Saturday, March 31, 2012

Problems with the "Don't Generalize" Dogma

Say a man somehow manages to get out of a toxic relationship with a woman. This may be a sexless beta-orbiter type situation where he was subjected to emotional manipulation, or it may be something more serious like an acrimonious divorce. The man is aware that this particular woman is toxic, and should be avoided. Without any exterior guidance or warning, however, he is bound to get into a similar situation again. Why is this?

The oft-cited example is of men who are brutalized in divorce court, only to line right up for marriage again. Some of these men have multiple strings of child support and alimony obligations. Other less extreme examples include the eternally-clueless beta, who keeps getting "lets-just-be-friend"-ed over and over again, without learning. Heartiste recently had an admittedly good post on this very topic, attempting to distill why it occurs.

Of course, what Heartiste doesn't mention is how many "alphas" are caught up in the same type of thinking. I know of very few "alphas" who do not get into emotionally abusive relationships with women. The core problem seems to be a societal hegemony of the "don't generalize" dogma. How many times have you been shut down by the armies of "don't generalize" people, also known as the NAWALT people, both male and female, every time you mention harmful female tendencies?

It's a problem of frame. Of course one shouldn't assume that all women are abusive because one woman is abusive. But somehow this gets twisted into seeing every new woman as a blank slate, and not remembering  the warning signs from previous experiences. I think society encourages this unhealthy attitude, which is why you see men falling into the same traps over and over again. The whole "this time it's different" belief is a natural tendency in humans that needs to be fought, not encouraged.

Friday, March 30, 2012

STEM, Sexism, and Asian Women

Women and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics - a term describing technical fields) has always been a hot topic among feminists. Despite a large amount of effort, including female-only scholarships, female admission preferences, hiring preferences, and endless propaganda campaigns, women are still drastically under-represented in STEM fields. Feminists have spilled a lot of ink over why this is, usually coming up with convoluted "sexism" and "patriarchal culture" explanations.

I'm afraid the real explanation is much simpler, based on what I've seen. Few women have the mindset necessary to excel in a highly technical field. It requires looking at the world a certain way - shall we say, a somewhat detached, analytical, unemotional way - that is just not natural to most women. They hate it, and it's not the way they think. This is the primary reason why they gravitate away from STEM.

I know some women in STEM fields who are very good at what they do. Almost universally, however, their mindset is qualitatively different from that of the typical woman. The women I see in very technical STEM sub-fields like engineering and physics are also heavily Asian. You see few white women there, and I doubt it's because of sexism. Immigrant Asian women are marrying white men in droves, in part because they see white men as less sexist than (culturally) Asian men. If sexism is what's keeping women away from STEM, why are most of the women in STEM Asian? This whole "women and STEM" topic just seems like another thing to club innocent white men over the head with.