, it's pretty obvious he thinks "natural science" means soft womanish 'sciences' like psychology.

>>11679213
No, it's obvious they meant “social sciences”.

>>11679225
I don't think so. He isn't the first person I've seen make this "mistake".

>>11674541

Biological differences between man and woman? Maybe?

>>11679234
that just so happen to correlate with the political atmosphere? read the question again

Anyone has a guess to when this gender equality madness will end?
We went through this movies, and turns out female lead movies are shit.
But to prove that female scientists are shit we'll need to wait far too long.

>>11679378
The more empowered women feel, they feel more empowered to pursue their passions rather than get degrees they dislike but perceive to be more profitable.

>>11679398
When the money runs out

>>11679378
lmao

>>11679398
When Muslims take over western society.

>>11674616
All this shows is that women have shit taste

>>11674568
I wonder why there are people who refuse to acknowledge this fact despite the evidence and general trends presented, they will jump on outliers to disprove it rather than seeing the bigger picture that outliers do not negate the general trend

>>11674937
>Not because academia is controlled by SJeWs as the /pol/tards would suggest,

There is an undeniable left wing dominance in academia which seeks to suppress discomforting and problematic research/studies you can't deny this fact

>>11678985
This really makes the push back against specific boy/girl marketed/themed toys something odd when you consider its use in advertising is based on something natural and intrinsic like that, which this study further confirms. So the advertisers are forced to change their advertising campaigns (LEGO for example) towards what a small minority believes is the correct approach vs. what is actually correct and found in nature and seems intrinsic in human males/females

Very interesting

>>11674568
>t. drooling retard

Anyone got a list like this but for females?

>>11674951
>Content creators
i love this meme word, as if youtubers are creating shit

>>11674714
by deciding to spread this image you're inadvertently enabling this paraphilic exchange in a pavlovian manner

>>11675487
this is an excellent comment. more normies need to get redpilled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx-3lK_6ZQc

>>11679672
replace male with female and invert the logic in the statement, greater>>lesser, more>>less.

>>11679775
Yep, seems about right.

>>11679775
alright but what about some other shit thats not the shit thats listed you know

>>11674541
>ITT
The only people I've ever seen advocate for more women to be in STEM are CS majors who complain that there are no waifus in their classes and demand that they accept any girl who wants to be in the major on the basis of shitty identity politics. The people who don't want women in CS are just autist faggots who are traditionalists and can't believe a woman can actually do something aside from cook dinner for husband and children.

If you wanna see women in STEM go into a Biology lab, women prefer Biology out of all the STEM majors, with chemistry coming second or so I believe.

>>11678288
>Also, isn't it usually assumed there's more stupid men as well?
Men have a consistent advantage in spatial/mathematical intelligence. Women MAY have a slight advantage in verbal. IQ test designers usually try there damnedest to even these things out so men and women score the same overall IQ.
>>11674541
The wealthier the country the less interest kids have in their future prosperity and the more they can indulge their own specific interests. Wealthy countries tend to be more 'equal'. Girls prefer people, boys prefer things. No scholarship program will change this.

>>11674616
While I wont dispute that this is representative, it's also absurdly cherry-picked on an issue by issue basis. I am sure other issues of the boy's magazine feature Transformers on the cover or some shit.

>>11679848
even if woman is great at her job she will distract a lot of the male employees and result in overall decreased productivity

>>11679664
yikes

>>11679848
>The only people I've ever seen advocate for more women to be in STEM are
SJWs

>>11679885
and I'm sure every magazine made for adult females is full from page to page of catty, passive aggressive gossip about other women and unflattering photos of what ever celeb is the current flavor to hate

Because in first worldcountries it is easier to make a living with any profession, so people wont rush out of their comfort zone or compete for more difficult jobs to earn a living - women will naturally tend to work more womanly jobs
There is a documentary about this.
A guy is researching about norways high gender equality but a total failure to get more women in stem
Google brainwashing nature vs nurture or sex or violence, heimvaskr or something like that was the name of the docu

>>11677898
This this this is what i meant
>>11680330

In general: men are interested in things and women are interested in people

>>11680351
>durhurr thank you jordan peterson

>>11675487
I think part of the problem isn't that men and women aren't pushing for equality. Its that parts of society are pushing back and saying no those inequalities must continue.

The religious Jewish lobby would never let you ban male circumcision no matter how much facts you showed it harmed males.
Women do fight to serve on the front lines in the military but at the same time face the push back that they can't just get there by lowered standards.

Your enemy isn't some grand cabal against men, its just old, entrenched ideas that men are good at X and women are good at Y. Because there are groups out there of M&F who do fight for everything you just advocated.

>>11680387
>I'm just going to ignore all the physiological and psychological differences because it doesn't suit my agenda and hurts my fee-fees
Fuck off retard, this is a science board.

>>11680387
>face the push back that they can't just get there by lowered standards
so are you advocating lower standards or not?

>>11680387
>men are good at X and women are good at Y
At a *statistical* level? Absolutely. See
>>11679672
>>11678420
>>11678978
>>11678980
>>11678985
>>11678988

>>11680396
>get a logical argument
>give back insult

Go collect your Trump bucks and keep quiet.

>>11680400
No. That would be dumb. But the posts were alluding that women want to take just take up jobs in the military where they sit on their ass and look pretty all day. When in reality they just fail to make the physical requirements needed for frontline positions and get allocated elsewhere.

>>11675487
>3x more likely to commit suicide, 4x more likely to die a violent death
completed suicide being likely to be male doesn't mean male being likely to be completed suicide YOU ABSOLUTE ANIMAL STOP RAPING STATISTISC

>>11680406
>a logical argument
Where?

>>11680410
cringe

>>11680405
I think the problem we face is respecting that X & Y both play important roles in society. Fem rights were restricted early on 1900s now its going crazy today and causing confusion among Men today.

You're right in a man does X better than a female or vice versa, but you still need to keep open the freedom of choice and ability to prove a person is equal assuming no special handicap.

>>11680424
don't post

>>11674541
The answer is this: >>11674568

Testosterone has been found to influence interests (see research by Prof Simon Baron-Cohen from the University of Cambridge)

It's not the only influence on interests of course. And yes you can have women interested in typically "male" things, and vice versa.

But generally men are more drawn to technical things. It's correlated with testosterone.


>>11679079
What do you mean? Men and women are naturally interested in different things, on average. Evidence shows this.

A gender-equal society allows boys and girls to determine whatever interests they like. And they're usually drawn to different things.

>>11679163
This: >>11679206

It's obvious what anon meant you fucking pedant.

>>11679591
People believe what they want to believe.

>>11679664
He's right though. You're the drooling retard.

>>11679672
I think it's important not to go overboard with this. Women are better at some things. Men at others. We're just different.

That's on average, of course. Women can do typically "male" things if they want, and vice versa.

>>11680843
why did you preface your post with 'the answer is this' when you didn't answer his question?

>>11674541
There's a biological difference between men and women. When you aren't living in Africa or parts of Asia and you don't really have to worry about starving on the streets you have the choice to do what you really want and not spend your entire life trying to learn Java so you can live a decent life. IMO women aren't better or worse, they just have different things to make there life fulfilling.

>>11680857
Are you just pretending to be retarded?

I referenced a post that answered the question. Then I gave more explanation.

>>11680936
yeah neither of those posts answer op's question

>>11680936
for reference 'countries that empower women' includes norway and sweden

>>11680936
for reference 'countries that empower women' includes norway and sweden only

>>11680900
Sounds reasonable.

>>11680985
in the article they aren't broadly referring to 1st world countries. it's specifically in reference to norway and sweden which really push the whole STEM agenda on women in an attempt achieve equality

>>11679871
I hope those ugandans are able to learn everything they want

>>11674712
this but unironicallly

>>11674541
This can be scientifically explained through the Bauer-Ingram Macro Biological Organisational hypothesis.

This hypothesis stipulates that all women are whores and will naturally choose to free themselves from the burdens of wage-slavery when given the choice. Under given circumstances, women exhibit a preference to not subject themselves to ten to twelve hour a day of mental burden which does not help their lives in a significant way, when they could be improving their appearance, finding a mate and producing offspring. This strange phenomena is also known to result in a peculiar side effect, the general improvement of society, as wages rise due to an effective halving of the labour market. This restores the natural function of both sexes and creates happier, healthier communities, which was ultimately the aim of the natural impulse to behave in this way to begin with, unbeknownst to the participants.

You know what the sad part is? There's 86 posters in this thread, I bet at least 50 of them are academics of some level, and yet whenever this topic is brought up IRL they have to stay silent or even worse fake agreeing with this bullshit, or else their career is over.

I fucking hate this dictatorship of thought. I swear if I ever become a professor I will ONLY fucking hire white heterosexual males.

>>11681267
>I bet at least 50 of them are academics of some level
On /sci/?

>>11681267
Why speak against it? They will collapse on their own made up lies. I dont even need to lift a finger. It's already happening.

basically the more freedom someone has to choose their career they will instead of social pressure forcing genders and minorities into jobs to equal it out fuck left wing ideology

>>11681369
It's a shame I can't even be an accelerationist about it because then I'd have to play the "I was only pretending to be retarded" card and that never really works.

>>11675487
this

>>11677569
>be femoid
>study worthless degree
>scream about lack of job opportunities
>get a comfy government job made for you by jewish lawmakers

>>11680405
Most jobs are not physically constrained and there's not evidence as to whether non-physical differences are caused by innate factors or social ones

>>11679848
> The people who don't want women in CS are just autist faggots who are traditionalists and can't believe a woman can actually do something aside from cook dinner for husband and children.
>what is self-interest in eliminating competition

>>11681267
As a general rule, hire the tranny over the real woman as it will both piss off women and make you seem progressive.

>>11681476
unfortunately I have never seen a tranny in any faculty.
they are too mentally fragile/unstable to be able to withstand both hard sciences and academia

but it might work for humanities

What kind of "gender equality" are we talking about? All gender roles that are not based 100% on sex differences must end

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/24/meet-the-neuroscientist-shattering-the-myth-of-the-gendered-brain-gina-rippon

>>11680843
>He's right though. You're the drooling retard
>stem != natural science
hello retard

>>11674559
sort of this. I dont know what to make of it, and its much more interesting topic than women

>>11674541
Did you read the entire article to check whether the answer was there?

>>11682928
Yeah they give their interpretation.
I bet OP didn't read the article.

The article claims that while girls tend to have similar aptitude to math as boys, girls best subjects tend to be reading/writing.
In poorer countries girls seek the career that is most likely to improve their financial situation.
In developed countries they tend to study what they enjoy/what they are naturally best at.

Have fun with that.

>>11681547
>that entire article

Doubt.jpg

see
>>11679672
>>11678988
>>11678985
>>11678980
>>11678978

>>11681464
>there's not evidence as to whether non-physical differences are caused by innate factors or social ones
Did you miss the last 4 posts that were linked to?

/sci/ will hate this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhwO8u4sZ-8

>>11683669
put it down GOY. RIGHT NOW!!!

>>11680387
>entrenched ideas that men are good at X and women are good at Y
doesn't your example with the military cement that fact?

>>11674541
cause angry incels abused those poor womyn

>>11674616
Thank god I don't think like a f*moid

>>11680387
>its much more likely theres a planet-wide conspiracy to keep things the same than women and men just being different
occams razor is against you

>>11680442
>I think the problem we face is respecting that X & Y both play important roles in society
unironically the only reason this isn't obvious to everyone is because of feminism

>>11674616
This is just white people shit (insipid). I read what I want.

>>11687979
Average black people aren't even in the market for leisure reading unless it's a social media post or song lyrics

>>11674541
Women have more opportunity to find out how inferior their little PFC's are compared to men.

>>11674951
thats because algorithms are garbage and they have to fit the algorithm using metadata on a continual basis and they inevitably interpret the metadata wrong. imagining that these giant profit driven corporations are conspiring to shape our culture to fit their needs at the cost of their profits is as schizo as the jewish overlord conspiracy theory, and as such you are only partly correct

>>11687979
you mean like traffic signs and stuff?

>>11674541
every female human on this planet is like a 6 years old spoil child, they always bitch about not having something but throw away what they can have.
WAMEN can't be fireman, bitch and whine till they let someone that can't even carry their own air tanks to be a fireWAMAN
WAMEN cannot into computer engie, better make some office space occupying job title for them so it makes them feel like they they are doing something on the tech team like "system outreach specialist" who's job is just be on tweeter 24/7 while the guys are hammering out the next tect break through

>>11680387
I agree to some extent. I think the change will take a long period, and I'm not fully yet sure if the experiments were sound, need to read them through. They are showing evidence that three is a significant difference between X and Y, won't deny that. However, taking a look at postsoviet countries, they've been out of the block for 20-30 years, and yet the society is still infested with sovieticus mentality, and ideological freedom is no where near to be seen.

>>11681267
What I've come to realise is that truth is something too valuable to be just handing out to complete strangers. People are usually dumb af and would rather be living in ignorance. Bread and circuses. Untill recently i used to try and be as candid and sincere as I could and I havent gotten any benefit out of it. Now, I dont really care about stating the obvious, the real game and the real benefits come from being complicit and just living your own life. If you need some rando to be stating the obvious for you, then you deserve being a miserable fuck getting angry over some femenists.

>>11675921
good thing I use e621

>>11680387
>Women do fight to serve on the front lines in the military
They ABSOLUTELY DON'T
You probably missed the #draftourdaughters psyop from /pol/ few years ago.
Women want the high paying comfy office jobs where it's mostly about socializing, they do not want to be sewer or construction workers nor be in the infantry.

The fundamental problem with male buying into gender equality is believing it's about a fair playground when it's about furthering a female centric agenda. It's called FEMINism for a reason.

>>11674568
There are really two kinds of feminism that are almost mutually exclusive. There's the cancerous and self-defeating "blank slate" ideological kind that denies all of the obviously biological brain differences then attributes everything to culture/nurture, and there's the sane humanist kind where the differences and their outliers & variants are accepted, open to further scientific inquiry, and accommodated to the advantage of all concerned.
>>11675487
While the "women and children first" ethic of a protective patriarchy and the "more women in power" push of democratic politics are really two sides of the same tendency, both of them neglect the crucial value of the male cognitive difference that stands out most at the extremes--invention & discovery: While few men are particularly Renaissance in outlook or capability, those few are 90% of persons so endowed.
>>11683669
Truth. Watching this I also noticed that while almost all of the male differences apply to me, the risk-taking part especially, the only exception is the stuff about sound and reading subtle shades of feeling in faces, to which I take a distinctly feminine turn. But then I'm a hyper-verbal music-hoarding charismatic lit-fag who can dish with the bitchiest gossips, when in the mood. As for whether that's usually a gay thing, it wouldn't surprise me at all if studies have borne it out.

>>11688707
Women are goddesses...
We just happen to live in a dystopian future.
Most of the men here, aren't job-worthy, or grade worthy, either.
We're just here to be efficient npcs, in the background simulation to the elite's paradise.
Lots of opportunities, still.-and blaming the women isn't accurate, or fruitful

>>11688795
One of the disappointments = our idealistic empathy of helping and showing (4 lack better term 'red pilling' /not poltard usage).
Humans are herd animals in the general sense.
As children, we idealize the freeing, teaching, sharing, but you have to have the heart to imitate the elite power structures, and capitalize off of your own group. That is the nature of our species, and our universe