File: 1431267287632.jpg (66.81 KB, 600x600, 1430495310608.jpg)
No. 5469
>>5461>>5464Re: OP pic
Just observations, but I got degrees in Psychology and Technical Engineering and I can tell you as a woman, there's a reason why women gravitate away from engineering. It might have been my particular college, but the social environment was about 100% more comfortable in Psychology because it was female dominated. People worked together, organized, discussed and overall just had a great time academically and socially. Engineering was the exact opposite. Maybe it was the type of field that attracts socially awkward ppl and not just it being male dominated, but no one ever had their shit together. Projects were a disaster and could only get done coherently if some guy just did the entire thing himself. Any time I suggested anything I'd get met with silence and I was generally ignored as a female. Any time I found a class would a girl or two I'd meet up with them and we'd get assignments done in half the time and with double the quality. I changed my entire opinion that guys were "cooler" and women were petty and back stabbers.
I'm rambling, but I suppose my point is that some women aren't drawn to or last in many STEM programs because male dominated classrooms are alienating. Could have just been my experience.
No. 5480
>>5469Alright, I'll change my "mostly because" to "partially because and also partially because" of the reasons you stated. Either way, women don't enter STEM for one reason or another and that's the topic everyone wants to harp about but no one seems to care when disparity occurs between male and female fields
when they're not even being put against each other.
Might be interesting:
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/the-fight-for-womens-boxing-rightsAnd also, I think in regards to less cooperation in STEM courses has a lot to do with the nature of the courses. People are being pitted against each other (whether the nature of the class or of their own volution) which makes them less likely to want to work together if they see their peers as competition. I think it's been proven that women are just more socially inclined, therefore do better in socially inclined fields and environments. I watched a news bit one time about how Norway has the most gender equal policies about working and women still decidedly went into fields like teaching, nursing, sociology etc and men still went into STEM, construction, etc.
No. 5565
The OPs pic, oh god, it strikes a chord because I've always thought this.
>>5469I think it's more of the reputation STEM has among women. It's considered cold, scary and a harsh environment for women for a couple of reasons I usually theorize on.
I was a very geeky girl who had a huge interest in science-y stuff growing up and eventually became an engineer. I never got support from other girls because they thought it was too complicated and weird for a girl to be interested in such subjects outside the mandatory classes in school. These same girls grew up wanting more women in STEM yet they'd never attend it themselves because they are afraid of it in a couple of ways. Either they're afraid of not being able to understand it, or not being able to control it. Science is all about the laws of nature and it works on cold solid logic and doesn't care about your feelings. That's why STEM fields are often very meritocracy-based.
The more traditionally female fields are more about manipulating or taking control of the situation, it requires abstract thinking that has to adapt to abstract situations that keep changing and can't be predicted. Like nursing, teaching, counseling, etc. Women are GREAT strategists because they're capable of more complicated thought patterns and take a lot of things to account when making decisions. Which is also why we don't see many female CEOs because women don't want to take risks due to over-thinking the situation. Which isn't a bad thing.
Of course this isn't a deep psychological study but just something I've been thinking about. All in all I fucking hate it when other women complain about STEM lacking women yet never encourage other women to join STEM but expect men to magically form more women interested in the whole field. Or even worse, CHANGE the logical nature of STEM to fit their needs.
No. 14970
>>14930i'm a guy, but i recognize that i'm too stupid for STEM and that i should focus my efforts on what my skills actually are (writing/communication)
but i do understand what's in demand and what jobs are going to pay more, and i accept it.
i can't for the life of me understand how gender studies is even a major though. how is there that much to say??? i feel like 50% of the courses are "boo hoo men are evil and oppressive" and the other 50% are "gender is totes a social construct guys!!! be queer like these people throughout history!!! yeah they mostly died poor and alone but who cares??!?!?"
No. 14980
>>14970Yeah, like how many gender studies majors do we really need? Its getting redundant, fast.
(I also thought i was too stupid for STEM, but my passion is in there, so i try my best)
No. 40819
>>15051I support it in any area where men are legally allowed to go topless.
I probably wouldn't even take advantage of it if it were legal but it's more the absurdity of it considering that male and female breasts are identical barring the quantity of specific tissues, only for some bizarre reason one of them is hyper-sexualised and the other is not. It's pure lunacy.
Lucky for me, and this is a little known fact, but there are actually no distinct nudity laws in the UK. Any where.
No. 40995
>>40819>>40978I hate to be that guy, but breasts are sexual. Humans are the only primates with breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic, all others develop them after pregnancy, they serve no function in terms of survival; milk production (bigger breasts don't produce any more milk than smaller ones) and they still have to change slightly once a person gets pregnant. If a trait isn't propagated by natural selection, then it's there because of sexual selection; they exist because men selected for them.
I still think women should be allowed to go topless, btw. It's just not "For some bizarre reason"
No. 40996
>>40995In some countries women go topless and the guys don't go crazy over it because they're not sexualized and they see them everyday.
In the westernized areas of the world this could never happen because women have been sexualized and demonized for too long.
No. 41000
File: 1443700892616.jpeg (Spoiler Image,304.18 KB, 1024x728, image.jpeg)
>>40996There really are no countries where people don't see women's bodies as evil in some way but ya boobs aren't really seen as sexual everywhere
No. 41010
>>40996Whether a guy can control himself when he sees something he finds sexually arousing and whether breasts are sexual or not are two completely different arguments. They're not non-sexual just because men are actually taught to control themselves in some areas of the world. We all (In civilised places anyway) see people we find attractive on a day to day basis and keep it to ourselves.
>>41000Seen as sexual =/= are sexual or not. Some people not finding dicks arousing does not mean they're not a sexual organ.
No. 41013
>>41010Actually many of the male population within indigenous tribes actually consider Western men to be like babies and children in their obsession with breasts.
This isn't a case of them restraining themselves, they are able to recognise that the sole function of breasts is for that of feeding children, and comparing breasts to a penis…. well, breasts aren't sex organs, they play zero role in the act of reproduction.
No. 41019
>>41013Just because a very small number of populations exist that have a CULTURE that doesn't consider breast sexual, doesn't change the biological fact that pre-pregnancy breasts are here because they were sexually selected for. Female women have breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic because men selected for them. They only exist
prior to pregnancy in the first place because men like them in a sexual context. Every other primate only develops breasts after getting pregnant. Humans don't. Clearly our breasts develop earlier for another reason - the reason that men find them sexually attractive. I can't explain this to you any more clearly. They are not ~Just for feeding baby~ otherwise we would only have them after we got pregnant, like every other primate.
They're like a peacock's eyespots. They don't take an active role in reproduction, they're not a sexual organ, and they don't improve the peacocks chances of surviving, but they exist solely because peahens find them sexually attractive.
No. 41021
>>41019>>40995You're making a lot of (mostly) wrong assumptions about evolution and ethology.
You're basing your assumption that men choose their partners, not women, however, that is simply not the case. Females of species, excepting in very rare exceptions, are the ones that impose sexual selection on males. Males are taller than females, because females believe they are more fit, Etc with a whole lot of other traits associated with high testosterone. You seem to think that given two men and two women, the most fit man would pick the most fit woman, however, it is more likely the two males would fight in order to have both women to themselves. This in and of itself is female selection on males; the men fight, and the most fit male mates with the females. The males are not choosing anything about the women.
Refrain from bringing up modern day humans, that's a whole (very unrelated) can of worms. I'm speaking from a historical point, on the early evolution of our ancestors, when breasts would have 'emerged'. It is far more likely that they emerged for some other reason than 'men select for them'
No. 41175
>>41021okay women choose their partners.
But women have to attract their partners. Since walking upright, the ass tease doesn't work anymore exclusively so females developed another set of eyecandy that's higher on the body so it can more easily be seen by their mates, which is the breast, which makes them sexual. Satisfied?