Yeah it's not like you can be self employed and obtain money your own way. Nah thats not realistic.
If it's that easy, why aren't you running your own multinational business? Aren't you a tar-shoveling lackey? Why haven't you employed yourself yet?
Yeah instead of having multiple potential monopolies that are entirely dependent on people willingly using their products lets just have one big monopoly with the government in charge of everything, but thats okay, they are totally for the people it's not like there is an insane amount of corruption within the US government, thats just silly.
The people want what's best for themselves. When the people are allowed to work towards the interests of the people, unimpeded by a a layer of corporate-fueled bureaucracy, they are working towards their own interests.
This is so disingenuous that it hurts.
Because it doesn't matter. A boy who has his genitals chopped off and is raised as a girl will still have the same mindset, as shown by the David Reimer experiment.
The David Reimer experiment was a wildly unusual, and overall irrelevant, piece of evidence. It proves the malleability of gender and the power of loveual reassignment, but nothing of particular importance to different chemicals in your brain which are inconsistent and different in every living person.
Because he's not making that point. He's trying to say why women might be less interested in tech, not why they are biologically inferior to men in that standard and should be kept out at all costs. In this case, systemizing interests (drive to brown townyze/construct systems) WOULD be better-suited for coding.
He made the point that they might not be interested in jobs as they are currently laid out, which is to say, pandering to the strengths of what he perceives to be male-specific thought patterns. Rather than suggest a reworking of job structures to allow a broader range of thought, effectively becoming more efficient, he simply comes to the conclusion that there are naturally going to be less women in certain positions. I have outlined this previously.
How is pointing out the differences in the male and female brain not biological? I don't want to get into Lord Tony territory but you realize that all the cognitive processes in the brain are just chemical reactions and therefore, if men and women think differently that implies that different chemical processes happen in male/female brains? Plus, this guy went to Harvard and has a Masters degree. He doesn't seem to be the person to just present stuff without fully researching it.
The purely biological, chemical and brain matter distributions have little to nothing to do with the emergence of female thought tendencies. Biological function can alter the efficacy of systematic socialization, but it is the socialization itself that serves as the formative basis for male/female though patterns. Simply put, women are raised to be more empathetic, while men are raised to be more competitive. This is something that can be overcome, not just something we are forced to live with.
