You're forgetting an essential piece of history, dear friend - World War II, the time when nearly 50% of labor duties were taken on by women. Just because women don't do the bulk of the work doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable. It is true that most women weren't blessed with the natural physical strength of men, but all that means is that they must be willing to work harder for such strength. The willpower to do so is not gender specific.
Furthermore, women are discouraged from pursuing labor occupations by society. I think if it weren't so taboo for a woman to do physical labor (if women were portrayed in movies, commercials, ads, etc.. as construction workers rather than as make-up models) that is what more women would conform to. I work a somewhat laborious job myself and sometimes I feel like I probably look dirty and undesirable to society because of it, but despite this notion embedded deep in my mind through years of conditioning I truly enjoy the physicality of my work and would like to become stronger so I can do better.
I admire the strength of men and I appreciate the labor they do for society as a whole. I think there are many opportunities for those who possess a masculine strength; it is far easier for a man with muscles to find work than a woman with smarts, but women are told to be smart while men are told to be strong. For a woman to do the opposite is simply discouraged by mainstream media. But it is my belief that if a woman wants to mine coals there is no reason why she cannot train herself to be able to do so at the same level as a man, she would just have to work harder to get to that point. Of course, the average man (strenghwise) is equal to the superior woman, but either way the job would get done.
Reminds me of a GirlWritesWhat video. Yes, women did do that, however it was not to the same satisfaction as the male equivilent nor was it the harder jobs, it was the easier jobs, such as shoveling coal, and so on. A lot of the work didn't even involve the things men previously done before women were needed to help, like you explained with the less than 50% of work part.
That being said, if willpower is not gender specific, then why are women not doing those roles now mentioned in what "Judgybitch" mentioned? You also forget that not all of those jobs hold physical labour need, such as piloting.
Women are discouraged? By who? Where does society shun women for doing this? I must of walked past the posters. If anything, in today's society, women are encouraged to do all work, science, math, engineering, and all sorts of male dominated fielfs, but would still prefer learning other skills and persue different knowledge. Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from science and math for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, especially science, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism.
Your arguement about women being portrayed in media somehow motivates them to distance themselves from those areas are ridiculous, by that you can then imply that society encourages men to be terrorists, villains, bad guys, criminals, and so on simply because more of those characters are male. If that's also the case, society is trying to encourage men to be stupid, clumsy oafs with the amount of advertisements and media outlets depicting men as such.
I think the whole "society doesn't allow me to" excuse is just that; an excuse. It could be used for nearly, if not all issues on how we differ from men and women.
The prevailing macho culture of the people within STEM fields discourages many women from the start. Since you're not a person in a STEM field, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
I took an animal care course which is female dominated. There is a "fem culture" within that field discouraging men from the start. Since you're not a person in that field, I don't expect you to know that.
How are women being discouraged from society in those fields? Why is a "macho" culture existing if it is true? Did you consider the reason why it's like that is because an overwhelming majority of people working to gain entry in those fields and so gain position in those fields are male? The same could be said about nurses, could it not, simply in the reverse of a "macho culture"?
Explain your point. You and I both know I don't work with statements alone.
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
Yes, I have. I can massively simplify if you need me to:
Premise 1: STEM has a macho culture.
Premise 2: Most women are not attracted to macho cultures any more than most men are attracted to feminized cultures.
( If this is not common sense to you, evidence for those premises be found in this Wikipedia entry and in the references at the bottom of the page and all over the rest of the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Explanations_for_low_representation_of_women )
Logical conclusion: Few women are attracted to STEM fields.
That is an explanation.
That Wikipedia link also lists lots of other explanations. Note how none of those are "women just aren't interested in STEM, okay?".
Is it normal i think it would be a disaster if women ruled the world?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You're forgetting an essential piece of history, dear friend - World War II, the time when nearly 50% of labor duties were taken on by women. Just because women don't do the bulk of the work doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable. It is true that most women weren't blessed with the natural physical strength of men, but all that means is that they must be willing to work harder for such strength. The willpower to do so is not gender specific.
Furthermore, women are discouraged from pursuing labor occupations by society. I think if it weren't so taboo for a woman to do physical labor (if women were portrayed in movies, commercials, ads, etc.. as construction workers rather than as make-up models) that is what more women would conform to. I work a somewhat laborious job myself and sometimes I feel like I probably look dirty and undesirable to society because of it, but despite this notion embedded deep in my mind through years of conditioning I truly enjoy the physicality of my work and would like to become stronger so I can do better.
I admire the strength of men and I appreciate the labor they do for society as a whole. I think there are many opportunities for those who possess a masculine strength; it is far easier for a man with muscles to find work than a woman with smarts, but women are told to be smart while men are told to be strong. For a woman to do the opposite is simply discouraged by mainstream media. But it is my belief that if a woman wants to mine coals there is no reason why she cannot train herself to be able to do so at the same level as a man, she would just have to work harder to get to that point. Of course, the average man (strenghwise) is equal to the superior woman, but either way the job would get done.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Reminds me of a GirlWritesWhat video. Yes, women did do that, however it was not to the same satisfaction as the male equivilent nor was it the harder jobs, it was the easier jobs, such as shoveling coal, and so on. A lot of the work didn't even involve the things men previously done before women were needed to help, like you explained with the less than 50% of work part.
That being said, if willpower is not gender specific, then why are women not doing those roles now mentioned in what "Judgybitch" mentioned? You also forget that not all of those jobs hold physical labour need, such as piloting.
Women are discouraged? By who? Where does society shun women for doing this? I must of walked past the posters. If anything, in today's society, women are encouraged to do all work, science, math, engineering, and all sorts of male dominated fielfs, but would still prefer learning other skills and persue different knowledge. Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from science and math for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, especially science, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism.
Your arguement about women being portrayed in media somehow motivates them to distance themselves from those areas are ridiculous, by that you can then imply that society encourages men to be terrorists, villains, bad guys, criminals, and so on simply because more of those characters are male. If that's also the case, society is trying to encourage men to be stupid, clumsy oafs with the amount of advertisements and media outlets depicting men as such.
I think the whole "society doesn't allow me to" excuse is just that; an excuse. It could be used for nearly, if not all issues on how we differ from men and women.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The prevailing macho culture of the people within STEM fields discourages many women from the start. Since you're not a person in a STEM field, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I took an animal care course which is female dominated. There is a "fem culture" within that field discouraging men from the start. Since you're not a person in that field, I don't expect you to know that.
How are women being discouraged from society in those fields? Why is a "macho" culture existing if it is true? Did you consider the reason why it's like that is because an overwhelming majority of people working to gain entry in those fields and so gain position in those fields are male? The same could be said about nurses, could it not, simply in the reverse of a "macho culture"?
Explain your point. You and I both know I don't work with statements alone.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You've still not explained how they do so, which is what I was primarily getting at.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes, I have. I can massively simplify if you need me to:
Premise 1: STEM has a macho culture.
Premise 2: Most women are not attracted to macho cultures any more than most men are attracted to feminized cultures.
( If this is not common sense to you, evidence for those premises be found in this Wikipedia entry and in the references at the bottom of the page and all over the rest of the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Explanations_for_low_representation_of_women )
Logical conclusion: Few women are attracted to STEM fields.
That is an explanation.
That Wikipedia link also lists lots of other explanations. Note how none of those are "women just aren't interested in STEM, okay?".