Do you have any evidence to back up your broad-brushed claims?
And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?
And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?
"MEN, WOMEN AND RISK AVERSION:EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" - http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_Ind_3.pdf
"Sex Differences in Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior in Humans" - http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep062942.pdf
Reality fits egalitarian beliefs quite poorly.
It's pretty difficult to have a serious conversation if you have to fully define and prove every single piece of content in a comment.
Common sense is getting to be pretty rare around here.
There's plenty of room between "justify everything from first principles" and "perform an ad hoc 5-minute search of the web for research that confirms what I already believe." I'd also say, the closer one is to the former, the more justified one is in feeling certain about their beliefs.
> It's pretty difficult to have a serious conversation if you have to fully define and prove every single piece of content in a comment.
That's good, because nobody here is advocating that!
> Common sense is getting to be pretty rare around here.
Well, as they say, "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen."
What's "common sense," here? That women are more risk-averse? I disagree, at the very least until one defines "risk" and "risk-averse" very precisely. My "common sense" tells me otherwise. Shucks. Ain't that the problem with "common sense?"
There's a claim "women are more risk averse", and another claim "feminist activists exist", both of which are feasibly true, that do not lead to general conclusion that "feminist activists did not push to get more women into tech until it was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor". Which is a broad, unsupported argument, for which the data directly contradicts:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
"And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?"
I took that to mean (generally) that the idea that there is such a thing as a legitimate feminist activist is nonsense - that in reality any reference to one is as part of a straw man argument. Not what you were saying?
I should have clarified in the original post, apologies.