Kelly Jones wrote:So the likely interpretation is that females simply aren't capable of highly logical thinking / programming (that is, unless it's a group activity where little original thought is required), or the females hit-on do actually want to be hit on but only by those they've selected after anonymous observation.
If there were many decent female programmers, they would naturally congregate, and the issue would probably be raised by at least some of them, that they had no interest in being hit on. This subgroup would realise that anonymous programming perpetuated the undesirable hits for females who gave their names publicly. As logical thinkers, this hypothetical collective would openly and explicitly request the behaviour stop, in a range of obvious ways. But this has not happened.
You're tarring the subject with your own brush Kelly. There's nothing stopping female programmers being highly logical in applying themselves to the nature of their job but doing so in no way implies that they will apply that logic to any other area of their life.
You chose a bad example in the first place as there is a particularly high incidence of females in programming, compared to the incidence in many other fields requiring a level of logical rigour. But in the end, just like the male scientist who uses logic all day long and yet only applies systematic thinking to life in general on a whimsical basis, so too female programmers can work with high levels of logical abstraction and yet never apply that systematic thinking systematically.
This brings me back to a point I made a while back: What people are caused to go through plays a larger part in their development than what they are caused to be capable of. Sure women in general are genetically disadvantaged in many aspects of the attributes required for high achievement but these genetic disadvantages don't render women completely incapable of high achievement as they are very much surmountable with the appropriate causal influences in life. As to whether they'll come across those appropriate causal influences is the larger part of it though, being as females are generally subject to an entirely different socialization process to males, a process less likely to predispose females to develop those high achievement attributes. Clearly though, more and more so these days, some and even many do. There is a high incidence of females in programming, a discipline requiring high levels of logical abstraction. Look no further than the likes of Ellen Macarthur for a female more driven, disciplined and more capable of single-pointed concentration than most males on the face of the planet. History is repleat with examples of women of integrity and constancy, if only because they stand out from the crowd so. And they're certainly not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever when it comes to being callous, crass and uncaring with regard to getting what they want.
Of course, such women will go on to high achievement and yet most will likely never apply those aquired attributes to the big questions, just like most men of high achievement won't. But if they manage to defy the minefield of female socialization and avail themselves of such attributes, they are just as capable (if not more so due to the greater degree of their struggle to get there) of addressing those big questions and following through on their conclusions.
In short, females are just as capable as males of developing many if not all aspects of the much vaunted masculine mindset required for wisdom. It's just that they're far less likely to go through the appropriate causal processes to produce it and then the appropriate causal processes to apply it to spiritual understanding. The point being that it's not a question of their being completely incapable. But I guess you already know this better than most.
