howldog wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2005 13:59:17 -0800, connor_a{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >yared22311{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>But is the difference really biological, or are exceptional girls
> >>and women intimidated by cultural stereotypes and discouraged from
> >>?cultivating their talents from an early age?
> >
> >The fact that girls and women are intimidated by stereotypes just
shows
> >how meek and pathetic the female of the species really is.
> >
> >Look at the IT Boys: named "geeks" to "nerds"
by girls and yet they
> >still persist; why are women and girls so weak and timid?
>
>
> the simple reason why there arent more women in IT?
>
> it bores them.

Hmmm, thats what one woman said over lunch break when I showed her the
latest PC game mag... "no thanks info tech is boring, uninteresting".

She read a scragmag instead.

>
> all this discouragement and social role modelling and all that, is
> just piss in the wind in the face of the overwhelming YOU GO GRRRRL
> messaging now omnipresent in the media.

HMMM, a feminist society can't force girls to be interested in
"talking" with machines.

> It wont matter. Women will still never end up car mechanics, or lead
> guitar players, or IT workers, in the numbers men are, no matter how
> encouraged and empowered they are by the new modern society. Because
> they ARENT INTERESTED.

Maybe we should paint everything in IT pink?

> they'd all rather be singers.

Or self, life and lifestyle preserving sexists - WOMEN CHOOSE TO
LOOOOSSE!



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 9:34:28 PM ---