Feminists don’t get what engineering jobs entail

The “we need more womyn in tech” propaganda machine is still working 24/7. Part of the money for it comes from business leaders wanting increased competition in the work force. Apparently it is not enough that salaries are stagnant. Engineering jobs are still relatively well-paid, but if you had more applicants, you could get away with offering lower salaries to the peons. This is the economic rationale behind this propaganda. As usual, though, feminists are happy to play the role of useful idiots, fully buying into the propaganda.

We are nowadays told that women used to be a majority of, for instance, computing professionals, and nowadays they are marginalized. Thus, this absolutely must be an example of discrimination. What those fucking morons don’t seem to get, though, is that the computing profession changed considerably since it inception. The kind of jobs women used to have have all been lost due to automation. Concretely, they were mostly working as punch-card operators. This was mechanical work that is no longer needed. A good analogy are typing pools, which were common before email became wide-spread. The modern middle manager writes his own emails. While we’re at it, let’s tear down the myth of Grace Hopper, allegedly the creator of the first compiler, as well: Yes, she wrote a compiler, but not the first one. Von Neumann had a grad student who wrote a compiler, only to be scolded. The problem was that back then machine time was infinitely more expensive than putting a bunch of human operators in a room to do mechanical transformations. I have one more: Ada Lovelace, the “first programmer” was a complete hack who didn’t grasp what Babbage’s Analytical Engine was doing, as becomes clear if you bother to read her work. The history of computing is about as female as the history of the Ivy League rub.

Not only are there many misconceptions about the contributions of women to computing. They are also rather miniscule. Today’s feminists unfortunately don’t seem to understand what engineering work entails. Even though you sit in an office or cubicle and get to stare into a screen (kinda like using Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, eh?), it is not what most people would consider easy work. In fact, most people would consider it highly unpleasant work. While in many fields you can bullshit all day long, and even make it all the way up the food chain — look no further than politics or most of academia — in technical disciplines, there is a clear right or wrong.

The laws of nature don’t give a fuck about affirmative action or the underrepresentation of womyn, and neither do the laws of logic. Sure, you can get into more fashion-driven fields of software engineering like web design or any kind of front-end development and argue about “taste” or “fashion”, but that’s not really engineering. You may even end up working in a field where a mistake may mean that a plant or rocket blows up (this has happened before), and people die as a direct consequence of your mistakes. In less mission-critial fields your mistakes may lose the company money. Now compare this to working in a field where money seemingly comes out of nowhere and you can do whatever you want. Angela Merkel is still working hard on wrecking all of Europe, but she still has her job. As a low-level techie you’ll probably get fired if you cause your employer to lose 10,000 Euros, which is chump change compared to the damage public administrators can cause. If you attempt to crash land a company, like Carly Fiorina at HP, you’ll be ousted. Marissa Mayer is still holding on, but she’s on her way out at Yahoo, too. On the other hand, as a hack working at an NGO or for the government, you can always point to someone or something else to blame. In any kind of engineering discipline this doesn’t work so well. If feminists were more aware of this, they would probably not push so hard to get more women into that field.

14 thoughts on “Feminists don’t get what engineering jobs entail

  1. Nonethelsess, I would rather spent my time with a woman who is my type and somewhat educated like Anjana Vakil ( than the average Jane. It is just much more pleasurable. Granted, I’m not the youngest anymore and therefore enjoy flirting with women who can hold a basic conversation than listening to some airhead. And if she is willing to behave in a femine way even more so. Meaning, she wears some subtle make-up and parfume, enjoys getting compliments and let’s me protect her.

  2. Nice post – I myself looked up Ada Lovelace where she is touted as some kind of “Amelia Earhart” and mother-originator of programming. (For example, “without Lovelace, you male programmers would have nothing.)

    I’m thinking the pornstar Linda Lovelace ( ) contributed more to the world than Ada Lovelace.

  3. From my own experience, it is also a matter of endurance. I studied mechanical engineering in stuttgart, germany, and worked as a tutor for two institute.

    I have seen and tought hundreds of students in electrical engineering and streaming measurements. The major of an engineer is quite tough and requires a lot of consistency. There is no week end where you got time to go out, get a few drinks too much or sleep in. You’re sitting at home, doing drawings of some transmission, calculate the whole thing, because you have to present it on monday morning. If there is something wrong, well then you can do it next semester.

    Yes there has been more girls in the past choosing that major. When i started we had from hundred students 4-5 girls, and two of them looked like guys. Now that rate has changed to almost 10-15 girls.

    According to the dean of students – who talked to me lately – due to the bologna process diploma to bachelor/master failure rate of engineering majors has risen from 35% to now 55%. They try what they could to solve that, but the major is still hard and requires a lot of work.

    I dont want to divide into man/women. Over the years i have seen quite a few women who were good-looking and really ambitous. To be honest, that ambition impressed me and it was fun to work with them. But those were really rare.

    Most women who got accepted for that major cheer up things like “Hey i got in, now i’m gonna be an engineering and work for _ _ _ _ _ _ ” (put in some car manufacture in germany) and upload their letter of acceptance on facebook and instagram to show it everyone. But it does not take too long until they realize its quite ambitious studying higher mathematics, though they hated it in school.

    Now one of three things always happes:
    – They either give up, saying things like “i want to have a life”, “i thought i’m going to design and build a car…all they are doing now is establishing differential equations” or the best one i heard: “how can math things like this satisfy someone? no one needs this in life ”
    – They pretty themselve up, having every day their hair made and wearing heels – to be honest some do look really hot – and try to flirt/connect with some guys to get their help. Btw. i have never seen a girl who got their major by doing this. Mabye got through a few courses, but its always the same question in the exam: “do you understand the topic and can handle the tasks?”
    – They show ambition and study

    Like i said, the latter is quite rare.

    1. I have known quite a few hard working women in stem fields. Seems just like the men, 50% of them are not hardworking and fail. The other 50% are serious and go for it.

      The flirty ones usually drop out after one or two years.

      But the numbers of women in stem fields seem to be biased like this: (from high % to low) Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Math, Engineering, Computer Science. From my experience in university.

    2. In general, the more abstract a field, the fewer women take it up. There are a lot less women in theoretical computer science than in human-computer interaction, for instance. A note about your percentages: 50% of male STEM students is a much higher number than 50% of female ones.

  4. Hey I came across this interesting site:

    It’s about women who are cheerleaders who happen to be also pursuing a STEM degree at the same time; now my question is, how the hell can you be a professional leader and manage a STEM degree at the same time? Being a professional and even a collegiate cheerleader is a time consuming and energy draining job; that saps a lot of crucial resources from the average student. A lot of these women sound unbelievable, I don’t trust the credentials of these women, and I believe that a lot of these women got into STEM because of female affirmative action, dick sucking, manipulating nerds into doing their bidding, and because of quota’s and free government aid. Women are just not capable of handling the rigors, thoughtfulness and abstract perceptions and ideals and creativity demands, required of STEM and making breakthroughs in the field.

    STEM and basically all of science and engineering and the arts and philosophy has been the exclusive dominion and creation of men, and it is men who have suffered and created the most in STEM out of anyone. It really makes me angry, seeing these attention whoring pretty faced superficial dolled shallow status seeking women, who suck the dick of anyone that is higher up then them as a way of life, and will always be Machiavellian-ly hypergamous for their lives; get these degrees and positions, at the expense of men; whom are not going to do anything except distort their respective jobs into being about exclusively about them and their immediate narcissistic needs. This is the modus operandi of women in education. from my experience…

    1. There is another aspect: as far as I know, cheerleading is rather poorly paid. However, that kind of job is extremely attractive for women because it gives them easy access to high-status men, not just the ballers they cheer on but also the media and business world. “Kelly” just takes the cake. She is a PhD student, already a professor, and cheerleader. Yeah, right. This somehow reminds me of affirmative action programs where “people of color” with mediocre SAT scores end up at HYP in order to boost diversity. For a prominent example, look up the Bachelor’s thesis of Obama’s wife, which is a pile of crap (the thesis, I mean).

    2. To all the people reading this blog post, I urge you to please go through that website link I just showed, to see female nature and gynocentrism in action. There is absolutely no way that you can be a professional dancer or cheerleader and pursue a hard science degree at the collegiate level without sucking dick or getting some sort of a premium, based on government aid or affirmative action quota policies. I mean the time constraints and demands of such a career path are incredible, given the level of difficulty of STEM; if one were to pursue that path, and how did these women manage this?

      They didn’t, I just saw an interview with one of the cheerleaders “megan”, who supposedly followed an computer engineering route, then she stated that she worked in multiple coding languages; and a tv interviewer then asked her what code she specialized in; and then she proceeded to directly ignore the question and respond in “numerous and multiple languages” without giving any specifics.

      Obviously these women are bullshitting their vagina’s off the charts; I really really despise women like these. They are some of the most narcissistic deceptive and shallow self-centered and serving people on planet Earth….

    3. Bullshitting and women seem to go hand in hand. This reminds me of an interview Marissa Mayer in which she claimed she used to work 130 hours a week at Google. No you didn’t, you fucking liar.

    4. On the people saying ‘you can’t do sports and STEM at the same time’ I have known people who did sports at high levels, and finished a STEM career. So it is possible. Def not for everybody of course. So only for the best of the best. (Of course, you will not finish your STEM degree in four years).

  5. Based upon the workloads in most STEM courses it would pretty tough to do this and be a cheerleader. As noted, cheerleaders are paid abysmally, so it is not like you can pay your tuition doing it. Most cheerleaders are usually doing it for bragging rights or as a marketing tool for whatever else they might do, like fitness or gold digging. A bigger question might be if you are a hard core STEM type of girl, would you actually want to be a cheerleader?

  6. Maybe they have changed the definition of STEM to include psychology and other “soft ” sciences. Boom, these cheerleaders have the “S” in STEM .

  7. There is a stat somewhere that the number of women working tech/software reduced a lot during 70s, after the personal/home computer was introduced (came from gender diversity meeting). They did not explain why, which is most likely that human automatino aspect reduced and computers automated a lot more and was more cost effective then hiring people to do it (think punch cards).

    Another insight during this gender talk, women where generally the programmers while the men were generally engineers who gave the programmers the instructions to put into the computers. Hearing this, it was obvious that the complex stuff were done by the engineers and the programmers just did the inputting. Kind of like the architect giving plans to the builders.

    I understand the need for heroes or people to look up to, to show that some one like you (female, or black or what ever) can do it so can you. But this does lead to big problems of promoting people who were not that big or diminishing the works of others. This happened in the last episode of legends of tomorrow show, where they stated that einstein was not responsible for all his works but it was his wife (plus they showed him being sexist womaniser).

    I think using role models is good, but it should be based on their journey thus people can relate to the struggle and appreciate their acheivement and see how it can motivate them. Yet people want to tick boxes and show specifics.

    Concerning ada lovelace, I have never really heard of her, I did half a degree in computer science. I guess feminists would say that it was consiparcy of the male staff, yet even the femal staff did not say anything about her. But generally, most of the time, no one really cared about which person invented something only about the thereom or ideas (as this was not history) and you would only recognise someone if they had their name attached to the theroem (ie turing machine)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.