The Factuals versus the OABS (Old Age BullShit)

Sexism or Naturalness?
​

Compare the male participation rate for industries like kindergarten teaching, nursing and midwifery to female participation rates in say jumbo jet navigation and the supercompetitive 'hard sciences' and yes there are some but not many respectively; and differentiate between sexism and inequality or natural affinity and statistical Gaussian tendencies.

Is the Science-Gnosis of Understanding-Knowledge of the Martian MindBody Yang complementary to the Wisdom-Sophia of Knowledge-Understanding of the Venusian BodyMind Yin?

Here’s Why There Ought to Be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths





by Milo15 Jun 2015367
15 Jun, 2015 15 Jun, 2015


Women drop out of science and maths in alarming numbers, not because there are sinister and mysterious patriarchal forces at play, but because they either can’t cut it in highly competitive environments or they simply change their minds about what they want from life.

If you don’t believe me, listen to feminist academic Dr Emily Grossman, who last week appeared to suggest, in support of controversial comments made by Nobel laureate Tim Hunt, that women need special treatment because they’re fragile, delicate wallflowers who cry a lot. Her argument, not mine!

​

Even women who graduate with good degrees in science subjects often don’t use them: they switch careers in their twenties, abandoning the hard sciences. In some cases, they simply drop out of the workforce altogether. This is a disaster for the men who missed out on places, and it’s a criminal waste of public funds.

That’s why I think there ought to be a cap on the number of women enrolling in the sciences, maths, philosophy, engineering… and perhaps medicine and the law, too. It’s hugely expensive to train a doctor, but women have something like a third of the career of a man in medicine, despite having equal access to Harvard Med. Women make up the majority of medical students.
Competition for places at the best colleges is ferocious, especially in these highly competitive subjects. As Grossman admits, women don’t cope well in competitive environments, so even if they get onto the courses, they often drop out when one day a book like this lands on their desk, or when their grades start slipping.

To be fair, plenty of boys drop out at that point as well. But while attrition is terrible across STEM subjects – 48 per cent of bachelor’s degree students who entered STEM fields between 2003 and 2009 left – for women the figure is even higher. Ladies, apparently, find the aggressively competitive nature of these subjects too “uninviting,” so they drop out. They also, according to a White House report, say the classes are too hard.

Sadly, we’re not going to get to Mars or crack commercial nuclear fusion in a nice touchy-feely environment where no one speaks out of turn and everyone’s, like, really supportive and kind and no one has to spend long nights with scary textbooks hopped up on Adderall, Mountain Dew and Doritos. You see, science is about results.
If, as Dr. Grossman seems to be suggesting, segregated labs would be better for women who grizzle at the first sign of disagreement, there’s no reason not to extend that segregation down to school level as well and simply have a set percentage of places set aside for girls and teach them separately.
But, to do that, we would have to start being honest about the number of women who actually want to grow up to be dorks: it’s small. And it gets even smaller in supposedly more “equal” societies: in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, where women are routinely oppressed and abused, the gender split in science is 50-50 in a lot of courses.

In Norway and Sweden, some of the most progressive, female-friendly places in the world, the number of women studying maths and science collapses to single figures. What this tells us is that, given every opportunity to choose, women stubbornly refuse to study the subjects feminists would like them to.
So by rights that cap on female places should – if we’re feeling optimistic – be set at between 5 and 10 per cent. Any higher and we’re giving in to ideology and social engineering, rather than looking at what the numbers say and respecting women’s choices.
I’m not sure how I feel about segregation, personally. But I’m intrigued by the idea of shuffling girls off separately and seeing what the sisterly, communitarian approach to learning Grossman describes would produce, versus a lab of obsessive, relentlessly hyper-competitive boys.

That idyll of matriarchal supportiveness, friendly sharing and leaderboard-free love doesn’t, incidentally, concord with my experience of what women are like when they work together. There’s more back-stabbing than basket-weaving, as any bloke who has been caught in the crossfire can tell you. But I digress.
Female attrition in STEM subjects has nothing to do with the “messages we send young girls” about what they could be when they grow up, nor about trumped-up supposed sexism in the workplace. “Girls in tech” advocates are wholly misguided if they think that bullying young girls into science courses will have any effect on the overall number of women in the workplace.
Let’s remember that, for those few women who do choose to go into science, there’s no such thing as a glass ceiling any more. It’s more like a crystal escalator: women are far more likely, all else being equal, than men to get jobs in STEM subjects these days.

Study after study confirms that men with the same qualifications are routinely passed over in favour of girls, at a ratio of 2:1, because employers of every stripe are so desperate to trumpet their diversity credentials. That doesn’t seem fair, does it?

It’s worth remembering too that feminists deliberately define science as narrowly as possible, excluding subjects like clinical psychology, which are almost entirely female. They do this to make it look like the sciences are disproportionately male, when the truth is that only some science subjects are. Other subjects, like veterinary medicine, barely attract any men at all.
Feminists seem to think that if you’re not in particle physics or building a photo-sharing app in San Francisco, you don’t count. Bit sexist? You be the judge.

If you’re wondering how all this might have happened, by the way, the answer is simple. Journalists, activists and politicians take their cues on this stuff from psychology, sociology and anthropology research. It just so happens that women vastly outnumber men in all three disciplines. In other words, the people studying our culture and recommending changes are all women.

We tend not to hear calls for equality in the social sciences to #changetheratio, even though the conclusions these PhD students and professors draw can be very influential. They’re responsible, for example, for persistent myths like the gender pay gap and moral panics about campus rape culture.

This extends to other sorts of jobs. We only complain when women, gays or ethnic minorities are outnumbered, even when there is no sound basis for an arbitrarily even gender divide. It is a source of constant vexation to me personally that there aren’t more heterosexual males on fragrance counters, for instance.
The fact is, there is simply no evidence than “lingering stereotypes” cause women to drop out of hard subjects, or not apply for them in the first place. Especially now every young girl is bored to death in school by finger-wagging from geeks flown in to make science appear sexy.
And there’s good reason to suppose that, by instituting a gender-based cap, we can make competition for female places on STEM courses more fierce, and thus arrest the tide of attrition and the waste of public money. Something to think about, anyway.


Read More Stories About:

Big Government, no i'm serious

 

The Mirror of Fabius Hegel and its Moneytree!


​

 

Quebec false flag; and failed anti-Trump coup update.
​

You might find out in a while, when the corporate media 'carpet hide' is over; that this was a classical 'false flag' operative. The 'white Canadian student' was used as a 'naive' proxy Le Penn-Trump supporter with certain salafist 'hard core' islamist 'aquaintances-friends-coworkers' to cause a say 50+ 'massacre' in a 'less islamophilic' and a salafist detested mosque. The 'white supremacist' was supposed to be killed in ...the 'operative', planned and supported by the 'globalist supremacist' agenda as an easily sold 'pay back' to the Trump terrorist ban and fed to the brainwashed libby democrats.. You can see this, in the relative cessation of coverage by the corporate media. The failed coup did not succeed, because the weaponry used failed to achieve the death toll and chaos envisaged by the real 'globalist conspirators'. Regarding the "Occupy Democrats" group; this group's treacherous activities have recently been exposed in affiliation with their umbrella sponsors. https://youtu.be/bHrjjgNN7cg


Occupy Democrats
· January 31 at 12:38pm ·
Food for thought for Trumpers...
Thanks to Simmy Taub.
Image by Occupy Democrats, LIKE our page for more.

Comments

Tony Bermanseder



Leftist Memo LEAKED! Sick Plans To ATTACK Trump &…

​

 

Imbecilic! Agenda 21 is the UN globalist plan for 2030's 'Brave New World or Orwell' - NWO style.​

 

When a Federal Government goes into debt!
House-Wilson 1913 versus Bannon-Trump 2017!
Why Trump is hated by {fill blank if you can}!


​

Politics
‘Why even let ’em in?’ Understanding Bannon’s worldview and the policies that follow.


The inside track on Washington politics.

By Frances Stead Sellers and David A. Fahrenthold By Frances Stead Sellers and David A. Fahrenthold
Politics
January 31


Stephen K. Bannon walks in before a listening session with cybersecurity experts in the Roosevelt Room in the White House on Tuesday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In November 2015, Stephen K. Bannon — then the executive chairman of Breitbart News — was hosting a satellite radio show. His guest was Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), who opposed President Obama’s plan to resettle some Syrian refugees in the United States.
“We need to put a stop on refugees until we can vet,” Zinke said.
Bannon cut him off.
“Why even let ’em in?” he asked.
Bannon said that vetting refugees from Muslim-majority countries would cost money and time. “Can’t that money be used in the United States?” he said. “Should we just take a pause and a hiatus for a number of years on any influx from that area of the world?”
In the years before Bannon grabbed the world’s attention as President Trump’s chief White House strategist, he was developing and articulating a fiery populist vision for remaking the United States and its role in the world.

Bannon’s past statements, aired primarily on Breitbart and other conservative platforms, serve as a road map for the controversial agenda that has roiled Washington and shaken the global order during Trump’s first two weeks in office.
Now, at the center of power in the White House, Bannon is moving quickly to turn his ideas into policy, helping direct the biggest decisions of Trump’s administration. The withdrawal from a major trade pact. A ban on all visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries. And — in an echo of that conversation with Zinke, who is now Trump’s nominee for interior secretary — there was a temporary ban on all new refugees.
The result has been intense fury from Democrats, discomfort among many Republicans, and a growing sense of unease in the world that Trump intends to undermine an America-centered world that has lasted 70 years. This sense of turmoil, welcomed by many Trump supporters as proof that the new president is following through on his vow to jolt Washington, reflects the sort of transformation that Bannon has long called for.

That worldview, which Bannon laid out in interviews and speeches over the past several years, hinges largely on Bannon’s belief in American “sovereignty.” Bannon said that countries should protect their citizens and their essence by reducing immigration, legal and illegal, and pulling back from multinational agreements.
At the same time, Bannon was concerned that the United States and the “Judeo-Christian West” were in a war against an expansionist Islamic ideology — but that they were losing the war by not recognizing what it was. Bannon said this fight was so important, it was worth overlooking differences and rivalries with countries like Russia.
It is not yet clear how far Bannon will be able to go to enact his agenda. His early policy moves have been marred by administrative chaos. But his worldview calls for bigger changes than those already made.
In the past, Bannon had wondered aloud whether the country was ready to follow his lead. Now, he will find out.

“Is that grit still there, that tenacity, that we’ve seen on the battlefields . . . fighting for something greater than themselves?” Bannon said in another radio interview last May, before he joined the Trump campaign.
That, said Bannon, is “one of the biggest open questions in this country.”
Bannon, 62, is a former Navy officer and Goldman Sachs banker who made a fortune after he acquired a share of the royalties from a fledgling TV show called “Seinfeld.” In the past 15 years, he shifted into entertainment and conservative media, making films about Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin and then taking a lead role at Breitbart News.
At Breitbart, Bannon cemented his role as a voice for the alt-right, the far-right movement that has attracted white supremacists and has found a home on the website.
Bannon also forged a rapport with Trump, interviewing the businessman-candidate on his show and then, in August 2016, joining the campaign as chief executive.
Now, Bannon has become one of the most powerful men in America. And he’s not afraid to say so.



In interviews with reporters since Trump’s election, Bannon has eschewed the traditional it’s-all-about-the-boss humility of presidential staffers.
“Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power,” he told the Hollywood Reporter in November, embracing the comparisons of him to those figures.
In the same interview, Bannon compared himself to a powerful aide to England’s Henry VIII — an aide who helped engineer a world-shaking move of his era, the split of the Church of England from the Catholic Church.
“I am Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors,” Bannon told the Hollywood Reporter.
To explore Bannon’s worldview, The Washington Post reviewed hours of radio interviews that Bannon conducted while hosting a Breitbart radio talk show, as well as speeches and interviews he has given since 2014.

Bannon did not respond to a request for comment made on Tuesday afternoon.
In his public statements, Bannon espoused a basic idea that Trump would later seize as the centerpiece of his campaign.
While others saw the world rebounding from the financial crisis of 2008, Bannon just saw it becoming more divided by class.
The elites that had caused the crisis — or, at least, failed to stop it — were now rising higher. Everyone else was being left behind.
“The middle class, the working men and women in the world . . . are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos,” Bannon said in a 2014 speech to a conference at the Vatican in a recording obtained by BuzzFeed. Davos is a Swiss ski resort that hosts an annual conclave of wealthy and powerful people.

Bannon blamed both major political parties for this system and set out to force his ideas on an unwilling Republican leadership.
What he wanted, he said again and again, was “sovereignty.” Both in the United States and in its traditional allies in Western Europe.
On one of the first Breitbart Radio shows, in early November 2015, Bannon praised the growing movement in Britain to exit the European Union. He said that the British had joined the E.U. merely as a trading federation but that it had grown into a force that had stripped Britons of sovereignty “in every aspect important to their own life.”

Bannon has been supportive of similar movements in other European countries to pull out of the union. Trump has echoed those sentiments in his first few days as president. It is a remarkable shift in U.S. policy: After decades of building multinational alliances as a guarantee of peace, now the White House has indicated it may undermine them.
Bannon, in his 2014 speech at the Vatican, cast this as a return to a better past.
“I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors,” Bannon said. “And that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.”

In the case of the United States, Bannon was skeptical of multinational trade pacts, saying that they ceded control. In a radio interview in November 2015, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) agreed with Bannon.
“We shouldn’t be tying ourselves down like Gulliver in the land of Lilliputians with so many strings a guy can’t move,” said Sessions, who is now Trump’s nominee to become attorney general. He was referring to a scene from the novel “Gulliver’s Travels” in which the hero is tied down by a race of tiny men. “That is where we are heading, and it’s not necessary.”
One solution put forward by Bannon: the United States should pursue bilateral trade agreements — one country at a time — rather than multi-country agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership supported by Obama.

He suggested as much to Trump himself, when the candidate appeared on his show in November 2015.
“Trump brings [a deal] back to the Senate and gets his bilateral trade deal with Taiwan or with Japan approved by two-thirds of the Senate,” Bannon said. “And you have to go argue, ‘Hey, this is why it’s a good deal.’ And that’s the way the Founders wanted it.”

On a March 2016 episode, Bannon said that restoring sovereignty meant reducing immigration. In his radio shows, he criticized the federal H-1B visa programs that permit U.S. companies to fill technical positions with workers from overseas.
The “progressive plutocrats in Silicon Valley,” Bannon said, want unlimited ability to go around the world and bring people back to the United States. “Engineering schools,” Bannon said, “are all full of people from South Asia, and East Asia. . . . They’ve come in here to take these jobs.” Meanwhile, Bannon said, American students “can’t get engineering degrees; they can’t get into these graduate schools because they are all foreign students. When they come out, they can’t get a job.”

“Don’t we have a problem with legal immigration?” asked Bannon repeatedly.
“Twenty percent of this country is immigrants. Is that not the beating heart of this problem?” he said, meaning the problem of native-born Americans being unable to find jobs and rising wages.
In another show, Bannon had complained to Trump that so many Silicon Valley chief executives were South Asian or Asian. This was a rare time when Trump — normally receptive to Bannon’s ideas on-air — pushed back. “I still want people to come in,” Trump said. “But I want them to go through the process.”
So far, Trump has made no changes to the high-skilled visa program. This week, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that the Trump administration may reexamine the program.
Even as Bannon was calling for a general retreat from multinational alliances, however, he was warning of the need for a new alliance — involving only a subset of the world’s countries.

The “Judeo-Christian West” was at war, he said, but didn’t seem to understand it yet.
“There is a major war brewing, a war that’s already global,” Bannon said at the Vatican in 2014, at a time when the Islamic State was gaining territory. “Every day that we refuse to look at this as what it is — and the scale of it, and really the viciousness of it — will be a day where you will rue that we didn’t act.”
Bannon has given few details about the mechanics of the war he thinks the West should fight. But he has been clear that it is urgent enough to take priority over other rivalries and worries.
In his talk at the Vatican, Bannon was asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bannon’s answer was two-sided.
“I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand,” he said. But, Bannon said, there were bigger concerns than Russia — and there was something to admire in Putin’s call for more traditional values.
politics


“However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put [Russia] on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first,” Bannon said.
If Bannon succeeds, Bannon’s own comparison, to England’s Thomas Cromwell, might be apt — to a point.
“The analogy — if it’s going to work — is that Bannon has his own agenda, which he will try to use Trump for, and will try to exploit the power that Trump has given him, without his master always noticing,” said Diarmaid MacCulloch, a professor of history at England’s Oxford University.
But Cromwell was later executed, after Henry VIII turned against him. For a man like that, MacCulloch said, power is always tenuous: “It’s very much dependent on the favor of the king.”

Read more:
Questions multiply over Bannon’s role in Trump administration
How Bannon flattered and coaxed Trump on policies key to the alt-right
Trump agrees with Bannon’s assessment that the media is the ‘opposition party’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.74331fbd8528

 

Corporate Fascism or Trumpism?



​

 

Rich Swedes Exposed To Multiculturalism


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUTe9ZQpYk

 

Sweden Is Turing Into A Muslim No-Go Ghetto



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcjcpKY0hpo

 

Muslim invaders !!! the shocking truth. UK, Germany , Sweden, America, Denmark etc


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ido8bW5bAes

 

Excellent video, The true intent of Muslims, they hate us. THE FACTS


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uFgLOUQVcM