Monday, June 01, 2015

Taking apart mainstream media cultural Marxism, and more


  • Taking apart mainstream media cultural Marxism, in this case feminism: "Why more women need to study science and engineering." Why, exactly? What is the writer's point? Is she claiming that femininity improves math and science? Illogical for those most logical fields. STEM workers command higher wages, earning 26 percent more than their non-STEM counterparts. Good old-fashioned envy; gimme. The common sense this is raging against: most women aren't interested in math or science nor are very good at them. The tiny piece of truth being stretched wide here: the "talented tenth" (that's just an expression; I don't know the real percentage) of women who are cut out for those fields have been discouraged from them. I don't think that happens anymore. Nobody's refusing to give the talented tenth of any minority a chance. There is no campaign against women or blacks for that matter. (There is virtually no white-on-black crime.) "Disparate impact" is just natural, statistics at work; fair. CultMarx is magical thinking, about feelings, not facts. Why it acts like it takes Bruce Jenner seriously. (I feel sorry for him; don't egg him on as he makes a fool of himself.) "Gender's just a construct," so we can have a big quota of valuable women scientists, engineers, and programmers if we will it! Just wish hard enough. And ladies, if you just don't like math or science or didn't make the grade, it's "gender stereotyping"'s fault. Please. Affirmative-actioning a bunch of mediocre scientists won't benefit science.
  • The god (“God”) of Easy Answers, gEA for short, comes in two distinct forms for contemporary Catholics.
  • The cathedral of the Bronx. St. Nicholas of Tolentine. Pre-conciliar Catholicism takes many forms. Sober, Low Anglican or Presbyterian-like Gothic? Sure, we can do that.

1 comment:

  1. For what it's worth, my wife has a PhD in Mathematics specializing in the theoretical area of algebraic topology. Don't ask me what that means; I'm a language / history guy. But. She's highly desired in the field because she can run circles around most of the men on any aspect of a research project that requires multitasking, logistics, organization, close attention to detail, or interdisciplinary approaches. Femininity doesn't ipso facto improve math and science, but there are certain tasks within a discipline, even STEM, where women are, broadly speaking, better than men, and so their talents added to a team's research are of great value. With that in mind, I do think STEM would benefit from more women in the work force. I don't know that the converse is necessarily true.

    As a military chaplain, I can personally testify to the benefit of having women in the work force (though not, necessarily, combat roles). Again, there are a wide set of projects and skill sets that, on average, women will do faster, better, and more efficiently than men. All day long. It's been my experience that men are, broadly speaking, the best specialists -- that is, doing one or two things exceptionally well, whereas women are, broadly speaking, the best generalists -- doing lots of things not exceptionally well, but well. There are situations where a specialist is needed (combat, hunting, gathering), and there are situations where a generalist is far more useful: projects, logistics, efficiency, running things that require any sort of multitasking -- like, unsurprisingly, nursing, lower level teaching that isn't single subject-based, and running a house hold.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment