That is because even though staring it in the face every day, you still don’t understand that it is politics that runs the world, not philosophers or Truth-seekers.
…and have been given funding by those unqualified, but with a financial/influential advantage… as long as what is revealed is what is preferred by those doing the funding. Liberal and feminist camps only pay for that which promotes liberal or feminist agendas.
ONLY when one leads and the other follows. Businesses that were constructed with 50/50 ownership and authority had something like a 70% failure rate due to unresolved conflicts. They don’t even do that any more. Now they separate which kind of authority each partner has. When they proclaimed that men and women are to have exactly the same authority in families, the divorce rate shy rocketed due to “irreconcilable differences”.
A 50/50 vote situation leads to an inoperative governing (which was the designed intent so as to create the “gray race”). And destroys truth-seeking entirely, “Nihilism”.
A: What are we going to have for dinner tonight?
B: I don’t know. What would you like?
A: Oh I’m not picky. Anything will do.
B: Well I’ll make us anything you want.
A: Well, I don’t want to put you to trouble just for me.
B: Well, I don’t want to make something that you didn’t want.
A: Well, you decide.
B: No, you decide.
.
.
A: I want to eat at Joe’s.
B: I want to eat at Denney’s.
A: I don’t like Denney’s.
B: I don’t like Joe’s.
A: Try Joe’s.
B: You try Denny’s.
.
.
.
Decisions require a common Process, a “Constitution” of one kind or another, else the group dissolves.
James, don’t call me an ignoramus. Of course I understand that. Politics always influences and funds.
I could at this point return the favor and say: You don’t understand that society beliefs/memes influence and control politicians and politics. Especially in diverse societies this causes fluctuations. In closed societies it causes stagnation.
But, I won’t imply you are ignorant.
So just remove the you don’t understand part in your head so that I don’t have to retype or play with copy paste. Ok?
Of course there has to be a leader but, only a poor leader fails to use or listen to the knowledge of those that are subordinate.
I’ll make a deal with you.
You don’t imply that you are and I won’t infer that you are.
How’s that?
I still doubt that you do. And this is why;
What is “causing stagnation” is the politics itself. And your argument is merely to add more to it, not to do anything that would curtail it.
You remove it for me. OK?
And what, there have never been “poor leaders” before? Injected women into Science BECAUSE they are women is going to cause leaders to be less poor? Sexism causes wisdom?
The suggestion in the OP isn’t about causing better leadership in Science.
It is about forcing current leaders to ignore their instincts and do as the government dictates.
James it’s best just to ignore Kriswest. She has proved a hassle and waste of time, adding nothing to the topic except distraction after distraction, and not a single reasonable argument or point on her behalf. Don’t waste your words on a brain like that. Just simply don’t respond. Only waste your time on people, men, who can actually produce real arguments, and not emotion after emotion.
Not once has anybody put forward good, honest, visible reasons why science needs more women.
What do women bring to the table of “science”? So far, all those “supporting” this, also do not give a single reason, I wonder why? Maybe it’s because science needs less women, and more old men.
The situation is that science has MORE MEN because of prejudice against men.
So we have MADE THIS HAPPEN by actively being more in favour of men!
The RIGHT QUESTIONS should be…
Does a football team NEED an equal number of males and females? (wrong example - physical properties ARE different between men and women)
Does the game of football NEED an equal number of males and females? (wrong example - physical properties ARE different between men and women)
Do companies NEED a larger number of male CEOs ?
Do countries NEED a larger number of male head of states ?
Does medicine NEED a larger number of males ?
Does art NEED a larger number of males ?
Does Science NEED a larger number of males ?
Prejudice is the problem here. Try to remember that. Don’t reverse the problem.
The politics in a closed nondiverse society stagnates due to inherited power and no to little competition to bring new ideas in, N.Korea is a prime example.
What the OP is about one point of view which I have pointed out is not mine. Just sticking uneducated minds into an area such as science is moronic.
I have not disagreed with what you say science needs, you are right but, its not the whole of needs.
I see that the technical areas are lacking vision, difference, innovation. The reasons for this is class/gender and hormonal limitations.
I have not said just stick uneducated unqualified women in just because they are women.
For some damn reason you seem to think traditionally trained minds will screw things up or you are just stuck on what others are saying.
Diverse input does not mean using it all. It means giving more options and options that might not otherwise be seen. One type, one view, one way, stagnates and does not progress in an optimum way.
I have never been an advocate of left liberal feminism just as I am not an advocate of its opposite. Both have done more harm than good to the sciences. Politics change when the voting public changes. Forums such as this one and others are allowing the average person to learn other ways, cultures, etc. The political blindfolds are falling apart with each new generation thanks to the internet. We are talking across borders to those that political parties have declared, they are this or that. When I was a kid, talking to a Russian would have been frowned upon. Not now.
No its not rambling(ok, maybe a bit rambling). It is a point about change, diversity and political control getting changed.
People are always suckers to give up what they have, not knowing what they are getting in return; “Give up all good because something might be bad within. Don’t check it out, just give it up. Something better always happens when you give up what you had.”
No, James clarifies reality. It’s people like you and Kriswest, blinded by your emotions and political interests, who distorts reality.
Provide ANY argument that “science” benefits from female participation. What does a woman bring to the table, that men cannot? Changing dirty diapers? Distracting REAL scientists, men, with low cut lab coats, exposing cleavage? Nagging? Gossiping? How does any of this “add” to science???
Of course I understand that. Politics always influences and funds.
