Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Okeefenokee]

On a side note - anyone have advice for social engineering young girls to become STEMs? Just found out I have a daughter on the way

Congratulations man. First kid?

Yeah - first of two (hopefully).


Beware world, the spawn of Zlaxer

Put this in the baby shower registry,

https://membership.nra.org/Join/Life/pr ... 8gEALw_wcB

[GloryofGreece]

Googles STEM Women.....tons of chemists....why does Chemistry appeal to chicks more than Computer Science?

Chemists chicks way better looking than Comp Sci chicks...on average....

CS involves logic, something most women aren't good at.

Chemistry involves bonding (lol, "covalent bonds") which is something they relate more to.
Just like they try to hook up their friends in relationships, they want to hook up those atoms/molecules together.

This one is easy. Computer's are things whereas Chemistry can be construed as part of biology/life/people/animals etc. Women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things. That's also why "men" tend to be the ones that are psychopaths and Asperger types.

[TheReal_ND]

Implying women arent interested in things.

Entire houses full of things.

And more storage units stocked with things.


I get your point though. On an intellectual level women seldom seem interested in things.

[Okeefenokee]

Just got around to watching some stuff from this guy. Good stuff.

[Speaker to Animals]

Implying women arent interested in things.

Entire houses full of things.

And more storage units stocked with things.


I get your point though. On an intellectual level women seldom seem interested in things.

They generally aren't interested in how things work, though. They are excessively materialistic by nature, but they don't tend to care so much about how the material world actually works.

It's sort of like how women in the corporate world often possess very little concept of what actually advances the interests of the business and what actually constitutes a productive day. They are seeking the material rewards, certainly, but their metrics for success are more social in nature. The only way to keep them on track is to tie social rewards with objective metrics tied to actual business success, efficiency, and so forth. If you don't do that, you are going to get a lot of social justice stuff and feel-good metrics. That's a guarantee.

As far as their materialism.. when you look at the remains of human cultures deep in the paleolithic, you will find women were already obsessing over jewelry and other material things that don't advance the group's survival at all. These are clans of humans living on the edge of disaster every year, and the females are already wasting valuable time and resources to collect jewelry. Think about that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That’s probably because jewelry was a trade good, and literally, money.

Your other points may have some merit tho.

[Speaker to Animals]

That’s probably because jewelry was a trade good, and literally, money.

Your other points may have some merit tho.

And.. why would it be a trade good if not for women demanding them? You are like two steps away from realizing the truth about our species.

If women were the slightest bit like men, there is no fucking way jewelry would have much value in the deep paleolithic. What would matter is good flint, meat, weapons, etc. Things that keep you alive.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That’s probably because jewelry was a trade good, and literally, money.

Your other points may have some merit tho.

And.. why would it be a trade good?

If women were the slightest bit like men, there is no fucking way jewelry would have much value in the deep paleolithic. What would matter is good flint, meat, weapons, etc. Things that keep you alive.

Perhaps we weren’t as desperate as you picture.

Also, any man of importance would probably have worn jewelry, to signify his rank. It’s wasnt a casual thing simply for beauty, when it took weeks to craft by hand.

[Speaker to Animals]

That’s probably because jewelry was a trade good, and literally, money.

Your other points may have some merit tho.

And.. why would it be a trade good?

If women were the slightest bit like men, there is no fucking way jewelry would have much value in the deep paleolithic. What would matter is good flint, meat, weapons, etc. Things that keep you alive.

Perhaps we weren’t as desperate as you picture.

Also, any man of importance would probably have worn jewelry, to signify his rank. It’s wasnt a casual thing simply for beauty, when it took weeks to craft by hand.

Actually we really were that desperate. The genetic evidence is incontrovertible. At one point, the human species was down to less than twenty thousand people. Human clans must have gone extinct all the time.

If you look at primitive hunter-gatherer societies in existence today, the kind of adornments worn by men are usually rather simple. They might put wooden blocks in their lower lips, or sticks through their penises, etc. I am talking about straight-up jewelry in the paleolithic. Women actually had jewelry before we even had stone buildings. That should tell you everything about who actually controlled the species.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And.. why would it be a trade good?

If women were the slightest bit like men, there is no fucking way jewelry would have much value in the deep paleolithic. What would matter is good flint, meat, weapons, etc. Things that keep you alive.

Perhaps we weren’t as desperate as you picture.

Also, any man of importance would probably have worn jewelry, to signify his rank. It’s wasnt a casual thing simply for beauty, when it took weeks to craft by hand.

Actually we really were that desperate. The genetic evidence is incontrovertible. At one point, the human species was down to less than twenty thousand people. Human clans must have gone extinct all the time.

If you look at primitive hunter-gatherer societies in existence today, the kind of adornments worn by men are usually rather simple. They might put wooden blocks in their lower lips, or sticks through their penises, etc. I am talking about straight-up jewelry in the paleolithic. Women actually had jewelry before we even had stone buildings. That should tell you everything about who actually controlled the species.

Amazonian tribes in 2018 don’t wear jewelry, therefore European tribes 50,000 years ago didn’t either. Therefore jewelry is just for women.

You’re on a roll today.