They don’t yet try to get deer to hunt or pigs to fly, but the will to thwart humans’ nature is alive and well. One of many examples is the obsession with getting girls involved in STEM (Science, Technology, Math, and Engineering), and a recent such effort involves COVID-era art classes designed to entice girls to do computer programming.
Because, of course, nothing makes life more exciting and fulfilling than becoming a vitamin-D-deprived computer geek.
What’s seen as the “problem,” at least by the social engineers, is that coding is testosterone heavy: 75 percent of American computer programmers are men. (Eighty-five percent are white or Asian-descent, too.) So in a time in which “equality” is worshipped, women must just be cajoled into coding.
Of course, unasked is: Do they even want to?
And, how would this make society or women’s lives better?
The College Fix reported on the story Tuesday:
When the COVID pandemic struck, art teachers were in a bind. Learning in K-12 public schools was retooled for remote learning but it could be difficult to adapt art lessons because most children did not have artistic resources such as clay or pastels on hand.
In Florida, a nonprofit organization called Code/Art made the best of a bad situation by training art teachers to code, The 74 reported. Code/Art demonstrated the possibilities of using code to create digital art. This made it possible for many students to continue art education from home.
… Code/Art’s mission, according to its website, is to increase the “number of girls studying computer science by delighting and inspiring them with the creative possibilities of computer programming.” By inspiring them to code through art, the organization hopes change the currently the male dominant world of software developers.
This supposedly matters because, The 74 relates Code/Art founder and MIT graduate Amy Renshaw as saying, “We’re going to miss out on technology that’s going to give us a wider range of solutions if we don’t have a more diverse workforce.”
This claim reflects the current dogma that, somehow, “diversity” just magically makes things better. But is this really true?
Would the NFL be better were it 50 percent female? (It certainly would be better being 100 percent un-woke.) The NBA is currently about 74 percent black, but only 1.8 percent Hispanic and 0.2 percent Asian. Would it be superior if it reflected the general population? Having some dwarves in the league would make it more diverse, too, do note.
Some may now say that different rules apply to sports than to computer science. But why? Is it logical assuming that, somehow, there can be genetically induced differences that influence performance in physical endeavors but that such differences could never, ever exist in the intellectual sphere? Does genetic “diversity” affect the whole body but, curiously, cease being operative with one organ, the brain?
This is the default assumption, though, the idea that career-choice sex differences must be a function of conditioning. As The 74 puts it, “Research also shows girls’ involvement with computer science should start before eighth grade, at which point cultural stereotypes are already taking root.”
Interestingly and returning to athletics again, the claim that stereotypes shape performance differences was also made regarding sports — in the 1990s; in fact, it was actually said, based on an analysis of running-world-record times’ progression, that women would surpass men in track and field by the late ‘90s (in reality, the intersex performance gap instead widened during that period).
This claim was only abandoned when equality dogma became inconvenient for feminists; that is, when men claiming womanhood (“transgenders”) began taking sporting titles from women. Then, amusingly, we started seeing feminists expounding in articles upon the many male physiological advantages in sports, citing the kind of information that, had you presented it 15 years earlier, could get you “canceled.”
As for cultural stereotypes holding girls back, first, it’s hard to imagine. Masculinized, girl-power presentations have dominated entertainment and media for decades now, females are encouraged to be “assertive” and to forego domesticity for careerism, and embracing masculine endeavors is applauded and rewarded with scholarships. The only stereotype operative here is the stereotype that America still enforces patriarchal stereotypes.
Second, taking effect around eighth grade aren’t “cultural stereotypes” (they’re perceived far earlier) but something else: adolescence. Girls’ bodies and hormone balances change markedly during this period, and they generally, if they hadn’t previously, embrace things feminine. This is a major reason why tomboys quite often cease being tomboys around eighth grade.
All this said, women have already rendered judgment on masculine endeavors: As a rule, they’re not interested.
Here’s a question: Where are women more likely to enter stereotypically masculine fields, in a highly egalitarian country such as Norway or in a more patriarchal one such as India?
If you answered India, go to the head of the class.
The reason why was explained in the fine Norwegian documentary The Gender Equality Paradox (synoptic version below): In poorer countries such as India, women must pursue what commands high income; this often means entering tech fields.
In wealthy nations such as Norway, however, people can afford to follow their hearts. In women’s case, this means gravitation toward things feminine.
Thus are, even today in Norway, 90 percent of the engineers male and 90 percent of the nurses female, according to the documentary (complete version here).
None of this will stop the rage against nature, though, by the people who often swear that sex roles are artificial but wanting to be the opposite sex is natural.
