Life was a lot simpler in 1995: There were only two genders, the social media cesspool had yet to destroy civil discourse, and females were not considered helpless victims of the patriarchy. Sure, Wings was still on the airwaves, and everyone was covered in denim, but these ancient times yielded a cultural normalcy that we ostensibly took for granted and will unlikely witness ever again. We shall mourn for those better days.
That was also the year when two developments unfolded: The computer revolution took off and the number of women graduating with degrees in computer science began to decline.
In another case of Feminists Ruin Everything for Women, new U.S. government data show that there are fewer ladies today obtaining post-secondary degrees in computer science than in 1995. Despite the social engineers attempting to create gender-focused egalitarianism in schools and the workplace, women do not appear to be interested in writing code, developing software, or manufacturing computers for a living.
The future might be female, but not in computer science. Thanks, feminists!
Women in STEM
According to the Department of Education, the female share of bachelor’s degrees in computer science stood at 18% in 2016, down from 28% in 1995. The most significant drop occurred between the end of the dot-com bubble and the middle of the Great Recession. It has since trended sideways.
While this data is interesting, it’s even more fascinating when you go back an additional 25 years. Between 1970 and 1984, female representation in this field of study surged from 13% to a peak of 37%.
Just as the woman who will never be president has asked every day for the last two years, what happened?
That is the $64,000 question befuddling the social engineers, woke Silicon Valley executives, and gender warriors aiming to construct a societal concoction of A Brave New World, 1984, Animal Farm, and WE.
To find out what is going on, perhaps it is time to grab your passport and take a trip to Sweden.
Gender Equality Paradox
There has been an exciting development in Stockholm recently. Policymakers learned something that everyone in the phonebook has known for eons: Men and women are different.
It is because of this innate difference that they embark upon different career paths. The data suggests men will often pick things and women prefer people.
Researchers from Leeds Beckett University and the University of Missouri examined the numbers and discovered that nations with less gender equality experienced a higher proportion of women receiving degrees in science. But then here’s the paradox: Nations with more of a concerted effort on gender equality tend to witness smaller shares of females in STEM.
They came across various factors to explain the gender disparity in STEM participation. Science was more likely to be boys’ best subject, girls had better overall reading comprehension, and girls reported lower interest in science subjects – the last one seems to be universal.
Gijsbert Stoet, Professor in Psychology from Leeds Beckett University, wrote in the report:
“The further you get in secondary and then higher education, the more subjects you need to drop until you end with just one. We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice.
So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren’t their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they’re less likely to choose to study something else.”
In addition to the biological differences, Stoet noted that women in more prosperous Western nations feel that any choice of career is “relatively safe,” so they may make decisions based on non-economic factors, such as flexibility and work-life balances. On the other hand, in poor countries with fewer well-paid employment opportunities, a girl from Northern Africa may believe it is a necessity to enter a lucrative STEM career.
Not everyone agrees, though. When the Scientific American first reported these findings in May 2018, the publication dismissed biology and economics. Instead, authors Adam Mastroianni and Dakota McCoy blamed the gap on unconscious biases and discrimination.
“Early in school, teachers’ unconscious biases subtly push girls away from STEM. By their preteen years, girls outperform boys in science class and report equal interest in the subject, but parents think that science is harder and less interesting for their daughters than their sons, and these misconceptions predict their children’s career choices.
Later in life, women get less credit than men for the same math performance. When female STEM majors write to potential PhD advisors, they are less likely to get a response. When STEM professors review applications for research positions, they are less likely to hire ‘Jennifer’ than ‘John,’ even when both applications are otherwise identical—and if they do hire ‘Jennifer,’ they pay her $4,000 less. Women of color face even greater challenges as racial and gender biases intersect.”
So, men dominating STEM and women taking different jobs than what the politically correct masters dictate comes down to implicit bias and intersectionality. One argument is bad science; the other is an asinine concept.
Mozart and Jack the Ripper
Camille Paglia, social critic and university professor, has famously said, “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” A miserable pink-haired feminist will misconstrue this statement and come up with two ridiculous conclusions: Women are too stupid to compose classical music and too weak to commit the Whitechapel Murders.
Men rule the boardroom, but they are also the majority in prisons.
But that’s not exactly what the bestselling author contends. Citing vast research on neuroscience and intellect, Paglia purports that women capture the great middle of the IQ spectrum, while men occupy the opposite extremes. In other words, as Paglia notes, there are male geniuses and male psychotics.
Men rule the boardroom, but they are also the majority in prisons.
In the iconic 1931 motion picture, Frankenstein, Dr. Victor Frankenstein proclaims to the heavens as his monster rises, “Now I know what it feels like to be God!”
Yesterday, it was the mad scientist with immense knowledge in biology and chemistry who attempted to engineer society. Today, it is the mad social studies feminist professor, void of expertise in biology and chemistry, trying to construct our culture into a monolith absent of individualism and reason. Should you dare dissent from allowable opinions and choose to spout common sense, the social constructionist combatants will cast you out like a leper, even if you rank high on the victimhood hierarchy.
Do you have an opinion about this article? We’d love to hear it! If you send your comments to [email protected], we might even publish your edited remarks in our new feature, LN Readers Speak Out. Remember to include the title of the article along with your name, city, and state.
Please respect our republishing guidelines. Republication permission does not equal site endorsement. Click here.
Liberty Nation Today:
Kamala Harris in Iowa on Abortion Rights - Another brief, closed-door meeting and Harris is back in the Swamp. - Read Now!
Media Trepidation in the Face of a Looming Trump Indictment - No one is cracking open the champagne just yet. - Read Now!
CDC Caught Playing COVID-19 Spy Games - Has the CDC joined the ranks of Big Brother? - Read Now!
Air Force Aims for Diversity Over Merit - Inclusion trumps all in the new woke military. - Read Now!
Communism by Any Other Name… – LN Radio Videocast - Are 15-minute cities thinly veiled impositions of a new world order? - Watch Now!