Computers are faster at doing math than humans, yet they need a human to operate them.
Something similar happens with women, who, in theory, have the intellectual capacity to do meaningful stuff, yet remain fixated on their vaginas and on social media unless a man inputs commands into their brains.
Understanding that women are software running on human hardware puts the findings of this study into context.
According to modern beliefs, the key to reducing gender bias in science is to increase the number of women in science. However, a new study by researchers at Colorado State University refutes this idea, finding that women still experience gender bias among peers. This holds true even in fields where they outnumber men and even when they consistently outperform them.
“The assumption has been that if you have the numbers, if you just increase the number of women, you won’t have bias,” explains researcher and professor Meena Balgopal in a university release.. “But we find that’s not the case.”
“Professor” Meena Balgopal
In physical science courses, the researchers say that women are outnumbered by men, but have higher GPAs and higher course grades. In fact, the study shows women are 1.5 times more likely to earn an A or A-plus than men.
Despite outperforming men, however, both women and men believe that men outperform women in physical science courses. Moreover, both men and women are less likely to seek help from a woman and less likely to perceive women as knowledgeable or the best in the class.
The findings for life sciences courses are similar, although the effect isn’t as strong. In life science courses, women tend to outnumber men and outperform them in terms of both GPA and course grades. In these courses, however, men are as likely to say that they’d seek help from a man as they are to say they’d seek help from a woman. They’re also equally likely to find men and women knowledgeable or the best in the class.
Women, conversely, are more likely to seek help from a woman and more likely to perceive women as knowledgeable.
While the results from life science courses may seem promising in terms of equality, it’s important to keep in mind that women outperformed men in the course. Thus, perceiving men and women as equal in the course is still an underestimation of women’s performance.
We could go into how the education system is set up in a way that benefits women’s learning process, which is based on memorization, repetition, and obeying orders, in contrast to men’s independent, hands-on learning process. We could also talk about how our cultural landscape is set up in a way that benefits women, while oppressing men.
But that still wouldn’t point people towards the elephant in the room: if women are so smart, how come they haven’t ever achieved anything of note without any men involved in the process?
The answer is quite simple. Women are just like computers. They’re dumb, but capable. They’re dumb in the sense that they need to be given explicit instructions in order to become useful, and they’re capable in the sense that once the instructions have been properly inserted into their brains, they can more or less manage a task.
Just as computers are useless without humans, women are useless without men. They do not have the spark of creation, or the drive to build, invent, and discover. They can ace all of your tests, yet their creations will never rival men’s.