A few months back, Entertainment Weekly published a feminist screed, ‘The Social Network‘s Woman Problem’. In it, columnist Jennifer Armstrong, reviewing The Social Network, concedes that women generally aren’t interested in computer science and that they don’t feature prominently in the true-life story that inspired the movie. While she grudgingly admits that it wouldn’t be appropriate to lie about events, she sniffs that, “[I]f this were fiction, the snubs would be inexcusable.”
How refreshing! Here we have an admission that the female computer gurus are largely fictional, but that writers have a moral obligation to depict an inverted world that corroborates egalitarian gender fantasies. It would be inexcusable for gender egalitarians to suggest that males are the primary drivers of technological innovation.
Ironically, Larry Summers, the same former Harvard President who shooed the Winklevoss twins out his office in the movie would probably shoo Armstrong out as well. Back in 2005 he ignited a firestorm of feminist outrage with his frank attribution of the “underrepresentation” of women in science and engineering to “upbringing, genetics and time spent on child-rearing.”
And how did the Ivy League audience respond to the suggestion that gender differences in academic and professional outcomes owed to something other than victimization and systemic White male bigotry?
Continue Reading at Alternative Right…
Matt Parrott
mindweapon
Most women aren’t interested in computer science, regardless of the fact that “programmer” used to imply a top-level female mathematician that in the old days used to hand calculate all of it by hand – it was far cheaper to hire a woman (or a man) than pay the fees for a super-computer that might be building-sized.
Currently there’s an article in the press about the Human Resource Department vs. the Computer Programmers. The Computer Programmers – as a career – was designed by the Human Resources Department to fit the stereotype – anti-social, nerdy, more interested in machines than people – precisely because the knowledge of computer programmers *threatened* the Human Resource – and the executives suite as well.
Richard Stallman took the idiot “open source” programmers for a ride – why give that knowledge away for free? Stallman’s “free software” idea must have cut programmer wealth by 80% minimum. Never trust a Jew.