pdub123
Your presumtion is that balance = men and women have the exact same interests and should therefore be represented exactly identically in occupations of things & people.
That is an irrational posture, foisted upon you by your media overlords, and accepted by you wholeheartedly without critical analysis.
I do not believe men and women are equal-- if they were, we wouldn't have two names for two genders in a dimorphic species.
If apples equal oranges, we wouldn't have two names for them.
I don't know what sort of mentality you live within, but it isn't a rational nor informed one, in my estimation.
Given the psychological science (again, many studies over the course of decades), and given the biological science (hormonal and brain differences between sexes), I think it is very clear: Women prefer working with people, men prefer working with things -- On average.
I don't think you understand how statistical distributions work. There are two distributions here: One for men, one for women.
They don't both fit onto the same normal distribution-- if they did, it would be bimodal, not normal.
Good lord, I see you're trying to argue against biological differences between men and women-- You must not be aware of hormone differences, which in fetal development, yield either a male or female.
OK, I am done talking with such a brainwashed person. Your ignorance does not offend me, I just think it's pointless to discuss this with an irrational person who prefers to block out the daylight of reality falling upon their presuppositions, and media-informed (not science-informed) perspective.
I lived in some woods in Portland for 3 weeks, applying for jobs daily from cafes, and visiting community centers for food & showers. Landed a corporate office job. Anyone who isn't disabled can do it. Claiming otherwise is a cop out.
The question is: How much do they want to succeed? How much are they willing to sacrifice comfort for success?
People take for granted their mental and physical fortitude. They give up far too easily.
Going through challenges makes people grow stronger.
Avoiding challenges makes people grow weaker.
(Which is why SJW advocacy-- such as for safe spaces, censorship of wrong think-- signals weakness in certain sections of [brainwashed] society).
Look: People who lack strategy screw themselves. That's no one's fault but their own. If they get themselves into a mess, they deserve that mess. They should have done their research-- Everyone can access the internet and find life experiences, economic research, etc.
Again-- I lived in a tent in order to put my time into something more useful than waiting tables. I reduced my work hours and bills, so I could learn web development.
My tax dollars deserve to go towards more noble causes than to fund the poor lifestyle decisions of others.
Broke & in debt? Either don't have kids, or don't come yelling for my tax dollars when you decide to make poor decisions. May they be an example for the others.
Sure, some people are so disabled they can't travel. For those who are not disabled but are simply poor, here's what they need-- and it doesn't cost much.
- A greyhound bus ticket
- Camping gear: A tent, sleeping bag, inflatable camping mattress
- Clothes
I used to live in a tent. Sure, it's uncomfortable, but it is fully survivable.
While living in a tent in some woods, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, applied for jobs, visited community centers for showers & food handouts.
Applying for jobs-- How long did it take?
- Blue collar jobs: Took a day to get hired, $13/hr job.
- White collar jobs: Took 3 weeks to get hired $25/hr job.
I've lived in a tent while studying and job hunting 3 times. Now I am quite gainfully employed making over $50/hr.
Should tax payers pony up? Not if you mean people other than the individuals who need to pull themselves up.
Are these city states research hubs? Hong Kong or Liechtenstein perhaps.
I can't justify for you your presupposition [nor demonstrate the existence of your chosen, yet unjustified presupposition given the evidence], you'll need to do that for yourself. Sounds like the news & entertainment media told you something repeatedly (without evidence), and you accepted it on its face without critical analysis.
Now, like many, when presented with evidence, you feel a sense of cognitive dissonance and would prefer to refute clear evidence rather than adjust your public opinion-- as to be expected given human nature of desire to save face.
However, what is apparently demonstrated in the studies is that the vast majority of individuals in a normal distribution favor a particular occupational set of interests based on gender: Men -> Things/Systems. Women -> People.
"The most relevant finding here is that about 15% of women have the same level of interest in engineering as the average (Read: 50% i.e. 50th percentile) man;"
"Straight Talk About Sex Differences in Occupational Choices and Work-Family Tradeoffs"
https://ifstudies.org/blog/straight-talk-about-sex-differenc...
It's the concept that women have no agency. That other people are responsible for the choices of individual women.
Check out my other post on this thread-- I show three different investigations into the reality:
Regarding occupational interests:
Men prefer working with things, women prefer working with people
Presenting it as bad is simply, at worst: propaganda espoused by sheep and their shepherds, and at best: ignornace.
There has been a ton of research done on "Thing vs People" career interests, which show very clearly that men prefer working with Things, whereas Women prefer working with People.
(When I say prefer, I mean the average in a normal distribution)
Simply google: occupational interests people vs things
Ex1: "Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...
Ex2: "Straight Talk About Sex Differences in Occupational Choices and Work-Family Tradeoffs"
"Sex differences in occupational interests have been known for decades, and a recent aggregate analysis of the interests of more than 500,000 people shows that some of these differences are quite large.1 The most relevant finding here is that about 15% of women have the same level of interest in engineering as the average man; 50% of men, by definition, would have stronger interests in engineering than the average man."
https://ifstudies.org/blog/straight-talk-about-sex-differenc...
Ex3: "Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox"
Let's see... that's one, lacking objectivity, and full of bias. Millions of data points to go until we get a good, solid picture of reality ;) relative to your claims
any ideas that make woke -> go broke = good snarking :)
That has been tried. It doesn't work.
TLDR: You can build this stuff. But it's a waste of money without the human resources necessary to keep the infrastructure resources running & maintained.
Who do you think is going to run & maintain schools & infrastructure? Let's delve a little deeper--
If you spend time in a developing country, or research their demographics you'll see why.
Let me give you one example: Mexico.
"While SEP data show that nearly all students who complete lower-secondary education enroll in upper-secondary school, the nationwide graduation rate is currently just 67 percent." https://wenr.wes.org/2019/05/education-in-mexico-2 )
Mexico is doing pretty good actually.
So, let's see about a more relevant example: Afghanistan.
"Afghanistan it has, according publishes UNESCO, an adult literacy rate of 31.74%."
https://countryeconomy.com/demography/literacy-rate/afghanis...
The answer is:
Sure, you can build this stuff. But it's a waste of money without the human resources necessary to keep the infrastructure resources running & maintained.