The improper study of womankind 13

Nothing proves the inferiority of women more plainly than the obsession of women with being Woman, while men get on with their jobs.

When we say “women” we mean of course wymyn – or however they choose to spell themselves: the harridans, shrews, termagants, harpies of the West who call themselves feminists.

They go to universities and spend years on “Women’s Studies”, then seek employment in a world where knowledge of other things is needed. Some of them get employed – to supervise “diversity in employment”. Then they complain that they are valued less than men, paid less than men, ergo they are “oppressed by men”.

In all this proving amply that they are less valuable than the men!

Ilana Mercer (a libertarian), writes at Townhall:

Of the many men who toil in high-tech, few are as heroic as James Damore, the young man who penned the manifesto Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber. In it, Damore calmly and logically exposed the tyrannical ideological edifice erected to perpetuate the myth that, in aggregate, women and men are identical in aptitude and interests, and that “all disparities in representation are due to oppression”.

Despite active recruiting and ample affirmative action, women made up only 14.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, of computer science and electrical engineering graduates, in 2015. While they comprise 21.4 percent of undergraduates enrolled in engineering, females earned only 19.9 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees awarded by an engineering program in 2015.”

There is attrition!

Overall, and in the same year, 80.1 percent of Bachelor’s degrees in engineering went to men; 19.9 percent to women. (Engineering by the Numbers, by Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.)

As Damore, and anyone in the world of high-tech knows, entire human resource departments in the high-tech sector are dedicated to recruiting, mentoring, and just plain dealing with women and their ongoing nagging and special needs.

In high-tech, almost nothing is as politically precious as a woman with some aptitude. There’s no end to which companies will go to procure women and help them succeed, often to the detriment of technically competent men who must do double duty. Their procurement being at a premium, concepts such as “sucking it up” and soldiering on are often anathema to coddled distaff.

A woman in high-technology can carp constantly about … being a woman in high-tech. Her gender — more so than her capabilities — is what defines her and endears her to her higher-ups, for whom she’s a notch in the belt.

While male engineers — and, indubitably, some exceptional women — are hired to be hard at work designing and shipping tangible products; women in high tech, in the aggregate, are free to branch out; to hone a niche as a voice for their gender.

Arisen online and beyond is a niche-market of nudniks (nags): Women talking, blogging, vlogging, writing and publishing about women in high-technology or their absence therefrom; women beating the tom-tom about discrimination and stereotyping, but saying absolutely nothing about the technology they presumably love and help create.

Young women, in particular, are pioneers of this new, intangible, but lethal field of meta-technology: kvetching (complaining) about their absence in technology with nary a mention of their achievements in technology. The hashtag “MicrosoftWomen” speaks to the solipsistic universe created by females in high-tech and maintained by the house-broken males entrusted with supporting the menacing matriarchy. Are these ladies posting about the products they’ve partaken in designing and shipping? Not often. Women in high-tech are more likely to be tweeting out about … being women in high-tech. Theirs is a self-reverential and self-referential universe.

One featured techie’s professional title, aforementioned, is impressive: “principal engineering lead at Microsoft”. As is to be expected of a woman hard at work in the ruthlessly competitive field of high-tech, she spends her days as “a female tech ambassador”, writing fluffy, gyno-centric books on self-affirmation, “mentoring other women via Skype”,  “answering emails … on how they, too, can enter the world of tech”,  designing clothes, and, according to her impartial boosters, being the “next greatest female tech rock star”. It’s all in a woman’s day’s work. …

So intent are women on equal outcomes at all costs, as opposed to equality of opportunity, that they’re pleased to serve as political props; ornaments in a corporate world compelled to affirm the idea that under the skin — and but for the Great White and his wicked ways — men and women are similarly inclined and endowed. …

“Of course, to say that ‘science needs women’,” reasoned Theodore Dalrymple, in a 2014 Taki’s magazine column, is as logically consistent as saying that, ‘Heavyweight boxing needs Malays’, ‘football needs dwarf goalkeepers’, ‘quantity surveying needs bisexuals’, ‘lavatory cleaning needs left-handers’. Science does not need women any more than it needs foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis. What science needs (if an abstraction such as science can be said to need anything) is scientists. If they happen also to be foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis, so be it: but no one in his right mind would go to any lengths to recruit for his laboratory foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis for those characteristics alone.”

We witnessed an irrefutable demonstration of male superiority a few years ago when our street was flooded. The water was creeping up driveways towards houses. Women and their small children – one of them only four years old – were desperately filling sacks with sand (obtained free of charge from the city council) and piling them up at their doors to keep the water out. A car drove on to our river of a street. It stopped and a man got out. He stood for a few moments looking at the scene, then walked over to a drain, pulled away something that was blocking it, and all the water flowed away.

Ah, that bell-shaped curve. More men at both extreme ends – the geniuses and the morons. Women thick in the middle.

The women at the moron end, we unshakably believe, are all feminists.

Posted under Feminism, Sex by Jillian Becker on Thursday, August 17, 2017

Tagged with ,

This post has 13 comments.

  • liz

    Ha! Precisely! The “solipsistic” “obsession of ‘wymyn’ with being Woman”, and hypersensitive to imaginary “misogyny”, is just like the obsession of black “activists” with being black, and imaginary racism. Every cause of the Left follows the same pattern – obsession with victimhood and imaginary greivances, all of which are the fault of the evil “white male patriarchy”.
    They then proceed to be so insufferably annoying that they create hatred where none existed before, and point to that as evidence of their claims!

    • Perfect description of the process!

    • For some merely being women does not elevate them highly enough in the victimhood stakes, and they take things one step further –

      “The Feminist Friends Of Islam”

      • I read that article on your site. It brought back to me some lines from Sylvia Plath’s poem “Daddy”:

        “Every woman adores a Fascist,
        The boot in the face, the brute
        Brute heart of a brute like you. …
        A man in black with a Meinkampf look
        And a love of the rack and the screw.”

        I don’t believe that is true of every woman, but it obviously is true of some.

        • I’m sure its not true of every woman. I think Hugh is on to something though, things are out of equilibrium right now – its just that we’re struggling to find the language to explain what is wrong. So often human thought seems to swing from one extreme to the other just because we fail to debate things properly. I almost think I hear a cry for help in that picture in the other article – seeing a depressed-looking Mogherini with her silly headscarf on being ignored by Rouhani, she is almost screaming “Help, I should not be here!”.

          • You have a kinder nature than I have, Chauncey. I wish that woman ill – not physically of course, but for her to learn the lessons the hard way by distressing experience that she won’t learn the easy way by thinking.

            • Well the EU may well start to fall apart before too long in which case she will be out of a job at least.

            • Chauncey – do you know anything about this? A British far-left “charity” setting up a spy-ring in the US:

            • We used to hear a lot about HnH but not so much lately. I’ll add the link in my Glozi article thanks.

              In other news – Guardian calls for Nelson’s column to be demolished.


            • I saw that. It really hurt. The Left and Islam are set on transforming the very landscape of the West, the look of it, and obliterating its history.

              Did you watch “The State” on Channel 4? I have just posted a piece about it.

              I am working on a short piece for our Facebook page about Tommy Robinson’s book. And will use your coinage “Glozi”.

            • I’ve stopped watching TV, its so biased I even started to see bias in wildlife programs. David Attenborough called for the shooting of Donald Trump so now I can’t bear the sight of him. Besides, there’s plenty of interesting stuff on the internet now. The real world is far more interesting.

              I look forward to your review.

            • liz

              Odd that they would announce an “undercover operation” to the world. And if they’re partly funded by the British government, that will hopefully pose some legal problems for them.

            • I was struck by that too – the undercover operation exposed by the plotters themselves! Made me hesitate to post the story. What would they spy on, anyway, I wondered. For whom, and why. Perhaps we’ll hear more about them.