Quantcast
View Post
the-pi-guy said:
Aeolus451 said:

The majority of women don't want x otherwise they'd be doing it. There's no boundaries for them to get any career they want. 

Just because people aren't doing something, doesn't mean they don't want to.  I'm not currently doing the job I want to.  

There are certain jobs I would like to do, but probably won't.  

I have personal experience of women not being sure they wanted to go into Computer Science, because it's a male-dominated field. So yes, these things do happen.  Even if there are biological factors that would drive women into different fields, I have personal experience that shows there are also cultural factors. 

Aeolus451 said:

Even if we made everything as suited as much to women in schooling/training, they'd still prefer certain careers over others. I don't care if there's "not enough" women in certain careers because it's due to natural occurring preferences and not some conspiracy theory plot by men to stop women from having any good jobs. 

Literally no one has said this is some kind of conspiracy.

What is being said, is that women have a perception of certain fields being more for men.  And having female role models in those positions makes it more likely for women to consider those positions.  

Aeolus451 said:

It's not the job of any government to get so involved in people's lives that they're interested in socially engineering people to correct them. If women want to work in certain fields, let 'em.

Except the government isn't doing anything.  The people who are doing the most to get people involved in certain fields are private companies, and universities.  Companies like Google, Intel and Facebook, they're the ones that are working on hiring more.  It's not the US government that is doing anything to get women into fields.  

Cooking is something that is very much considered feminine and the work of a woman, still professionally it's dominated by men... is there a cultural pressure that prevents women to become great chefs?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994