slamdesu

I think most Burning Man attendees are in the top 2-5% and are already in quite a privileged position

Many of the recent 'goodbye acadaemia' that I've come across seem to be from people in molecular biology, which has a reputation for being a particularly competitive field for funding. I wonder whether academics in other fields are dropping out at a similar rate..?

reference? or just speculation?

I assume you're not using this as an example of a study which demonstrates an _inherent_ difference in the sexes..? (it isn't, this study is about as valuable as showing that the mean hair length of females is longer than males. It is an observation of a socialised group. This is irrelevant to the debate about nature vs nurture about sex differences) And yes Baron-Cohen pioneered the notion of the male and female brain. Of course 'scientific' justifications for sexism existed before Baron-Cohen however his studies, and ideas similar to his, dominate scientifically justified sexism at the moment (see: any discussion on womens' inherent lack of logical thinking and hence their role as caregivers and not programmers)

Sure but that isn't her argument. The number of studies that attempt to demonstrate some fundamental difference between the sexes vastly outnumber claims of similarity, and those disproportionate claims need to be addressed. The book goes through the studies that are touted as the most demonstrable difference in the sexes (tests on empathy) and shows how they're flawed and once you control for that flaw there is no demonstrable difference between the sexes.

Where's your evidence for inherent psychological differences? There are differences in adult men and women due to their SOCIALISATION which is not an inherent property. Raise a generation of women to believe that they're useless at male-dominated jobs then they'll start to think they are!

The contention in this particular discussion is that women are somehow not natural programmers. There is no evidence that testosterone levels will affect someone to the extent that they have a natural tendency to logic or programming. Hormones DO have an effect, but it's socialisation that is pressuring men and women to adopt their roles.

"So, you're saying that aside from skin colour, black and white people are exactly the same and, in a vacuum, the distribution of race in any given profession should be perfectly equal? You really believe that?" ^ It wasn't long ago that that type of claim was used often. Sexist views always have some sort of justification like "men and women ARE different!" or "men have a natural ability to think logically and are therefore more suited to programming". You forget that women basically made up most of the early programmers (see Ada Lovelace etc). I would recommend reading the book "Delusions of Gender" to get an overview over the "science" behind claiming that men and women are inherently different and to learn how all of those studies have proven flawed/heavily biased towards a premeditated conclusion.

Wow these comments are completely missing the point. Any mention of feminism or claims that women are oppressed are met with "but guys have it worse!!!!". Check out everydaysexism.com if you want an idea of what women ACTUALLY go through. It's very easy to think you know what everyone experiences, but if you're male you _cannot_ know what it is like to be female, simply because people will treat you differently based on your sex... as illustrated by this film.

You forget that the largest recipient of welfare ('security') has been corporations, not "bums" as you put it. Despite this, the elitism of society blames "bums" for our economic problems. It's the corporations who drain the economy, not individuals - that much is clear.