In March it was reported that President Trump signed the “Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women’s Act.” This is a problem because it’s playing into the identity politics the left enjoys playing with. How about instead of a bill that focusing on inspiring women to become space pioneers, innovators, researchers, and explorers, we just encourage everyone who is interested and enjoys the work to pursue knowledge and a career in that field? Why does it have to be focused on women? Because ‘we need more women in the field’? This isn’t the only bill like it. President Trump has also recently signed a bill supporting/pushing female entrepreneurs. With the comment:
“Today I’m signing two bills that promote women entering and leading the STEM fields – science, technology, engineering, and math. Currently, only one in four women who gets a STEM degree is working in a STEM job – which is not fair, and it’s not even smart for the people that aren’t taking advantage of it,” Trump said. “It’s unacceptable that we have so many American women who have these degrees but yet are not being employed in these fields, so I think that’s going to change, and it’s going to change very rapidly. Protecting women with STEM degrees and all Americans with STEM degrees – very important, but it also means you have to crackdown on offshoring because the offshoring is a tremendous problem that displaces many of our American workers and brains, the brain power,” he said.
The people pushing these types of bills aren’t thinking about when they make ignorant statements is this: women often make different decisions than men based on biology and personal decisions. So maybe a woman receives a degree in STEM, a woman is also more likely to stop her career so she can raise her children because she is the one who carries the children. Granted, not all women decide to put their career on hold when they do have children, but a vast majority do. The number is slowly changing, but I don’t think it’s because of more women have this ambition to work their life away. I think it’s due to social pressure and social ostracization when women say they’d rather be stay at home moms.
Recently some attention has been brought to columnist Sarrah Le Marquand at the daily Telegraph after she wrote a piece suggesting Australia should make it illegal for parents to choose to stay home with their children. Her column reads: “Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed,” Sarrah Le Marquand writes in a column titled “It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum.”
I’ll only briefly mention how callous it is for her to put the economy above the wellbeing of her, and all children. If they grow up successfully, they will take part in creating and maintaining a good economy, but children’s’ values should never be compared to or decide to what their ‘economic value’ is.
This woman is trying to force the legislative hand to take choices away from the people. She doesn’t want to allow women to choose to be mothers if they’d rather, and why? This is what social justice and ‘gender equality’ bills are doing to the economy and the workforce. Imagine this bill went into place and more women flooded the (already waning) work market. You’d see comments from people like her going, “Look! More women! Equality is among us!” But these women were not granted the choice to be there. They aren’t there because they want to be there or even because they’re particularly good at what they’re doing. They’re simply there because the law requires them to be there.
These aren’t merit based decisions. They are decisions based on biology that actually harm the relationship between men and women in addition to the mental and physical health of the individuals. Despite having more freedom than ever before, western women are the most miserable they have ever been in centuries and feminism is at fault for this.
Feminists told women: You don’t need or want a man. In fact, you should hate men. You have nothing because he has everything. Feminism told women they had to fight men for power, rather than working together to share it. Feminism told women to say they didn’t want to get married or have kids, then these women reach thirty or forty, have no families of their own, and are completely miserable.
Women aren’t rejecting men and family because they want to, but they’re told they must if they want to be good ‘women.’ They’re told they must be feminists because they have vaginas and if they aren’t good feminists, they are traitors, demonized and attacked by other women for making different decisions or ‘playing into a stereotype/gender role.’
The people making these attacks completely ignore that there is a biological basis for these decisions. Here’s a quick rundown of gender vs sex and how it manifests in humans:
Karen Straughan does an incredible job talking about the differences between men and women, the choices they make, and the ways they typically live happier. If you have some time, I definitely recommend watching some of her videos or reading some of her articles. And as in all things, there are always exceptions. There will always be women who are more career-oriented and there will be men who are more family-oriented and desire to be the stay-at-home parent, but the exception is not the rule and it doesn’t erase or replace the common theme found among recognizable behaviors.
MATH 55 is advertised in the Harvard University catalog as “‘probably the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country.” It is a notoriously difficult course. Each year, as many as 50 individuals sign up, but at least half drop out within a few weeks. As one former pupil told Tile Crimson newspaper in 2006, “We had 51 students the first day, 31 students the second day, 24 for the next four days, 23 for two more weeks, and then 21 for the rest of the first semester,” Said another, “l guess you can say its an episode of “Survivor” with people voting themselves off.” The final class roster, according to The Crimson: “45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male.”
Excerpt from article “Foolishly Seeking Gender Equity in Math and Science” by Christina Hoff Sommers.
Based on the information above, do you think, by the end of the semester, the class was made up of 100% men because of ‘systemic sexism’ or perhaps because the math was too difficult and the women weren’t really that interested? If I had to take a guess, I’d say it’s because the women weren’t all that interested. Men and women have differently operating brains. Men are more object, number, and problem-oriented while women are more people-oriented. So in subjects that are strictly not people related, women often have a harder time because their brains don’t process information the same. Studies have also found that men are more likely to have the highest or lowest IQs while women tend to be most dominantly exist in the middle of the spectrum. This is why you see more male geniuses. This is also why you see more men doing stupid stunts with large trampolines, four-wheelers, and bulls.
None of these things are taken into account when feminists, or anyone pushing social justice, start requiring bills or special attention to one person over the other. Trump credited the lack of women in STEM to little encouragement for women, but there is a ton of encouragement specifically because of feminism. I don’t understand why he, his associates, or other people stuck on this idea don’t think, “Hey, maybe women just aren’t interested.”
I hate to bring up this easy question, but why aren’t feminists pushing for equality in technical jobs like electrician, plumber, janitorial staff, log working, fishing, roofing, garbage and sanitation, or any other hard, laborious jobs? This isn’t about equality and this isn’t about equalizing the workforce. These are bills to push men out of work and replace them with women who don’t want to be there.
Dave Cullen uses this example, tell me if the situation makes sense to you: There are 100 open positions in a scientific lab. 100 men apply and 50 women apply. We’ll say 75% of the men and 75% of the women have the same set of skills and knowledge that would help them succeed in the job. However, due to the laws being passed that require ‘equality,’ employers are forced to overlook the abilities of the applicants. With only 100 positions and 150 job applicants, they are forced to reject men who are well suited for the job, and accept all 50 of the women, even if they don’t have the knowledge or skillset to succeed. Is this really what people want? Occupations, promotions, or even entry to positions where people aren’t qualified, just because of what they look like or what they’re born with?
This is disgusting and will lead to much bigger trouble down the line.
I think if we’re going to get our country (and the entirety of the west) back on track, we need to criticize garbage like this. Someone, please explain to me how forcing via law (like the Daily Telegraph columnist) or coercing women into occupations they don’t like is going to help society, while we ignore the destruction of boys and men in our society.
Yes, let’s write another bill to ‘encourage’ women, while girls are more likely graduate high school and college. While boys are being told to act more like the girls and are given drugs to calm them down, rather than having classes teach to them. The Atlantic reporters: During a three-month period in 1997 various questions about gender equity were asked of 1,306 students and 1,035 teachers in grades seven through twelve. The MetLife study had no doctrinal ax to grind. What it found contradicted most of the findings of the AAUW, the Sadkers, and the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women: “Contrary to the commonly held view that boys are at an advantage over girls in school, girls appear to have an advantage over boys in terms of their future plans, teachers’ expectations, everyday experiences at school and interactions in the classroom.”
How about some recognition to the fact that in the last fifteen years, the suicide rate among men has increased by 62%?
There shouldn’t be laws favoring one person over the other because of sex. There shouldn’t be laws or bills or initiative that favor one person over the other due to race. There should be foundations that understand the differences between men and women, everyone should be given the same opportunity, and everyone who is not fit for a position should accept their rejection, and this includes whether they have the skill, knowledge, or interest in the subject to pursue it in the first place.
No, everything isn’t sexist. Everything isn’t about ‘keeping women down’ and the fact that so many of you on the left think women (or nonwhite people) NEED so much help to succeed really shows what you think of others. The soft bigotry of low expectation, anyone? Let people succeed where they will, let them fail where they will, but stop trying to change biological behavior through big government legislation and coercion. I don’t care if it comes from the left, right, or middle. The best person for the job gets the job and your merit has nothing to do with what’s between your legs. If you have to lower the standards for someone to be in that position or field, then they just aren’t good or interested in it.