> But women aren’t inventing, discovering or creating in proportion to their increased professional participation.
Do you have evidence to suport this? (Geniunely curious)
Why do you think that is the case? Just the fact that they are more likely to be part-time or not able to be fully committed into their field while also being a mother does not warrant them enough time/energy/x to achieve those breakthroughs?
Each year, more women obtain degrees than ever have before. Many are post graduate degrees. More women are participating in the workforce than ever have before. More programs exist to promote women into STEM fields than we've ever had in the past. Western culture worships the idea of the strong, independent, intelligent woman. Women are participating in professional life like they never have before.
But go do a patent search. How many women do you see on a few random patents? Go do a search on LLCs in your state. Pull up a few. How many women do you see as the registered agent? Go do a search on LinkedIn on a few big tech companies. How many of the engineers, scientists, or programmers are women?
You can argue that things are just still not equal, and won't be until 50% of all programmers, engineers, scientists, etc. are women. But the trendline is pretty obvious for anyone willing to look. As more women and fewer men participate, you get the results I described above.
There's a lot of reasons for this. The first order effect is that men's productivity goes down as they devote more time to child rearing. That's just reality. I'm not even saying it's a bad one, but it's a reality nonetheless. That happens more frequently as men are expected to pick up the slack as women spend more time in the workforce.
But the bigger second order effect is that, at a societal level, we have at least two generations where both parents worked full time. Instead of mom staying home to raise them, they were raised in day care centers or with parents who were always distracted by work, neither one of which was 100% devoted to child rearing. One parent devoted 100% to a child's development is much more impactful than two parents devoted 50% of the time.
A society full of devoted, involved, active mothers increases productivity, discovery, and economic growth. You get children who grow up well adjusted, ready to face hardship in adulthood. Ready to build the future. And you get a larger quantity of such kids because parents aren't worried about the marginal cost of one more kid at the day care when both parents work. And those kids go onto have their own well adjusted kids, and you get new inventions, discoveries, etc.
We are lying to young girls, telling them the best thing they can do is go to college and get a great paying white collar job. And then we scratch our heads as to why birth rates are plummeting, and why male participation in the work force keeps dropping, and why family formation continues to fall. We have propagandized these women into despising motherhood: the culture doesn't even call them mothers anymore, they're "birthing people."
There's the first order effect of less male participation in ways that drive progress in science, industry, and the arts when you increase the participation of women in the workforce. But these second order effects are huge, and no one even realizes that they're happening under the hood. The Albert Einsteins or even Rosalind Franklins of tomorrow won't be nurtured, or even born, in a society that functions like this.
Your post reminds me of another false vegan trope. Fish is bad for you since it is filled with cancer causing chemicals. Yet, the healthiest and longest living people on earth are fish consuming japanese and mediterraneans.
A healthy balanced diet. Not the unhealthy extreme vegan or carnivore diet. But the natural human diet that all humans have always eaten - omnivore diet.
Okinawan Japanese that had the long life span only ate 3% of their calories from animal meat (fish). And it certainly wasn't the shitty, polluted fish we get today.
All blue zones - areas with people living the longest - have similar diets. So you can eat meat and be healthy, literally one meal per month. That's it.
There is still a huge lack of information regarding long term (or even short term) exogenous Testosterone usage - and again, it's definitely not without risks or unforeseen circumstances - this is for both low and high dosages.
> As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer.
That... Doesn't make sense. What if the "button" (probably a jumper or connector on the motherboard) isn't normally accessible to the end user, like a lot of embedded devices? If it has a CPU, ROM, RAM and runs code it's a computer!
Do you have evidence to suport this? (Geniunely curious)
Why do you think that is the case? Just the fact that they are more likely to be part-time or not able to be fully committed into their field while also being a mother does not warrant them enough time/energy/x to achieve those breakthroughs?