January 31, 2011
— Monty This article caught my attention -- it states that only about 15% of the articles on Wikipedia are written by women. And it probably says something about me that my first thought was, "That many?"
Computer and software technology is a heavily male-dominated area, and always has been. There have been many arguments over the years as to why that is so, but the fact is unassailable. Every so often, feminists or journalists or sociologists will drag the dead horse out and beat it some more: Why aren't more girls into video games? Why don't women go into computer-programming in greater numbers? Why do girls seem to find the fact and detail oriented world of technology so much less interesting than males?
This sort of thing usually degenerates into stupid arguments as to whether men are "smarter" than women, which I think completely misses the basic point: I think that women can be as good at technology as men in general; I think they choose not to. In other words -- what we are seeing is a basic, cross-cultural gender difference. I think that men are simply more willing to devote the deep focus and single-minded intensity to master a given topic (which may not have any immediate practical application) than women are. And I think that there is a degree of natural selection at work here: men are high-achievers because they want to impress women.
I think that this is pretty much the same reason that men dominate the hard sciences and upper echelons of the arts. Women seem far less willing than men (not less able) to devote years and years of study and practice to the mastery of a given field. Women also seem to be more communal and less competitve than men in general, which may lead them to "give way" in the face of more competitive males.
I guess my point is that I don't think there's anything to be done about the "technology gap" because it's a facet of a deeper gender difference. Women can master technology when it's to their benefit to do so (they led the charge in the cellphone revolution, and are the main impetus behind social-networking sites like Facebook), but they seem to prioritize high-achievement less than men do. This isn't necessarily a bad thing to be "fixed". In fact, I think it would do lots of men good to be less focused on their jobs and careers and more involved in their family lives. (Some men become practically autistic in terms of narrow focus on a technology or gaming subculture. I have done this myself and know whereof I speak.)
Posted by: Monty at
05:58 AM
| Comments (101)
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
We promise not to make fun of your Warhammer 40k tabletop figurine collection.
Posted by: EC at January 31, 2011 06:04 AM (mAhn3)
Posted by: Viridian at January 31, 2011 06:08 AM (D+vTb)
My dad was an computer operator (old school IBM...no, Dad, don't IPL your PC...)
I had a career in IT, starting with Help Desk and training people, working my way up the ladder, doing project management and eventually managing an IT department.
I did plenty on the technical side, don't get me wrong. But there was always work on the more people oriented side that I was better at and willing to do.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 31, 2011 06:09 AM (XdlcF)
Women thing more in terms of graphics while men think more in terms of data. The studies said that this leads women into fields of science such as biology while men went into fields of physics.
Our problems today is that there are a shortage of men and women going into any science related fields.
Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 06:11 AM (M9Ie6)
Monty: Women also seem to be more communal and less competitve than men in general, which may lead them to "give way" in the face of more competitive males.
Solo4357: I've seen a group of women working with each other and they back stab and scheme worse than any group of men I've ever seen.
I think many women don't know how to be competitive in the same way men do. The whole "fight hard then go out for a drink with no hard feelings" is foreign. So some aren't, or hide their competitiveness, and others let it out in ways that aren't so hot.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 31, 2011 06:12 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Jean at January 31, 2011 06:14 AM (G5WHn)
I had a group of women tell me one time that they had taken a transfer to our department when it was initially set up because they wanted to get out of a group that had a female supervisor. They said they always preferred a male supervisor.
Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2011 06:14 AM (M9Ie6)
But... but... its unfair! Therefore, even if untrained or with less knowledge, Teck departments must hire until they reach at least 50% female personel.
Because thats the way we roll....
Posted by: Quota Systems at January 31, 2011 06:14 AM (AdK6a)
They are? Wow, what an Earth-shattering revelation!
We need decades of NIH-funded studies to test this hypothesis!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 31, 2011 06:15 AM (9hSKh)
This probably surprises no one but the termagants in the NOW. Women like to have and use technological things, but generally do not like to work on or create those things. By the same token I'm sure there are plenty of jobs that men self-select out of to a large degree. Child-care related work is probably one of those.
It is unfortunate that we feel the need to observe and judge these phenomena. It tends to lead to our attempting to adjust them, to create outcomes contrary to what people would naturally do. It's a waste of time and resources.
I do think there's a lot of truth in the assertion that women don't like to commit the time and focus needed to really specialize. I've often heard it observed that when a profession becomes female dominated that profession tends to suffer.
Posted by: Reactionary at January 31, 2011 06:18 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 06:19 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: Barry 'Sorta' Soetero at January 31, 2011 06:20 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Mandy P. at January 31, 2011 06:20 AM (vGmv/)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 06:20 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: t-bird at January 31, 2011 06:26 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 06:27 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: Cherry π at January 31, 2011 06:27 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: shibumi at January 31, 2011 06:28 AM (OKZrE)
This result was attacked by other feminist scientists on the grounds that the baboons were caged rather than wild and were thus some how influenced by the human cages or something. Rerunning the tests with wild Baboons gave the same result.
I have never met a man who thinks that Male brains and Female brains are the same - as far as I can tell it is only women who believe that to be true; it is obvious to us males that there are big differences in the way males and females are wired.
Posted by: An Observation at January 31, 2011 06:31 AM (ylhEn)
Posted by: Crusty at January 31, 2011 06:32 AM (GvSpB)
The related part:
Set aside that this statistic is going to launch thousands of theses looking at gender bias in Wikipedia, and think of how it undercuts the idea that everything men do is about power. I doubt any man has ever picked up a woman with the line, “hey baby, you seen the entry about DarwinÂ’s theory of evolution? I wrote the first two lines”; instead, thousands of men spend a great deal of their free time beavering away anonymously, for no reward or recognition save the private satisfaction of contributing to a great project.
What we are seeing with Wikipedia—and any number of similar online enterprises—is a sort of natural experiment in the male brain operating in its preferred environment. It is a project that requires a great deal of focus, persistence, and attention to detail, what the psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen (first cousin of Sacha, of Borat and Ali G fame) calls “systematizing ability.” Men, not exclusively but almost certainly more than women, like to spend a great deal of their time perfecting minuscule tasks, regardless of their immediate practical value.
These same cognitive traits are wildly overrepresented in mathematicians, engineers, and IT professionals, and, when combined with very low levels of empathy and social skills, in people with Asperger’s syndrome and autism. Baron-Cohen actually refers to autism as the expression of the “extreme male brain,” which would explain why there are so many more autistic males than females. It also explains why so much of our built environment is the man-built environment.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 31, 2011 06:32 AM (3YYhR)
1. Get a B.S. in a science field - 4 years min.
2. Get a M.S. (sometimes optional) - another 2 yrs.
3. Get a Ph.D. - anywhere from 3-5 yrs.
4. Do one or more postdocs - each one can last from 1-2 yrs.
So from the time someone finishes highschool to the time someone has the correct credentials for a high-powered science job, it can be as much as 15 years! Did you want to wait until age 33 or 34 before you got your first real job? Not many people do, and that's a big reason why most people, men and women included, will say "screw it, I'm not going to waste all those years of my life for the merest chance of getting a good science gig, I'm going to monetize my already existing education in some other way." Women just have an added biological incentive to avoid science as a career.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 31, 2011 06:34 AM (pqsMB)
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 31, 2011 06:34 AM (3YYhR)
The differences in competitiveness between men and women probably also explain most of the female disinterest in video games.
I play 'em, just not the strategy ones my son and husband do. I play the "casual games" aka "time management games" like Diner Dash and such.
But I'm also having a blast with racing games on the Wii.
I guess I just like to hurry...
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 31, 2011 06:36 AM (XdlcF)
Men and women are different from each other, and yet somehow, in some strange way, those differences compliment each other....wow, I never would have ever guessed that.
Ok, the paid researchers still haven't quite grasped that last part...about those differences being complimentary and natural...and they're light years away from the light bulb going off about how some individuals buck the norms for their respective genders while still being quite normal. Perhaps they just need some more grants and another decade of research to figure those two things out.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 06:37 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 06:38 AM (T2/zQ)
Posted by: emrys at January 31, 2011 06:42 AM (msqTW)
Posted by: butch at January 31, 2011 06:47 AM (0APJ3)
Posted by: joncelli at January 31, 2011 06:54 AM (RD7QR)
Women also seem to be more communal and less competitve than men in general, which may lead them to "give way" in the face of more competitive males.
From the female perspective, I can tell you that this particular argument isn't true. Women are VERY competitive, but we tend to be more competetive with other women than we are with men. Part of that is hard wired gender roles. The traditional caricature of the demure female means that we are less likely to compete with men because that (traditionally) would put us at a disadvantage for finding and securing a husband. Is that true? Maybe, maybe not. But that's what I mean when I say "hard wired."
But within groups of females, HOLY SHIT, look out. Anyone who has had the misfortune of being near a group of teenage girls who are fighting over a boy, or a prom dress, or a spot on the cheerleading team, or the lead role in the school play knows what I mean. That competitive streak doesn't disappear when we grow up, it just morphs into new avenues of expression. The fight over the prom dress turns into the evening gown showdown. "Oh my God. Didn't Mary wear that gown to the last company function?" The cheerleading argument turns into, "I'm the one who's qualified for the Program Manager position, not Elizabeth. That woman doesn't know the first thing about water filtration systems! It's all office politics!" Everything turns into a battle of backbiting, nagging, and veiled insults. And yes, a lot of the time it involves wanting to impress one or more men. It can be very uncomfortable for anyone not directly involved in the competition, and it it's usually impossible to avoid getting sucked into it in one way or another.
I'd say that the big difference between men and women in the tech industry is that, while men are involved in a lot of the development of systems and software, women are the dominant consumers of those things. EVERYTHING is marketed to the teen girl demographic, from iPods to cellphones. Do guys really care if their iPod Nano is hot pink or lime green or buttercup yellow? Do guys REALLY feel the need to decorate their laptops with trendy flower stickers and Hello Kitty skins (not the actual skin OF Hello Kitty, but you know what I mean)? Women have long been the holders of the family checkbook and scrapbook, so software like Quickbooks and Photoshop are ideal for the stay-at-home or working mother. In the office, secretarial and administrative assistant positions are dominated by women, and these are by far the positions most likely to interact with basic technology on a daily basis, from PCs to photocopiers to printers to teleconferencing equipment. I have worked in secretarial and Admin Assistant positions a LOT, and I can tell you that every single one of my superiors (male and female, but especially male) have been completely clueless about how to set up an LCD projector, how to work a conference phone, or even how to operate an Excel spreadsheet.
Really, rather than being an adversarial relationship ("Why aren't there more women in STEM fields!"), I think it's symbiotic. The male-dominated STEM fields create the products and systems that the female-dominated service sector use on a daily basis. The stink that the feminist left raises is all due to the fact that the STEM fields (science, techonology, engineering and math) are the perceived "smart" fields, whereas the service fields (office work, nursing, social work, teaching, etc) are considered "soft" fields. That's absolute bullshit, of course. I'd like to see your average computer programmer who spends twelve hours a day sequestered in a tiny room building code try to work a day in a busy hospital ward, and vice versa.
Are there very smart people in the STEM industries? AbsoLUTEly. But there are also a lot of smart people in every industry. The difference is, the openings for programmers and engineers aren't as numerous as the need for competent nurses, teachers, and secretaries; that's why nursing and teaching are always in the top ten list of critical personnel needs. So the smart techies get snapped up and fill the relatively few empty openings for STEM fields in a very short time, while the service industries soak up anything that moves and breathes -- smart, standard, or dumb -- just to try to maintain a critical mass in the workforce.
That's also why the quality and quantity of nurses and teachers have gone downhill in recent years. When everyone is lusting after teachers, you'd be stupid not to get a degree in teaching. You're practically guaranteed a job. But GOOD teachers are good because they have a genuine love of learning and a desire to help children succeed. It's not just a job, it's a career and a passion. Likewise for good nurses; they want to help people and ease their pain. When either of these fields is treated like just another job, the quality of work and job satisfaction in those fields is diluted. And as far as nursing is concerned, when you're also dealing with the messy business of sick people and the tangible elements of their various ailments, you're not going to last very long if you don't GENUINELY want to be a quality caregiver. That leads to high turnover, long hours for remaining nursing staff, and the overall quality of nursing care declines as an inevitable result.
So, in conclusion... I love Katamari Damacy.
(I have no idea how else to close off this unexpectedly long essay/rant, so I figure a non sequitur works well enough. ^_^)
Posted by: MWR at January 31, 2011 06:56 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: AngelEm at January 31, 2011 06:58 AM (18RR9)
<i>Or maybe women have better things to do than spending lots of time updating the unreliable Wikipedia and playing computer games.</i>
Yeah, is it really a bad thing that women don't waste hours of time updating article on wikapedia for free? Maybe they'd rather read a book. Who cares.
Posted by: Lea at January 31, 2011 07:04 AM (lIU4e)
I'll just say that the best testers I have ever worked with are all female. I will admit that after the project was shipped I didn't want to talk to them for several weeks after :-).
Oh, man, does that sound familiar. Brings back memories of programmers running away from me. Good times, good times.
Sigh. I wish I could find a little tech writing and/or testing work to do from home.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 31, 2011 07:05 AM (XdlcF)
Institutions of higher education have more females than males enrolled. Regardless of gender, students have the choice of which discipline they choose to study.
Whatever "gender gap" exists is by the students' choice. Special interests, i.e. hacks for their own personal "empowerment" at the expense of others, are attempting to "correct" a student's CHOICE despite the student's preferential will and talent, in order to enforce an authoritarian version of equality equation superimposed upon society and business at the expense of tax payers.
Posted by: Plateau Plato at January 31, 2011 07:06 AM (H+LJc)
I have no idea how else to close off this unexpectedly long essay/rant, so I figure a non sequitur works well enough. ^_^
<Sniff> I'm totally better at non-sequiturs...
Posted by: Some random female at January 31, 2011 07:08 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 07:12 AM (6iP/C)
Posted by: Pecos Bill at January 31, 2011 07:13 AM (j84s0)
32, 33, 36 True, true, and true.
While there does seem to be something to the differences between male and female thought patterns and task proliclivities, I think there are a lot of women (and men) who do buck the stereotype. I think there are some standard norms, but a lot of variation that lies within the range of normal -- not a lot of thought is being given to the sizeable number of people who don't fit that stereotypical norm and yet are normal.
These studies seem to do more to encourage very black/white interpretations of individual's behavior and facilitating a more adversarial context than what is seemly.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 31, 2011 07:13 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:18 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 11:18 AM (0Hp4r)
Who is saying they can't?
Posted by: KG at January 31, 2011 07:20 AM (2k/Dg)
That is such a good observation. Guys do do this. How many young men spent hours becoming foosball masters or pinball wizards? Or yo-yo experts. Not to mention working to throw a good slider or knuckleball.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 31, 2011 07:22 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: toby928™ at January 31, 2011 07:27 AM (GTbGH)
I am female and I edit Wikipedia rather extensively on Mexico related topics as I live here. Kind of my travel log. I write about stuff I see and experience. (last article extensively edited is the Costa Grande of Guerrero).
As for why a gender gap in WP, I can offer two possibilities: the interface is not terribly intuitive. Lots of trial and error to figure stuff out, or wading through really tedious instruction pages (assuming you can find them). The second is there is a lot of "edit warring," especially on articles of well known content. For this reason, I tend to avoid those articles. I get no thrill over a fight. Take away, those two aspects and you can then focus on writing... language skills women are good at. Im involved in forming a Wikipedia group, and one of our goals is to offer classes in how to edit in WP, since most, and not just women, need more guidance then hard-to-find instruction pages. I know this because I have had my students write in WP as part of their English classes, and this is the biggest drawback.
I do think that women are not as strongly drawn to science and technology, and I like it more than the average female, but I still need a tech guy when something goes wrong.
As for careers in general... I never felt "discriminated against" until I had a child. Since women are still the primary caregivers, (for whatever reason) we cannot compete against men who can work 12 hour days. I dont know what the answer is to this, but I know its not "all men's fault."
Posted by: LeighT at January 31, 2011 07:30 AM (V3aNv)
46 Oh Bullshit. Women can do anything that men can do.
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 11:18 AM (0Hp4r)
Who is saying they can't?
Posted by: KG at January 31, 2011 11:20 AM (2k/Dg)
Re: I think that men are simply more willing to devote the deep focus and single-minded intensity to master a given topic (which may not have any immediate practical application) than women are.
I'm try, perhaps badly, to say that women aren't unwilling to "devote the deep focus and single-minded intensity to master a given topic" it's that biology gets in the way. It's not a matter of will as much as it is a matter of brain chemistry.
I'm going to the second round of interviews today for a job that would be perfectly suitable for me, easy to get to, and the right salary. What's my overriding concern? How flexible they are about my being available to my children when they're sick or snow days. That is absolutely my first priority and if I get the sense they are going to be a problem, I'll make them clarify their policies and will decide whether or not to take the job on that basis. It's just a completely different way of thinking and I don't feel the LEAST bit bad about it.
Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2011 07:30 AM (0Hp4r)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 07:30 AM (4Pleu)
Oddly related to the next thread up, do young guys get so obsessed with intense minutia and competitive stuff because they aren't getting any?
I'd argue that it's an evolutionary mechanism to ensure that they get some. Specialization within the tribe ensures that you're not constantly jockying for position against everyone else, because you can focus on being good at one thing. You fit into the social structure, ensuring that any mate and children have access to the resources of the group.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 07:31 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 07:36 AM (4Pleu)
A young girl that I know who's in her early 20s is looking to get out of the coffee making business and go to college. I suggested computers (she's a gamer) or nursing or business, you know, something that will get her a paying job. She countered with cosmetology school or social work! and she said it as though we didn't have enough hairdressers or social workers in our society.
There you have it.
Posted by: Max Entropy at January 31, 2011 07:39 AM (lH6z9)
Autistics are socially retarded, a developmental disorder.
This sort of thing usually degenerates into stupid arguments as to whether men are "smarter" than women,
It's not surprising that society's traditional view of "intelligence" almost exclusively looks at the male version of it.
Posted by: 1+1=2 at January 31, 2011 07:41 AM (xs5wK)
Maybe things get different for boys and girls at that age because girls quickly figure out they get lots of positive attention just by wearing a tight t-shirt and breathing. Lots of payoff, little effort. When you add in to that parental role modeling, not too surprising they don't go for tech and science if their parents don't. My mother, rare for her era, desperately wanted to be a technical writer and my father was a happily geeky engineer who would spend hours talking about stress analysis, moment arms, and torque. He gave me drafting equipment and woodworking tools as a treat! I thought it was normal. Kids need positive feedback from *someone* to pursue any activity.
Yeah, men and women are different BUT I think there is a significant area of overlap AND things change. Watching my silver-haired mother first learn about computers (she's quite good now!) and then teach her friends was a delight. She's now considered, at 70, the computer expert among them and gets the same kind of tech support calls I used to get from her. (My father, on the other hand, barely mastered email and never really understood how modern computers worked.)
Posted by: bad cat robot at January 31, 2011 07:41 AM (65lpa)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 07:50 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: steve h at January 31, 2011 07:53 AM (XHOAD)
I suggested computers (she's a gamer) or nursing or business, you know, something that will get her a paying job. She countered with cosmetology school or social work! and she said it as though we didn't have enough hairdressers or social workers in our society.
Skip business. It's become almost as bad as psycology. Nursing is probably the best bet: computer related jobs can be outsourced, but nurses are still very much in demand, and it's a job skill that is very portable.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 07:54 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: Hamilton Burger at January 31, 2011 07:57 AM (tZksj)
The eggheads and beta males who run it would love to hire more women if they were available. I am a software engineer who is also one of those neanderthal Christian conservatives, that is kinda rare too. I went back to college recently and the programming class had 2 women out of a class of 30. Even they didn't seem they were pursuing it as a career.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 31, 2011 07:57 AM (tgM/l)
_________
You know, I think I can quite honestly state that some applications of those silky smooth Soviet tubes never occurred to me.
Posted by: Anachronda at January 31, 2011 07:59 AM (NmR1a)
Posted by: Soona at January 31, 2011 08:02 AM (1sRTx)
_________
One drive with all your DVDs? Piker!
Posted by: Anachronda at January 31, 2011 08:03 AM (NmR1a)
Posted by: ScottBern at January 31, 2011 08:10 AM (JF/H+)
If I had studied harder in college, I'd consider going to PA school. The classes can be nearly 90% women, depending on the school.
Posted by: Alex at January 31, 2011 08:16 AM (J2ejK)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 08:17 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: steve at January 31, 2011 08:21 AM (9TS9J)
___________
Meh. I just hit the "iPod/iPhone" preset on Handbrake so that I can plunk a few of them on the iPod when Mission Control drags me off to visit the in-laws. Guess I'm just lazy...
Posted by: Anachronda at January 31, 2011 08:22 AM (IrbU4)
What I think is funny, is that this all stemmed from contributions to wikipedia. I am a successful female engineer, who's interests and knowledge range both within the STEM fields and beyond. I have never contributed to wikipedia, (though I use it all the time,) not because I don't understand the technology, I am regularly approached as the go to for solving computer related problems, and lets be honest, it's not like it even takes tech skills to contribute to wikipedia.
I have never contributed for two main reasons.
1) I am too lazy.
2) I have better things to do with my time. (Like be lazy.)
To women not being in the tech fields, I agree, it's a choice, not an ability issues. Although, sometimes girls spend so much time putting on makeup and blinking coyly in an attempt to attract boys and one up the girl next to them, that they loose the ability to actually think...granted men who aren't AoS morons do it bulking up on stupid looking muscles.
Posted by: Anomalous at January 31, 2011 08:22 AM (BaQuW)
Posted by: SGT Dan at January 31, 2011 08:29 AM (HBTr7)
Posted by: EnochF at January 31, 2011 08:29 AM (ZbtIh)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 08:33 AM (4Pleu)
------
Good news lads! Our intimate knowledge of AD&D rules from the 1st through 4th editions shall finally bring us fair maidens. St. Cuthbert be praised! Mother, I must now take my leave of my lodging in the quarters above the garage.
Now let's go LARP in celebration!
Posted by: where're my ping pong balls? at January 31, 2011 08:38 AM (YxaXw)
Most women have better things to do with their lives than work for free.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 08:52 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: Larry Summers at January 31, 2011 09:00 AM (qwK3S)
Which is not necessarily bad. For one thing, at conventions and meetings, there were always lots of people who wanted to buy me a drink.
Posted by: mb at January 31, 2011 09:02 AM (WX/Z1)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 09:12 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 09:22 AM (4ucxv)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 31, 2011 09:23 AM (4ucxv)
-----------
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Women are FAR more competitive than males, and far nastier about it.
Males will compete for dominance of the tribe, and when there's a winner, the rest of the tribe will follow him and obey as long as he does well (see: quarterback). The competition redounds tor the benefit of the tribe, who then co-operate in the hierarchy. That's why men form teams and bands.
Female "communalism" involves cutting down any woman who tries to rise above the others. It's savage egalitarianism.
Posted by: schizuki at January 31, 2011 09:24 AM (M+lbD)
_________
Oddly enough, I just watched Downfall last night. Which is a movie not even in English about some greasy foreign dude that sits around his apartment all day smoking and feeling angst.
But I'm not female...
Posted by: Anachronda at January 31, 2011 09:29 AM (xGZ+b)
Years ago I was at a wedding reception that had a 50/50 drawing. A young guy won, and his buddy loudly and laughingly said to him, "You fucking asshole, I don't believe that shit! You suck!"
My buddy's wife said to me, "Jeez, what a nice friend."
I explained, "That's how guys talk. If you had subtitles under it, it would read, 'Congratulations, my friend, on your good fortune!" Now, if those were two women, the girlfriend would say, 'Oh, my gosh, you are so lucky! Awesome! Yay!' And the subtitle would read, 'Bitch."
My buddy's wife laughed and said, "You know what? You're absolutely right."
Posted by: schizuki at January 31, 2011 09:32 AM (M+lbD)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 09:32 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 09:49 AM (4Pleu)
Perhaps women already have sufficient outlets for any desire they might have to spend enormous amounts of time on something that brings in no remumeration at all.
Posted by: Joy McCann/Miss Attila at January 31, 2011 10:20 AM (saBHO)
Thomas Sowell convincingly argued that most income disparity between the sexes is due in very large part to gender differences, one being the child-rearing aspect of motherhood.
Another person (can't remember who) said the only reason anyone ever learns to play the guitar is to get women, and that any guitarist who says otherwise is lying.
I'm fairly convinced anyone who blames it all on sexism is determined to believe only that. The sexism argument is the gift that keeps on giving, because one can blame centuries-old sexism for ingraining itself in all cultures, therefore it is never invalid.
Posted by: fb at January 31, 2011 10:24 AM (G60Nl)
When someone makes the computer version of a turkey baster, then you'll see some changes, you sexist pigs.
SOME FEMINAZI
Posted by: Kelly at January 31, 2011 10:28 AM (FLFli)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 10:35 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: Kelly at January 31, 2011 10:38 AM (FLFli)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2011 11:12 AM (6iP/C)
No doubt. I've scored both and am told, good or bad, that I'm "unusual" in my thinking.
Posted by: baldilocks at January 31, 2011 10:40 AM (T2/zQ)
And the sad thing? It doesn't really work. It turns out that groupies are really into the money (and the drugs), not the guitar per se.
Ahem. It wasn't Hubby's computer science degree that first got my attention when I saw him playing guitar.
Posted by: 1+1=2 at January 31, 2011 10:47 AM (xs5wK)
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2011 10:52 AM (4Pleu)
My first thought was, "So what?"
With the developments in Egypt, it can't be a slow news day.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 31, 2011 11:39 AM (nD3Pg)
Posted by: Some Chick at January 31, 2011 12:46 PM (M7GO/)
Posted by: Live Free Or Die at January 31, 2011 02:04 PM (t1Wx5)
Posted by: Larry Summers at January 31, 2011 06:00 PM (Qgqx+)
Anything where women or minorities dominate is the natural order of things so we must not question or complain.
Posted by: bobbymike at January 31, 2011 08:15 PM (TpGmG)
Posted by: Kevin at February 01, 2011 07:21 AM (1Rjug)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.257 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Solo4357 at January 31, 2011 06:03 AM (FY+nO)