"all they need it to do is do whatever they want" sounds like a very middle class take on things.

People from working class rust belt towns in the UK, for example, can't just do what they want, since there are no opportunities. But they are told that they are privileged and can do what they want, and then people wonder why support for labour/leftism has plummeted in working class communities.

My grandmother worked as a mechanic for the phone company in the nine-teens. Her sister did whatever she wanted, she started and ran her own business.

What are the “nine-teens”?

Given he went to Caltech in the 80s, probably the 1910s

1910-1920

Women didn't and don't need well paying jobs to start a family.

What "equal right" do you mean, that "equaled opportunities in the labor market and education"?

Also you seem to miss on the fact that men get worse grades in school (which some say is because of discrimination), which makes it harder for them to enter university.

Why is it that you default to the idea that women want to start a family?

It's a big ass cool world we have going on, and starting a family effectively ties you down from being able to explore it.

Good grief.

That's not what their argument is about at all. Don't change the context to argue in bad faith.

Women don't have the same financial expectations as men do. This is true even today, despite all the push for equal pay and equal rights. Often, that's prior to even getting into a relationship. If you seek an indication, ask a bunch of guys if they would settle for a girl still living at home and then ask the inverse, both groups aged in their 20s.

Given how men are increasingly "giving up on society" because of these standards being harder to achieve every day, GP's argument isn't that improbable at all.

I'm not changing context or attempting to argue in bad faith. The statement is just asinine and delusional with regards to American culture at least.

You sound like you have some preconceived notion of you or your friends being wronged by women or something that I'm not going to be able to shake or have a reasonable discussion about.

I will however say, in words that may appease your ideology - it's honestly never been easier to get a banging hot girlfriend than in the current climate. You literally just have to not be completely fucking weird, have a hint of how to dress in something that compliments your figure, have the smallest standards of 21st century developed country hygiene, and one ever so slightly interesting hobby. Seriously, women will throw themselves at you.

But keep telling yourself what you want to think and reinforcing your views. I've honestly felt nothing but bad for women in STEM lately after an internship as a MechE in a fairly large and well known company. The older men acted fucking disgustingly towards the female interns, when all they're trying to do is make a career in STEM.

First you kneejerk towards "who says women want X?" when the argument was clearly "men often need this to be perceived as a partner, to get X". How you fail to see the leap there is beyond me.

Second, please keep your preconceived notions of me to yourself. They do not add to the discussion at all.

As for what's left worth responding to. Look up the rise of male sexlessness compared to female sexlessness if you seek further evidence of what's happening. The massive filtering and selection criteria happening in online dating. Considering your American-based view, surely you aren't blind to the increasing rates of gymgoers and even steroid use, and the men's grooming industry growing ever more. If anything, that doesn't signify a lack of men trying to maintain themselves, yet it still contradicts your idea of "just take a shower, go buy some clothes and get a girlfriend bro".

>But keep telling yourself what you want to think and reinforcing your views. I've honestly felt nothing but bad for women in STEM lately after an internship as a MechE in a fairly large and well known company.

As an aside, how can you in the same breath accuse me of wanting to form an echo chamber when you immediately cite your own anecdote as a reason to push your own view, despite the fact your anecdote does not invalidate the concerns of men at all? Surely you do not lack the capacity to feel for both the struggles of men and women, regardless of the cause? Men and women have their own troubles, and this incessant need to trivialize one over the other is exactly why we're not getting any further.

Americans don't have families anymore? OK, that's news to me, I admit.

Pattern i observed: When a women settles with a partner and they are doing well financially, they start wanting to have kids. I blame instincts.

That's some great anecdata from you, I'm sure that it applies to the wants of all women everywhere, right?

I mean, wanting kids is surely something that evolution would select for.

The default state of affairs is that organisms want to reproduce and in our species the female is uniquely equipped for this purpose.

Lots of people want to start families. It's not something I invented or "default to". There is nothing wrong with wanting to start families, either. Some may find that nothing in the big as cool world is as cool as having children.

Nobody says you have to do that, but if some men and women want to do it, it will show up in the statistics.

Also even if you don't want a family and just want to explore the world alone, you don't need that much money. What exactly, do you want all the money for, that a high end career would give you? Also working 60 hour weeks would also prevent you from exploring the world, wouldn't it?

They literally have. That's exactly what nearly all of history has been. Women face an entire pipeline of people trying to stop them from pursuing anything beyond a family. My wife, in high school, was directly told never to take any math in college because girls can't do math. From the moment they are born, most women were told they can't do things boys can do. Yes, these days a fair amount of girls are finally told they can do things, but they still face discrimination. A man fails at something and they'll be told to stand back up and keep trying. A woman fails, and they get told, "well, nice try, you did your best! Go ahead and start a family!"

As another anecdote, I have friends that are married and both in the same science field in academia. Both work at the same university. The woman was told that she needed to prove that she wasn't just hired because of her husband. The man was not told the same.

As recently as 1970 women in the US weren't allowed to open checking accounts or get loans from a bank by themselves, but tell me more about how no one _ever_ stopped women from doing what they want.

I fail to see how a women being unable to open a bank account in the 60s, explains why a girl born in 2000, would not want to spend her time geeking on her computer trying to build a website, in 2012. But i'm all ears.

> would not want to spend her time geeking on her computer

Well, based on studies I have seen, if the family had only one computer, it waay often in boys room rather then in girls room. PC was assumed to be boys toy.

The culture emerges from there.

Anecdotally, that is patter I do see around. Parents of young girls are way more often enforcing "no screen till this or that age" while parents of young boys almost brag about boys playing games on them.

Yes, out of the blue, in all countries, and all cultures, on all continents, parents spontaneously put computers and screen, engines, motors, in kids rooms. What a weird collective behavior ! I'm sure it has nothing to do with the many experiments carried out on children, from the youngest of age, showing that even 2 days after birth, boys and girls had different attractions to moving objecs, or human faces for instance !

I've never known a family with a family computer put it anywhere but a common area. I'm sure they're out there but I've never seen it.

Maybe boys get more screen time in families like that because they're more interested in computers? Maybe it's assumed to be a boys toy because boys show more interest in it?

And in 1970 direct deposit did not exist, everyone was paid by check and could go cash it at the issuing bank, which was always local. Man or woman. Whether you had an account or not.

i.e, the banking situation you mention was not a barrier to employment whatsoever.

One might think the whole sexism and gender roles thing and would be discouraging woman from perusing certain fields.

This famous hoax has been debunked many times. For a start, the countries where women pursue IT and science the most, are the most patriarchists (Turkey, Iran, Algeria, Middle-east, etc...). The more relaxed are gender-roles, the more women choose to study arts and litterature, or "gender studies", the same who then complain that there are not enough women building trains.

Second, as many in the west have seen here, we were all pushed towards studying, pursuing masters, etc. This was the policy in most of the western countries (some may say this was silly but this is another debate). I have seen first hand our teachers (mostly female, by the ways) pushing us to apply to Science curriculums, and my fellow female students do everything they could to avoid it.

As someone who has experience with the educational systems of the middle east, I find it amusing how you are misinterpreting the situation.

It's extremely hard for women in these countries to get good careers in any field other than teaching or medicine especially since they are often forced to marry and leave the work force (they can't work without their husbands' permission and they almost always handle all child care). It is the norm for women to marry right after graduating from college and not doing so is seen as abnormal.

The combination of this results in women going to college and studying what they actually _like_ in their final years of "freedom." They choose STEM because they like it.

In the west, women are probably as inherently interested in STEM as in these other countries, but they also know that they need to get a job and they often choose career paths that would give them less pain due to harassment or discrimination.

So let me get this straight.

Your reasoning is that in brutally sexist societies women choose to study completely male-dominated fields because they don't have to make a living after it, whereas in the most egalitarian societies in the entire world sexism pushes them towards traditionally female fields to escape discrimination?

The point is, in middle eastern societies, the realities of working in STEM don't impact the choices women make for their college majors as much. Most of them go to college before marriage with the expectation of not having a long term career in what they study (public colleges are almost always free there, btw). They decide what to do considering different sets of pressures in comparison to women in the west.

Women in more egalitarian societies make their choices under different pressures. They need more of a long-term plan for their career choice and they don't have as many children or marry or leave the workforce as early nor as often as women in the middle east.

Do note though that as more women get into STEM, the experienced and perceived discrimination levels drop dramatically and even more women make the switch. Also, I think it's useful to note that there has been a systemic reduction in what I call the level of "generational misogyny." I can confirm from my own experience that there is a huge difference in how older vs younger (<40yo) men interact with women.

Younger folks are way more egalitarian and some of them assume that they all get the same treatment from older folks but that is just not true. A 30 years old male researcher could have entirely pleasant and productive working relationships with both female researchers in his generation and male researchers in their 60s. He might not expect or understand the degree of hostility or discrimination his female colleagues face when dealing with these very same older researchers. I believe that as time passes and the egalitarian culture actually gets to the "top of the food chain," we will see a distribution that is more representative of male and female preferences without the added discriminatory pressure.

But time has already passed since greater sexism and males and females have already gravitated in two consistent directions - men working with things and women working with people, even when it defies traditional gender roles, such as computers and business. You expect that trend to change direction after some tipping point of sufficiently little sexism?

So, that makes you reach the following conclusion: "the more a society is egalitarian - say, Scandinavian countries, the more it forces women to do painting and arts".

Are you saying that "egalitarian" societies are in fact sexist, and that teaching schools/staff (largely populated by progressive left-wing women), are in fact preventing little girls from doing maths and learning C in their bedroom ?

A common hypothesis is that there are genetic and social/economic aspects that push people towards one field or another. If you make an effort to remove all social forces, and succeed, then the only forces left are the inborn ones- so their effects maximize. So, if there are any inborn differences in the distribution of interest in e.g. engineering between men and women, you would expect to see their effects most keenly in the most low-pressure countries. Inegalitarianism adds pressure that money is useful for dealing with.

So: "women choose a career that would give them less pain".

You can flip it any way you want, you will always end up with the following conclusion which demolishes your feminists dogmas: that women and men have inherently different interests, which, big news, is not surprising, given that they are different.

?? It's entirely reasonable for two populations to make statistically different choices when they are under different pressures. It is exactly what is happening with what is being discussed in this thread: white men skipping college because they have face pressures to earn money, feel college is not for them, etc. Women face different levels of these pressures and also pressure to skip STEM and go into "feminine" majors.

The different pressures are sufficient to explain much of the different major choices, especially when considering the changing distribution in other countries with different sets of pressures.

There are indeed differences between men and women -- cis-men can't give birth, for instance. However, other than the statistical population differences, an average man and an average women with equitable socioeconomic settings are incredibly similar in many areas. Perhaps even in an ideal world there would be more female biologists and more male IT workers. That would be fine. What matters is that a human who is interested in something would have a fighting chance to get there.

Right now, cultural and societal factors are tipping different scales in different ways. For future generation, we would do well to reduce the imbalance -- encourage and support minorities, women, and, yes, white men. People face different battles and helping some does not mean others have to be ignored.

You speak like someone or something is forcefully preventing a girl from studying IT if she wants to. I like how feminists make it sound like they live under the Taliban. Give me one actual example of a girl that was prevented from doing what she wanted.... it's the opposite. Women are freer than ever to do whatever they want. Bad luck for feminist dogmas: it produces the opposite result of what they hoped for, and confirms the gender bias.

It's not a hoax, it is call the gender equality paradox.

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir...

Countries with lousy job prospects for women (to sum it up bluntly) see higher STEM participation from women.

Yeah, I have seen this about Eastern Europe (Russia) and all it convinced me about what that the author dont understand neither Eastern Europe nor sexism. It counted fiends considered non-technical in Eastern Europe as technical. It counted school of basic administration as technical economy too.

It also assumed that sexism is straight line. In fact, while easter europe is overall more sexist, there are many aspects in which it is less sexist. Some aspects of American sexism are present much less.

The confusion is effectively from American assuming that every single aspect of their country must be superior.

The more relaxed gender roles a society has, the more men aspire to be musicians, philosophers, comedians, sports journalists, filmmakers, poets, or motivational speakers instead of studying for a useful STEM career.