This especially.
No amount of knowing history will prevent humanity from repeating it. Fool’s errand.
3 Likes
Heavy labor yes, I would tend to agree. But building things is more than just about heavy labor. The internet is teaming with examples of women who have built successful businesses from the ground up.
1 Like
Absolutely correct. Human nature does not allow for learning vicariously.
All you ever get is the Analyst’s Cardinal Sin-“he zigged when any dumbass can see he should have zagged! He’s an idiot!”
It’s a fundamental attribution error. One that I believe is caused by fear. Somewhere deep inside, we all know it would have happened to us.
Nobody learns from history and we are all doomed to repeat it. Or benefit from it.
2 Likes
Hmm maybe (maybe) a separate course (althugh I believe hisotry teaches us a lot that is useful.)
But if you recall, when you learned astronomy (as part of 10th grade Earth Science) the first thing they did was to teach you the history of the field. You know Ptolemy and the Greeks and all the people who “got it wrong.” Apparently teaching it that way is the best way to “bring people up to speed.” It gets a lot of wrong ideas out of one’s head and , more importantly teaches one how to think about astronomy so that he can begin leanring it.
.
.
.
That btw, is the same way that is exactly the way Isaac Asimov, (the great Issac Asimov) taught chemistry. He even wrote two versions of “How we found about ATOMS” one for adults and one for kids.
I’d love to discuss the exact things he taught (e.g. Robert Boyle using a clear tube to squishing air into a confined space showing that there is space between the gas molecultes) and you could see how that really helps a person learn about chemistry.
Hmm sounds like you have learned something about the -->HISTORY<-- of woman in the workforce and you consider that -->KNOWELDGE OF HISTORY<-- to be useful.
Heck it even sounds like you wish others would learn history and apply the lessons of history. Like . . . it would be useful and we’d be better off if we knew that thing from history. 
1 Like
It is the best eay to fill in an hour twice a week from August to May.
Those voices you’re hearing-not from my posts.
It maybe could, that’s not how humans learn.
It’s interesting, not useful.
hmmm… Why didn’t women participate in the trades in 1770? Was it because Rosey the Riveter hadn’t been born? Or maybe… some other reason?
Why don’t they now?
Women do. The traditional trades are about 10 to 15% female nowadays, increasing every year.
Manufacturing employment - once exclusively men - is now 30% female. Ditto, engineering graduates.
No. They aren’t. Not even close.
I specifically mentioned trades along with hard labor. So we’re not just talking about those doing the heavy grunt work in construction but also welders, pipe fitters, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, HVAC, roofers, etc., etc. The women you are talking about who have built successful businesses are you claiming they physically built the factories (for example) that make their businesses possible?
You asked why women don’t participate in trades. I cited data showing they participate in those trades.
So all the women in those professions aren’t in those professions?
Absolutely not.
Where are you getting those numbers? It’s under 4%
1 Like
Engineers don’t build. They design.
4% is high. They’re counting women who “say” they’re doing it. DEI hires.
Rosie the riveter . . . They were working for men.
It sure looks like you hve learned something from history.
What if you had not learned that?
What if you had been taught, (and believed) the opposite.
Would you be worse off?
Are you better-off with this information?
I learned that she was working for men by working, not sitting in a classroom.
In the classroom, she saved the country.
Learn to recognize propaganda when you see it.
Do an image search for “Rosie the Riveter”, you see any ugly women?
The feminist movement fed women a line of horse manure.