xmas3.gif (5334 bytes)



Critique of AAUW "Study"


This may be the best article ever written which describes the difference in the way men and women "think". Needless to say, from our perspective, it proves that women don't "think" at all, but instead react emotionally, which makes women voters a real threat to society. It also proves that women should never be allowed to use our tax dollars to do "research". All that does is lend unwarrented credibility to their ridiculous foregone conclusions, which means that the unsuspecting public will continue to be led down the path which already placed us dead last in more TIMSS subjects than any other country.

The first glaring problem with this study is that the observations of the commissioners themselves are specious. Their complaint that "computers" don't have enough "rich narratives, engaging characters, opportunities to design or create within games, and strategy and skill requirements that go beyond blasting other characters" belies a profound ignorance of both computers and the internet. Once a computer is hooked up to the internet, which the vast majority of them are today, it has access to every "rich narrative", "engaging character", "design opportunity", and "skill requirement" ever developed by mankind. As they so aptly note, even women have gotten computer science degrees and purportedly have had the ability to develop whatever software they think their fellow women might desire. If something really is missing from this worldwide collection of programs and information, it would have been corrected the first day the first woman became a computer programmer. This is like standing on a mountain top and screaming "the world is screwed up"--a complaint which tells us nothing about the world and everything about the people screaming.

American women have been so successful at characterizing American men as "violent" that there is no reason for them not to extend the argument to computers. Having been so profitable for them, with millions getting "victim compensation awards" as millions of men were falsely convicted of sexual abuse, this put two thirds of the world's sexual abuse convictions and one third of the world's prison inmates in the US, which served the feminist agenda well. But it's time to question how many women have been killed, maimed, raped, assaulted, or even insulted, by a computer. The fact that women would communicate through a computer to a man somewhere on the internet and complain that "the internet" represents "misogeny" demonstrates a profound lack of intellectual integrity. But the fact that these commissioners would characterize a computer as containing "violence and aggression" is nothing short of a well-crafted LIE. Yes, some computer programs involve "shooting" an opponent, and, yes, some computers are used by some boys who use those programs, but 99.9% of the software available does NOT involve "shooting" an opponent, and even when that opponent is "shot", you couldn't ask for a less "violent" way for a teenage boy to release tension.

The biggest failing of this "study" is that it ignores the *essence* of computing--that competing with a computer program vastly improves your ability to use it. This complaint by the commissioners is tantamount to opposing driver education programs in high school because someone might have an accident--except that automobile crashes have serious consequences that computer crashes don't. The fact that these commissioners fail to note that it is the development of hand/eye coordination and spatial skills, and not "violence and aggression", that thrills boys about action computer games suggests that they haven't even played these games or watched boys play them. This by itself makes them patently unqualified to critique one single computer or one single program.

They completely missed or studiously ignored the point that this tendency of boys to explore and experiment with computers is exactly why boys score 91% in technical education, while girls score only 9%. How could they possibly hope to improve girls' computer skills even to 10% if they accept the specious arguments from girls which prevent them from learning and using them in the first place? To say "Instead of trying to make girls fit into the existing computer culture, the computer culture must become more inviting for girls" is to both condone these specious arguments and provide an excuse for girls to never learn computers. Why should they learn existing computers when "girl-oriented computers" are just over the horizon? Such mythical computers are just as fleeting as "unbiased SAT Math tests" or "girl-oriented chess boards", so promising them will do nothing less than assure that girls score 9% for the rest of eternity.