Will Women Become Extinct?

There is a country in the world somewhere which has a woman prime minister. Women also hold the posts of leader of the opposition, chief justice, attorney general and cabinet secretary. The mayor of the largest city is a woman, the leader of the Green Political Party is a woman and the biggest company is run by a woman. This country is now being called “a woman’s land”. But in this same country only 7 per cent of the engineers are women and about 20% of science jobs are done by women. I would guess that about 10 - 15% of the computer industry workforce is made up of women - the same percentage as most other countries in the world. President Bush is male but what if only 7% of the engineers in the U.S.A. were men? Look at it another way: What if only 20% of women in any society could read? What if only 7% could drive cars? If you look at the right statistics the numbers of female science graduates can seem quite impressive. There are certainly women out there who can do big sums. But I’m saying it’s too late for the mass of women and innumeracy and science illiteracy mean women are destined for the scrap heap. Am I right?

I have displayed a kind of innumeracy already. I should have said “what if 20% of the population in any society could read?”. And what if only 7% drove cars?

You need to get a perspective, pal. Women are life itself. Men are supernumaries. Women are the ones who pull families through hard times often with no help from men. Women are the reason the human race has thrived until now and they will be its future. Rather concern yourself with whether men will become irrelevant if they don’t make significant contribution to women’s lives.

You’re missing a part of the puzzle, ‘Nome (hi, how’re ya doin’? It’s been forever since last we’ve talked!). You’re forgetting that the number of women in the professional workforce is still increasing.

Meaning that ten years from now, there’ll be 30% of the science jobs held by women, instead of 20% (or something… I don’t have the exact rates of increase handy).

In either case, an increase or decrease of women in the workplace wouldn’t lead to them “going extinct”… I trust you were speaking figuratively with that?

Jomo: 'Nome’s not a guy.

Yes, Spoofe, and I see you’ve become a man in that time. Or maybe you’ve been to Goth grooming school or something. I’ll reiterate my beliefs like this: Everyone - man, woman, clone, child or cyborg who cannot handle maths or science is going to become part of an underling, serf class. Well over half of that class will be probably be made up of women. It’s too obvious to discuss really.

I think I see now. Some people just don’t keep up with the advances in technology, and because of this will fall along the wayside. Is this correct?

I think that it can be argued that women, generally, aren’t keeping up with technological advances (not that they can’t, they just don’t). At least, this has been the trend in the early days of the Technological Revolution… I don’t know how the numbers add up now.

The feminist movement largely came out of universities. Books like the Women’s Room and the Female Eunuch that were popular years ago would almost certainly have been impenetrable to working class or lower socio economic women. Feminists who speak for women are still a highly educated breed and they just don’t face up to the fates of lower class women. You’ll find a lot of women are still expected to respond to a computer the way typists in the 50s responded to their typewriters - they are still just typists. Word processing classes are attended almost exclusively by women but in web design classes women make up less than half the students and in programming - well it’s insignificant. Instead of all the self-congratulatory behaviour around these days women need to address stuff like that before it’s too late.

Do you honestly believe that men invented IVF and cloning so they could wipe out their own sex? Give me a break. Women can be as positive and congratulatory as they like but they surely cannot avoid the fact that men control science and technology. And it’s highly unlikely that men will ever use it in the service of their own redundancy.

“A country”? Why not spit it out, G.Nome, and say you’re talking about New Zealand in the OP?

They’re doing it, all right! Men, as you simplistically say, control technology. That means they also control the technology that belches out pollutants into the air, including heavy metals, which contribute toward the rising incidences of low sperm count in the Western world.

Hey – shouldn’t this be in GQ?

And this will lead to extinction how exactly … ?

Are you suggesting that once this technologically literate overclass assumes absolute overloadship they will inevitably use their power to exterminate the useless underclass, including all the women?

Doesn’t sound much like the human race I live in. More likely the evil techno-overlords would use their overwhelming power to turn all the women into sex slaves. The Handmaid’s Tale, anyone?

It should be anywhere you’re not you two-faced fantasist. And I don’t spit. Unlike you I have no taste for spitting.

I’ve never been to NZ although it sounds like a fascinating and extraordinarily beautiful part of the world. What sort of educational policy does this predominantly female government have? You got this American green with envy—I started a thread once on why can’t the United States get a woman president?.

I work in Washington, DC for a thriving tech startup company. My supervisor the VP is a Japanese-American woman. Our highest-skilled techie with all kinds of certifications is a black/African-American woman. Our web developer expert is a Jewish woman (and my favorite person to work with, very haimish). I’m struggling just to absorb a small fraction of the tech skills these strong women around me have mastered. This is a neat illustration of my vision of America Present and America Future.

So, G. Nome, maybe it’s a case of the grass is always greener . . . ?

Actually, men will use it in the service of getting women. So far it’s not working. (Chicks don’t want nerds. Chicks want hunky guys named Brad who drive cool cars.)

Men are simple. Women have nothing to fear from us.

Until men find a way to create an artifical womb that actually works, and they all decide that they’d rather have sex with other men, women have little to fear from extinction caused by men. Disease or famine on the other hand…

If you have to concoct some kind of lurid SF scenario before you can imagine a future full of subjugated women you’re missing my point (it’s easy to, I know). Women will become the losers of the future because the ones outside of the university system will probably remain largely innumerate and science illiterate. Innumerate men will join them at the bottom of society. I don’t believe for one moment that women are innately anti-mathematical. It’s all in the teaching and as far as I can see women are not getting taught.

I’d like to explain that I didn’t mean that working class women couldn’t understand seminal women’s literature. I meant to say that the concerns of some feminists are not those of ordinary women. A good example of that is how, in the 70s, French academic feminists flirted with the idea of hysteria. They wanted to “reclaim the hostile labels attached to rebellious or deviant women” and so they interpreted hysteria as being a good, feminist thing. Working class women with “hysteria” are treated like dogs. But if that’s ok with Gloria Steinem and co, well, what can you say? I do go on these days. I must stop. I am becoming tedious. I long for the old days, anyway, when Spoofe Bo Diddly used to call me disgusting names and everything I said was short.

If you have to concoct some kind of lurid SF scenario before you can imagine a future full of subjugated women you’re missing my point (it’s easy to, I know). Women will become the losers of the future because the ones outside of the university system will probably remain largely innumerate and science illiterate. Innumerate men will join them at the bottom of society. I don’t believe for one moment that women are innately anti-mathematical. It’s all in the teaching and as far as I can see women are not getting taught.

I’d like to explain that I didn’t mean that working class women couldn’t understand seminal women’s literature. I meant to say that the concerns of some feminists are not those of ordinary women. A good example of that is how, in the 70s, French academic feminists flirted with the idea of hysteria. They wanted to “reclaim the hostile labels attached to rebellious or deviant women” and so they interpreted hysteria as being a good, feminist thing. Working class women with “hysteria” are treated like dogs. But if that’s ok with Gloria Steinem and co, well, what can you say? I do go on these days. I must stop. I am becoming tedious. I long for the old days, anyway, when Spoofe Bo Diddly used to call me disgusting names and everything I said was short.

Could a moderator remove one of these please? I must be stopped.

Yes, G. Nome, you must, in fact, be stopped. I’m not worried about the double post, though, but about lines like

Now, if you want to spout illogical, half-baked theories in GQ, I’ll tolerate that. If, on the other hand, you want to spout unwarranted ad hominem attacks, then you will be stopped. Permanently, if need be. Got that?