This is probably getting offtopic for d-women, if someone wants me to
shut up, just tell me, and I'll do it.
2008/10/10 Gaudenz Steinlin <gaudenz@debian.org>:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:08:44AM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
I sometimes wonder why nobody seems to be in a rush to encourage more
boys to knit, bake cookies, or take up sewing.
Most people aren't in a rush to encourage girls to work with computers
or on other "nerdy" subjects either.
True, but at least there exists a public debate about it. What I was
trying to say is, why is there such a public debate about pushing
girls into traditionally-male dominated fields but no symmetrical
debate for boys?
As I was saying, I somewhat understand this lack of symmetry: it's not
so much about pushing women simply into traditionally male fields of
endeavour, as much as pushing them into the fields of endeavour that
give control. Which is fine.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, just kinda rambling, sorry.
I really don't believe in natural predespositions of any kind.
They are simply a to convenient excuse for
not doing anything to overcome these traditions.
The usual argument is that we have no controlled environment to fully
test this, it's a kind of forbidden experiment, but the fact remains
that women are abundant for some tasks and men are abundant for
others. You may blame this all you want on patriarchy and stupid
social mores, but what if, and please don't take this the wrong way,
but what if it simply is true that no matter what environment you put
women in, they will still have a predisposition to act in a certain
way or do certain things?
I wouldn't like that to be true. I don't like the idea that people are
born with predispositions and without control of their lives. But
sometimes I think, "what if it is true? What if our efforts to change
it are for naught?"