Or geeks and feminism

Post Reply New Topic

Allow me to run with the whole entitlement thing for a second.

The actual theory, pushed out by Kimmel isn't "entitlement," its "aggrieved entitlement." Meaning the complaints/actions of those that don't receive what they think they are entitled to. What that means is those that DO, ie. those that benefit the most from existing social systems, mostly escape criticism. Channing Tatum could potentially be the most sexually entitled person in the world, but if its never "aggrieved," it will never be singled out for criticism. They actually aren't really attacking the "entitled" (because that's an emotion and not readily visible), but rather the "aggrieved."

Entitlement is obviously a really loaded term, often seen as carrying "undeserved" connotations. But there's lots of things I feel entitled to: I feel entitled to air, I feel entitled to a paycheck for my labor, I feel entitled to not getting bullied as a child for liking Lord of the Rings. I would note that Kimmel's own studies point to a lot of school shooters endured a lot of bullying, physical assault etc...which he rolls up into "aggrieved entitlement". Of course, there's things I'm not entitled to as well, and there are people who have issues with that, but the conversation never goes to what men should or should not feel entitled to - its just assumed "entitled" = "bad."

These people are really just symptom chasers - lung cancer meet cough syrup - and often (willfully?) ignorant of their own theories. Laurie Penny highlighted this pretty well when she talked about boys at the "lower end of the violent hierarchy of toxic masculinity." You can almost find this in Masculinities studies, which are generally considered feminist, except the term they use is "hegemonic masculinity," not toxic masculinity (and they do account for "nerds"). That's is a critical difference. The most dominant male figure in our society doesn't look like Ragnar Lodbrok, he looks like Donald Trump. The most dominant figures in a society do not have to break their own rules to maintain their position; the rules of society uphold their position. But instead, people focus on "aggrieved" stuff, and "toxicity," which tends to point the finger at those men that are often benefiting the least of all from hierarchy. Its why nerds. It's also why videos highlighting toxic masculinity seem to always look so black ("we swear there's some white guys somewhere, honest!"), which is something even race theory has noticed. They've got the wrong guy, so to speak.

It's also because their notions of privilege and oppression do not actually account for gender performance in any way. Nerd, sissy, jock, strong man, weak man - they all are considered "privileged" in a uniform way and any attempt to make distinction leads us to, well, "entitlement" condemnation. Instead of social hierarchy, as understood by historians, sociologists and anthropologists, what we are presented with is a series of privileged/oppressed binaries (even for race...), neatly segregated into "separate axes," which is the antithesis of intersectionality, which explicitly argued (Crenshaw, anyway) that separate axes cannot be analyzed independently. Penny, even while recognizing hierarchy, immediately places it into a "doesn't count" category. I've known more than one boy who's been beaten for being a "f*ggot", despite not actually being gay. That is evidently "not structural oppression." But if you blow a guy 10 years later, even if no one ever knows, it magically becomes "oppression" retroactively, via a "separate axis." That doesn't make sense. And further, by denying these things are related to men qua men, they end up with "social constructs of masculinity" that apparently are not structurally enforced. Did I mention these people suck at theory? Because they suck at theory.

Not sure if geeks and feminism go hand in hand. Usually those who are into feminism are those who major in social sciences and gender studies and not so geeky at all.

Not sure if geeks and feminism go hand in hand. Usually those who are into feminism are those who major in social sciences and gender studies and not so geeky at all.

Not sure if geeks and feminism go hand in hand. Usually those who are into feminism are those who major in social sciences and gender studies and not so geeky at all.

Sure or unsure, geeks and feminism DO go hand in hand. Women in tech find themselves surrounded by geeky men who they find repulsive and view as competitors, so they exploit the gender expectations of men to bully these guys and push them down in order to advance their own careers.

What I'm doing is barely STEM at this point but there are only 2 women in my class of 18. Both older with children and I definitely would not say they find the rest of us repulsive and seem like pretty nice people, older students in general seem way cooler than the kids right out high school. I kind of expected that in that class but what is weird is how there are only 3 women in my English class, some random anomaly I guess but I think he's a great teacher. History is a pretty even split, maybe more women so it's not the college. I just don't think too many young women are interested in STEM, I don't think it's that the guys are too geeky either since there is a pretty wide cross section of people.

The problem is that many girls are discouraged from following any interests they may have in STEM from pretty early on in life, not that they don't tend to be innately interested in STEM (as a girl who was always fascinated by science from a very early age--though I luckily had parents who encouraged me i. n that regard--I can attest to this.)

Could you expand on how girls are discouraged from following interests in STEM, I've heard this before but I never really got it. Legitimately am curious since I don't feel I was ever encouraged but maybe I'm unaware of how I was, I always felt my interests came pretty organically. Maybe it's like how I feel I was discouraged from playing sports since I'm not a super big guy and was a really small child, my mother always said I'd get hurt or I'd never be able to do good so I never did try but they were some other mitigating circumstances of course.

And here's another: http://www.diversityinc.com/news/is-the-stem-talent-pipeline-really-the-problem/

Basically just google "STEM diversity pipeline problem" and you'll find lots of lots of info.

I can't talk on American programs, becuase I have little idea about them.

The important thing to to note with career is equality of opportunity != equality of outcome. Logically, given choice people want to peruse what interests them. The equality of outcome falacy can too often be cited as a sign of inequality. This is not always the case. If it is a sign (and it might be), it is not always the tertiary education's fault. It starts much earlier.

The places with more women engineers, are places like Russia. These are deeply patriarchal societies. It is simply down to the economy. It is less diverse. There are few chances of success. Petrochemical industry and supporting industries are a major draw. It is a no brainer economically.

I went to an engineering university, they tried really hard to get more women. It still languished an 2%. In the end the University stopped being an engineering university.

Evidence of equal opportunity working: Vetinary medicine was predominantly male, now predominately female. This is a highly technical and skill field.

Medicine in general is also much more mixed.

Psychology courses are a major draw for women, and I don't think they are being forced into it either.

If you actually read any of the linked research in the articles i provided, the research is there and is well established that discouragement and sexism have a significant effect on girl's/women's performance when tested in math/science when other variables are controlled for. Go read it for yourself.