A reader of my blog pointed me to an article in which some leftist laments that girls’ magazines teach girls how to look pretty, while boy’s magazines encourage them to use their brain and get good careers. He writes that they should put some geeky teenage girls on the cover. Apparently, in that version of utopia teenage girls walk past the section with stuffed bras in the clothing store. Instead of taking a load of cum from Joe Jock, they are supposed to take a load of AP classes in high school so that they can finish their engineering degrees faster.
There is only one problem: the brains of girls and boys are different. Boys want to explore, analyze, learn. Well, at least the geeky boys want that. The very few geeky girls may want to do that to, due to their comparatively high levels of testosterone, but those are a minority. There is a lot more money to be made in targeting image-conscious girls than the few geeky ones, because those normally seek out materials that are allegedly for guys anyway. After all, it’s not that mathematics and science are discriminatory. If boys want to learn mathematics, they have to make an effort, and the same is true for girls. If anything, maths and the sciences are “gender neutral”.
Here is another reason why you won’t find many girls bothering with serious subjects: they may have a high-paying alternative. Who of the following two hypothetical characters do you think is better off?
1) Hard-working Erica who went into engineering and didn’t even need to pull the equality card to land a job at a top tech company. She’s not very feminine, but she is “crushing code” and downing Mountain Dew like the best of them.
2) Cute Cindy who is not at all stupid, but figured out that her femininity is a benefit. Thus, she worked hard to get into a good college, but picked a less demanding major. Thus, she had plenty of time to play sports, have a generally active student life, and eventually meet Jim. Jim is not a stud, but a nice guy with excellent earning potential — maybe he’s one of the dudes working in the same cubicle farm as Erica. Jim doesn’t meet a lot of hot girls at work, if any, but he pulls down $250k a year, including performance bonus and stock bonus. Meanwhile, Cindy raises their kids, works part-time, and helps her husband getting rid of all that money.
I would say that Cindy is by far better off than Erica. Of course, if Cindy were extremely good-looking, she would have access to the absolutely best-paid career path for women: being a trophy wife. In any case, every woman who is not deformed only needs to work on her appearance and demeanor. It seems that the bar is very low nowadays: as long as they are neither fat nor a bitch they can get a decent husband. Of course, a prerequisite is that their brains haven’t been infected with feminist and socialist thoughts.
Annoyingly true. A reasonably attractive woman needs to just not baloon up, and not be a bitch in order to obtain a comfortable lifestyle.
However…
This is what sabotages them from achieving the relatively simple feat above.
Again, truth from the mountain! – both Sleazy’s writeup and Novy’s comments…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AOJGB7-K-8
This guy also commented on this. I like his videos you guys can check it out
He was one of the first guys to popularize “Blasting feminist bullshit” on youtube. For that he’s owed some credit.
But in 2016 he’s nowhere near in my top 50 youtubers that “wreck feminist bs”. There’s plenty of great anti-feminist, anti-sjw youtubers now.
Obvious, but banal.
Clearly, the desire for women to be engineers or whatever is about “honor”, and “respect”, not how to get the most cushy life. Your equation of “smart” with getting a cushy life with minimum effort is very telling about your own priorities.
Feminism is wrong and bad, but it must be confronted on its own level – it’s about intangibles like respect – and not misunderstood as about how to do as little as possible to get a comfortable life.
Any feminist would agree with your analysis but view it as beside the point.
Do better next time, Aaron.
If anyone pursues engineering in the pursuit of “honor” or “respect”, they are severely misguided, and not just because engineering, as important as it may be for society, is relatively low-status. This has even been recognized by professional bodies:
https://www.nspe.org/resources/blogs/nspe-blog/engineering-dying
Another reason is that people without a genuine interest in engineering won’t last long. If they make it through college, they are likely to feel miserable at work. I picked engineering as an example in the blog post because there are a lot more engineers than dentists out there, and the average engineer makes a respectable salary.
Further, feminism is most certainly about getting as much money for as little work as possible. Why do you think there is a push for getting more women into presumably cushy jobs? Apparently it’s a grave injustice that women are underrepresented as software engineers, but not that they are underrepresented as builders or plumbers. Don’t get me started on government jobs. Those are cushy almost by definition, and they predominantly go to women.
Plumbing jobs pay more than software engnering, but is less prestigious, and there is a push to make women Navy Seals, hardly cushy. The military isn’t socially prestigious, but is considered to reflect competence and toughness, and there is a huge push for women there. There is no money there, either.
The common denominator is indeed prestige.
I wouldn’t entirely discount the economic factor in feminism, but it’s far from its main motivating factor. Neither is comfort – feminism is hostile to women who choose comfortable easy lives over high powered careers.
If we misunderstand feminism – which is a religion based on spiritual values, however corrupted – we cannot fight it.
Women in the military don’t need to live up to the same standards as men and get promoted much more easily, thus their lives are a lot more cushy. There is plenty of money in military jobs.