a question to people of any ideology except political feminists:
do women need permission to enter a feild? if so why?
i was reading something a little while ago, which basicly said that the facebook founder’s girlfriend, by being the one who helped monetise the company, is basicly showing women that they can be Chief Operating Officers.
the idea that women would not just wait until market security before investment, as biologically inclined goes without saying, but that they go further to need some sort of permission by another doing it first just has me a bit flabbergast. also it seems like a strange character attack on female innovators by implying that they are not just rare for reason (biology) but also due to cheap and easy dogma which they aren’t the least bit resilient to.
now i get why- due to mating strategies and biology- why guys would be more often the innovators who go off on some random tangent, and who on occation have a great idea or create a technology (including ideology, or alliance) which imparts them with social power and esteem, which also means there is the capacity for them to provide resources. and i similarly get how without that kind of posturing and competition, one would not be as basally driven to extremes of accomplishment. and by extension it makes sense why women would take large but incomplete risks/gambles relative to men in most circumstances; reproductive value, and related afforded esteem.
but none the less, why would permission by precedence matter? why would a woman who has more sexual value than a man, need to see her potential actions as common or normal or expressed by others for her to take them?
more simply, why/how are women so vicarious in their interaction style, if women do infact need this social coddling?
i know women have unfathomable degrees of further group think than men do;like identifying as a gender- a group. but while i’d like to- i don’t grasp how a sentient person could base their reasoning on the capacity of other people of the same-identified group, let alone mirroring their actions/behaviours so much that you wouldn’t join something unless you see someone else do it and you will only do it that much.
this unfortunately ties into female leagues for sports, where, due to under-performance a seperate league is often made for women. it seems then, that the only way for women to enter a feild is for the most masculine female figures to pretend to be more common, so the other women can freely pursue their wants which they think may be deleterious to other more important desires. so in the competitive lower leagues there is an unfortunate contradiction where women are conditioned to want to not bruise their guy’s ego and thus feign lower competance which eventually becomes the truth, which then spreads among the group like a virus, and is maintained by self identity.
i wonder if a similar thing happens to men just from a human level of this, which is why the fastest men only preform at 1/3 what they are physically capable of; running 60 miles an hour. very few men/males use more than 1/5 of that capacity.
but why/what could legends provide beyond allegorical myth? and are these inspirational women legends to those they inspire, or is the group identity strong enough that in important ways the member is the interpreting woman herself. that is, like the object subject dichotomy, is there a vicarious self-metaphor where by witnessing a woman accomplish the spectator is also victorious?
does this grant greater personal bias? do women like personal stories more?
is it valid to say “how could i know without an example?”