I have been posting here for years now and anyone who reads what I post should really understand how I approach the varied story’s that are presented and dealt with here on BTB.

And that is why I come here, it really is the best both in diversity of subject matter and feed back.

(And why I have to explain this is a mystery to me especially when I know that I am dealing with such a high IQ / science nerd audience. Maybe being so informed and so high functioning does not allow for any divergence? It becomes a blind spot? Maybe.)

https://youtu.be/zkuBmsfSiUM

By any means necessary. (Has anyone asked her exactly what she means by that? In my interpretation of a statement like that, and I do not doubt her / them for one second, is that they will agree to have those “Taken care of” if they stand in the way of what MUST be. Chilling, and we all know that women can be just as deadly as men when zealously and ideologically pushed.)

Candi CdeBaca, Alexadria Occasio Cortez, Ilhan Ohmar, Rashida Tliab, all really non American women in the traditional meaning of American. None of which should be empowered in our government, NONE. But there they are.

Communism, Marxism and the Leftist agenda, all three philosophies empower women in a very narrow way, those who become politically empowered, and in the end really victimizes women along with everyone else, and makes all men in their eyes useless idiots? Capitalism and men are the problem is there real message.

Is this truly the end result of our system, our Constitution, our beautiful Constitution?

It is if we all as Americans allow it to be so.

This is exactly what the Supreme Court said when it decided, close to five decades ago, that reverse discrimination (Affirmative Action) is acceptable. Douglas Adams’s experience comes directly from this decision.

wodun wrote: “Remember when people said this would never happen in STEM fields? … Why do we have to elevate one sex over the other? Why does social justice always have to come with the punishment of scapegoats? So much of what these people do has outcomes that go against what they claim to be their motivation.”

The punishment of scapegoats is the very definition of social justice. Because the actual “bad guy” is not available for easy punishment, someone else is substituted for the public demonstration that justice was served. Except that it was served to the wrong guy. If the actual “bad guy” were available, then it would be ordinary justice served, not social justice.

Interestingly, women just are not as interested in the STEM fields as men are. The root of the problem is that too many people believe that women and men think alike — or should. This just is not true. At the risk of destroying a future career at Google, like James Damore did, the whole reason why there is a diversity movement is because of the differences between people, and to treat them or to make them exactly the same is not only impossible but would destroy diversity, the advantages of diversity, and the diversity movement. (What would life be like if we all wanted exactly the same things at exactly the same times? For one, traffic would be even worse.)

Once we realize that it is OK for different people to think differently or to want different things then we should be able to get along much better. Maybe even get along as well as Rodney King had wanted.

Johnny Lumber wrote: “Assuming a normal bell curve, with a smaller talent pool, looks like there are bound to be a lot of under qualified female engineering faculty hired at that university.”

An excellent conclusion. The talent pool is smaller because only about 1 in 6 engineering students are women, and it has been this way since I was in engineering school. Assuming that women go to engineering school to do engineering rather than teaching then the pool is even smaller, which would explain why the Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE) is so pessimistic about finding women in the first place. From the article: “If no suitable applicant has been found within that time, men can then apply.”

From the article: “‘We have been talking about [gender balance] for ages,’ says TUE President Robert-Jan Smits. ‘All kinds of soft measures are taken and lip service is paid to it. But the stats still look awful.’”

Maybe gender balance is difficult in STEM fields because men and women actually think differently. A woman’s contribution to the species is obvious: a baby (“this is mine”). A man’s is not so obvious. Either he has to attach his own last name to a baby (“this is mine”) or he has to do something else as a visible contribution, such as invent fire or the wheel (“this is mine”). Since men tend to tinker more than women, it would explain why more men choose STEM fields, even though American colleges have 50% more women than men, these days.

He moved to a large banking firm when exactly the same thing happened. He was told that word came from on high that no more white males would be promoted. His cartooning came as a defense mechanism to active political correctness.

A couple of years later he again came to my attention when he successfully predicted that Trump would win in 2016. I now listen to his podcast each night before retiring. Insightful to say the least.

What troubles me about leftist programs to help women is that they always frame things as there has to be a winner between men and women, that women can’t do well unless men suffer. They always want special treatment that give females funding and programs that men do not get. It is especially be in schools because young males don’t get this kind of attention (and never have).

You can see it on Twitter all really easily as advertising these different programs happens all the time.

Why can’t we have programs that encourage all children? Why do we have to elevate one sex over the other? Why does social justice always have to come with the punishment of scapegoats? So much of what these people do has outcomes that go against what they claim to be their motivation. People can make good faith mistakes but when it happens over and over and over, one has to wonder if they are good faith mistakes or are intentional.

I think we are basically on the same track, and that is the overarching and more important point. If you would like to draw some significant distinction between us for me to further comment on I would be happy to do so.

Cotour: Missing my point again in my original post. Your blind spot is amazing.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/447576-ginsburg-credits-kavanaugh-for-helping-boost-number-of-female