Math is MALE.
This guy is actually teaching a STEM field at a University. I realized it when he came to my blog today posting comment after comment with his University email address. He’s got some really strange views on the ladies being involved in math and engineering. I covered his rambling hate diatribe in another post but here’s the link to his original piece if you can spare some brain cells. You will most definitely lose a few by reading it. This post will be much more involved than the first one.
Do you want this man teaching your daughters? No wait. You ‘girls’ can’t understand math because you don’t pee while standing. He did say however that he DOES have a daughter (scary) and that instead of teaching her to pee whilst standing he had her go throw 10 rocks to understand a concept.
CLICK ON THESE SCREENSHOTS IF YOU CAN’T READ THEM
Damn those feminists though, insisting on getting wimminz into math!
I believe that the very thing that will inhibit women from advancing in engineering is society’s diminishing respect for aspects of the masculine mind and a feminism that has migrated from a focus on social equality and now insists on biological equality.
Know your place wimminz! Your biology is going to hold us men back from our masculine mind! No penis=No math!
If you can’t ‘shoot’ with a penis and get physical, then your female brain won’t be able to handle the vigorous labor of thinking.
All of these pictures are of comments he left on my blog on the OP. The hate-filled misogynist rant he wrote on the hate site AVFM is even more maddening. He tried covering his hate with this obsession he has with the top 1% of math students, which are always male and SHOULD always be male because biology and such.
Men created the language of math through visualization and abstraction. In addition to the aforementioned biological differences, there is social research to indicate that the top one percent in math will always be male dominated.
He then left a link to a study Benbow, et. al. Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning, American Psychological Society, Vol.11, No.6, 11/2000 which was 404 not available. The other link he left to support his ‘assertions’ was Madhura Ingalhalikar, et. al. Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain, PNAS vol.111 no.2, 9/2013 which is behind a pay wall but judging simply by the abstract it only states a possible sex difference in brain FUNCTION which Mr. Smartypants used to declare that
Some suggest this enables a woman’s communication and multi-tasking skills (I rarely see published articles that object to these abilities in women), and men have a greater ability to focus and single task (I usually see published articles that object to these abilities of men).
I don’t think I need to remind my readers of the potential problems with extrapolating behavioural sex differences based on brain functioning studies such as the one he posted that suggested a sex difference in connectivity along parts of the brain. At least he was somewhat careful with his language around the measly 2 studies he cited.
The rest of his diatribe he showed no such caution. He claims that feminists are somehow manipulating the poor boys so that females can be in the top 1% of mathematicians.
But does this gender difference at that top level matter? Are current interventions failing because they are inordinately focused on a percentage that has little relevance (except to feminist ego)?
The only ‘ego’ I see having a meltdown is his. He says the top 1% should remain in the realm of men and any programs to get girls into Engineering are just feminist ploys to get women in that top percentage and well, he can’t handle women in his male space.
I contend that women drop out in greater numbers from engineering than they normally would have if, instead, they were not given false assurance through current “Girl Engineer” programs; or if the pedagogy had been properly constructed to draw them into the top twenty, ten or five percent;
Perhaps the most ‘off the rails’ part of the rant is this:
The few women in the top one percent think like men. Sophie Germain (April 1, 1776 – June 27, 1831) admitted to dressing like a man to attend the French Academy to make her contributions to engineering. A feminist would suggest she did this to circumvent the patriarchy.
She did. Think about this Mr. Smartypants Engineer. If a woman has to behave like a man to attend a University and make contributions then it’s obvious it’s because of Patriarchy. Also, you just contradicted yourself completely by mentioning a female mathematician who was most definitely in the top 1% and who every step of the way was discouraged by patriarchal wankers like YOU. Imagine that. The assfaxery gets worse.
I suggest she blossomed in male culture. When a man suggests that to succeed in math, a woman should think like a man, he is rebuked.
She what? This guy, for being an engineer, doesn’t understand operational definitions. What in G-d’s name is ‘male culture?’ Any guesses as to why men are rebuked for making totally off-the-wall misogynist claims that they pulled out of their derriere? In 2014? Anyone?
But what is wrong with thinking like a man? I have no objection when the media insists that my compassion derives from my feminine nature. I take that in stride. So what is the problem with accepting that math/focus/abstraction derive from masculinity? When did it become an insult to think like a man?
The problem Mr. Smartypants, is that you can’t say that 1)there is some ‘male’ or ‘female’ ‘nature’ and 2)that there’s such a thing as male ‘thinking’ and finally 3) that this male ‘thinking’ has any relation to math success. Now, if he wants to talk about the cultural influences and how math is ‘gendered’ by patriarchal bellends like him, then we can have that conversation.
This is all western ‘misandry’ to him.
Feminists will get what they wanted: a country of total math and engineering equality: zero = zero. Meanwhile, China, and its excess of two hundred million men will dominate technology.
It gets worse, much worse.
Contrary to what some think, men do not exclude women from engineering; men seek a place to call their own (a distinction between cause and effect). Today, spaces for men are vanishing while spaces for women continue to blossom.
So men don’t exclude women but they want to because it’s a male space?
Rather than interpret male resistance to female engineers as a negative view of women, why not consider it a self-indulgent desire for a male space? Then, upon recognizing that, and curtailing the negative stereotypes of male spaces, maybe men will be more inviting to women in engineering. What do feminists want anyway: to change men and destroy all male space (even disallowing sixth grade boys to pee in their own bathrooms),
See what he just did there? He’s claiming that feminists are ruining his male math space and if we’d only just stop getting women in there the men will invite us! Just like Ecole Polytechnique did for Sophie Germain right? I still don’t know what any of this has to do with males urinating but he goes on quite a bit about boys having to pee standing up and that this action means they do better at math. If you want to read what he said about boys peeing in different ways then look at the article near the bottom. He goes into great detail about it.
Do you want this man teaching your daughter? Do you want him teaching your son? I sure as heck don’t. To think he’s in any position around college women is frightening. I suppose we have yet another reason why girls and women are having such a hard time getting into STEM fields.