Uncategorized

How are the Sciences like boners? Feminists want to make them soft.

Feminists
Comments (24)
  1. Cary Harris says:

    Bateman suggests economics is a tool of the patriarchy, used to suppress women by viewing economic issues through male eyes. We know that is not the case, as the most affluent nations are the ones where women are given the most privileges and have the most freedom. Women in affluent western nations have more power than hundreds of millions of men in developing and third world nations. And we are starting to realize they have more power than men in the affluent western nations.

    Where is her outrage against the medical,educational and social services that are staffed primarily by women? These fields are seen through female eyes, with services and policies influenced, if not completely created, by females. This suggests male interests are compromised, which we know is the case. Compare breast cancer funding to prostate cancer funding. Compare the success rates of girls in the school system to boys in the school system. Compare the treatment of women in family courts to the treatment of men in family courts. Are not the rights, health, and well being of men being compromised in the interests of women in these female dominated fields?

    1. Logic is also a tool of the patriarchy.

      It’s shameful that she is an Fellow in Economics at Cambridge.

      1. braininavat says:

        The “go to” book for the feminist take on logic is Words of Power by Andrea Nye. A related book, though more about rationality in general than logic specifically, in The Man of Reason by Genevieve Lloyd.

        Feminist philosophers have been the “tip of spear” in transforming academia into ideological indoctrination.

  2. Rickard says:

    It’s interesting see that music is one of the fields with biggest discrepancies. It is not that surprising I think though. Music I assume here means mostly art/classical music as these are the types of music usually studied as higher education. This includes things like learning an instrument on a professional level, conducting music and composing music. The string instruments are pretty much 50/50 in terms of male/female distribution. I would say woodwinds are also quite balanced. There are more male players of brass instruments, especially bigger ones such as trombones and tubas. It seems pretty natural as these sort of instruments require a lot of breath and men tend to have more lung capacity (if I recall it correctly). The percussion section is almost all male for the most part. In general when it comes to music performance at high levels (operas, orchestras, chamber ensembles etc.) The harp players on the other hand tend to be mostly female. I wouldn’t necessarily say it favors males as there are many good female players. It’s much a matter of education from an early age, support by parents and of course talent. Maybe men in general are better at playing musical instruments but I don’t have data to support it currently at least.

    Conducting is a slightly different manner. I don’t know if females are necessarily worse at it but fewer women decide to become a conductor. It’s a risky career (as almost all types of musical careers) but being a well known conductor is probably the highest paying profession within the classical music sphere. Maybe women don’t want to be in that sort of leadership role in general. Once again it could be the question of talent and that men are smarter than women and also act better under pressure.

    As for composing goes it seems pretty obvious that men are far superior in general than women at that skill. I doubt you can place one of the living or dead female composers amongst the lets say top 20 of top classical composers. There were few female composers and even fewer of them were very good. I can pretty much list most of the noteworthy female composers by listing only a few names: Hildegaard von Bingen, Barbarra Strozzi, Fanny Mendelssohn, Clara Schumann, Amy Beach and Lili Boulanger. The list of noteworthy male composers would, needless to say, be many times longer. Composing is an art yes, and it relies on emotions to a certain extent yes, so it might seem like a female friendly domain. However it’s also very abstract (I would say it’s more abstract than visual art because of the nature of sound and the manipulation of it rather than the more directly visible (less abstract) nature of paintings, sculpture etc.)). It also requires a big amount of structure and logical thinking. An idea needs to be developed, expanded, sometimes even one motif can serve as a unit to structurally hold a piece of music together. Think about Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, specifically the famous 1st movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7pQytF2nak Yes, that motive. Notice how it permeates the whole movement in its’ different variants. It even spills over to the other movements. My favorite part of the symphony is actually the 3rd movement, specifically at 0:18 when this amazing variant of the motif shows up blasted out by the horns and trumpets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mvbRe5JOWk You can also check out for instance a quick analysis of J.S. Bach’s Invention No. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x33NihQShywm Yes, it’s true that the few women with composing ability were discouraged from pursuing it (Fanny Mendelssohn for instance) but I have trouble naming one good living female composer. Well, maybe Jennifer Higdon qualifies. As for good male living composers: Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Arvo Pärt, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Kalevi Aho, Esa-Pekka Salonen and that’s not even mentioning the soundtrack composers who compose good quality soundtracks and are mostly male. It’s true that the ideology of modernism and it’s lesser dissonant but more boring counterpart of postmodernism still has a big hold over classical music academia but yeah I’m not seeing any significant number of female composers making significant contributions to our musical cultural wealth. And no, Kailja Saariaho and the rest of the high modernists don’t count (sorry Pierre Boulez but your music isn’t good).

    Needless to say the feminists are attacking classical music in many ways and try to push their agendas. Susan McClary claimed in 1987 that the first movement of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZ9QzGg95g) resembles the urges of a rapist. She also claimed that some parts of music, including the sonata form is sexist, basically trying to insert gender into something that isn’t about gender, go figure. She also claimed that Franz Schubert is a homosexual. I don’t know if that’s true but it might have been used as a way to sully his name. Franz Schubert is after all just one of the musical “gods amongst MGTOW”. Then there’s the constant nagging of how misogynistic the classical music culture is, how there needs to be more women, how female composers should be played more often etc. One of the numbers of the Swedish classical music magazine Opus focused on “gender equality”. It described an example where they forced the music during a season to be 50% by women and 50% by men and called it a good thing (despite its’ obvious flaws and lack of meritocratic measurements of aesthetic quality). They also named various female composers and called Kaija Saariaho one of the coolest contemporary composers (ugh). Basically it was full of feminist agenda. Alex Ross is a notorious progressive blogger in the classical music sphere and he made lots of stupid and nonsensical claims. He claimed that classical music doesn’t hold any moral value basically because of its’ associations with Hitler and the Nazis. By that same logic we should see cars or motor ways as something immoral. He recently also claimed that women don’t want to be conductors because they have to conduct music by dead white male composers and that classical music by dead white male composers shouldn’t be played as music. He and the rest of the progressives also dismiss the use of aesthetic judgement and try to see all music as equally valuable.

    Well, I could go on but that’s enough for now. Maybe I should consider becoming a contributor for this site and write a few blog posts here about these sort of topics.

    1. I didn’t even consider the music angle, as it wasn’t part of the article, and my background is in economics. It’s all interrelated though.

      You seem to have good insights, so why not become a contributor? Talk to Barbarossa.

    2. big_red01027 says:

      This is fascinating and I hope you become a contributor.

    3. Nils Dacke says:

      Very interesting, thank you. Hope you contribute in the future.
      What is your opinion of Allan Petterson? Personally I love his works.

      1. Rickard says:

        @Nils Dacke

        I haven’t really listened to his works enough to make a judgement. His music has a very unique sound though. I follow a blog called “The Music Salon” (highly recommended for anyone interested in classical music) and the author Bryan Townsend praises Allan Petterson, and well, in Bryan I trust. But yes, I should listen to Petterson’s work. Will do so once I finish listening to Richard Strauss’ concertos and G.F. Handel’s concertos.

  3. big_red01027 says:

    If women succeed in turning STEM & Economics into “completely useless exercises in Feminist propaganda and mental masturbation”, what is the benefit? These fields will be delegitimized and any progress we might make as a species from their examination will be cut off at the knees (or, to put it another way, retarded).

    1. There is no benefit, but women don’t understand logic like that.

      Women went to college and majored in bullshit. Now they want to change the rules to turn STEM and economics into bullshit. They don’t understand that most women simply shouldn’t be in college in the first place, and by lowering the bar, they aren’t making women smarter.

      It’s all about the “feels”.

      1. big_red01027 says:

        Not only are they not making women smarter, they’re devaluing degrees as a whole. Boy, unintended consequences are a bitch. Ha ha ha.

    2. Ob says:

      Women don’t understand STEM because it is about the real world and not human interactions.

      From what I see in France I can predict you what will happen to STEM as by a phenomenon that I cannot explain chemistery classes are filled 90% of women.

      The arrival of women in a field changes to way teachers teach their disciplne. From something you need to understand it becomes something where you have to learn by heart.

      The experiment are like some cooking recipes where you take a blue solution with a yellow one to make a gren one.

      I like chemistery because I discovered it by my own but many men that were in college with me were fully disgusted by chemistery and did not take chemistery as a serious field at all compared to other sciences like physics or mathematics.

      That discouraged me from pursuiing in chemistery and I went to IT as a replacement.

      France pays a heavy price with the feminization of chemistery fields:
      The chemical industry is falling down at a huge rate and chemical plant closes one by one, taken down by the german concurrence but not only.

      1. The laws of economics always trump politics. Women can lower the bar for education, but companies will respond by not hiring them. They can pass a law FORCING companies to hire them, and the economy will suffer as businesses go bankrupt and jobs are destroyed. Eventually the government runs out of men’s money to support women, and the system collapses, and patriarchy is re-established, not out of a sense of malice or revenge, but simply as a reassertion of the natural order.

        1. Veritech Ace says:

          I wonder how long it will be until a feminist calls the laws of physics “patriarchy.” They can howl and yowl all they want about STEM, but disrespecting the laws of physics can be hazardous to one’s health.

          1. Ob says:

            Unfortunately, I have no reference to back my claim but as feminist get more and more called on their bullshit, they started to say that the reason and critical mind are too patriarcal, and that we should try to do science without it.

            Actually if you look closer, you see that feminist are in war against mathematics.

            In France children traditionnaly children get numreal grades (between 0 to 10, 10 is the best) and feminist are actually fighting hard to suppress theses note from school.

          2. quantum axe says:

            what you mention is probably exactly the reason why there are a lot more scientific and logical atheist men than women.

  4. Xtianity says:

    I am sure you guys watched Hjernevask by Harald Eia – women in Muslim countries have the most number of female STEM majors than in the ones in the West that have granted them most freedom.

    He called it the Gender Equality Paradox.

    1. Cary Harris says:

      females in muslim countries with stem degrees, is that something like Dr.Nicks medical degree?

      1. Women actually make good doctors. They enjoy working with people, and that’s what primary-care physicians do.

        Surgeon is another story, but as far as a general doctor that’s just there to diagnose you and send you on your way with a prescription, women would be fine.

        1. ObjectivistCelibateMGTOW says:

          I agree about making good doctors – my mother out-earned my dad 3:1 (both were working doctors), so I never bought the tradcon BS about infantilising women …

          No dear pua tradcons, I don’t want a sex object, I want a woman who I can have a conversation with when I am 50+ who absent a history of promiscuity which is pretty much impossible these days and the few girls that do exist still use their hindbrain for mate selection and tend to repeatedly fall for looks (height & pretentious status signalling)…domain independence is the best way to summarise the behaviours of these so called quality women. No one has taught them to override their base impulses.

          Also in general women should choose careers where there is actual market demand that suits their biology, no one is expecting them to be nuclear physicist and quantum mechanic PhDs. Biology, Medicine, Dentistry, Genetics are all good careers for women (based on my experience), In the post industrial age stop being a housewife.

          To some extent thirsty men are to blame as well like barbar has said choosing to go for intfantilised women instead of smart less attractive ones which is why we they can get away with it.

          Hookup culture must die, it only benefits 5% of men in the tinder age (unhealthy male on male competition and top 20%-35% of women who can get married thanks to beta manginas despite being the village bicycle).

  5. Actually most Engineering Jobs today require lots of interaction, especially leadership roles/Project or Program Management. The only Problem we really have is that women take off too much time focussing on motherhood and that they are still more risk averse than men when it comes to changing Jobs.

    Since young women start to understand that they will not be married and provided for by an engineer, they will have to become the engineer themselves, and that is the trend we see. Throughout my career I have seen many female executives and interviewed them as well. When the pressure is there, they do as well as any men. When they know they can fall back on their husbands or boyfriends they start to slack. Pretty much human behaviour.

  6. Tim says:

    When I was in college 20 years ago, shortly after midterms, without fail, women formed protests in the dean’s office over their low/failing grades in the computer science and more challenging math fields. Most of the women I work with now in CS and math fields are only there due to affirmative action hiring. Most have to be spoon fed and hand held all throughout projects.

    The men I work with are constantly having to transfer their knowledge to the women on the teams and know that their jobs are at risk if they don’t comply. I’ve only ever worked with a couple of women that were in the top 50% of the most competent of project staff. The others knew they were there to make it appear to be equally gendered and “fair to women”. This means that the men are forced to pick up the slack for the incompetent women and know their jobs are on the line if they don’t.

    The 2016 elections will bring with them paid maternity leave and paid childcare for single mothers, which means that men will effectively be paid less than women and will be left scrambling to keep the projects above water while the mostly single women take months of extra paid vacation.

    Welcome to the new world.

  7. rarbg says:

    Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful article.
    Many thanks for providing this info.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *