Social Boise State U. Prof. : women should be kept out of Engineering, Law & Medical school

[Andy Capp]

I completely disagree with this guy...

But I would agree with the statement - Stop trying to force quotas on women in STEM Fields. It'll likely be never 50/50. Women and men just in general don't have the same interests. Maybe that changes in the future? Who knows...

However, there's plenty of women in these fields who are great at what they do. I'm in this field.

It's not an indictment on our society if there's not as many women as men in this field. You don't see the same reactions about there not being enough men in teaching careers. Or nurses...

It's our job as a society though to provide EQUAL access to these fields for anyone who wants to pursue them.

Access is not equal. That's the point.

 

[Source]

I don't think anybody in the field of education should have such a narrow minded view of women. Luckily, we already have generations of women who have had success in those fields to prove him wrong. He should shut his face.

Ideally no one in any field should have such a narrow minded view of women. Unfortunately this thread is proving that wrong.

 

[RogerB08]

Unfortunately, Boise is getting overwhelmed by California immigrants.

They're just replacing all the Covid loss.

 

[Natural Order]

Why do women have feet?

 

[Andy Capp]

Elizabeth Warren wrote a book in 2004 titled The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke which explained why two people working ultimately made things harder on the husband, wife and children. There is far more to the argument as to why married women should stay home with the children than just the cliche "because sexism" nonsense. The family unit stopped being the family unit once men and women both started working and competing for jobs.

People want a solution to the wage gap, inflation, mental health, divorce and the rest of the problems, but don't even want to consider that the solution might be an economy focused on families where the mother stays home and the father makes a family wage to support the family. A family first mentality and economy would change a lot of things for the better.

Tell that to the anti-minimum wage and anti UBI crowd.

 

[Andy Capp]

it's about as natural as women becoming a firefighter. Because it exists doesnt mean it's the way it should be.

good on you for applauding diversity hires

What in the actual fuck is natural about who becomes a firefighter?

 

[cooks1]

Your thread title says that.

The quote from the guy your thread is about said women should be more secure in making the choice to raise a family rather than recruited into fields they aren't interested in. You somehow took from that quote that women should be barred from entering fields they're interested in.

One of the founders of modern feminism, Simone Debeauvoir, said the same thing but went the other way with it. She said women should be forced to work and not given the choice to raise kids because if they were given a choice, too many of them would choose to stay home and raise kids. This guy made the same point but said women should feel secure in making the choice to raise their kids instead of being forced to work and have nannies raise their kids.

We don't agree on much, and you were far too kind in your description of this condescending prick, but you bring up some excellent points here. Pretty much everywhere, the most vindictive and unforgiving critics of stay at home mothers are other women. It is somehow viewed as a betrayal of women's progress.

One of the main catalysts for the women's movement in the first place was men horribly undervaluing the female contribution to the home. And the reason it took so long to take root was the lack of alternatives and options for women. As soon as those alternatives and options manifested, women embraced them in droves.

The irony is now, decades later, men have come a long way in properly valuing the stay at home parents contribution. Many to the point that they would rather have their wife at home, or themselves at home, than the extra money. And now it's so often women that don't value the contribution. But we should not judge them too harshly. After all, they learned that from us.

It's hilarious this Yenor asshat mentioned women being more medicated. Because married mothers were far more medicated from the 1950's to the 1970's than they are today. In fact it peaked in the 1970's. You should go back and look at the shit they were taking back then, and how much of it.

I am hopeful that one of the good things to come out of COVID will be a dramatic increase in stay at home parents. A lot of people are now seeing that by the time you pay the childcare and after school care, second business wardrobe, and the rest of it, and see how much better off the kids are.......having that parent at home is not such a bad idea. And that's NOT a conservative principle.

 

[Ophydian]

Marie Curie would like to have a word with you.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

I don't think this professor gets pussy, you guys.

 

[lifelessheap]

They're just replacing all the Covid loss.

LoL. We didn't shut down. Are numbers are fine. Natural immunity is everywhere.

 

[Ophydian]

We don't agree on much, and you were far too kind in your description of this condescending prick, but you bring up some excellent points here. Pretty much everywhere, the most vindictive and unforgiving critics of stay at home mothers are other women. It is somehow viewed as a betrayal of women's progress.

One of the main catalysts for the women's movement in the first place was men horribly undervaluing the female contribution to the home. And the reason it took so long to take root was the lack of alternatives and options for women. As soon as those alternatives and options manifested, women embraced them in droves.

The irony is now, decades later, men have come a long way in properly valuing the stay at home parents contribution. Many to the point that they would rather have their wife at home, or themselves at home, than the extra money. And now it's so often women that don't value the contribution. But we should not judge them too harshly. After all, they learned that from us.

It's hilarious this Yenor asshat mentioned women being more medicated. Because married mothers were far more medicated from the 1950's to the 1970's than they are today. In fact it peaked in the 1970's. You should go back and look at the shit they were taking back then, and how much of it.

I am hopeful that one of the good things to come out of COVID will be a dramatic increase in stay at home parents. A lot of people are now seeing that by the time you pay the childcare and after school care, second business wardrobe, and the rest of it, and see how much better off the kids are.......having that parent at home is not such a bad idea. And that's NOT a conservative principle.

Ritilan was developed by a man to give to his wife.

 

[Ophydian]

Imagine the number of immigrants we’d need if women weren’t apart of the workforce? You all bitch about H1B visas now?

 

[Ophydian]

We don't agree on much, and you were far too kind in your description of this condescending prick, but you bring up some excellent points here. Pretty much everywhere, the most vindictive and unforgiving critics of stay at home mothers are other women. It is somehow viewed as a betrayal of women's progress.

One of the main catalysts for the women's movement in the first place was men horribly undervaluing the female contribution to the home. And the reason it took so long to take root was the lack of alternatives and options for women. As soon as those alternatives and options manifested, women embraced them in droves.

The irony is now, decades later, men have come a long way in properly valuing the stay at home parents contribution. Many to the point that they would rather have their wife at home, or themselves at home, than the extra money. And now it's so often women that don't value the contribution. But we should not judge them too harshly. After all, they learned that from us.

It's hilarious this Yenor asshat mentioned women being more medicated. Because married mothers were far more medicated from the 1950's to the 1970's than they are today. In fact it peaked in the 1970's. You should go back and look at the shit they were taking back then, and how much of it.

I am hopeful that one of the good things to come out of COVID will be a dramatic increase in stay at home parents. A lot of people are now seeing that by the time you pay the childcare and after school care, second business wardrobe, and the rest of it, and see how much better off the kids are.......having that parent at home is not such a bad idea. And that's NOT a conservative principle.

Especially now that child care is so damn expensive, the financial benefits aren’t what they use to be.

 

[ReligiousDiscipline]

If that was the case, how come countries with equal or higher work participation rates have less economic and social inequality? Divorce rates have also been pretty steady for last several decades, despite inequility rising. Your analysis doesn't hold up, as the observation of some, seemingly random, correlating values doesn't tell us anything. If you are serious about understanding the underpinnings on inequality, why not put some more effort into it?

My main focus isn't on inequality. It was one of the things I listed among others. People will always be unequal. My main focus is on maintaining strong families and raising emotionally balanced children. Both parents slaving away all day while the children rot in a daycare benefits nobody. Motherhood is a sacred vocation and the society needs to see it that way instead of exaggerating the importance of having a career and minimizing the importance of motherhood and homemaking.

 

[Source]

Unfortunately, Boise is getting overwhelmed by California immigrants.

You are one of those immigrants Mr I lived in California for 40 years.

 

[RogerB08]

LoL. We didn't shut down. Are numbers are fine. Natural immunity is everywhere.

Na, your hospitals just had to start rationing care (you know, those "death panels" Obama was going to institute) because they were overrun with unvaccinated Covid patients.

 

[nostradumbass]

I am not misinterpreting, you are trying to defend the guy. He does not want women in engineering, medical and law. What part of "Every effort must be made not " do you not understand? I am starting to get the impression you are like a person who keeps insisting the grass is not green even when the grass is , objectively, green.

Whether women pick STEM careers or not is not the point, the point is they have the freedom to choose whatever career / path they want. This guy wants to keep women away from Engineering , Medical and Law. It is people with yours and his attitude who want to coax women to return to 1950s norms.

Well at least you had enough sense to cut out the rest of the sentence entirely, but you already posted so I'll put it in myself.

Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers

Your objection is an inadvertent admission of what we know is true, that not aggressively recruiting women into STEM is tantamount to restricting them because they do not pick it on their own without aggressive recruiting.

OMG, not the 1950s!! Truly the dark ages, when it was normal for women to raise their children, the divorce rate was under 20% as opposed to the majority now, they didn't even get the joy of choking down anti depressants before heading off to work at the widget factory, and a literal vast majority of liberal white women weren't diagnosed with mental illness and report being less happy every decade for 6 straight decades. It was a nightmare. Scary to think there was a time when women had satisfying luves and didn't spend their 20s getting used up like bar rag and get their purple haired friends together for a "skank walk" to celebrate killing their kids before crying themselves to sleep and having to adjust their dose of anti depressants.

But sure, trying to imitate male values instead of having lives based on their own is going great, keep it up and maybe we crank those divorce and depression numbers up a little higher.

https://news.knowledia.com/US/en/ar...-are-118525b71b48654c9c770902e5c79697fd08c04d

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

They are child free and loving it, welcome to the party!!!!

 

[Sano]

My main focus isn't on inequality. It was one of the things I listed among others. People will always be unequal. My main focus is on maintaining strong families and raising emotionally balanced children. Both parents slaving away all day while the children rot in a daycare benefits nobody. Motherhood is a sacred vocation and the society needs to see it that way instead of exaggerating the importance of having a career and minimizing the importance of motherhood and homemaking.

You say this, but based on which metrics? I'm all for women, or men, staying home if that's what they want, but I don't believe that the participation of women in the workforce is a negative. And I certainly don't believe women should be discouraged from doing exactly what they want. It's a matter of balancing free time with hours at the job at a societal level and many countries around the world makes this work. As I said, based on the metrics you initially provided, countries with equal or higher workforce participation rates don't have these issues. I would know, I live in one.

I think blaiming most of the, particularly American, societal ills on women participating in the workforce is reductionistic and neglects other more important reasons why those ills exists. It seems to me more of an ideological argument than a practical one.

 

[MicroBrew]

Well at least you had enough sense to cut out the rest of the sentence entirely, but you already posted so I'll put it in myself.

Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers

Your objection is an inadvertent admission of what we know is true, that not aggressively recruiting women into STEM is tantamount to restricting them because they do not pick it on their own without aggressive recruiting.

OMG, not the 1950s!! Truly the dark ages, when it was normal for women to raise their children, the divorce rate was under 20% as opposed to the majority now, they didn't even get the joy of choking down anti depressants before heading off to work at the widget factory, and a literal vast majority of liberal white women weren't diagnosed with mental illness and report being less happy every decade for 6 straight decades. It was a nightmare. Scary to think there was a time when women had satisfying luves and didn't spend their 20s getting used up like bar rag and get their purple haired friends together for a "skank walk" to celebrate killing their kids before crying themselves to sleep and having to adjust their dose of anti depressants.

But sure, trying to imitate male values instead of having lives based on their own is going great, keep it up and maybe we crank those divorce and depression numbers up a little higher.

https://news.knowledia.com/US/en/ar...-are-118525b71b48654c9c770902e5c79697fd08c04d

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

I cut out the rest of teh quote because I had already posted the full quote previously BUT you kept insisting the grass is not green. So to make it more obvious for others reading the comments and to make it harder for you to ignore I choose the most pertinent words.

He says "Every effort" must be made not to recruit women into engineering , medical and law.
"Every effort" = do whatever possbile to deny women a career in engineering, medical and law.

What he said is not about our culture pushing women into these field and quotas. He wants proactive action to deny women the opportunity to enter these fields.

-
Divorce rate was low, but part of the reason was that men and women , especially women, were pressured and coerced into staying in unhappy or abusive relationships. Women were expected to put up with a lot more stuff back then.

 

[Sano]

Well at least you had enough sense to cut out the rest of the sentence entirely, but you already posted so I'll put it in myself.

Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers

Your objection is an inadvertent admission of what we know is true, that not aggressively recruiting women into STEM is tantamount to restricting them because they do not pick it on their own without aggressive recruiting.

OMG, not the 1950s!! Truly the dark ages, when it was normal for women to raise their children, the divorce rate was under 20% as opposed to the majority now, they didn't even get the joy of choking down anti depressants before heading off to work at the widget factory, and a literal vast majority of liberal white women weren't diagnosed with mental illness and report being less happy every decade for 6 straight decades. It was a nightmare. Scary to think there was a time when women had satisfying luves and didn't spend their 20s getting used up like bar rag and get their purple haired friends together for a "skank walk" to celebrate killing their kids before crying themselves to sleep and having to adjust their dose of anti depressants.

But sure, trying to imitate male values instead of having lives based on their own is going great, keep it up and maybe we crank those divorce and depression numbers up a little higher.

https://news.knowledia.com/US/en/ar...-are-118525b71b48654c9c770902e5c79697fd08c04d

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

They are child free and loving it, welcome to the party!!!!

Divorce rates are hardly the issue. While not as low as in the 1950's, they were at a 50 year low in 2021 in the US:

Divorce in America has been falling fast in recent years, and it just hit a record low in 2019. For every 1,000 marriages in the last year, only 14.9 ended in divorce, according to the newly released American Community Survey data from the Census Bureau. This is the lowest rate we have seen in 50 years. It is even slightly lower than 1970, when 15 marriages ended in divorce per 1,000 marriages.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-year-low

More importantly, divorce rates being held artificially low because women simply didn't have a choice and couldn't support themselves financially isn't a good thing just because.