Isn't this the same guy who, while not being mormon, gives credit to JoJu for originating the saying, "Men speak when they have something to say; women speak when they have nothing to say"...?
Of course, if JoJu did say this, he was just bastardizing Plato's comment, "Wise man talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
Maybe the professor is a master at reverse psychology. He said what he said to motivate someone to raise some scholarship money for women perusing certain fields of study.
Reverse psychology is very effective. If you want to start a rumor you put Do Not Read or Confidential on what you are trying to spread.
If this was his motivation well played sir. Ha! Ha!
He basically supports what the infamous jordan petersen said about girls in stem which is that they "have to work bloody hard to make it" and by the time they reach senior management level they have sacrificed so much to get there that they turn into bitter stressed out old ... hating life and wishing they did something else, 60+ hour high stress, intellectual jobs aren't for girls.
Here is my guess about what is really going on here with Maca's comment. He resents women who don't stay in their place. He doesn't like it when women pass him up intellectually or financially. He's used to getting everything because of male white privilege.
Just because those women don't give him attention doesn't mean they are bitter.
Jordan Peterson is an Internet televangelist who finds teleology in evolutionary psychology. He found a very popular niche, a kind of sciency fire and brimstone, but you know what they say about popularity. Ed Norton in Birdman.
If that is what JP thinks STEM is, no wonder he's such a sourpuss. Of course STEM is hard. It's supposed to be hard. Being up to the challenge is the point, it's how we grow. STEM is continuous, lifelong growth. JP's seems a rather chauvinistic view.
If he was more pushing back on the politization of STEM to where unqualified graduates are being produced, that is important. Accreditation is supposed to mean something.
Both my partner and my elder daughter are mathematicians (yes that's science too ;-).
In a less misogynistic society than wherever you live, Maca (in your head?), a place like France where I live, they have been both been able to work hard and succeed in their chosen field without becoming any more bitter and exhausted than the men in their professions (I know a lot of them - our friends). This was of course possible because we had access to subsidized child care from 3 months to two and a half years old, allowing Anne to continue working (and earning more than me - she always has and I've always been pleased about it because it meant more for everyone ;-). This small subsidy for childcare (in municipal crêches, mainly, with qualified, regulated staff) helped to free up vast amounts of value creation which otherwise could have been "lost" to constant "home-making" as Americans say ;-).
What's wrong with that? It can only be positive for the country and, indeed, France produces a high number of Fields Medal winners for a relatively small country (about 69 million, I think). Keeping women out of any workforce is missing out on talents and, ultimately, value for society. If the only reason conservatives can find to oppose it is that it threatens the status quo and their "dominance" of the field, it's a very poor one.
Tom in Paris
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2022 02:32PM by Soft Machine.
Child care is a huge issue for women being able to climb the ladders in their careers.
I'm convinced that is one reason the right is fighting so hard to prevent people from getting adequate child care subsidies. Any way to keep women from competing with the fragile egos of certain types of men seems to be the goal.
Some women have even mastered the quadratic equation--like Maryam Mirzakhani, who was a professor at Princeton and then Stanford, where she won the Fields Medal in 2014.
That professor is either as old as dust, or he's a professor of archaeology, because his remarks are from the Stone Age.
One of my daughters works for a law firm and is educated in the state laws of several different states. Some of the attorneys (both male and female) come to her for an opinion and advice.
My other daughter (the nurse) has had doctors ask for her opinions on various things, and they value what she has to say.
It's amazing that in 2022 A.D., there seem to be a lot of people who still think a woman's place is in the home.
valkyriequeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That professor is either as old as dust, ===============================
It was a joke, Sparky. The professor’s attitude should have been put out to pasture about 50 years ago, so if he still holds it, he must go back a long way. Or be an archeologist - also joke.
Observe from a slight detached distance. On the face of it this arm-wrestle is b o r i n g.
Somebody we've never heard of has a countervailing opinion which he should have kept as inside-words -- because, you know, Rightthink/Rightspeak. But his words are so-what-not-worth-a-passing-thought. Who. Cares.
So, being curious . . . why is this so loved and promulgated? Why do folks so delight in this stuff?
Not the content. The content, his "thinking" -- is banal.
It's loved because it generates the tingles of Righteous Indignation; that (very addictive) tingles feeling is the reward. That momentary self-affirming satisfying "Hmmph!" Mere neurochemistry.