So we’re just going to ignore all the women in STEM then? OK…
You know, dumb comics like these do more to undermine achievements than actual problems.
Are you illiterate by any chance?
Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for the first pretentious white knight to appear.
Longer than I expected.
You don’t even make sense.
First of all I’m the op you posted this comment too. Secondly the comic is about women working in STEM today.
Every time anything about women pops up we get the most uninformed unhinged comments from misogynists, it’s pathetic. Grow up and be a decent person in of lashing out at women.
So far so predictable.
Maybe if you keep rushing windmills long enough, or write an even bigger paragraph, perhaps the problems will become real.
You are a sad person. Is trolling the only thing that gets you any of the human interaction you crave?
I pity you.
Sadness is wanting to find problems in everything. I suggest a mirror.
Do people actually think the system is all a choice?
Why is everyone vague-posting in here? Just say directly what bothers you about the comic.
Why do you care?
As a species we tend to mask irrational feelings with stories our brain make up, connecting abstract social issues and ideas to make us feel like our irrational discomfort is somehow part of a bigger, more “rational” story, but it all leads back to something that makes us uncomfortable. The cure is sanitizing sunlight.
And because Lemmy is packed with incel-adjacent minded young guys and require some pushback on their bad ideas, because people no longer experience social pressure as long as they can retreat to like-minded online spaces, so I rather people are open about what they think so we can challenge it, support it or offer alternatives depending what the actual feeling is.
That’s why I care.
Your turn.
I’m guessing you’re at your most effective when people speak honestly and directly and you struggle when they don’t?
Why should others risk your influence by meeting you where you are your strongest and maybe they aren’t? Why would they give a random person direct access to their thoughts and feelings, to rummage through and manipulate, especially when there’s a vibe of judgement, coercion or authoritarianism from the one asking, like you seem to have?
Whatever, slippery coward.
Yeah.
Do you think systemic sexism is inherent and perpetuated without human compliance?
I think choice is largely an illusion.
The illusion of freewill doesn’t absolve you of your self aware moral obligations.
Something that is also not a choice.
Impotence is an illusion that helps keep us in our lanes.
That presupposes we have the power to leave the lanes we are in, which, I don’t think we do.
Maybe you don’t, but women are doing science now and they weren’t allowed to a century ago.
Women doing science now is the lane.
I guess a comet kicked us into this lane
Not with that mindset.
Not with any mindset.
Regardless of whether it’s an illusion - if it is an illusion, it’s a compelling one, to the point that you can’t be perfectly confident in it being illusory.
You should, logically, at least try to carry out change by your own hands, because the alternative is to potentially squander whatever autonomy you may have.
It’d be like standing at an unlocked door, but being so convinced it’s locked, that you don’t even give a good try at turning the knob.
How we perceive choice does affect behavior but it’s one of a myriad of things and how you perceive choice isn’t a choice either. Change occurs without requiring choice, even change by ones own hands. Nothing is squandered if it never existed. We will still behave and our behavior will cause changes, but it isn’t a choice how we behave. So any sexism, in the system of behavior we are all a part of, is a product, not a choice.
Yes. That’s why some people make different choices from people who are 99.99% biological matches who were raised in similar conditions.
Nobody lives the same existence so any differences, especially over time, are products of those differences. Even identical twins in the same home don’t experience the same existence and aren’t the same person and make different choices.
I think you missed my point. The same conditions, even in physics, don’t always produce the same result.
Then they aren’t the same conditions.
Would you like to read a book? I could recommend several.
Go ahead, let’s see if I’ve already read them.
I’d start with Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science. You sound like you’ve probably read A Brief History of Time - but there are edits in later editions and we’ve learned more since Hawking’s death.
Then: Rethinking Causality in Quantum Mechanics. And: Nothing, put out by New Scientist in 2013 — pretty cool, but doesn’t really deal with causality. I just liked that one.
Anyway, you’re arguing in favor of a deterministic universe, but as far as I know with my (limited) understanding, that’s more of a philosophical question that can’t be proved or disproved. We lack the ability to track every particle to its origin, and the inverse is a negative — and you can’t prove something doesn’t happen, only it’s likelihood.
