throwaway8548

4 ms·

1.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> This hinges on how you define a matriarchy. Dictionary definition. There's no opinion about it. > Spain, as I pointed out earlier, has a majority female national leadership. Not what defined a matriarchy. > If it isn't
2.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> We may or may not have matriarchies We don't. > Furthermore, your comment rested on the assumption that gender roles in Eastern European countries are monolithic. Neither is India but I feel this is splitting hairs. > I poin
3.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
Editing doesn't work. > You're supposed to compare between women and men in the same country. Women's labour participation rate in the US has less than nothing to do with Vietnam.
4.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> The more countries drift away from "patriarchy" and towards "matriarchy" the fewer women go into tech. We literally don't have matriarchies, there's no data about it. And I also don't know why you put
5.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> We would expect to see even lower rates of women in STEM. The data shows an inverse relationship between women gaining more rights and resources and women's representation in STEM That's just disingenuous, we literally don&#x
6.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
Oh come on, humans have been targeting and hitting targets with various weapons (or just rocks) from a distance since time immemorial.
7.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> Countries with gender equality (is this what you mean by "matriarchy"?) No... I mean the dictionary definition. Where men didn't have the right to vote, work or own property until recently, where women are expected to ow
8.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
I think we're talking past each other about very different things here. We can both be right/wrong independent of each other.
9.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> most of the countries that observed fall within a range of 30% That's huge > If this were socially determined, we'd expect some countries to have 80-90% women in technology That's assuming social pressures are randoml
10.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
I would probably believe that if we weren't talking about software. But software is, what, less than a century old? What possible evolutionary differences could have risen in that time frame? I mean, the number zero is very unintuitive
11.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> But men _are_ in fact more accommodating to women nowadays than to _other men_ This is not about generic workplace disagreements. Yes, those happen all the time. > How do we know this? _Because men told us_! I know that's tongu
12.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> Because differences are observed at birth, are relatively consistent across countries with vastly different cultures, I mean the article literally says different countries/cultures see vastly different results.
13.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
Nobody is denying the statistics.
14.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
- Because women are discriminated against - How do you know that? - Because women told us!!
15.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
I should rephrase. Why does it affect men disproportionately less?
16.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
> the kind of differences in performance and achievement that would be explained by psychological and physiological differences between men and women That's a bit of circular reasoning though. - Look how men and women behave differe
17.
by throwaway8548 7y ago
But why doesn't this affect men's decision making as well?