According to the president of Harvard University men are better suited for science than women.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183495.stm)

Apparently that is not just his own opinion, but also research backs up this conclusion.

Is he right?

Dr Summers said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly because of child-minding duties.Not many people volunteer for public beatings.

Boys had achieved more top scores in tests than girls and the difference needed further investigation.Not in the UK. Over here, females tend to outperform males, at least at the age of 16.
I'll see if I can find some links on this.

girls at younger ages would the mature faster then boys. Not to mention with the state of things today guy's are made fun of and called nurds and geeks if they get good grades. On the other hand girls are cheered on.

Its a while since I discussed this with some friends, but if I remember correctly, the starting point is considering a bell curve of ability at science. Now, if you agree that for science you need a fairly logical mind, some numerical and other abilities, there is actually evidence to show that women have a lower tendency for these abilities. For example engineering, men on average have been shown to have greater spatial awareness, 3 dimensional thinking abilities, so if you can imagine 2 bell curves, one for men and one for women. They overlap, so that a percentage of women have greater spatial abilities that many men, but you can just about say that the average man has greater abilities in this respect than the average woman. But then it is silly to say that "Men are better than women" at subject X, because that is a blanket general statement and ignores the many women who are good at "X". Unfortunately I dont have a transcript of his actual words, then we could tell whether he should be tarred and feathered for stupidity.

Ahh, but things are as usual more complex than people would have you believe.

Take these for example:
"The view that there are differences between mathematical abilities in males and females, and that these abilities are due, in large part, to differences in spatial reasoning abilities (to the exclusion of social and affective explanations) is still prominent, and might even be called the received view3. To be fair, there is empirical support for this view (e.g., the Casey et al. study, and those listed in footnote 3). Yet, for decades, there has also been a substantial amount of research demonstrating a.) that spatial differences don't explain differences in math performance and b.) differences in both spatial and mathematical abilities vary greatly depending on the context and population studied."
http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/01/sex-differences-and-science-careers.html

"Point in Woman’s favor: they aren’t stupid enough to succumb to the ridiculous demands of the academic establishment.

But seriously, this isn’t a problem with women. This is a problem with the culture. We have a culture that says it is OK for the boys to shirk family responsibilities and invest time in their careers, but women who do the same are bad mothers. Women are penalized in ways that men aren’t for making a maximal effort in their careers, just as men are penalized for spending more time with their families.

Do you think Lawrence Summers looks on those high-level male scientists and engineers who are slaving away in the lab for 80+ hours a week, and wonders, “Why is that man neglecting his children?” Part of the problem is that we have administrators and peers who can gleefully apply that kind of career pressure without concern for their ability to function as well-rounded human beings"
http://pharyngula.org/

Research backs it? The research may only back up the influence of social factors that bring about these noticble differences in the first place.

When it comes to pure technical ability; men and women both are equal.

When it comes to applying this ability to real life applications; there are far more known male scientists and mathmaticians. Why? Good question...but really, how many women in the 50s were influenced to be thinkers whereas some of these brilliant scientists were achieving things at the same time and now they revel in their acquired fame for their decades of work.

I say give it another 30 years and the research should be done again.

When it comes to pure technical ability; men and women both are equal.

Equal, huh? Do you have any studies that can back that up? Or maybe even just anything. Personally, I could never believe a claim like that. It's too perfect. Equality.

Also, here's a link that shows proper use of semicolon.
Semicolon Link (http://www.virtualsalt.com/semicoln.htm)

It's likely for there are many reasons for the enormous disparity between the numbers of male and female scientists. It's true that men are encouraged to work more than women. Society has much higher expectations of men. It's true that women are encouraged to be at home taking care of children, and it's true that most women lack the mental facilities that men have.

Also, here's a link that shows proper use of semicolon.

If the president of Harvard University had declared that men were more suited to the proper use of the semicolon than men would we have been having a similar debate? :)
I rather think not. It would have been perceived as inconsequential. (So, come to think of it, two thirds of the posters on this forum would have debated it for that very reason!)
It would seem to me quite remarkable if women were to turn out to have the same abilities as men, on average. Since Science requires a variety of skills one would expect that in some, women are ahead of men, in others behind, and in some, practically the same. (All of these realting to average capability.) Nobody has mentioned the ability of women to multi-task with comparative ease. That could be a major benefit at the analytical stage of any research.
Movreover, the Sciences are not identical. There has been an emphasis on mathematics in the discussion thus far. Many of the sciences require only a rudimentary grasp of maths.
As TheMatrixIsReal observed, there has been a kneejerk reaction from some that it is reprehensible that the president of Harvard University should make such an obviously false statement. So, where are the clear facts in either direction? At present they are hugely distorted, as others have pointed out, by cultural pressures. But we should be open to the possibility that when this bias has been removed that one sex may prove to be more effective at science than the other. At present we cannot say which one it will turn out to be. Isn't keeping an open mind till the evidence is in and weighed, what science is about?

It would seem to me quite remarkable if women were to turn out to have the same abilities as men, on average

Agree.

Men are better than women at almost everything. It would be a complete shock to find out that women are equal at science.

Agree.
Men are better than women at almost everything. It would be a complete shock to find out that women are equal at science.
You have a few studies showing that?

Men are better than women at almost everything.
Men seem to have a recurrent problem in becoming pregnant and bearing children. They are pretty naff at mental multi-tasking. They are ineffective at reading emotions. They seem to have difficulty living as long as women. But I'm sure none of these are important, right?

Equal, huh? Do you have any studies that can back that up? Or maybe even just anything. Personally, I could never believe a claim like that. It's too perfect. Equality.

You show me otherwise. There are women who are brilliant at math, at science, there are women who can match men at cognitive ability...that is what I meant when I mentioned technical ability. We aren't talking about numbers here, we are talking about skill. I see no reason that there would be biological differences that would hinder women from having the same thought processing capabilities as men.


Also, here's a link that shows proper use of semicolon.
Semicolon Link (http://www.virtualsalt.com/semicoln.htm)

What is it with sciforum members and their anal obsession of grammer? Granted I suck at grammer but you understood the fucking english didn't you.



It's true that men are encouraged to work more than women. Society has much higher expectations of men. It's true that women are encouraged to be at home taking care of children, and it's true that most women lack the mental facilities that men have.


Did you even read the rest of my post?


Men are better than women at almost everything. It would be a complete shock to find out that women are equal at science.

Studies?

Why would it be such a shock to discover that men and women are equally capable of thinking scientifically? We're all human. That is part of our human nature. Humans would not have made it this far (from an evolutionary perspective) if primitive men AND women had not been very scientific.

I think most of us are aware that statistics and reseach, for example SAT scores, show that, in general, men are a better at math than females, and females are a better at language/reading comprehension. Math IS very important in the field of science. But it is not emphasized in schools nearly as much as the use of words. And from my experience I can tell you that no teacher has ever really inspired me to study math, or to like it. If a girl cannot keep up with her male peers in math class, it may discourage her, or if a boy is having trouble in an english class, it might discourage him, and it is impossible to excell in something that you don't understand, enjoy, or if you don't know how to apply to it to anything.

As for science...do you even know what science is??? It's a process of thinking. Not the blah facts compiled in textbooks. And passing science exams doesn't necessarily mean we are scientific. That means we can do what a computer does: process the information and regurgitate some answers, based on OTHER information. That's not being the open-minded and curious beings we ALL can be.

When discouraged and pressured to conform to what society wants you to be, it is not very easy to be open-minded. In the past, women have had this problem. Like sargentlard said, we should wait another 30 years before jumping to the conclusion that women suck at everything. lol

Albert Einstein was scientific. He did not have the highest IQ of all the physicists of his time, and his weak subject, surprisingly, was math. But he was very inquisitive and practical. The hardest thing is not ANSWERING a question. It's to ASK good questions, and then the answer becomes evident. Anyone can question. That is science.

Men are better than women at almost everything ???? WHAT? That was really blunt! A huge assumption like that and no supporting facts in your post.

Why would it be such a shock to discover that men and women are equally capable of thinking scientifically? We're all human.

Apparently it would shatter apendrapew's world.

It's too perfect. Equality.

Says a lot about you.

Everyone is different, and if women are better at verbal and men are better at math then who cares, it's not like in the big picture one is somehow "better" than the other, just different.
Almost exactly, except that in order to avoid misunderstanding you have to rephrase more like:
"and if on average over the entire population it looks like according to the small amount of study that has gone into this, that men are a little better at mechanical aptitude tests under these current cultural conditions, so what?"

What is it with sciforum members and their anal obsession of grammer? Granted I suck at grammer but you understood the fucking english didn't you.

Relax man. It wasn't intended as an insult; I was merely trying to help. I guess this is the thanks I get. :mad:



Men are better than women at almost everything.

First, is there anyone who disagrees with me? All I've gotten is so far is, "Prove it!"

I don't know why I have to defend this claim, but here goes.

Sports. Mainstream sports show that men are faster, stronger, tougher, more coordinated, have better perception of the four dimensions, and have better focus than their counterpart. That is why men do not play against women. If the best professional female basketball team played the worst professional male basketball team, the men would destroy the women. No contest. Also another thing to consider: testosterone makes men competitive. Even if men and women had the same strength, speed and all that, men would want to win more and thus be more inclined to win.

What about less physical persuits? I read in my psychology text book a year ago about chess tournaments. Those too are gender segregated. It's not fair for men to compete with women. Why? Because men are way better at it.

Ask yourself this. How do you think the qualities that make men superior in competitive events translate in the real world?

I'm not saying men are better than women. Not at all. I'm saying men are better than women at almost everything. Why can't you see this?

Personally, I think your argument is very unintelligent. Yes, male and female minds and bodies are different. They have different roles. That doesn't make one better than the other....maybe you think it does but it is certainly not fact, it's opinion.
Anyway, I read on ABC news about the differences in the male and female brains and this is what it said: males' brains are generally larger by 100 grams, probably due to the fact that they are larger in body size, but women have more synapses. While in the womb, the male fetus's brain development is somewhat inhibited in certain areas by testosterone, and stimulated more than a female's developement in others. It has been proven that most men are a better at math, and females better at language, but that does not mean females are innately mathematically CHALLENGED.

The reason that men are better at sports is because of their body structure, and muscle mass. If a male mind with no experience in athletics was to be put into a female body (also with no experience in athletics), he would not perform better than the female could.

And an idea of my own (just a thought): I think that because, like you said, testosterone makes men more aggressive, this MUST, of course, have something to do with the brain. Do you know what causes aggression? Fear. And fear is caused when we don't understand something. When our minds are closed in some way. Often when men are cocky, they're covering up an insecurity. They will never admit that they are insecure, or that they are wrong, BECAUSE they are insecure. I think it is more likely for a girl to realize that she is shy because she is afraid of rejection, or whatever it is. Females are more open with their emotions. They seem to have better intrapersonal skills. I think that has something to do with the absence of testosterone. It makes sense, doesn't it? But, of course, that's just a guess. And I don't mean to say that all men are like that.

Personally, I think your argument is very unintelligent. Yes, male and female minds and bodies are different. They have different roles. That doesn't make one better than the other....maybe you think it does but it is certainly not fact, it's opinion.
Who claimed one was "better than the other"?
People are claiming that one is "better than the other at certain things", which you said yourself...

It has been proven that most men are a better at math, and females better at language
So, if it IS true that males are better at math, better at spacial reasoning and better at critical reasoning, wouldn;t it stand to reason that they would be better at sciences?
It certainly would stand to reason that they are better at most fields of engineering.

but that does not mean females are innately mathematically CHALLENGED.
Who said they were?
I think you are allowing your defensiveness get in the way of reason... wait... are you a woman? ;) (sorry, couldn't resist)


And an idea of my own (just a thought): I think that because, like you said, testosterone makes men more aggressive, this MUST, of course, have something to do with the brain. Do you know what causes aggression? Fear. And fear is caused when we don't understand something. When our minds are closed in some way. Often when men are cocky, they're covering up an insecurity. They will never admit that they are insecure, or that they are wrong, BECAUSE they are insecure. I think it is more likely for a girl to realize that she is shy because she is afraid of rejection, or whatever it is. Females are more open with their emotions. They seem to have better intrapersonal skills. I think that has something to do with the absence of testosterone. It makes sense, doesn't it? But, of course, that's just a guess. And I don't mean to say that all men are like that.
Exactly!
That's the whole point.

Females very well may be more inclined to excel at intrapersonal skill and males may be better in sciences.
There is NOTHING wrong with that.
In fact, it's what, in my opinion, make women better leaders.

Boys and girls are different.
Isn't that quite obvious to everyone?
Does that mean that women should not be allowed to enter the sciences or be fire fighters?
Of course not.
Does it mean that, men will generally excel at some things and women will excel at others.
Obviously.

David Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire, said this:
Another facet of the ideological resistance is the belief that acceptance of evolutionary psychology will cause people to become hopeless about the possibilities of change. As I said earlier, that's also an error as more knowledge of our evolved mechanisms will help change - if you want to change. You could argue that ignorance of these mechanisms is disastrous for the possibilities of change. A third aspect of resistance - which is only in part ideological - is that many people are committed to equality, and yet there's the notion that we value people differently. In my work on mating there's a very profound message that says, "well actually, we have evolved mechanisms for valuing some individuals differently than others". Or, Eugene Burnstein uses the example of a burning building where you only have time to rescue one person - your brother, your cousin, your next door neighbour - who do you save? The responses are very predictable with kin: the higher the degree of relatedness the more likely you are to engage in dangerous forms of helping behaviour. That says that people have intrinsic qualities, and that we have evolved mechanisms for valuing some individuals highly and other individuals not at all. That violates the democratic assumption that people want to have.

the evolutionist: Is that another evolved mechanism?

Buss: I don't know. In this respect I've had success in communicating my work to people who are less educated. I think - and this may slide off into another source of resistance - the resistance to evolutionary thinking is correlated with the number of years of education you have, at least in America, in the social sciences. In my opinion, what is taught in main stream social science to millions of people across the United States is outrageous: that there are no sex differences; that everything's arbitrary; and that we're blank slates on which culture, our parents and our teachers write the contents. I think it's awful that the teachings that are now known to be wrong - the myths of social sciences - are perpetrated on people. The more years of education you have the more they cling to these myths. I've actually been thinking about a book called "The Myths of the Social Sciences", exploring the myth of culture as a causal explanation. But I don't think they're necessarily evolved mechanisms: when I talk about sex differences to people who haven't gone to college they don't have any problems with the idea - they've observed them themselves. Even when you talk about selection, they have no trouble grasping the idea. There's a certain amount of 'educational inertia'.
There's a joke that says "if a social scientist witnesses something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then he says it's a social construction of a duck". What we're saying is: there are ducks. They have describable features. Not everything is a social construction in the mind of individuals. That's not to say that we don't socially construct things; just that the things we socially construct are not arbitrary.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/evolutionist/buss.htm

He has taken a bit of heat for his reasearch into gender differences. His book is a good read, I recommend it.

One problem with these sorts of discussions is that our culture tends to value the things men are better at, and devalue the qualities that women tend to be better at. This isn't true in all cultures.

There are biological differences in the genders. Research into evolutionary psychology continues, in spite of attacks from dogmatists.

Interesting. I've always considered science odd because there doesn't seem to be clear male domination.
There seems to be as many ladies in white coats as men. At least a lot of ladies.
It's not like sports where men are so much better that women get their own little leagues out of pity which no one pays attention to.

But then, I'm just thinking of the lower scientists, people fiddling around with test tubes analysing cells. I think thats a pretty even field gender wise.
But yeah, all the outstanding scientists that made a real difference and will live forever in human history were male I suppose.
Women are better than men at popping infants out of their vaginas in my opinion. I truely believe that to be the case.
Also better at cleaning.... actually, men probably would be better at cleaning if they could stand to degrade themselves down to that demoralising level.
They're better at cooking... hmmm, no, this is another case of being the only ones who will do it, men are actually better at cooking in the purest sense.
Ummm women are better at getting fucked by dicks, and massaging men.
Being looked at.... not-fighting ... ahhhummm.... did I say getting fucked by dicks?
They're good at alot of things when you think about it.
They're good at doing what men don't want to do.

You know, I like to understand animals by understanding the demands in their ancestry.
What have men needed to do in order to be sexually successfull? Alot. They've needed to stand out from the crowd with superior hunting abilities and fighting abilities, they've needed to be strong willed, determined, courageous, ingenius, creative....
Men have been tested by women through the ages.
Women have needed to put out. They've needed to look good. They've needed to be desirable in ways which really didn't assist them in becoming more competent or self reliant animals. They're like flowers, they've evolved to be appealing, to lure bees over to dip their fat abdomens into them.

The sexual dimorphism in humans has really been one of function vs form, rather than big vs small, or hunter vs fighter.
Women have evolved to look good, men have evolved to function well.

:cool:

I know this will open me up for attack, but after Lou's post, I feel pretty safe saying this.
Thanks, Lou. ;)

People will always argue chicken or egg, but this is what I believe.
There is ample evidence of matriarchal communities in our distant past.

Women are better at the things they have evolved to be better at.
They are better caregivers.
As I said earlier, they are better leaders.
Men hunted and gathered, women took care of the young and managed the social aspects of inter-familial relations.
When the men were off doing the "masculine things" women stayed back, cooked, cleaned took care of the kids and handled diplomatic relations with the other women.

The more aggressive and strong men were the better off they were.
The better women were at being diplomatic, the better off they were.
Men had to win the favor of women by many means (such as being string enough to bring food home) and had to make them feel secure.
Eventually the males (testosterone and all) became too aggressive for their own good and subdued the women.
They began to devalue the contributions the women made and realized that women could be controlled by use of their superior strength.
Women lost the power they had (men realized that they didn't have to win their favor, when they could simply control and rape them, essentially) and men began to rule.
Men, being the testosterone pumps that they needed to be to survive the wars and hunts, had no sense of diplomacy and when they usurped the power of the women warring became the new diplomacy.

Now we are here.
We are just beginning to realize that there is no place for war in a civilized society because it offers no security (especially with the advent of weapons systems in the last century), and men are still the ruling elite and still enslave women (only with women's consent now).
After all these centuries of constant warfare forcing us backward in social evolution, we are almost at the beginning again where women started.
The question is where we go next.

Yeah, I know, I went off on a wide tangent again.
I'll shut up now.

The statement has been inaccurately expressed. If he had said: "Statistically it appears that more men than women show the qualities required for scientific research." no-one would object. However, to use the assumption that a randomly chosen man is going to be "better suited for science" than a randomly chosen woman as a means of awarding scholarships or appointing people to jobs would be absurd.

Nancy Hopkins, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the academics who walked out of the conference.

She said that, had she not done so, she "would have either blacked out or thrown up".
Now THAT is the pathetic, closed-minded, reactionary crap that keeps science from progressing.
How could she possibly judge this person and what he had to say if she wouldn;t even listen?
And why didn't she listen?
What he was saying was not politically correct.
That's the kind of crap that makes me sick and has NO PLACE in science!

Unfortunately, it seems the speech was given extemporaneously, so there are no notes extant of what was said. Which is annoying.

One raven:
"Now THAT is the pathetic, closed-minded, reactionary crap that keeps science from progressing.
How could she possibly judge this person and what he had to say if she wouldn;t even listen?
And why didn't she listen?
What he was saying was not politically correct.
That's the kind of crap that makes me sick and has NO PLACE in science!"

Except she wasnt walking out because it was politically incorrect, but because she disagreed graetly with it. Obviously she did listen to enough of it, but given it was a speech rather than a scientific paper, and that all he apparently said was it was supported by evidence, its not exactly a situation where you can do any science.

Thersites- you are a voice of reason in an otherwise rather silly thread.

Apendrapew:
"Sports. Mainstream sports show that men are faster, stronger, tougher, more coordinated, have better perception of the four dimensions, and have better focus than their counterpart. That is why men do not play against women. If the best professional female basketball team played the worst professional male basketball team, the men would destroy the women. No contest. Also another thing to consider: testosterone makes men competitive. Even if men and women had the same strength, speed and all that, men would want to win more and thus be more inclined to win."

And outside sports women are better at surviving, they burn less energy than men in staying alive, and are good at working for long hours, whereas men more easily burn out after a shorter time.


Apendrapew:
"Ask yourself this. How do you think the qualities that make men superior in competitive events translate in the real world?

I'm not saying men are better than women. Not at all. I'm saying men are better than women at almost everything. Why can't you see this?"

Because your statement is ludicrously shallow. You have listed only things that are valued by yourself. This leaves out all the things valued by women and other people that are not valued by yourself and at which the "average" woman is better than the "average" man. Would you include Bingo and knitting in this, given that they are "feminine" areas of expertise?

Repoman and one_raven have pointed out the more nuanced and more reasonable way of looking at this, which is not the same as your short sighted claim that men are better than women at most things.

Perhaps we could steer this thread onto what actual differences there are between the sexes, and I mean actual statistically important ones that have been checked out against cultural factors as well, since cultural factors were the number one reason why there were so few femal scientists a hundred years ago. Now that pressure has lessened somewhat, but its still there.

For example, the whole spatial ability thing. As far as I understand it, many men are actually worse than a lot of women at it. Does that mean they arent men? Or merely that we have identified a selection of traits, plotted them on a line, and because their distribution in the population is slightly sex specific, (eg. nurturing) said "That one is masculine, and that one is feminine". Can you all not see the limitations in that approach, when you are trying to look at ensuring most people manage to do what they are best at and have a good life?

You seem to think I don't understand that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Men are better at math, women are better at language, men are better at logic, women are better at perceiving emotions, men are left hemispherical, women are right hemispherical, blah blah. Trust me, I understand that. But it doesn't change anything.


Because your statement is ludicrously shallow. You have listed only things that are valued by yourself. This leaves out all the things valued by women and other people that are not valued by yourself and at which the "average" woman is better than the "average" man.

Strength, agility, toughness, spatial perception and coordination have no bearing in the outcome of a person's success? Those are characteristics valued only by apendrapew? Really...


Would you include Bingo and knitting in this, given that they are "feminine" areas of expertise?

You brought up a good point. When I said that men are better than women at virtually everything, I meant everything that matters. Who gives a shit about Bingo? Really.

When I said that men are better than women at virtually everything, I meant everything that matters. Who decides what matters?
Who gives a shit about Bingo? Really....or american football?

Who decides what matters?

Society. Capitalism.


...or american football?

Hundreds of millions.

You seem to think I don't understand that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Men are better at math, women are better at language, men are better at logic, women are better at perceiving emotions, men are left hemispherical, women are right hemispherical, blah blah. Trust me, I understand that. But it doesn't change anything.
You dont seem to understand that saying "Men are better at maths" would get you killed by the numerous women I know who are probably better at maths than you are (university level and above). Simply saying that "men are better at maths ignores individual differences, and it is these that count in individual "success".




Strength, agility, toughness, spatial perception and coordination have no bearing in the outcome of a person's success? Those are characteristics valued only by apendrapew? Really...
Success at what?



You brought up a good point. When I said that men are better than women at virtually everything, I meant everything that matters. Who gives a shit about Bingo? Really.
Matters to whom? Bingo matters to the people who play it and the people who sell it.

You dont seem to understand that saying "Men are better at maths" would get you killed by the numerous women I know who are probably better at maths than you are (university level and above). Simply saying that "men are better at maths ignores individual differences, and it is these that count in individual "success".

We're talking about men and women. Not individuals. I know I would get killed by many women *you* know at math. Even if I were good at it.


Success at what?

Social success, economic success, success at procreating. You know, the normal things.


Matters to whom? Bingo matters to the people who play it and the people who sell it.

Yes. Not many people in the grand sheme of things.

Research backs it? The research may only back up the influence of social factors that bring about these noticble differences in the first place.



Nah, all the reaseacrh these days is indicating that males develop hormonally in a way that grants them superior spatial intelligence. Here's a good detailed journal article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=9

Nah, all the reaseacrh these days is indicating that males develop hormonally in a way that grants them superior spatial intelligence.
If research showed that all males showed superior spacial intelligence to all females and that superior spacial intelligence was the prime requirement for scientific skills this would be useful. It doesn't.
An interesting- but unscientific, i agree- example of male superior skills being socially induced is the Polgar sisters. Chess, like mathematics and science- was thought of as an area where male skills were inherently greatly superior. Their father trained the Polgars to be very good chess players; one, Judit, was among the best ten in the world at one time. Perhaps males are more likely to have the qualities that make people able to acquire the qualities needed to be good at science and/or the desire to work intensively at it. How far those qualities are acquired or inherited is another matter.

Society. Capitalism. [decide what matters] ...and they decide otherwise when it suits them.




Hundreds of millions[of people give a shit about american football]. Hardly. how many countries play american football? How many people live in those countries? How many people in those countries are interested? Globally, far more people are interested- and actively interested- in bingo.

If research showed that all males showed superior spacial intelligence to all females and that superior spacial intelligence was the prime requirement for scientific skills this would be useful. It doesn't.


I don't think any of the research is meant to prove that all males have superior spatial intelligence to females, just that they generally do. And spatial intelligence is the basic form of thinking used in core sciences like physics and chemistry. Biologically, women on average will not be as good as men in fields like engineering and architecture. However, women have superior intuitive, reading and verbal skills, making them better at a whole host of things. It's just a matter of brain wiring.

There is a very good reason that the vast majority of racecar drivers are male, and the vast majority of translators are female.

One thing women are generally good at is talking, in particular about feelings, 'he said/she said', and lipstick tint.

What women lack is the honest to goodness testosterone-fuelled urge to compete and BEAT that almost all men possess. That, along with their inherent disadvantage in any subject not related to gossip, fashion style etc are pretty much the only things holding them back from earning equality.

Which moves me nicely on...women want equal treatment, but this would be foolish, because they are NOT equal. As someone here already said, if they want equality, I will look the other way the next time some female is being shoved in an alleyway by a man much smaller than myself. Hey, she could be a Karate expert, how would I know she isn't lulling her mark into a false sense of security?

:)

You can guess I'm being a tad tongue-in-cheek about all this, but you get the gist; until you start injecting female foetuses with Testosterone and subtly stimulating the area of their brains responsible for spatial co-ordination, you will NEVER achieve parity in any field between men and women.

One more thing...UK schoolboys WHIP UK schoolgirls at Physics and Chemistry. Biology pass marks for boys are also higher, but this is a tad more even...not surprising, girls have less trouble because of the less abstract subject matter.

Jaybee.

until you start injecting female foetuses with Testosterone and subtly stimulating the area of their brains responsible for spatial co-ordination, you will NEVER achieve parity in any field between men and women.


Jaybee.
The question is not of "parity in the field" but of whether "men are better at science than women". An absolute and unqualified claim applying to all men and all women. How far science has been defined and determined by the fact that ist is a "male" area studied in allegedly male ways and how far women are "womanly" because they're encouraged to be are other matters, but the statement itself isn't true.

The question is not of "parity in the field" but of whether "men are better at science than women". An absolute and unqualified claim applying to all men and all women. How far science has been defined and determined by the fact that ist is a "male" area studied in allegedly male ways is another matter and how far woimen are "womanly" because they're encouraged to be are other matters, but the statement itself isn't true.


What an Ivory Tower answer. You want a true statement?

Most women in Scandinavia - a bastion of 'equal' rights if ever there was one - gravitate regardless to the talky-feely subjects and lines of work because their brains are structured to handle the same. They're not discouraged from becoming Physicists; they just can't handle, in the main, PHYSICS.

The only 'ologies' that most women are good for are Sociology, Psychology, and Child Caring- OLOGY.

:)


Jaybee.

What an Ivory Tower answer. You want a true statement?
Ivory Tower? You think "ivory tower" is a suitable description to apply to exactness and precision? Your "statement" isn't true actually:

Most women in Scandinavia - a bastion of 'equal' rights if ever there was one - gravitate regardless to the talky-feely subjects and lines of work because their brains are structured to handle the same. They're not discouraged from becoming Physicists; they just can't handle, in the main, PHYSICS.Accepting, purely for the sake of argument, that women in Scandinavia "gravitate to the talky-feely subjects" there are a great many possible explanations. Asserting, without evidence, that this is because "their brains are structured to handle the same" is not a logical assessment of the situation. Most people, men or women, "can't handle, in the main, PHYSICS" [or, for that matter, physics]. However, assuming that no-one can do it is a mistake.
The only 'ologies' that most women are good for are Sociology, Psychology, and Child Caring- OLOGY.

:)


Jaybee.Which is more than most men are good for if, in fact, it is true.

Most women are great at science! Take the science of astrology/horoscopes as the main example!! (joke)

A lot of women probably don't find science as interesting because for them it provides intellectual stimulation rather than emotional stimulation.

The women whoever that are in studying in my science (psychology/neuroscience)degree outnumber the men in the psych subjects and are intelligent and logical, so I have great respect for them.

Women who dig science and computers rock and thank truth for them.
They'll hold my attention far longer than some bimbo with a "magazine" with "horoscopes" in it.

"Hey what's your star sign?"
"As a man of science I am offended by your blasphemy."

A lot of women probably don't find science as interesting because for them it provides intellectual stimulation rather than emotional stimulation. Equally true of a lot of men, including- interestingly- men who believe [rather than think] unqualifiedly that men are better than women at science.



"Hey what's your star sign?"
"As a man of science I am offended by your blasphemy."Not if you were Isaac Newton, though, who didn't think believing in star signs was blasphemy.

Equally true of a lot of men, including- interestingly- men who believe [rather than think] unqualifiedly that men are better than women at science..

We are. The only women working at any kind of upper level in biotech industry are the ones on the 15th floor in the Boardroom - pouring the coffee.


Jaybee

Men may tend to go into science more, but that doesn't mean they're better. Among all scientists, the female ones are just as good. Women tend to be less egotistical as well, so they work better in groups, but that means they tend to get less credit for their work.

Among all scientists, the female ones are just as good.

An uninformed guess. I can tell you there are extremely few female Physicists and Chemists at the upper echelons of their professions, they are outnumbered here over 100-1, whereas at graduate level it's around 20-25 to 1. This is not because of some imaginary 'glass ceiling' that feminists invented to mask the inferiority of the female mind in science; the real reason is inferiority of the female mind in science.


Women tend to be less egotistical as well, so they work better in groups, but that means they tend to get less credit for their work.

Women are less egotistical because they lack Testosterone. Ego is good.


Jaybee.

I know many scientists, since my father has been one for more than 30 years. So, I'm not exactly uninformed. I did say there might be fewer female scientists, but the ones who do go into science are just as or more accomplished than many men, because they have to prove themselves in a male dominated industry. The overall ratio of male to female scientists doesn't say anything about how good they are at science. I know one female scientist in particular who,


has developed an extremely sensitive nanoscale device that could shrink ultra-high-density storage devices to record sizes. The magnetic sensor, made of nickel and only a few atoms in diameter, could increase data storage capacity by a factor of a thousand or more and could ultimately lead to supercomputing devices as small as a wristwatch.

Smart gal, and the US is not even in her native country.

I know many scientists, since my father has been one for more than 30 years. So, I'm not exactly uninformed. I did say there might be fewer female scientists, but the ones who do go into science are just as or more accomplished than many men, because they have to prove themselves in a male dominated industry. The overall ratio of male to female scientists doesn't say anything about how good they are at science. I know one female scientist in particular who,



Smart gal, and the US is not even in her native country.

Well, there we are. No chance of it having been your MOTHER who was the scientist for 3 decades.

Anybody who goes into the industry has to "prove" himself (oh, sorry, in true feminist style let me instead use the neutral 4th persons to gramatically neuter what in all overwhelming probability is a bona fide male and refer to him as, THEMself), and females have proven themselves unable to match men in either numbers or per-person achievement.

The self-delusion on this site regarding women is staggering.


Jaybee.

Women have almost identical brains as men, the difference in their scientific accomplishments can be entirely explained by cultural prejudice, and perhaps the responsibilities of motherhood. A brief search on google turned up these accomplished female scientists, and there are many others.

Rosalind Elsie Franklin (1920-1958) Pioneer Molecular Biologist
Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, OM (1910-1994) A Founder of Protein Crystallography
Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1906-1992) Pioneer Computer Scientist
Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906-1972) Nobelist in Physics
Helen Sawyer Hogg(1905-1993) Astronomist
Rozsa Peter (1905-1977) Founder of Recursive Function Theory
Emmy Noether (1882-1935) Creative Mathematical Genius
Lise Meitner (1878-1968) First Theoretical Explanation of Fission
Lillian Moller Gilbreth (1878-1972) Mother of Modern Management
Annie Jump Cannon (1863-1941) Theorist of Star Spectra
Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace (1815-1852) Analyst, Founder of Scientific Computing
Sophie Germain (1776-1831) Revolutionary Mathematician




Ego is good.
You need it, if you had an realistic view of your own idiocy, you would surely kill yourself. You must be from India, they're the worst. I guess when you no longer have to collect cow patties from the streets to sell, you think you're hot shit.

Women have almost identical brains as men,

Apart from reduced musculature, and a few dangly things you seem to have only recently discovered, the same is true of womens bodies. But of course, the little things count...at least, that's the case I'm sure you've made often enough to said gender...


the difference in their scientific accomplishments can be entirely explained by cultural prejudice,

Explain Sweden, then, and before you spout, "Oh but they have cultural prejudice in Sweden!", consider that they actually have a similar gender distribution in their scientific community to Iran. Explain, in two societies with VASTLY differing attitudes towards women, just how it should be that female participation in science should be almost the same.

I await your answer with great amusement in advance, speculating at your doubtless feminine attempts to cling to some, ANY shred of reasoning to subsidise your tottering grasp of reality.


and perhaps the responsibilities of motherhood.

Oh great, as if supporting a wife AND a child during the next 9-12 months single-handed wasn't hard enough...


A brief search on google turned up these accomplished female scientists, and there are many others.

Rosalind Elsie Franklin (1920-1958) Pioneer Molecular Biologist
Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, OM (1910-1994) A Founder of Protein Crystallography
Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1906-1992) Pioneer Computer Scientist
Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906-1972) Nobelist in Physics
Helen Sawyer Hogg(1905-1993) Astronomist
Rozsa Peter (1905-1977) Founder of Recursive Function Theory
Emmy Noether (1882-1935) Creative Mathematical Genius
Lise Meitner (1878-1968) First Theoretical Explanation of Fission
Lillian Moller Gilbreth (1878-1972) Mother of Modern Management
Annie Jump Cannon (1863-1941) Theorist of Star Spectra
Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace (1815-1852) Analyst, Founder of Scientific Computing
Sophie Germain (1776-1831) Revolutionary Mathematician

Never heard of any of them. It's also notable that these lab assistants are all dead and famous for precisely nothing.




You need it, if you had an realistic view of your own idiocy, you would surely kill yourself.

Another poor, emasculated fuck of the 90's. That's the trouble with university bookworms, you're indoctrinated that women want your pc ways, but you chase and chase, and get to 45, alone, wondering why all the good looking sisters-in-arms from your campus days are now getting fucked night after night by Hedge-Fund managers.

Go away. I've wasted enough time with your type before, bring back 'Thersites'.


Jaybee

There are few women going into boxing too, but I bet the ones that do could kick the average man's ass.

If you want to compare Sweden to Iran, I would suggest that the difference is not that great. Iran is a modern country, with similar expectations as to what careers are appropriate for women. Sure there are differences like the veil and such, but those are superficial.


...but you chase and chase, and get to 45, alone, wondering why all the good looking sisters-in-arms from your campus days are now getting fucked night after night by Hedge-Fund managers.
I had them when they were young, they loved the sensitive artistic type, and left them before they got fat, bitter and desperate, at which point (if they are drunk enough) they might even consider you. Besides at 34, I still get college girls.

Perhaps it's not the culture of society in general, but the culture among science teachers that is most important. It sounds like a boys club of undersexed nerds that look at every girl as an opportunity to prove their manhood. You don't have to wonder that the poor girl, who is probably shy and nerdy herself would be totally repulsed- badly enough to consider another major.

Its a while since I discussed this with some friends, but if I remember correctly, the starting point is considering a bell curve of ability at science. Now, if you agree that for science you need a fairly logical mind, some numerical and other abilities, there is actually evidence to show that women have a lower tendency for these abilities. For example engineering, men on average have been shown to have greater spatial awareness, 3 dimensional thinking abilities, so if you can imagine 2 bell curves, one for men and one for women. They overlap, so that a percentage of women have greater spatial abilities that many men, but you can just about say that the average man has greater abilities in this respect than the average woman. But then it is silly to say that "Men are better than women" at subject X, because that is a blanket general statement and ignores the many women who are good at "X". Unfortunately I dont have a transcript of his actual words, then we could tell whether he should be tarred and feathered for stupidity.
Crucial is intuitive ability that from my observation belongs mostly to the women. DId the Harvard study include this attribute of the scientific mind? Women might also be less inclined to jump on the Department of Dedfense bandwagon and their infinite supply of money for arms development. Likewise, what is common is the research into the fundamental particles, electron activity etc which might not be attractive for the female in general.
Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel

We are. The only women working at any kind of upper level in biotech industry are the ones on the 15th floor in the Boardroom - pouring the coffee.


JaybeeNot scientific evidence. Among other things you need to show that this is not because the people who run biotech industries do not share your prejudices and so prevent women from achieving such positions, regardless of their real or potential abilities.
Usually most of the people who run industries aren't scientists, and the scientists who move across tend to be not very good scientists in the first place. that's why they stop working as scientists.

Not scientific evidence. Among other things you need to show

I don't need to show anything on this site or any other, and I certainly don't need to show anything to a woman. I'm not surprised the "Exactness and precision" you boasted about further up didn't last very long - how could it, with all that oestrogen coursing through your system?


that this is not because the people who run biotech industries do not share your prejudices and so prevent women from achieving such positions, regardless of their real or potential abilities.

Corporations are motivated by profit, and are thus the purest meritocracies in existance. If a woman is good enough to beat the competitors for her job, she will be granted it - simple as that. The fact remains that they lack the drive, force of will and tenacity to do what it takes to advance further than men.


Usually most of the people who run industries aren't scientists, and the scientists who move across tend to be not very good scientists in the first place. that's why they stop working as scientists.

No shit, Sherlock. Thanks for the refresher course in Basic Commerce, 101. Why don't you remind me of the Alphabet, while you're at it?

I don't need to show anything on this site or any other, and I certainly don't need to show anything to a woman. if you are going to persuade people of the truth of your claims, you are going to need to produce reliasble and convincing evidence.
I'm not surprised the "Exactness and precision" you boasted about further up didn't last very long - how could it, with all that oestrogen coursing through your system? Again: you must, if you are to persuade anyone but yourself, show that your statement is true, that, even if it is true, it is not true for other reasons than the ones you ascribe, that this applies to other aspects of science. Instead, you have used unjustified assumptions and rhetoric- methods which, if others used them, you would probably ascribe to oestrogen.




Corporations are motivated by profit, and are thus the purest meritocracies in existance. If a woman is good enough to beat the competitors for her job, she will be granted it - simple as that. The fact remains that they lack the drive, force of will and tenacity to do what it takes to advance further than men.Even if this is true, what has it got to do with ability in science?




No shit, Sherlock. Thanks for the refresher course in Basic Commerce, 101. Basic logic and philosophy of science actually.
Why don't you remind me of the Alphabet, while you're at it?Well, you haven't needed reminding of that yet. I'll watch out for it though, as it worries you.

if you are going to persuade people of the truth of your claims, you are going to need to produce reliasble and convincing evidence. Again: you must, if you are to persuade anyone but yourself, show that your statement is true, that, even if it is true, it is not true for other reasons than the ones you ascribe, that this applies to other aspects of science. Instead, you have used unjustified assumptions and rhetoric- methods which, if others used them, you would probably ascribe to oestrogen.

My conclusions are based on reality. Moreover, you now state the magic, 'if' word; "IF I'm going to persuade people, I'll need"...

And the use of "If" is a good one, as it is not my intention to provide proof. I make the statement, and challenge womanhood to disprove them. And for this you should provide PROOF, not conjecture, hypotheses, or speculation, but FACTS. Of course, I cannot force you to do any of this.

But until you do, I sit on my throne of masculinity, look down at the disbelieving crowds of women apoplectically opening and closing their mouths, silent for the first time.


Even if this is true, what has it got to do with ability in science?

Ask the Chairman of a Biotech after you've loosened his tongue with a few Single Malts. Although I doubt he could match my scything and brutal delivery of the ugly truth, I'm sure you'd find his slightly sugar-coated version of said ugly truth a tad more palatable.


Basic logic

What other kind should I expect from a woman?


and philosophy of science

Trust an academic to drag philosophy into a study of absolutes.

I see you are a practised debater. Philosophy lecturer, perhaps? The trouble I find with you types is that you are trained to doubt, to argue, to dwell fixatedly on the duality (or worse) of life, never seeing all as one system.

To you, determinisim is a weakness; yet nothing is lacking to your success but that same quality itself, ironically.

I see life, including women, for what they are, not for the image the pc media would try to foist upon me. I too, to a lesser degree, actively and periodically challenge my own findings. On rare occasion, I encounter a woman whose intelligence burns remarkably brightly, and I'll enjoy her company, her keen wit, and admire her even.

But such women are rare, much more so than their male equivalents. And shortly after finding one, I'll encounter another dozen who all fit the career profile; unambitious, lacksadaisical, uncompetitive.

If I had time, I'd write DOZENS of case histories of women being outdone by men, or exposed for the indifferent, underachieving slobs they really are. But I don't have the time; I'm a man who generates cash, not some bored housewife who sits at a computer all day, spending her husbands money and indulging in idle speculation about the world outside her door that she would rather not see a bit less.


Jaybee.

it is not my intention to provide proof or evidence, because you can't.

Corporations are motivated by profit, and are thus the purest meritocracies in existance.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ad infinitum. This is one of the silliest things I have ever seen on this forum, and that is saying a LOT.

Ask the Chairman of a Biotech after you've loosened his tongue with a few Single Malts. Although I doubt he could match my scything and brutal delivery of the ugly truth, I'm sure you'd find his slightly sugar-coated version of said ugly truth a tad more palatable.

The lies people tell themselves to hold onto their fragile egos are truly amazing. But, since ego is a good thing, carry on.

To quote the great lady...

"Did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away?"

So far I've seen no counterevidence to my stance, just insults and hot air.

Anyone else have some facts, instead, for or against?

Anyway, let me return you to our regular program. Like I already said, guys, it's the subtle differences that are the biggest.

Look at any given half-decent workplace...the cvnt whores are sitting around taking messages, applying make-up, talking about "he said...then she said..," on the phone with their girlfriends, calling up Tech Support and crying, "I don't understand this Microsoft thingy!", rearranging the furry toy - sorry, TOYS, plural, on their monitors. They are only good for talking about sh1t on the phone, and typing the same sh1t into a pre-arranged software screen,

The only time a woman should be allowed into the CEO's office is when she's putting something on his desk - be it coffee, a cleaning cloth, or her wet pussy.

The men? We're wearing suits, plotting entry/exit strategies in power meetings, in discussions with clients on the mobile phone whilst walking to and from our desks. We make things HAPPEN.

If you want to leave a message, talk to a woman. If you want to make a change, ask a man. Let's face it, what company will risk allowing its clients to speak to some hormonal bitch? That's why most cvnts with more responsibility than ordering the Post-It pads work in non-profit-making organisations.

In my business, if a cvnt bitch calls me up for a quotation, I ain't gonna bother to go round and see her. I'll just tell the bitch to give me the measurements. "Oh, I don't know what they are?" No? So why the fvck do you want a price? Nine fvcking times out of 10, the whore will need to get approval anyway from her husband, or her Bank Manager. If a male client seems like he'll be a hassle, I'll try the same line, but very often he'll HAVE the measurements!! I go see a man, I quote him a price, he haggles a tad, or he gets back to me in a couple of days with a firm order. I don't have time to waste, and neither will he.

Speaking of banks, go inside one. A bunch of cvnts along the counter. Usually also a few cvnts on the lobby desk. Ask for anything MORE complex, "Oh, you have to speak to the manager". More often than not, this'll be a man.

Outside the workplace, women don't have a clue what they really want. The level of self-delusion runs deep and wide with them. They kid themselves that they can have successful, high-flying careers. What bullsh1t. All they REALLY want - but they'll only admit this amongst themselves or when they've already trapped you - is a man who'll support them, tolerate them, and occasionally fvck them.

And please, don't anyone come with that crap about "Women only get 80% of the money for the same work". Of course!! They're not even 80% as desirable for those jobs!!

Career? Ha. Who the fvck is going to hire a cvnt that makes even sh1ttier decisions every 2-7 days of a month than the already flaky ones she makes in the rest of it? Who is going to want to pay a year of maternity leave?

Only those organisations that are already drowning in oestrogen. That's who. And I DO mean drowning. Women don't make money. I know a couple who do, but they're from minority backgrounds who grew up hard as nails. Those are the tiny 'minority' I do business with, and THEN it's a pleasure to do so. The other bitches are just good for that exact same thing - bitching.

Otherwise, heed the old gentlemans adage, "Never argue with a woman". Getting logic from a woman is like getting semen from a statue.



Jaybee.

Look into the fallacious nature of the statement you made. Examine the tenth-grade conceptualizing it exhibits. Read a book about it or something. After you realize the error of this,


Corporations are motivated by profit, and are thus the purest meritocracies in existance.
I may deem you worthy to be addressed, and descend from my throne of sanity to speak to you.

I think it's hilariously ironic that the woman, rather than be like "Your science is wrong, here here and here," gets all emotional and runs away.

I think it's hilariously ironic that the woman, rather than be like "Your science is wrong, here here and here," gets all emotional and runs away.

Hilarious and ironic, definitely, but unexpected? Certainly not.

She, along with her two eunuch turncoats, came back with precisely ZERO real world facts that I didn't already know. Absolute time-wasters, all three of them. And the latest one clearly hasn't read the definitions of 'Corporation' or 'Meritocracy'.

Never argue with theorists - they need pity instead.

Have you got any evidence except your own hysterical delusions and unsubstantiated assumptions, JC? Remember, the topic is not "Why JC hates/despises women", but "Men are better at science."

I can acknowledge that men are more common in the science fields, but not that they are better. That would mean that women who graduate with a science major have been given their grades unfairly, and that those schools have inconsistent standards. Do you really want to suggest that Harvard or MIT are corrupt and sexist institutions? What about the women that achieve a doctorate? If their doctorates don't reflect real knowledge and skill, then everyone's degrees are suspect.

A real test would be to gather an equal number of male and female scientists and assign them the same problem to solve.

Absolute time-wasters, all three of them. And the latest one clearly hasn't read the definitions of 'Corporation' or 'Meritocracy'.


meritocracy **noun [C or U]
a social system or society in which people have power because of their abilities, not because of their wealth or social position:

So when Joe Millionaire borrows some cash from his father, starts or buys a corporation, and is in a position of power, what ability does that show? He knows how to dial the phone to talk to his father? He knows how to hire a lawyer to go over the contracts?
How about when Joe made millions from toilet bowl detergent and then decides he wants to start a company in a more "creative" field? Does that give him ability in the field in which he now heads a corporation?


As to Jaybee's motive, I'm sure he gets tired of looking around (or maybe he doesn't look around), and seeing women who gain status far past the level of sales director, or whatever he is. Contrary to what he says about women not making money, I know a woman who made 30 million dollars in one year, which is realistically more than Jaybee will make in his lifetime. It is too bad jaybee doesn't play football, then he could say, "men are better at football", and have a more sensible fallback for his bruised and weak ego.

ALSO,
don't ask for an evidence-based discussion on your topic, when you haven't even brought anything to discuss but your weak assumptions.

BUT,
I'll give you something anyway...
Jean Shih happens to be on the cover of the USC magazine I got yesterday. She has been received the MERIT award from the N.I.H. twice, and also the volwiler research achievement award, also etc, etc. She has researched the presence or lack of the enzyme mono-amine monoxidase, and found relations to aggressive behavior in men. HOW APPROPRIATE. Now you know one type of defeciency you might have. (And everyone thought this thread was useless, it just goes to show you, you never know.)
Anyway, all that to say, even if you could prove that there was a trend about men/women's functionality not caused by social history (good luck), you still can't have your ego boost from science by pretending you are a "man". You will have to get in line behind Jean Shih (far behind, mind you), and wait. How embarrasing for you, after all this invective. Reminds me of a famous book, "of MICE and men".

meritocracy **noun [C or U]
a social system or society in which people have power because of their abilities, not because of their wealth or social position:

So when Joe Millionaire borrows some cash from his father, starts or buys a corporation, and is in a position of power, what ability does that show? He knows how to dial the phone to talk to his father? He knows how to hire a lawyer to go over the contracts?
How about when Joe made millions from toilet bowl detergent and then decides he wants to start a company in a more "creative" field? Does that give him ability in the field in which he now heads a corporation?


As to Jaybee's motive, I'm sure he gets tired of looking around (or maybe he doesn't look around), and seeing women who gain status far past the level of sales director, or whatever he is. Contrary to what he says about women not making money, I know a woman who made 30 million dollars in one year, which is realistically more than Jaybee will make in his lifetime. It is too bad jaybee doesn't play football, then he could say, "men are better at football", and have a more sensible fallback for his bruised and weak ego.

ALSO,
don't ask for an evidence-based discussion on your topic, when you haven't even brought anything to discuss but your weak assumptions.

BUT,
I'll give you something anyway...
Jean Shih happens to be on the cover of the USC magazine I got yesterday. She has been received the MERIT award from the N.I.H. twice, and also the volwiler research achievement award, also etc, etc. She has researched the presence or lack of the enzyme mono-amine monoxidase, and found relations to aggressive behavior in men. HOW APPROPRIATE. Now you know one type of defeciency you might have. (And everyone thought this thread was useless, it just goes to show you, you never know.)
Anyway, all that to say, even if you could prove that there was a trend about men/women's functionality not caused by social history (good luck), you still can't have your ego boost from science by pretending you are a "man". You will have to get in line behind Jean Shih (far behind, mind you), and wait. How embarrasing for you, after all this invective. Reminds me of a famous book, "of MICE and men".

That's so lame, you ought to be paying me to educate you.

Let's do Joe de Savary, playboy son of a millionaire. When he buys a company, he is it's OWNER, not a MEMBER. See the difference? Any transfer of ownership precedes, in varying degrees, even tighter adherence to the principle of efficiency. There again, if you were any kind of businessman, you would already have known that, and certainly wouldn't have had time for 200+ posts

Whose this woman who made $30 million? Ah, yes. Anna Nicole Smith. Now, her I actually respect; she never made any pretence about having an IQ north of a peanut. Unlike most of her gender, whose average intellect hovers only a few notches above.

Congratulations for Ms Shih. Some glorified lab technician gets a piece of paper with a schoolmark 'Merit' on it from a body I've never heard of, makes the cover of a magazine I've NEVER heard of, and you trumpet her as the next...well, I don't know any famous female scientists. I wish her luck in her $35,000 a year salary, and hope her husband is doing better than she is - which is probably the case.

How many women have been on the cover of Scientific American?

Me? I make pretty good money, I probably save more per month than you or most people on this site earn in that month. And I do this by ensuring my time was well-spent when choosing which clients to see, and which to brush off.

Know the Mercedes dealerships have a saying when presenting to couples?

"Never pitch the bitch".



Jaybee.

May the ghost of Jane Goodall come and haunt you in your dreams, JB, and poke your eyes with sharp sticks.


One of the more startling theories now being explored by a few women and men in the forefront of this change has to do with the very nature of the scientific enterprise itself. In other words once women begin to enter whole heartedly and wholeheadedly into science, science itself will change.

How so?

These philosophers of science and women's studies claim that sexual prejudice has been built right into the very structure of modern western science. This sexism has not only hurt women, it has grossly distorted our views of the physical and biological universe.

For instance, as just one example, the accepted scientific view of DNA sees it as a "master molecule" which governs the cell's activities. This is not as objectively scientific as it sounds, claim these critics. Could it not be instead that this way of looking at the scientific question is itself a reflection of the male-dominant culture from which the theory comes?

A truly non-sexist view might see DNA not as a "master" but rather as only one part of a cooperating, interdependent, ecologically complete whole. This way of viewing DNA, as a matter of fact, is surprisingly close to the one the most recent Nobel Prize winning woman, the biologist Barbara McClintock, proposed some years ago.

Know the Mercedes dealerships have a saying when presenting to couples?

"Never pitch the bitch".

Of, course, women have little need for a surrogate penis.


At least, not that kind.

Joe may start his own corporation and name himself ceo. It happens everyday. Do you need me to look up the word corporation for you too? Don't act retarded.

Also, the woman who makes more in a year than you will ever see is a televison producer, not a dumb-whore fantasy girl.

Also, the National Instutes of Health.
Also, the university of southern california is very well known. Maybe not as well known as "hick county junior college" where you must have gone to school. Are you sure your name isn't supposed to be Jaycee from his class, instead of jaybee from his cast?

Lack of knowledge does not equal intelligence. Maybe if you understood that, you would not be spouting garbage.

***hint*** drop the science thing, since you are just putting your acheivements in the arena to shame. You make yourself look like even more of a loser if women aren't good at science and you are worse.
How many times have you been on the cover of any magazine? At least Jean Shih has a chance at someday being on the cover of scientific american.

You could only make it as an example of "the missing link" in human evolutionary development.

Maybe work on, "Men are better salespeople than women". I'm sure we'll get rabid response from women who would like to catch up to your lower level management status. Quack.


Wait...
I feel I am being conned here.
You must be a mental sadist who likes being disparaged.
You are just saying the most retarded things to get me to step on your balls.

I should print this thread out and put it on my wall, so any time I don't feel happy I can read it and say, "at least I'm not that guy."

*edit*
Of course, that would probably just make me feel more sad.

Cole,
You really need to work on you insults, girl.

Cole,
You really need to work on you insults, girl.

I hope he works on his logic and overall worldliness first. The initial look of his replies appears promisingly fearsome, but within 2 lines I can see it's yet more of the same shit, just slightly recycled.

Cole, I'm not deliberately needling you. You're not worth my time. Just another dumb narrow-minded yank who thinks the whole English-speaking population of the world, about a billion, ought to know that 'USC' is a university in a country that only contains 30% of those speakers.

So no, you're not being conned. If so, you could have pulled the plug.

But you won't - you have nothing better to do. I'm phasing from the end of a juicy 6 month contract last week to a MUCH better paid one in March. I'm turning down offers of work because, quite frankly, I don't need to work.

Finally - you couldn't step high enough to suck on my balls if you had a ladder.

Note to your little Spider friend - tell him not to discuss things he can only dream about owning. Like a penis.

Jaybee

Nice empty retorts.

I am not going to bother getting personal, as that is all you have left to say, I will leave you alone. You should concentrate more on your opinions of yourself, and your own value and go from there, instead of shining light on your shortcomings.

Why do I feel dragged down by the stupidity of other men, the same way some people feel lifted by other men's deeds? Their ignorance is not my fault, any more than newton's thoughts were due to my intelligence. What a curse.

Men arent by nature better at science, they are beter at BOASTING theyre good at science. A lot of girls dont goto science depts. at colleges because theyll feel isolated, or maybe scared of geting harrased.. too many people fear that thesedays.

Studying science is not the same as doing science. Maybe we should make the distinction here.

Men arent by nature better at science,

You don't know that. In any case, all indications point to men indeed being better at science, intrinsically, than women. As I've said all along here.


Jaybee.

Is it hereditary that men are better than women @ science? Has it been proven genetically? Maybe maybe not... I'm not a femanists, but I do see that there may be certain factors that govern the ability to comprehend scientific inquiries. There's alot more gratification in men than women when it comes to science and mathematics (which is the science of numbers, but anywho). I'm not sure why...maybe it has to do a great deal social mobility or emotional falicies rather than logic. Not sure, but it may be .... Maybe it is hereditary. Maybe men are able to distinguish certain patterns better than women. Ultimately, there needs to be neurobiological research done based on neuro-protein, psychological, as well as neuro-electron reactions in order to make a complete justification of this matter.

Ultimately, there needs to be neurobiological research done based on neuro-protein, psychological, as well as neuro-electron reactions in order to make a complete justification of this matter.

Wouldn't surprise me if the research had already taken place, and the discovery so horrified the establishment that they (the findings) were quietly destroyed and all knowledge surpressed.


Jaybee

^hahaha....definitely....I also thought about that 2. Would be pretty interesting 2 see the results though.

Men arent by nature better at science, they are beter at BOASTING theyre good at science. A lot of girls dont goto science depts. at colleges because theyll feel isolated, or maybe scared of geting harrased.. too many people fear that thesedays.
u spelled better wrong....just wanted to point that out....wait......put that knife down......ahhhhhhhhhhh.......*jumps out of window*

^hahaha....definitely....I also thought about that 2. Would be pretty interesting 2 see the results though.

Can you imagine the repercussions when almost 200 year of Feminism are proven to have been a woeful step in the wrong direction?

No way the powers that be will let such a faux pas go unnoticed and unchallenged, more to maintain the status quo than to smooth the continued descent into deceit.

I'm going to catch some shit for this, but men ARE superior, and most sane women concede this.

Jaybee.

Can you imagine the repercussions when almost 200 year of Feminism are proven to have been a woeful step in the wrong direction?

No way the powers that be will let such a faux pas go unnoticed and unchallenged, more to maintain the status quo than to smooth the continued descent into deceit.

I'm going to catch some shit for this, but men ARE superior, and most sane women concede this.

Jaybee.
Precisely

Can you imagine the repercussions when almost 200 year of Feminism are proven to have been a woeful step in the wrong direction?

No way the powers that be will let such a faux pas go unnoticed and unchallenged, more to maintain the status quo than to smooth the continued descent into deceit.

I'm going to catch some shit for this, but men ARE superior, and most sane women concede this.

Jaybee.
200 years? Can you sensibly talk about a 200 year old feminist movement?
given all that has gone on in the last 200 years, can you explain how you will prove that the claimed 200 years of feminism have been a step in the wrong direction?
(I am of course assuming that you dont have a really heavy sense of humour here.)

Jaybee says, "I'm going to catch some shit for this, but men ARE superior, and most sane women concede this."

Some men are superior to some women.

Some men are inferior to some women.

No matter what standard you use. (ability to do well in science, size, strength, football playing abilities, intelligence, creativity, gun-slinging, being ugly, being attractive, even being hirsute.)

Unless you want to say that because you have a penis, and some people with penises are superior to some who don't have them, you are superior.

Ha ha ha ha ha ad infinitum, i.e., I'm still laughing at this idea.

u spelled better wrong....just wanted to point that out....wait......put that knife down......ahhhhhhhhhhh.......*jumps out of window*

And you used the single letter "u" where you should write the word "you"... m.y. s.pe.l.l.i.n.g. i.s.n'.t. a.l.w.a.y.s. p.e.r.f.e.c.t. b.u.t. I. a.m. n.o.t. a. d.u.m.b. b.l.o.n.d.e!

Some men are superior to some women.

Some men are inferior to some women.

Quite right

I saw a WW1 film once were a woman says "we dont need to seek eqality with men - we are ALREADY superior!"

I think in ancient Crete at least, men were the 2nd class citizens. :cool:

I think in ancient Crete at least, men were the 2nd class citizens. :cool:

Ancient Crete became 'ancient' for a very good reason; it allowed women to do more than cook or make coffee.

Cole - MOST men are superior to MOST women, therefore, group vs group, men are superior.

Guthrie - the pendulum should have been stopped in the 50's. Women are now venerated far beyond their actual abilities. However, capitalism remains a deciding force in all of this; the best companies consist primarily of men. They are the ones who survive recessions. Capitalism also consigns women to the lower paid work their brains can handle.

KS

Ancient Crete became 'ancient' for a very good reason; it allowed women to do more than cook or make coffee.

Last I read it was because the springs of water ran dry because of geological changes, in part due to Thera exploding nearby. Perhaps you can provide some evidence?




Guthrie - the pendulum should have been stopped in the 50's. Women are now venerated far beyond their actual abilities. However, capitalism remains a deciding force in all of this; the best companies consist primarily of men. They are the ones who survive recessions. Capitalism also consigns women to the lower paid work their brains can handle.

OK, women reading this thread - do you feel venerated?

So, what your saying, is that all that matters is capitalism, and men are natrually better than women at working in a company? I presume you havnt read about the large numbers of women pouring into the work place in th past 50 years, during which time we have advanced even further in terms of technology and living standards? Or you havnt read about the studies showing that in developing countries, when you educate the women well, living standards improve because they can better bring up their families and avoid disease and so on.

And capitalism assigns women to whatever work they are willing to take. Its capitalism that has led to the large influx of women into the wrokplace, the same women that presumably you feel threatened by, since you seem to dislike them so much.

Last I read it was because the springs of water ran dry because of geological changes, in part due to Thera exploding nearby. Perhaps you can provide some evidence?

That's what you get for leaving a hormonal cunt in charge of determining the risk of natural disaster. I believe the Sri Lankan government has a progressive attitude to recruitment in some of its departments nowadays, do please look it up...


OK, women reading this thread - do you feel venerated?

They won't stop feeling oppressed until the last homo sapien penis is on display in the Women's New World Order Museum for Biological Posterity.


So, what your saying, is that all that matters is capitalism, and men are natrually better than women at working in a company?

Wrong and evidently, respectively.


I presume you havnt read about the large numbers of women pouring into the work place in th past 50 years, during which time we have advanced even further in terms of technology and living standards?

Wrong again. Economic growth after WW2 exacerbated existing shortages of human resources, and these were most easily filled by women who were already working due to the emergency shortage of male factory/agricultural workers. The sudden emergency caused by the war turned the decent and fair exclusion of women joining the workplace into a luxury that an embattled society simply couldn't afford. The war ended in '45, but the need for every pair of available hands didn't. Society had to be rebuilt, and thus the female stayed on in the factory/office.

Trouble is, by the time the reconstruction had ended, a large number of women were still not resigning their posts. Ironically, Adolf Hitler should be quite a hero to - and have his portrait mounted in the lobby of - the Womens Institute for Global emasculation.

All worthwhile advances in tech or in quality of life have been the result of male effort, with little to no input from women, with the possible exception of the Product Development sections at the Hoover and Tampax corporations.


Or you havnt read about the studies showing that in developing countries, when you educate the women well, living standards improve because they can better bring up their families and avoid disease and so on.

I agree that most women around the world would benefit from training to become better mothers, carers, wives, girlfriends and one-night stands (you mentioned avoiding diseases).


And capitalism assigns women to whatever work they are willing to take.

Yeah, most women who want to be runway models and high-powered lawyers/doctors get assigned those roles. Sure.


Its capitalism that has led to the large influx of women into the wrokplace, the same women that presumably you feel threatened by, since you seem to dislike them so much.

I love women; I just choose not to let society lie to me about their real position in it. Nor do I feel threatened by them; they don't compete at my level for contracts because they are simply not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of my work.


Jaybee.

Nor do I feel threatened by them; they don't compete at my level for contracts because they are simply not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of my work.
How do you feel when a woman has advanced far beyond your position in the world of science, if you are simply not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of their work? Not threatened?
How do you feel when you realize you don't compete at the level of many women in the business world, because you are not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of their work?
Or is it that they had different opportunities than you did? If you won't offer your ego and personal accomplishments up to be disparaged by women's accomplishments, you should just be quiet.
You would get more of an ego boost by showing someone who doesn't know anything about sales contracting how to become more accomplished, than you will ever get from holding up other men's accomplishments as if they were your own.

How do you feel when a woman has advanced far beyond your position in the world of science,

You make it sound like an everyday occurrence, as opposed to the near 'Blue Moon' event that would truly be. In any case, I'm not in the scientific field, hence the 'blue moon' effect.



if you are simply not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of their work? Not threatened?

I'm not able to knit a jumper, make a souffle', or distinguish violet from mauve. No, I don't feel threated.


How do you feel when you realize you don't compete at the level of many women in the business world, because you are not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of their work?

I can't conceive of anything a woman can do in the workplace that I couldn't, given a few weeks of training, aside from perhaps getting uppity with a client because of the time of the month. Moreover, I don't begrudge women who sleep their way to the top; you use every weapon you have in the business world, and after all, the best method for a woman to obtain a promotion is not through word of mouth, although the method is definitely oral...



Or is it that they had different opportunities than you did? If you won't offer your ego and personal accomplishments up to be disparaged by women's accomplishments, you should just be quiet.


Ermmm...no. There are too many pussified men out there already, without me not waving the giant, erect phallus that is the symbol of our good and great gender in defiance of the current situation.


You would get more of an ego boost by showing someone who doesn't know anything about sales contracting how to become more accomplished, than you will ever get from holding up other men's accomplishments as if they were your own.


What other mans achievements have I stolen credit for here?

Jaybee.

THIS IS GETTING BEYOND A JOKE, JAYBEE.

If youd been flaming blacks or indians or whatever, you'd probably be banned by now.

Mister moderator...!

I thought men were better in everything, except cooking ironing and cleaning, and i can't leave out giving birth.

THIS IS GETTING BEYOND A JOKE, JAYBEE.

If youd been flaming blacks or indians or whatever, you'd probably be banned by now.

Mister moderator...!


You've just reinforced some of my own points beautifully. You give a simplistic reply (in a thread consisting mostly of multi-point posts) shouting your dissatisfaction in capital letters about my breaking with the established social order, and making delusional comparisons of gender with race.

Best of all, you then refer to the moderator as 'Mister'. Well, this is a science forum...therefore, of course he's a man!

A woman asks for me to be silenced, yet she inadvertantly makes my case for me. That's the most beautiful irony I can think of.

Jaybee.

I thought men were better in everything, except cooking ironing and cleaning, and i can't leave out giving birth.

Almost all the top chefs - like every other profession - are male.

Nice example on giving birth, genius, wish I'd thought of that. But on a closely related subject, ever noticed that the vast majority of Gynaecologists are male?


Jaybee.

You make it sound like an everyday occurrence, as opposed to the near 'Blue Moon' event that would truly be. In any case, I'm not in the scientific field, hence the 'blue moon' effect.
This is precisely the problem. Because you are not exposed to the many, many women who would laugh you out of the room if you started talking about science, you can keep your false ideals, and your fragile ego.


What other mans achievements have I stolen credit for here?

You take credit for another man's achievements when you say, "men are better at science."

Sorry, but the better you make your case for men as a group being better than women at science, the more you look like a loser, because there are many thousands of women who are better at science than you are.
The smarter men, as a group, are in your mind, the worse you look as an example of a man. When many, many thousands of women do better in school, have higher I.Q. scores, and are just on a higher level intellectually than you are, you are shown to be an even worse example of being a man, to someone who holds this ideal of men being better than women.
The only man that can make this statement safely is someone who is at the highest levels of accomplishment in science, and even then he would have to have data that was more than circumstantial to back it up. You don't have a chance.

The basic idea that men are superior to women is totally absurd, there are many women whos I.Q surpass those of many men.
Has any body taken in to consideration that maby one of the main reasons that there are not many women in the science field is because there not that interested? :confused: DO you See many men dancing ballet?? or designing houses?? Id like to hear a better reason why men are better then woman in science other then the claim that there smarter ( which scientifically has been proven wrong)/

You kind of say that men are better at science because women are not interested in science.

The basic idea that men are superior to women is totally absurd, there are many women whos I.Q surpass those of many men.
Has any body taken in to consideration that maby one of the main reasons that there are not many women in the science field is because there not that interested? :confused: DO you See many men dancing ballet?? or designing houses?? Id like to hear a better reason why men are better then woman in science other then the claim that there smarter ( which scientifically has been proven wrong)/

Let's get cause and effect clear; one of the reasons that men generally outperform women in scientific endeavours is that, like you said, they are more interested in them than women.

This is what I said a few pages back. Women gravitate towards the talky-feely lines of work because their brains are geared to talk about feelings. Yet, the highest paid PR Consultants (or ANYTHING ELSE except models) are males, because Testosterone improves competitivity, and Oestrogen diminishes it.

Men are rare in Ballet because it is not particularly well paid, except at the uppermost levels. They have to pay for a mortgage, feed themselves and their kids, and contend with the financial burden of a wife who'll invariably have a credit card to spend her husbands money on lunches with her houswife friends, tattling about the weather, "She said, she said", and whose husband bought them the hottest little 4x4/Blahniks. No, men have to get on with the serious business of earning money, not prancing around a stage in tights for 5 years hoping to get noticed by some queen casting director.

Cole - that was all utter rubbish, if you were simply misguided as most men are about the position of women then my job would be easier.
That last post of yours tells me that the male-female relationship isn't the only aspect of life you need to be educated about. You are clearly a lot more misled than average on more than one front.

You may feel I'm saying this out of spite; please believe me, I am not. You are clearly able to string your words together, which denotes raw intelligence, but again, after reading your last post, I'm horrified by how deeply you've been indoctrinated/shielded.

I'm saying it out of shock by your ignorance, and conversely to shock YOU into doing something about it. Speak to your father's generation, not ours, about women, garner their opinions. Your path will not be easy, but I wish you well down it.

You've just reinforced some of my own points beautifully. You give a simplistic reply (in a thread consisting mostly of multi-point posts) shouting your dissatisfaction in capital letters about my breaking with the established social order, and making delusional comparisons of gender with race.

I see that almost all your posts in sciforums have been on this thread, Jaybee - if you can write only bout 1 subject, that makes YOU SIMPLISTIC.

social order is establishd for good reasons - if yu want to live in the past thats not anyone else's fault, and the rest of the world should ignore you

Race + gender are very similar matters when it comes to law, to eqality at work, to the great struggles for human rights which have - in the 1st world - mostly been won. Id say my comparisons have a LOT of suport.. if they are delusional, then Im proud to be mad in a mad world.

If women are so silly + do stupid things on catwalks, like you said in you rlast post, why do so many men, even straight ones, dress up like women? Mybe theyr enot happy with the man sterotype youre ranting about...


They [men] have to pay for a mortgage, feed themselves and their kids, and contend with the financial burden of a wife who'll invariably have a credit card to spend her husbands money on lunches with her houswife friends..

tell that to single mothers!! To kids whove been abandoned by their fathers!


This is what I said a few pages back. Women gravitate towards the talky-feely lines of work because their brains are geared to talk about feelings
Yes, we care about feelings. that makes us better at holding families, or even comunities together, than men. women politicians willl be more important in the next few decades. Any historian knows that most wars + other violences have always been startd by men.

That enough points in 1 post for you? ? :p

That's what you get for leaving a hormonal cunt in charge of determining the risk of natural disaster. I believe the Sri Lankan government has a progressive attitude to recruitment in some of its departments nowadays, do please look it up...
Hahahhaahhahahahahah.
Now I've stopped laughing, perhaps you'll show me evidence for the determining of risk of natural disaster present in the Minoan Civilisation.




They won't stop feeling oppressed until the last homo sapien penis is on display in the Women's New World Order Museum for Biological Posterity.
Only in your head is there is new world order museum for biological posterity. SO I think that proves your point is moot.




Wrong and evidently, respectively.
Hey, at least I agree with you that capitalism isnt all that matters. Mind you, since you seem to have ignored the massive influx of women into companies, their clambering up the careers ladder, and the studies showing that women are good in workplaces because many of them seem to bring a more team spirited approach to things, I'll just have to file you under "ranting idiot".





Wrong again. Economic growth after WW2 exacerbated existing shortages of human resources, and these were most easily filled by women who were already working due to the emergency shortage of male factory/agricultural workers. The sudden emergency caused by the war turned the decent and fair exclusion of women joining the workplace into a luxury that an embattled society simply couldn't afford. The war ended in '45, but the need for every pair of available hands didn't. Society had to be rebuilt, and thus the female stayed on in the factory/office.
ERmmm, no, your forgetting one thing- that women have always been in the workplace. Society was effectively rebuilt by the late 50's, and women stayed in the office. In fact the proportion of women in work has increased hugely in the past 50 years. If women were doing such a bad job in the work place, they woudl have been pushed out decades ago, remember the logic of free market capitalism?
Besides, your "decent and fair exclusion of women" forgets about the vast numbers who were working before the Victorian ideals took over. Hundreds of thousands worked in Mills all across the UK, millions more were everything from milkmaids to pub owners. It took a woman to get the first aid and nursing care side of the British army set up and working properly during the Crimean war.





Trouble is, by the time the reconstruction had ended, a large number of women were still not resigning their posts. Ironically, Adolf Hitler should be quite a hero to - and have his portrait mounted in the lobby of - the Womens Institute for Global emasculation.
And yet nobody forced them out? Perhaps they were doing as good a job as the men? I mean come on, economic and technological growth have been huge the past 50 years, during the period of freeing women from their adverse social restraints.
(Hey, is there a reason your speaking from your cast? Is it because some woman broke your leg?)




All worthwhile advances in tech or in quality of life have been the result of male effort, with little to no input from women, with the possible exception of the Product Development sections at the Hoover and Tampax corporations.
No, not correct at all. Lets see, without much of the efforts of women in sciences, there would be no DNA for example. Or how about the midwives who help women give birth better? Surely that doesnt count asbeing an improvement in quality of life? Or how about campaigners for birth control?





I agree that most women around the world would benefit from training to become better mothers, carers, wives, girlfriends and one-night stands (you mentioned avoiding diseases).
It looks like you need training yourself, on how to be a man.




Yeah, most women who want to be runway models and high-powered lawyers/doctors get assigned those roles. Sure.
D'uh. Do you not get it yet? Have you not seen the increasing numbers of women doing these jobs?




I love women; I just choose not to let society lie to me about their real position in it. Nor do I feel threatened by them; they don't compete at my level for contracts because they are simply not cut out to handle the intricate aspects of my work.

HHmmm. I could mention my female 2nd cousin who is doing Phd in Astrophysics at a reputable university. Or how about my girlfriend who is doing physics and maths at university just now? (Let alone she also ran a convenience store for a year or two. Or the many female postmistresses in the UK who have managed to run an intricate and complex business for decades.)
Anyway, I know which position you occupy in society. And believe me, it aint pretty.

Nice 1 Guth - looks like youve shut him up, fora whole day so far..!!

Nice 1 Guth - looks like youve shut him up, fora whole day so far..!!

Typical woman, confusing lack of time with lack of courage/tenacity. I've been arranging my next contract - ie, getting ready to make money, (remember, that thing you spend without worrying which male sucker is giving it to you?), not sitting around painting my nails or getting my legs waxed on my husbands credit card.

But don't worry, I'll get around to putting you and your castrated eunuch straight in due course...


Jaybee.

Typical woman, confusing lack of time with lack of courage/tenacity. I've been arranging my next contract - ie, getting ready to make money, (remember, that thing you spend without worrying which male sucker is giving it to you?), not sitting around painting my nails or getting my legs waxed on my husbands credit card.

But don't worry, I'll get around to putting you and your castrated eunuch straight in due course...


Jaybee.



Haha...you can't make real money in science.

getting ready to make money, (remember, that thing you spend without worrying which male sucker is giving it to you?), not getting my legs waxed on my husbands credit card..

I earn my own goddam money, working akward shifts you jerk - and Im not married!!

my legs dont need waxing if you must know :D

But don't worry, I'll get around to putting you and your castrated eunuch straight in due course...
Hey, next time your in Scotland, let me know, I'd like to introduce you to the business end of my sword.

When did this place become so inane?

When the moderator stopped moderating.

Its always been inane. I recall long cat fights between the fountainhed and Gedanken over 18 months ago that went on for over 2 pages.

at least this litle gender slagingmatch seems over.

Oh, goody. Who won? I wanna know whether I am better at science or my gf... :P

I guess the result of the debate is inconclusive.

Maybe I should throw a bit of petrol on the fire.

There seem to be more men in higher academic positions. Does this prove that men are better at science?

There seem to be more men in higher academic positions. Does this prove that men are better at science?
No.
There are more men in higher positions in many fields. This is a result of history, not necessarily talent.
Let anecdotal evidence be damned to the pit, unless you are going to reduce the question to a personal opinion.
And then let the personal opinion be damned to the pit if it masquerades as empirical evidence.

I guess the result of the debate is inconclusive.

no one's proved us feminists wrong or shut us up, so I think weve won..


There are more men in higher positions in many fields.
Even if men migth LIKE science more + thus get the jobs more often, they arent neccessarly BETTER

Gray cole


No.
There are more men in higher positions in many fields. This is a result of history, not necessarily talent.
Let anecdotal evidence be damned to the pit, unless you are going to reduce the question to a personal opinion.
And then let the personal opinion be damned to the pit if it masquerades as empirical evidence.

The problem is that you're demanding an absolute proof that men are better at science. Otherwise (as I am intepreting; and let me know if I'm wrong), there is no difference between men and women in science. It's going to be a while for there to be absolute concrete proof. Therefore, no one knows for certain which gender is better at science. All I know is that it's extremely probable that men are better.


Which gender do you think is probably better at science?

A slightly better was of putting it would be, that slightly more men are better at the metnal disciplines associated with Science than women. But that is easily overwhelmed by cultural factors. I saw a graph elsewhere, (I'll need to look it up again) that showed that Japan had only a couple of percent of scientists as women, and Hungary was somewhere around 40%. And one need only think of the increasing levels of women in universityin Europe and the USA, thats gone from, what, maybe 2-5% to certainly over 20% in the past 50 to 100 years, to see that cultural factors are more important in this case.

People, this is a science forum. If you are aware of any studies indicating that women are, on average, better than/worse than/the same as men at the cognitive activities associated with science, then post some references! Men aren’t necessarily better at science just because you’ve known a few overly-emotional women who were bad at math, and women aren’t necessarily equal at science just because it offends your sense of fairness to imagine otherwise. Let’s see some data to back up all the opinions that are flying around.

I haven’t seen any data on the subject, so I don’t have an opinion on the issue – but I’d say recognizing that I don’t have enough data to form an opinion puts me ahead of all the people here whose opinions are based on anecdotal evidence and popular perception.

Classic.

Here we have a condescending Jaybee scratching at Guthrie….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have Guthrie shrieking his way towards a defense of the feminist bitch in the middle…….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have the feminist bitch twirling her pom poms and slaughtering the English language in defense of my gender……… with what she calls logic.

You're all fucking women- its like a Macy’s fitting room in here and it smells like fish.
You can't even do the simple of placing a cogent argument in defense of your thesis.

Good example, moron goes:

I'm going to catch some shit for this, but men ARE superior, and most sane women concede this
Because the smartest thing to come out of a woman’s mouth was Einstein's cock, yah?

I don't care to defend women , but say something and back it up.

The female brain is adept at some things the male's isn't and the male's adept at some things hers is not, simple biology.
You give her a physics problem, and her brain is likelier to process it verbally where his will do it mechanically.
This would explain why men are, despite history, better at science than women.
Don't give me cant about it only being history, whoever said it- the most brilliant girl in my physics class could still not match the fluidity of problem solving of the most brilliant male.

However, to say one trait or the other is superiour depends on what you value.
Socially, I value capitalism and warfare- which takes brute force and labor.
So the male trait wins.
I also value family.
So the female trait wins.
Intellectually, I value logic and structure. So the male trait wins.
Artistically, I value prose and music.
So the female trait wins.

Yet according to this, Mozart is a woman and Lady Lovelace a man.
Therefore:
1)Humans like what they agree with
2)Agreement is a value
3) A value is preference
4) and that preference is what we ultimately call ‘superior’

Ta-ta- in other words, I hate women.

Now, this is funny.

The feminist Jennysomesuch has a playboy bunny in her avatar?

Even if men migth LIKE science more + thus get the jobs more often, they arent neccessarly BETTER

If you like science more you should be better at science (on average), since motivation is very important in this profession. Because nothing is so bad as an unmotivated scientist.

Now, this is funny.

The feminist Jennysomesuch has a playboy bunny in her avatar?

the lady Ive used as an avatar - her names Heather Hanson - is doing what shes proud to do, + making good money for it. I dont know if she liked science much at school or not - does it matter? if I had her talent I might be modeling too, it doesnt make me stupid or uncaring for womens rights.

I know a lot of very brainy guys stil wish they lookd like Tom cruise or even Justin Timber-fake..

JennyRater:

if I had her talent I might be modeling too, it doesnt make me stupid or uncaring for womens rights.
Modeling takes talent?
In that case, so do comas.

Either way, modeling does not make one stupid. You make you stupid- all your posts, for example.

the lady Ive used as an avatar - her names Heather Hanson - is doing what shes proud to do, + making good money for it. I dont know if she liked science much at school or not - does it matter?
Who said it matters?

I'm pointing to the irony of a "feminist" (you) in defense of her gender actually reinforcing why it is women are pathetic.

Monkey:

If you like science more you should be better at science (on average), since motivation is very important in this profession. Because nothing is so bad as an unmotivated scientist.
Careful there, you'll get ashy knees crawling around after Jennyrater.

The female brain is adept at some things the male's isn't and the male's adept at some things hers is not, simple biology.
You give her a physics problem, and her brain is likelier to process it verbally where his will do it mechanically.

No fucking shit, Shysterlock! I don't care to justify early because I like to see JUST how deep the self-delusion runs throughout the masses.

Now, if you're such a great debater, can you now prove to the great unwashed here that what we know to be fact is proven as such by an unbiased survey?

No. None have been carried out. Our only evidence, one way or another, is circumstantial.

(geez, I turn my back for a few days, and this place goes to shit...)

Gwen Guthrie, you spouted some bull about Hungary. Did you forget that I was talking about women advancing in DEMOCRACIES? Not self-proclaimed socialist states moving away from totalitarianism in which unnatural quotas where strictly enforced? Like the university your relative was allowed into...speaking of which, noticed how easy it is, scholastically speaking, to enter universities these days? No wonder employers laugh at the grads coming out these days...

At the EARLIEST ages, boys sieze chances to understand how things move, feel, interoperate etc. Girls are more interested in yapping. Boys ALSO learn how to yap, but girls knowledge of spatial and mechanical operations grows at a much slower rate through childhood, and thus widens the gulf. Whether it be in Hungary, or in Harlem. I'm watching the process unfold in my own family, and despite my best attempts to encourage my niece to work out the remote, or handle a set of keys, she is simply more interested in talking and being spoken to. Whereas my 2 year old nephew has already overtaken her; example, he knows how to switch my monitor on, and she doesn't.

At ANY of the top 10 pharmaceuticals, the new grad intake will consist overwhelmingly of MEN. The fact that there are more male scientists than females, AND that those male scientists are generally more highly skilled than female ones MEANS that men are better at the 'hard' sciences than women.
This is more of the circumstantial evidence I mentioned earlier.

KS

Science isn't just about mechanical things, shithead. It includes fields like sociology, where talking to people can uncover alot, dirty paki pigfucker. I have always said women tend to go into science less, asshole, but the ones that do go into science are good at it, you cumsucking man-whore. Your ideas about women are self-fufilling, the less you expect, the less you get back, asslicking shitgobbling glory hole queen.

Science isn't just about mechanical things, shithead. It includes fields like sociology, where talking to people can uncover alot, dirty paki pigfucker. I have always said women tend to go into science less, asshole, but the ones that do go into science are good at it, you cumsucking man-whore. Your ideas about women are self-fufilling, the less you expect, the less you get back, asslicking shitgobbling glory hole queen.

Don't let your passions get in the way of your reasoning, woman.

Jaybee, your argument is entirely unscientific. You have no evidence, just a niece and a nephew. Show some studies that support the prowess of man scientists (or real numbers, not just saying a lot) over women scientists. It shouldn't be too hard, you contentious prick.

As for anecdotal evidence, I work in a molecular ecology lab that is run by a woman who has published more scientific papers than you ever will Jaycee.

Don't let your passions get in the way of your reasoning, woman.

Jaybee, your argument is entirely unscientific. You have no evidence, just a niece and a nephew. Show some studies that support the prowess of man scientists (or real numbers, not just saying a lot) over women scientists. It shouldn't be too hard, you contentious prick.

As for anecdotal evidence, I work in a molecular ecology lab that is run by a woman who has published more scientific papers than you ever will Jaycee.

Ah yes, the token female on the board whose name is amongst several others on a few documents she contributed nothing to other than pressing a green button on a large machine.

I have a very contentious prick - women are forever contending with each other for it.

Spider's dick, I said 'Hard' sciences, moron, not sociology, which is all that most women can relate to. Moreover, be thankful this is not a physical forum; the last and only person since '84 who called me a 'Paki' in real life had a rather prolonged trip to the hospital. Indeed, if we were face to face, you would be in no position to call anyone anything.


Jaybee.

How'd you know I was talking about you?

Jaycebee:

No fucking shit, Shysterlock! I don't care to justify early because I like to see JUST how deep the self-delusion runs throughout the masses.
No, you don't care to justify early or anytime soon becuase you fucking can't

You're just another one of those charlies stuck in his cock.

Come on, tell me about your stupid niece or your grandmother to scientifically prove to me they're your inferiour.

I'll use the patchy mold on my undies to prove why you're an idiot.

We have what- 100, 200?- little boys in boxer shorts just like you around here pretending masculinity.

(geez, I turn my back for a few days, and this place goes to shit...)

Actually, the smell of the feces that has spewed from your mouth was just starting to leave the air until...

Ah yes, the token female on the board whose name is amongst several others on a few documents she contributed nothing to other than pressing a green button on a large machine.
The woman who supervises ROMAN's lab would laugh you out of the room if you said one word about science. When you say "hard" science, I assume SPIDERGOAT thought you were just admitting that it is a difficult discipline for your brain to approach.
Fool... EDIT(sorry i called you fool, that isn't fair, but you are acting like one)

Now GENDANKEN, because you are only a tiny bit correct, if that, in your opinion that men are better suited to do science, I say you are incorrect. The vast difference in accomplishment is due mostly to sociological history.
My proof?
Look at the arenas of music and prose that you say women should be better at, "female trait", etc.
Vast under-representation of women in the halls of fame for either.
If history can do such things to an arena women should dominate, or at least equal men in, how can you say the same is not true for science.
My point?
if you are correct, let's say men are 2% more apt to do well in science (or whatever), our survey is still so biased that any bs "evidence" presented from "real life" social scenarios is worthless. You might as well say men are better at poetry and music while you're at it.

EDIT - And here comes Jaybee spewing more feces, "Caw, men are better at everything, caw caw."

Why Jaybee?

"Quack, because I need my ego stroked. I am faced with the sad possibility that I will never achieve anything that will be considered valuable by mankind, and i need to somehow take credit for the value other men have added to the world, quack."

I really don't want to delve much into this topic, but has anyone here realized that the guy in the article at the start of this post was being provocative in order to draw attention to the subject and encourage research into this area?
No?
Oh. Wait. It wouldn't be nice to research into such a bigoted area would it? Just like researching into racial differences is also strictly a no-no.

The reason that there is no hard evidence on this topic is because of people like this:

Nancy Hopkins, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the academics who walked out of the conference.

She said that, had she not done so, she "would have either blacked out or thrown up".

I agree with what the article (First page). I have notcied this from my own experiences. Men always seem to outdo women in science and math. Its as if they were born with the talent.

Why is it that any thread having anything remotely to do with gender is instantly popular?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the average poster on these sci-forums being a sexless wimp.

Even more choice - the proclamations of "men" that they are better than women in science, and yet this thread has seven pages while the science sub-forums are sparsely populated.

Kinda cute that you enjoy chatting like teenage girls more than discussing matters of, oh say astronomy?
No, the latest "disproof" of special relativity does not count.

Beyond spuriousmonkey, I'd be suprised if any of you have formal education in the sciences.
No, your community college classes do not count.


Science isn't just about mechanical things, shithead. It includes fields like sociology, where talking to people can uncover alot, dirty paki pigfucker. I have always said women tend to go into science less, asshole, but the ones that do go into science are good at it, you cumsucking man-whore. Your ideas about women are self-fufilling, the less you expect, the less you get back, asslicking shitgobbling glory hole queen.

*Genuflects*
You fucking rule.

Beyond spuriousmonkey, I'd be suprised if any of you have formal education in the sciences.

Somewhat ironic in that Spurious is also the one who now despises science. Maybe it's better that we haven't had a formal education?

Maybe, but his imput is always more interesting than "girls are dumm"

Even if he is a race-traitor.

Ah yes, the token female on the board whose name is amongst several others on a few documents she contributed nothing to other than pressing a green button on a large machine.

Actually, it's really nothing like that at all. The most powerful people who run the lab are two women and a man that isn't masculine. In fact, gendanken and xev would get wet just looking at him and thinking about all the derision they could poor on him. That aside, he's an excellent scientist.

Most of the lab is comprised of women either working on theses (rather groundbreaking, big, complicated theses), or women in charge.

Notice that this is a molecular ecology lab, so it's science is about as hard as an economist's science. That is to say, ecology lacks a set of rules like physics does, and is mostly oversimplified models of a very complicated universe. Other than the extensive lab procedures involved, lots of maths are needed to interpret the results. Not that a dumb Paki like you would understand maths anyway. Fucking can't even add cab fare right.
So why am I explaining all this to you? It's not like you've done anything to prove your point except mention a little boy and a little girl.

Anyhow.
Women have only been in science for about 50 years, which is very little time to enter into a rather closed and contentious community. In fact, we're only going on to the second generation for women to reach any kind of seniority in science.

And as anyone in the scientific community would know, seniority is the end all.

Somewhat ironic in that Spurious is also the one who now despises science.

It is more a love-hatred relationship.

Modeling takes talent?
In that case, so do comas.

have you ever had a job modeling? For every sucessful gal in that field, hundreds never make it. They have to be punctuall, presentable, dedicated + often work long hours, just like other workers do.


Either way, modeling does not make one stupid. You make you stupid- all your posts, for example.

Is that an insult? perhaps Im not anal with my typing + spelling etc, so what? If you have to stoop to slagging me off for your arguments' sake, maybe youre not v smart yourself..?


I'm pointing to the irony of a "feminist" (you) in defense of her gender actually reinforcing why it is women are pathetic.

why is being beautiful + proud of it pathetic? I just wantd my avatar to stand out.


Monkey:
Careful there, you'll get ashy knees crawling around after Jennyrater.

What dos that make me then.. Cinderella?? she came out on top. :p I like campfires actualy.

Are YOU a guy or a girl, gendanken?

Jen,
your avatar "stands out" in a couple places, for sure.
Sorry, could not resist that one.

Thankyou Cole!

- but why the long face..?

"Men are better at science."


What does it mean to be "better"?

Anyone putting in any scientific effort will realize right away that this "better" is about some complex factors of human cognitive ability, and also some other abilities, and that it is ultimately impossible to propose a finite set of traits and the standards to measure these abilities and thus determine who is better at science, men or women; and that therefore, this thread should be like only 5 posts long.

What does it mean to be "better"?
If you'd ever been better at something, you'd know. The first thing you notice when you experience it is that it's a really obvious black and white sort of thing with no room for an argument.
Trust me, I'm better ALOT.

I've recently found out there's alot of negros who are crime scene investigators.
And not those beautifull negros who are hybrids with only the skin colour gene stuck on negro either, real, full blown, negros.
I was a little stumped at first, but then it came to me, think how much negroids and australoids rely on reading "sign" in their surroundings for their success. They always show them on documentaries "tracking". They're really advanced at noticing things like footprints and broken branches and impressions in grass etc and putting it all together to tell a story. A skill caucasoids and mongoloids haven't really relied on so heavily since agriculture and hunting with dogs.
You can see how that skill is basically what a crime scene investigator utilises.
I just found that interesting and contraversial.
It made me mad at the world for being racist and giving those jobs to black people, stereotyping them and mocking them by giving them enough money to drive around in fancy cars.
(didn't want to lose the audience there, had to appeal to the sciforums sensibilities).

This relates to the topic somehow.
All animals are good at what they're bred to do, period.
When it comes to gender there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism, so just because the men in a family line are bred to be a certain way doesn't mean the women are.
I guess it depends which strain of homo-sapien you're talking about. Not just races but class too. Look at white trash england, they breed amongst themselves, and have different behaviour with different sexual selection factors than the upper class.
The females from the white trash british lines are bred to have unprotected sex in their teens, wear full tracksuits and be adept at pushing prams and arguing with their sparsely moustached boyfriend, and anyone else for that matter. If they aren't good at arguing with their parents and being a pain in the ass they'll be kept indoors and unable to breed. Therefore lacking the ability or will to dominate and have no respect for your parents is not favoured in the evolution of the british lower class.
You'll find they're really good at these things in accordance with their environmental demands.

So you see it depends on the breeding conditions of an animals ancestry.
Some females might be from a history where intelligent females were highly prized breeding partners. Thats not impossible.
But in general, taking into consideration the majority of the world's population are scum, there are many strains of homo-sapien producing less than briliant females.
IMO more with females than males. However, braindead males are being produced by many strains as well, there's not a particularly significant difference.
Coincidentally, lower class england is again an excellent example. Here we have populations of animals where neither partner is doing squat to survive and this goes back for many many generations. Unemployment is something like 60% in some areas, there's just generation after generation of stock being bred for their ability to make mountains in ashtrays and yell. Have you heard them speak? This is just genetic decay, there are no demands whatsoever that need to be met in order for them to breed.

There have been many cultures through history(and still are- LA trophy wives) where women just had to be beautifull and thats it. You can't expect a culture(or sub culture) to produce anything other than what's being taken into consideration with it's sexual selection.
The ditzy blonde(for example) has been bred for.

Debbie does Dallas


the lady Ive used as an avatar - her names Heather Hanson - is doing what shes proud to do, + making good money for it. I dont know if she liked science much at school or not - does it matter? if I had her talent I might be modeling too, it doesnt make me stupid or uncaring for womens rights.

You can have her talent. It's called getting a boob job and a giggling git type of personality. Calling yourself Bambi might also help you achieve her 'talent'. Oh, just don't forget the knee pads, you might find they'll come in handy as you strive to reach her level of 'talent'.


I know a lot of very brainy guys stil wish they lookd like Tom cruise or even Justin Timber-fake
You know a lot of intelligent men who want to wear braces and have a big nose or look and sound like a guy with no gonads? Hmmm.. interesting.

Bumblebee:


At the EARLIEST ages, boys sieze chances to understand how things move, feel, interoperate etc.
Yes. It's called little boys learning to seize that little worm between their legs to understand how it "moves, feels, interoperates, etc".


I'm watching the process unfold in my own family, and despite my best attempts to encourage my niece to work out the remote, or handle a set of keys, she is simply more interested in talking and being spoken to. Whereas my 2 year old nephew has already overtaken her; example, he knows how to switch my monitor on, and she doesn't.
Your point? What? Because a little girl is not interested in your little toys she's slower? Could it be that the little girl could grow up with better communication skills, not to mention a more developed vocabulary, while the little boy grows up to be an unsociable outcast only interested in his computer with no skills about the real world whatsoever? Lets see now. A child developing better communication skills and vocabulary which will get them somewhere and another child learning how to switch on a monitor. Wow. You're right. Your nephew is that much more advanced. :rolleyes:


At ANY of the top 10 pharmaceuticals, the new grad intake will consist overwhelmingly of MEN. The fact that there are more male scientists than females, AND that those male scientists are generally more highly skilled than female ones MEANS that men are better at the 'hard' sciences than women.
That doesn't mean a single thing. That only shows that the top 10 pharmaceutical companies are run by peon's who also think that little boys are better because they can turn on the monitor that much earlier. Could it be that they hire a higher proportion of men because they are sexist and THINK that the woman can't do the job? Their level of skills means diddly squat, but her sex means so much more. What does that say about the scientific community I wonder? A woman is less likely to be hired by that company because she is a woman. Compare her grades to that of the male applicants, and I'd be willing to bet that she did better at university than most of the other male applicants who got the job. Buuuut she's a woman and therefore not someone people like you would want to hire. But Jaybee, that's good. You keep using you backward caveman quality of argument as a reason why women should not be hired. All it goes to prove to anyone of intelligence is that the woman would make a better scientist because she'd view each problem without the biases that currently plagues the male scientific brains in thinking that women aren't as good.

If you'd ever been better at something, you'd know.

And you should have read what I said.
I pointed out that the problem is in clearly defining and measuring certain abilities.
That someone is better at something is usually a generalized statement. Easy to make, but scientifically hard to substantiate.

When it comes to science, many factors are involved that determine who is better, or what are the preferred abilities. It seems that some factors that make one good at science are "typically male", but some factors that also make one good at science are "typically female". So simply saying "men are better" at science can be misleading.




Trust me, I'm better ALOT.

Don't make me go at your spelling.

Being a newbie here perhaps, I shouldn't comment on this but what the hell... I think it is all a matter of potential and realization. Without referencing any scientific studies and simply using my own life experiences to form an opinion; I would have to say that men are typically better at realizing their potential. Most women that I know are mentally 'lazy'. Taking the aforementioned into consideration, it would only make sense that men are, seemingly, more suited with science than women.
I am, what most would consider to be, a woman of above average intelligence however; I still find that even I have moments of mental laziness that are usually triggered by emotion. I don’t particularly care to embrace that controversial element of womanhood however; I like to do my best to at least, always be honest with myself.

Here we have a condescending Jaybee scratching at Guthrie….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have Guthrie shrieking his way towards a defense of the feminist bitch in the middle…….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have the feminist bitch twirling her pom poms and slaughtering the English language in defense of my gender……… with what she calls logic.
I never said I was using logic. Did you just assume it? In fact you also seem to have assumed I was trying to defend the feminist in the middle, an erroneus assumption. You think I come here to act like a knight in shining armour?




The female brain is adept at some things the male's isn't and the male's adept at some things hers is not, simple biology.
You give her a physics problem, and her brain is likelier to process it verbally where his will do it mechanically.
This would explain why men are, despite history, better at science than women.
Don't give me cant about it only being history, whoever said it- the most brilliant girl in my physics class could still not match the fluidity of problem solving of the most brilliant male.

However, to say one trait or the other is superiour depends on what you value.
Thats what I'm saying, and kind of what Thersites was saying, wayyy back at the beggining of this thread before it got silly.




Ta-ta- in other words, I hate women.
But do you hate yourself? Thats what I'm wondering.

And about capitalism and brute force- the interesting thing is that you arent exactly right. what counts is how you use the force. Moreover, one of the reasons women are in the workplace much more these days is that the means of making production more efficient involve reducing the human labour element of the equation. Thus there are few jobs left where men can be "Men". But I'm sure you know that already, right?

Debbie does Dallas


You can have her talent. It's called getting a boob job and a giggling git type of personality. Calling yourself Bambi might also help you achieve her 'talent'. Oh, just don't forget the knee pads, you might find they'll come in handy as you strive to reach her level of 'talent'.


You know a lot of intelligent men who want to wear braces and have a big nose or look and sound like a guy with no gonads? Hmmm.. interesting.

Bumblebee:


Yes. It's called little boys learning to seize that little worm between their legs to understand how it "moves, feels, interoperates, etc".


Your point? What? Because a little girl is not interested in your little toys she's slower? Could it be that the little girl could grow up with better communication skills, not to mention a more developed vocabulary, while the little boy grows up to be an unsociable outcast only interested in his computer with no skills about the real world whatsoever? Lets see now. A child developing better communication skills and vocabulary which will get them somewhere and another child learning how to switch on a monitor. Wow. You're right. Your nephew is that much more advanced. :rolleyes:


That doesn't mean a single thing. That only shows that the top 10 pharmaceutical companies are run by peon's who also think that little boys are better because they can turn on the monitor that much earlier. Could it be that they hire a higher proportion of men because they are sexist and THINK that the woman can't do the job? Their level of skills means diddly squat, but her sex means so much more. What does that say about the scientific community I wonder? A woman is less likely to be hired by that company because she is a woman. Compare her grades to that of the male applicants, and I'd be willing to bet that she did better at university than most of the other male applicants who got the job. Buuuut she's a woman and therefore not someone people like you would want to hire. But Jaybee, that's good. You keep using you backward caveman quality of argument as a reason why women should not be hired. All it goes to prove to anyone of intelligence is that the woman would make a better scientist because she'd view each problem without the biases that currently plagues the male scientific brains in thinking that women aren't as good.

More misguided female stuff. A few facts;

Talk is cheap - as are communications skills;

Hard skills sell - plumbers do better than secretaries;

On a much less antagonistic note, my niece today took a sticker off it's backing paper, all by herself, and put it on her T-Shirt. Took my nephew another few seconds to catch on, but she did it first, and regardless of this entire debate, I'm pretty happy about that.

:)

What you and everyone is is forgetting is that women gravitate towards the common skills like communications - and simple economics dictate that an excess of supply of a service over corresponding demand lowers the price of that service.

Now, going back to my niece, I intend to initiate a policy that will OVERstimulate her spatial and mechanical skills, so as to compensate for the innate weaknesses therein. I want that Pharms company in 2023 to take her on because she's GOOD - not to fill up their Equal Opportunities quota. No PR bimbos in MY family, thank you....


Jaybee.

I wasn't going to comment, but after hearing an interesting medical report on the news...

Apparently women tend to have a larger corpus collosum, which means that the two brain hemispheres communicate much better with eachother than in men. In men, the individual hemispheres prefer communicating only with themselves, causing men to be much more decisive.

This would explain why men are better at theoretical sciences, and women at observational sciences like biology.

Women are better at biology?

On a much less antagonistic note, my niece today took a sticker off it's backing paper, all by herself, and put it on her T-Shirt. Took my nephew another few seconds to catch on, but she did it first, and regardless of this entire debate, I'm pretty happy about that.
And she's only twelve years old. I guess the intelligence level runs in the family.
No man, I am totally kidding on that. It is cool to see that note of positivity in your post, caring about someone, loving them even. It reminds me of what I have been thinking about for you to do that will give your ego a much bigger boost than taking credit for being born a man. Go teach someone something about sales contracting, or whatever it is you excel at. I think you will find that a great deal of respect for your real talents and positive qualities will be worth much more than bashing people.

spuriousmonkey,

Or so I hear...
That was the case in my high school biology classes anyways. Aren't they better at tearing apart cadavers and identifying organs?

That is not science. That is undergoing the educational process.

And she's only twelve years old. I guess the intelligence level runs in the family.
No man, I am totally kidding on that. It is cool to see that note of positivity in your post, caring about someone, loving them even. It reminds me of what I have been thinking about for you to do that will give your ego a much bigger boost than taking credit for being born a man. Go teach someone something about sales contracting, or whatever it is you excel at. I think you will find that a great deal of respect for your real talents and positive qualities will be worth much more than bashing people.

Ha, a lot of people here only come to let off steam, as is the case all over the Net. Offline, I bet even that KeinGedanken chap has been known to put a few coins in charity boxes...

:)

I love helping people, male AND female, achieve. Today's women are FAR more skilled at science than 17th century men; I have to concede that women in the 22nd century will therefore be proportionately further advanced than present day men. My point is that every man, women and child has ENORMOUS mental potential; yes, you guessed it, I am an advocate of gene manipulation to improve our species.

All I've said, this whole time, is that women are, by their nature, attracted to the talky, feely subjects than to the mechanistic/abstract ones. Of course, there are female Programmers and male hairdressers, but if I had a magic needle for the human race, I'd bring us ALL up to full power; male Corpus Collossi would be as active as females, and women would feel themselves just as attracted by car mechanics as they do learning foreign languages (and vice-versa for men).

What I've railed at this whole time is society being so blind to the true differences between men and women - yes, I've used some very corrosive and explosive language to draw attention.

Once I've marshalled my own experiences into written form I'll start a separate thread explaining why men outearn women.


Jaybee

I never said I was using logic.

Whooohhh. Be careful with that one.



And about capitalism and brute force- the interesting thing is that you arent exactly right.

How interestingly you put it!
Sorry, but I just could absolutely not resist this comment.


* * *




More misguided female stuff. A few facts;

Talk is cheap - as are communications skills;

And you sure are making a great example of this.




Ha, a lot of people here only come to let off steam, as is the case all over the Net. Offline, I bet even that KeinGedanken chap has been known to put a few coins in charity boxes...

The part in bold means "the chap with no thoughts".

Whooohhh. Be careful with that one.




How interestingly you put it!
Sorry, but I just could absolutely not resist this comment.


* * *



And you sure are making a great example of this.




The part in bold means "the chap with no thoughts".


No kidding? I speak French and German (howzat for communication skills?), so the possibility exists that I MIGHT have known what I wrote prior to writing it.

Ha, a lot of people here only come to let off steam, as is the case all over the Net.

so you just been troling this whole time -not really trying to discredit all feminism ?

I love helping people, male AND female, achieve. Today's women are FAR more skilled at science than 17th century men; I have to concede that women in the 22nd century will therefore be proportionately further advanced than present day men.

There I must agree with you, exept that women are already more advanced than men will be by next century.. :p What is your job then - are you a teacher or careerrs guy?


I'd bring us ALL up to full power; wouldnt that be awesome? If we were all like genius professors and sports stars at once.. but if everyone was as super as eachother, thered be no celebs or champions or prize winners for anything maybe.. no point people competing at anything bcause no one would ever win :confused:

so you just been troling this whole time -not really trying to discredit all feminism ?


Ha, not ALL feminism; I agree with feminists that women are mistreated by society, but I disagree that women CAN be equals in the truest sense; I propose to narrow (but not close, we can't do that until those in-utero injections I talked about) the gap between female and male performance in the workplace, by starting in the schools. For example, when I was 14, my school in 1982 gave all pupils a straight choice between Technical Drawing (Draughtsmanship, if you're American) and Spanish. No prizes for guessing how the gender distributions played out; there was only one guy learning Spanish, and one girl learning TD. Ha.

I'd force equal numbers into those classes, whether they want to or not. But once inside, I want to make science sexy for girls and likewise foreign languages for boys. Rather like taking a bunch of unwilling construction guys on a tour of an art gallery; chances are, one of those guys will find himself fascinated by something he would otherwise never have been exposed to, and come back on his day off.

Like I said, I only expect all of this to have a limited effect; once girls become women, they have free will, and with free will, they tend not to get involved in Aeronautics, or racecar driving. You can take the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.



There I must agree with you, exept that women are already more advanced than men will be by next century.. :p What is your job then - are you a teacher or careerrs guy?


Suffice to say I'm a businessman. Sorry to be secretive, but my market position hinges upon the exclusivity of what I sell, how I sell it etc. I don't reveal these when meeting strangers, and very definitely cannot publicise it on the Net. I suppose I could email it to you, but then I'd have to trace your IP address and kill you... :)



wouldnt that be awesome? If we were all like genius professors and sports stars at once.. but if everyone was as super as eachother, thered be no celebs or champions or prize winners for anything maybe.. no point people competing at anything bcause no one would ever win :confused:

The structure of society would change, so that Bus drivers would be as intelligent as CEO's, but prefer to drive buses than make merger decisions. Earnings would still be determined by varying ambition, but not longer by varying ability. But the overall quality of our society would DEFINITELY improve; you'd have no ugly people, no deformities, no congenital defects, no obesity, no anorexia, no need for Prozac, etc.

I'd force equal numbers into those classes, whether they want to or not. But once inside, I want to make science sexy for girls and likewise foreign languages for boys..

You could hav the boys watch videos with sexy spanish ladies and insist that knowin the language wil improve their chance of scorring on holidaya or in the southern states..

Perhpas more girls would go for hard sciences if it was presented like the life of the world.. knowing physics or geology might be more fun if it seemd somehow organic.

Cole Grey:

Now GENDANKEN, because you are only a tiny bit correct, if that, in your opinion that men are better suited to do science, I say you are incorrect. The vast difference in accomplishment is due mostly to sociological history.
My proof?
Look at the arenas of music and prose that you say women should be better at, "female trait", etc.
Vast under-representation of women in the halls of fame for either.
If history can do such things to an arena women should dominate, or at least equal men in, how can you say the same is not true for science.
My point?
if you are correct, let's say men are 2% more apt to do well in science (or whatever), our survey is still so biased that any bs "evidence" presented from "real life" social scenarios is worthless
That's why I added this, Mr. Cole Grey:


Yet according to this, Mozart is a woman and Lady Lovelace a man.- Gendanken


I don't think in terms of gender, nor define the world by it- the world is full of stupidity and genius regardless of its pissing methods.
And yes, I concede that history has been suffocated by the male.

However, I'm not going to sit here and do like all these liberals or these brilliant feminists like this wonder that is JennyRater, and deny what's so fucking obvious.

Number one- this thread references not a genetecist, not an evolutionist, but a former treasury secretary (guffaw) turned Harvard director, pointing to research.
And he sounds as useless as Jaybee.

Number two- we're built differently, hence think differently. Pry a little more into a condition label CAH, where the female embryo is abnormally infused with androgen. They’re born female- tits and all- but act male.

Number three- I’m a brain junky.

Number four- I've seen tons of documentaries concerning hermaphrodites 'fixed' during the 40's and 50's where a doctor disfiguring your baby sans consent was legal.
These were males and females that grew up psychologically fucked because no matter how the parents tried to hide the truth by giving their little “boy” dolls and the little “girl” trucks in order to train the gender they wanted into them, their body always rebelled.
Why?
Biology.

Now, if these facts are not democratic enough for you all then troll through a mall and watch the behaviour.
Listen to the words they use, how they use them.
In my electric circuits courses, I was the only female.

In sum, the man has a point- you don't like how he's saying it or that he is saying it at all but he does- yet here is what's funny.

He's a businessman.

Which means he's sitting there with hands as soft as the gel he puts in his thinning hair.
An effete, fed on sugar and cornmeal like the rest of the macho males eating beer nuts on Friday- the ones that watch football and basketball, not play them.
He's the intimidating brute with his pinky up playing cards with his buddies.

You put this paragon of masculinity, this testosterone god, this Vulcan, in a battlefield and the little bitch will be crying for his cubicle again.
This is the kind of man we have over there in Iraq, where the highest fatality in our ranks is 'friendly fire' because these idiots are all just as fed on sugar, and weakend by it but so fucking proud to be 'male'.
Like Jaybee.

And he's circumsiced.

HA!
You pussy little wimp, tell me about the contract that didn't come through or did 6 months ago, Mr. Jaybee.
The cars in your garage or the CEOs as tough and manly as you, the women, the money, the social status- tell me about all the seasonings you sprinkle on your 'masculinity'.

Tell me about what defines you, my little pencil-pusher.
The gym, the muscles, the penny you put in the charity box, that little niece of yours you keep picking on.
Your so fucking sexy and virile.


Guthrie:

I never said I was using logic.
You don't have to.
All of you take something like the Jaybee as a moral low.
So you all wax self-righteous with the egalitarian, we're-all-equal rhetoric.

Don't let me say it for you- you take the prick for a child.
Cause you're the adult and so godamned logical in comparison.


And about capitalism and brute force- the interesting thing is that you arent exactly right. what counts is how you use the force. Moreover, one of the reasons women are in the workplace much more these days is that the means of making production more efficient involve reducing the human labour element of the equation. Thus there are few jobs left where men can be "Men". But I'm sure you know that already, right?
I didn't care for 'what counts' when the point was made.

You put a boy or a girl in a room with a barrier separating each from its mother.
Its been repeatedly shown that the boy gets pissed and tries breaking that physical barrier while the girl will passively sit there and whine.
I was pointing to underlying biology.

As for the workplace- to further the blah blah- the means of breaking through concrete and blowing up quarries is just as easier today and yet the field continually lacks women. The means for drafting as well.
According to you, the manager has thousands of applications from females in these fields jamming up his desk, right?



In fact you also seem to have assumed I was trying to defend the feminist in the middle, an erroneus assumption. You think I come here to act like a knight in shining armour
Guthrie, Roman, spiderfishy what the fuck ever. You all look alike.
I mix you all up here and there, especially in the mood I've been these past weeks.


But do you hate yourself? Thats what I'm wondering.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Stick this in your eigh track and play it backwards, courtesy of the Backstreet Boys at Sciforums:

~Gendanken is a lonely, hateful beast-whore. She'll eat your children and then go home to hate herself over Baskin Robbins.~

Enough of the silly, I’m not in the mood.


Jennyrater:

Shut the fuck up.

Point to ponder:

Truthseeker's signature is screaming for sugar.
All those acquainted with the boy, know why its hillarious.

You could hav the boys watch videos with sexy spanish ladies and insist that knowin the language wil improve their chance of scorring on holidaya or in the southern states..

That's pretty much the real reason I learned French in the 80's! And in so doing, I also discovered I had a gift for languages that had gone untapped.


Perhpas more girls would go for hard sciences if it was presented like the life of the world.. knowing physics or geology might be more fun if it seemd somehow organic.

Indeed, hard science doesn't have to be dry, but the eggheads who end up teaching it usually present it as such.

*chuckle*

Checkmate

"You put a boy or a girl in a room with a barrier separating each from its mother.
Its been repeatedly shown that the boy gets pissed and tries breaking that physical barrier while the girl will passively sit there and whine."

Then you put a fool in a room, and the fool tries to say that one method is, "better", than the other.

Although there are always many examples to the contrary, women and men do tend towards having different approaches, all of which are necessary for advancement, in the sciences and elsewhere.

Then you put a fool in a room, and the fool tries to say that one method is, "better", than the other.

And you put another fool in and he'll refuse to admit quality because doing so carries with it those pushy, undemocratic notions.

Stick a bigger fool in and he'll point to his cock.
I'm a MAN, bless these balls and a businessman!

Why do little boys whine so much? They're practicing for manhood.

Macho skunk is reading this.

But won't show his furry little face again.

Come on Jaybee, what's wrong?

Feeding my face, will rip you a third anus shortly.....

"Feeding my face"

You would be- you fags won't ever shut up unless feeding or fucking.
Bet the snack machine at your jobby job is covered with fingerprints (yours), can't even see the donuts you want its so smudged.

You put a boy or a girl in a room with a barrier separating each from its mother.
Its been repeatedly shown that the boy gets pissed and tries breaking that physical barrier while the girl will passively sit there and whine.



Why do little boys whine so much? They're practicing for manhood.

Make up yuh mind, yo.

Touche.

I was talking about Jayballs.

"Feeding my face"

You would be- you fags won't ever shut up unless feeding or fucking.
Bet the snack machine at your jobby job is covered with fingerprints (yours), can't even see the donuts you want its so smudged.

Right, back in the game. As somebody once said, "Never go to war, or into a negotiation (which is war without blood, imo) on an empty stomach.

Ok, first off, I see I'm not the only one who can use Google. Whoop-dee-doo.

Now, tell me why someone who had the time to write nearly three and a half THOUSAND lengthy posts consisting of eloquent gas is still in front of his pc on yet ANOTHER Saturday night?

I'm pretty certain I can already furnish a comprehensive answer to that one...I just like hearing and reading denial phrases :)


Jaybee.

Jaja:

Ok, first off, I see I'm not the only one who can use Google. Whoop-dee-doo.

Right, right, "google".

When's the last time you put the pencil down and went to the libary, asshole?
At any rate, so.
Not going to tell me about all your contracts and the car in your garage, huh?
The women you lay?
The businesses you plan to expand as wide as the ass that sits on your office chair, so American, so manly?



"Never go to war, or into a negotiation (which is war without blood, imo) on an empty stomach.

Spinoza has a saying also
"That's a baby carrot, Jaybee. My cock's bigger than yours, bitch"- Ethics.


Now, tell me why someone who had the time to write nearly three and a half THOUSAND lengthy posts consisting of eloquent gas is still in front of his pc on yet ANOTHER Saturday night
I'm rarely here on weekends, ask anyone Paco.

I'm in ghastly mood, so eat it.
But, haven't you heard?
Gendanken is an ugly whore who can't get a man, was abused as a little girl and makes up for with the forums.

Is it any wonder why I'm here on Saturday night, writing eloquent gas for Illeterate Gas, meaning you?

Threads dead, I won.

I'll tell you about the car; it's a Saab 900SE 2.3i Convertible, cream leather seats, cup holder, you name it...

:)

My last girlfriend was 5'11" of sheer womanhood, and an all-nighter; no, geek, she didn't read Proust until dawn, she screwed without drying up. 4 times a night, and still wanted more in the morning.

The contracts are none of your fvcking business, a word I doubt you've used much when describing yourself.

But speaking of doubts, I have one; you don't strike me as female, your demeanour and writing style are quite masculine.

And I believe I'm sitting in front of the world's biggest library.


Jaybee.

jennyRater


wouldnt that be awesome? If we were all like genius professors and sports stars at once.. but if everyone was as super as eachother, thered be no celebs or champions or prize winners for anything maybe.. no point people competing at anything bcause no one would ever win
I swear you make my gums hurt and my morning sickness just that little bit worse.

BumbleBee


More misguided female stuff. A few facts;

Talk is cheap - as are communications skills;

Hard skills sell - plumbers do better than secretaries;

Having read that, I'd have picked you as a brawny brainless type who fiddled in people's toilet pipes and always had that peculiar smell emanating from their brown finger nails. But 'lo n be'old', you're a salesman. HA! Delicious..


What you and everyone is is forgetting is that women gravitate towards the common skills like communications - and simple economics dictate that an excess of supply of a service over corresponding demand lowers the price of that service.
Interesting. You're a so called businessman and a salesman, and you're saying women gravitate towards common skills such as communications? I'd expect that someone who's reached your lofty position (I'm guessing car salesman or hoover door to door), would have some form of communication skill. Non? So what do you do bumblebee? Club the clients and buyers over the head and proclaim 'me sell.. you buy.. now'? Ironic isn't, it that what you blame your niece as being backward for having more of, is essential for you to peddle whatever it is you're trying to get people to buy.


Now, going back to my niece, I intend to initiate a policy that will OVERstimulate her spatial and mechanical skills, so as to compensate for the innate weaknesses therein.
Trying to over-compensate for your own inate weaknesses? Don't you know that you should never force yourself or your wishes and dreams on a child. Tends to backfire and make you look like the cheerleader's mother who'd kill her daughter's oponent because 'Bessy just has to be on top because I never was'.


All I've said, this whole time, is that women are, by their nature, attracted to the talky, feely subjects than to the mechanistic/abstract ones. Of course, there are female Programmers and male hairdressers, but if I had a magic needle for the human race, I'd bring us ALL up to full power; male Corpus Collossi would be as active as females, and women would feel themselves just as attracted by car mechanics as they do learning foreign languages (and vice-versa for men).
You mean you'd want to put yourself where everyone else was? Make yourself equal.


Once I've marshalled my own experiences into written form I'll start a separate thread explaining why men outearn women.
Using that useless talk is cheap type of communication to explain that huh?

The reason why men outearn women in many instances bumblee comes down to the law and statutes and regulations. Go back in history and you'll see that a man and a woman doing exactly the same thing will always have some disparity in earnings, with the male earning more than the woman. The law allowed it, as did the regulations that governed all industries. While equal opportunity and supposed anti-discrimination laws were meant to equal out the imbalance, the imbalance still continues in most fields. Men don't outearn women because they are better. Men outearn women because men percieve themselves as being better and so ensured that the laws and statutes they presided over in the last 100 years reflected that sexist and stupid ideal.


No kidding? I speak French and German (howzat for communication skills?),
So now communication skills are good? All because you supposedly speak French and German? So you've gravitated towards the little box you've stereotyped women under? You know, the 'talk is cheap and as are communications' spiel you gave us above? Cute..


I agree with feminists that women are mistreated by society, but I disagree that women CAN be equals in the truest sense;
This is hilarious. You agree with feminists that women are mistreated by the boors in society, but you disagree that women can be equal. Do you even know the meaning of contradiction?

The inherent differences between men and women will ensure that we will never be equal in the truest sense. Feminists dream of the day where a woman won't be judged as being unfit for anything because of the mere fact that she is a woman. That is the sense of equality that feminists dream of. Feminists do not dream of being equal in the sense of growing a penis. Do you get the drift and differences there?


I propose to narrow (but not close, we can't do that until those in-utero injections I talked about) the gap between female and male performance in the workplace, by starting in the schools. For example, when I was 14, my school in 1982 gave all pupils a straight choice between Technical Drawing (Draughtsmanship, if you're American) and Spanish. No prizes for guessing how the gender distributions played out; there was only one guy learning Spanish, and one girl learning TD. Ha.
Let me guess, you were the one learning Spanish? Or was it French or German?


Rather like taking a bunch of unwilling construction guys on a tour of an art gallery; chances are, one of those guys will find himself fascinated by something he would otherwise never have been exposed to, and come back on his day off.
You're assuming of course that all construction workers aren't educated or have appreciation for any type of art. Another dangerous and frankly silly piece of stereotyping on your part.


Suffice to say I'm a businessman. Sorry to be secretive, but my market position hinges upon the exclusivity of what I sell, how I sell it etc. I don't reveal these when meeting strangers, and very definitely cannot publicise it on the Net. I suppose I could email it to you, but then I'd have to trace your IP address and kill you...
Sex toys market doing that well?


But the overall quality of our society would DEFINITELY improve; you'd have no ugly people, no deformities, no congenital defects, no obesity, no anorexia, no need for Prozac, etc.
Where would you fit in all of this? Hmmm no salesmen.. bliss.. :)


That's pretty much the real reason I learned French in the 80's! And in so doing, I also discovered I had a gift for languages that had gone untapped.
Heh! Let me guess, you were the only guy in French class as well?


I'll tell you about the car; it's a Saab 900SE 2.3i Convertible, cream leather seats, cup holder, you name it...
Is this your attempt to put yourself above everyone else? Or is this you looking at a different way of letting on how big your penis is after the extension?


My last girlfriend was 5'11" of sheer womanhood, and an all-nighter; no, geek, she didn't read Proust until dawn, she screwed without drying up. 4 times a night, and still wanted more in the morning.
Oh good grief! What next, you're going to share the position that makes you last longer than 3 minutes? There's such a thing as saying too much. I could understand why she's your ex, most woman would run from any git who spread her sex life out like a dried octopus for all to see and smell.


But speaking of doubts, I have one; you don't strike me as female, your demeanour and writing style are quite masculine.
And yours is quite feminine. So what's your point? What does her writing style have anything to do with it?

Bells,


I swear you make my gums hurt and my morning sickness just that little bit worse.

Are you really pregnant or are you fucking with her?

Bells,



Are you really pregnant or are you fucking with her?
Well and truly really pregnant. The doctors are calling it amazing since I wasn't able to have children but the ultrasound pictures show a little being with a heartbeat and the beginning of arms and legs.

I'd hardly say I had morning sickness if I wasn't pregnant. :bugeye:

we must have a 'congrats ' thread when Bells's baby is born.

those drs who said you couldnt have a baby then found they were wrong.. are they mostly men? It might be related to the question that startd THIS thread.

Well and truly really pregnant. The doctors are calling it amazing since I wasn't able to have children but the ultrasound pictures show a little being with a heartbeat and the beginning of arms and legs.

I'd hardly say I had morning sickness if I wasn't pregnant. :bugeye:


Ah, congratulations, REALLY, and doubly so as you couldn't before.

Now, given that you're pregnant, I'd rather not tear your answer apart limb from limb, in fact I advise (with respect) that you don't pick any kind of argument, online or off, for the next 9 months or so. I can see you're a sassy kind of girl who is clearly MORE than capable of fighting her own corner (in fact, bareknuckle brawler comes to mind with you, "gloves and headgear are for wimps!"), and I like sass in my women, but the next 9 months are time for lots of old-fashioned smiles, laughter and not too much else, please.

Foetuses are incredibly well-attuned to even the most subtle emotional changes in the mother. So go to plenty of smoke-free comedy shows, get your loved ones to give you the giggles at every turn. Play your fave cd's around the house (unless they're by the woefully misnamed Nirvana) The baby picks up on EVERYTHING, and this will shape it's pre-natal mental development.

As you already know, positive people deal with negative events better than negative people do, so do everything to ensure the kid thinks he/she is getting forced (kicking and screming, still) into a happy world.

Your kid already has a big advantage; his/her mother is a very intelligent person and, according to statistics, will inherit a large proportion of your IQ without extraordinary help from you.

Last note - a study here in the UK showed this week that, apparently, there is NO safe minimum limit of alcohol you can drink while pregnant. Sorry to break that to you, but now I'd also advise cutting out the Chardonnay for the duration.

Take comfort in the fact that now, you don't have to hold back on the pizza/profiteroles, however...!


Jaybee

we must have a 'congrats ' thread when Bells's baby is born.

those drs who said you couldnt have a baby then found they were wrong.. are they mostly men? It might be related to the question that startd THIS thread.
Ermm no congrats threads needed. Women give birth all the time, it's no big deal. And yes all the specialists who stated I'd never ever conceive were in fact male, but at that time, after I saw the results after the countless surgeries, I'd have thought the same and did think the same until my partner and I had a small booboo and a month an a half later I fell asleep at work and thought I had the flu. My current doctor, who is a female, was also shocked that I actually managed to conceive. Now we'll have to wait and see if it holds for the duration. Time will tell. Only 7 long long months to go, but as my other half has stated, the thing that looks like a jelly bean in my stomach has a very strong and healthy heartbeat and has picked the one place that should be able to hold it for the long run... and if I keep not being able to look at any form of meat and keep craving green mango with salt and chilli, my digestive system will rebel.


Ah, congratulations, REALLY, and doubly so as you couldn't before.
Merci.

But as to the rest...


Now, given that you're pregnant, I'd rather not tear your answer apart limb from limb, in fact I advise (with respect) that you don't pick any kind of argument, online or off, for the next 9 months or so. I can see you're a sassy kind of girl who is clearly MORE than capable of fighting her own corner (in fact, bareknuckle brawler comes to mind with you, "gloves and headgear are for wimps!"), and I like sass in my women, but the next 9 months are time for lots of old-fashioned smiles, laughter and not too much else, please.
You sound worse than my mother. Give me a break Jaybee. You're letting your chauvinistic side show again :p. As for not picking arguments, it's kind of what I do for a living. If I'm to be all nice and dressed in pink mu mu's for the duration, I would also be without a job.


Foetuses are incredibly well-attuned to even the most subtle emotional changes in the mother. So go to plenty of smoke-free comedy shows, get your loved ones to give you the giggles at every turn. Play your fave cd's around the house (unless they're by the woefully misnamed Nirvana) The baby picks up on EVERYTHING, and this will shape it's pre-natal mental development.
This embryo is currently listening to Midnight Oil blaring from the stereo. If it wanted me to be happy, it wouldn't give me morning sickness 24 hours a day and still make me hungry at the same time. I get plenty of comedy out of life itself. I get even more comedy with my darling partner who is convinced I should be dressed in pink mu mu's as my jeans are now tight.. although I think annoyance would be a better description of that situation at this point and he is the one highly amused. However I give him laughs every hour or so though since I now pee pretty much every hour on the hour. It's pre-natal mental development will be shaped by me cursing each hour I have to wake up to pee every single night.


Your kid already has a big advantage; his/her mother is a very intelligent person and, according to statistics, will inherit a large proportion of your IQ without extraordinary help from you.
His/Her mother is insane and a lawyer who likes to paint. We're hoping he/she gets its intelligence from his/her father instead. :)


Last note - a study here in the UK showed this week that, apparently, there is NO safe minimum limit of alcohol you can drink while pregnant. Sorry to break that to you, but now I'd also advise cutting out the Chardonnay for the duration.
I don't normally drink and yes I am well aware that alcohol is quite dangerous, as is tobacco. I apparently can't eat any processed foods such as ham, pastrami and salami and I am also supposed to avoid fish. So now my trips to the deli for a pastrami, avocado with whole-seeded mustard and salad on rye is now out of the question. Now that I find devastating.


Take comfort in the fact that now, you don't have to hold back on the pizza/profiteroles, however...!
Please..

You don't have to.
All of you take something like the Jaybee as a moral low.
So you all wax self-righteous with the egalitarian, we're-all-equal rhetoric.
Equal in what way?




Don't let me say it for you- you take the prick for a child.
Cause you're the adult and so godamned logical in comparison.
Last I could tell, only adults were so silly in their arguing as he is.






You put a boy or a girl in a room with a barrier separating each from its mother.
Its been repeatedly shown that the boy gets pissed and tries breaking that physical barrier while the girl will passively sit there and whine.
I was pointing to underlying biology.[/QUOTE]
Well why didnt you say so, dammit.







Guthrie, Roman, spiderfishy what the fuck ever. You all look alike.
I mix you all up here and there, especially in the mood I've been these past weeks.
Nope, its only me. I didnt realise there was anyone out there who sounded quite like me. And I cant tell what mood your in.



Haven't you been paying attention?
Stick this in your eigh track and play it backwards, courtesy of the Backstreet Boys at Sciforums:

~Gendanken is a lonely, hateful beast-whore. She'll eat your children and then go home to hate herself over Baskin Robbins.~

I assume your parodying someone? Now you come to say it, I can think of you eating someones children. The interesting bit would be why.

Bells,

Not to sound like an ass...but out of curiousity, what was it that made them think you couldn't conceive? Rotten eggs? Narrow fallopian tube? Maybe this baby is at risk of some kind of defects..

Anyways, congrats :)
Might not seem like a big deal to you now, but remember how it will change the next 18 years.

Bells,

Not to sound like an ass...but out of curiousity, what was it that made them think you couldn't conceive? Rotten eggs? Narrow fallopian tube? Maybe this baby is at risk of some kind of defects..

Anyways, congrats :)
Might not seem like a big deal to you now, but remember how it will change the next 18 years.
Quite simple really. Scarred uterus due to some operations, wasn't anything serious at the time but any cut causes scars. As we've now found out with shock is that it can rejuvenate itself quite well. Eggs and tubes were fine. If this embryo has any defects, it won't be because I'd been told I couldn't conceive. It would be for some reasons unbeknown to me or my doctors at the moment. Any pregnancy can result in the child having birth defects, and while most miscarry in the first trimester as the body rejects the 'not quite right' embryo and some do make it for the 9 months, although most defects are detected quite early now.

As for what it will be like in 18 years, we're trying not to think of that. Especially in light of my partner's nephew having reached that golden age of 2 and he's now become a right little turd. We're just enjoying the thought that for a couple of years at least, we'll have our own personal little slave who won't talk back for fear of being locked in the cupboard. We plan to have it scavenging for its own food in the big wild world by the time it's 10, so the next 18 years shouldn't really scare us that much. :)

Congratulations Bells! And good luck.

(Psst - you should name it after me if it's a girl)

(Psst - you should name it after me if it's a girl)

You mean if it's a half love slave/half cluster lizard?


Anyway, Congratz, Bells. All the best.
And maybe you could name it after me if it's some sort of nexus. Or maybe if it's inverted. Whichever works best.

Or maybe Dr. Lou if it's a dingo's kidney?
We should start a baby naming/insult thread. That'd be fun.

Thank you. :)

As for names at the moment, the father has volunteered Odin if it's a boy or Hela if it's a girl and my father inlaw is pestering us to name it Digby if it's a boy. While I feel some amusement at naming a child after a god of death, I shudder with some repulsion at Digby. It's father has also suggested Hey-You, as a generic type of name to save us having to think up a real name.

As for name insulting thread, knock yourself out. You can't get much worse than Digby... shudders... Apparently it means settlement near a ditch.. Not even I could be that cruel. Beating it regularly with a hose is one thing, but Digby? Shudders

Well, I think 'Britney', 'Courtney' etc. are understandably out of the question.

IMO, a name should satisfy as many of the following criteria as time permits:

1) It should stand a good chance of remaining relatively exclusive;

2) It should not mean anything ridiculous in any of the top 6 world languages (that said, my name has a military overtone in Arabic!);

3) It should sound diatonically harmonious with the surname;

4) Regardless of how unfamiliar, it should give a fair clue as to the gender of the person; let others name their daughters, 'Gatsby'.


Jaybee.

if the babys female, call it -
Alice Gina Irene Rachel Lucy.

if a boy, call it -

Andy Luke Arthur Daniel.

Or some set of names starting wit th those leters...

Funny how a thread is turned from its subject so easily. But, I think that Gendanken was right when she said that the thread's dead. Now all that remains are aftershocks.

Anyway, on to the more interesting subject of baby names.

How about Science? Works for a boy or a girl.

Funny how a thread is turned from its subject so easily. But, I think that Gendanken was right when she said that the thread's dead. Now all that remains are aftershocks.




Aftershocks? Oh dear fellow, I've got plenty of commercial airliners left...

:D

I was looking forward to going up against Bells, as she clearly brought some heavy firepower for her gender here, but I would consider it immoral to rile a pregnant woman. Nine months from now, however, it's open season, by which time I will have dozens more examples of evidence for my case, flooding out of Pilot Training schools, licenses in hand..

I'm having a hard time believing Gedanken is female, I wouldn't put it past someone of his intellect to successfully impersonate a woman, with his twisted psyche, grinning maniacally as he pulls the wool over hundreds of posters eyes at an 'intelligent' forum.

It should sound diatonically harmonious with the surname;

This isn't surprising, but gives a nice sound picture for your thought patterns -

do
re
mi
fa
so boring.
so prematurely defined.
so, so-so.

Bells:

What does her writing style have anything to do with it?

Don't you see? In order for me to be 'female' my nouns should be ovulating.

(Aside: You're pregnant? I'm a little depressed and envious but, - Congratulations.

Every time you look on that boy or girl count your blessings. This is a planet to beautiful to waste away on the small stuff (like gender issues).
This planet is what you'll give that child of yours.
This planet is what I'll never give one of my own.

I don't think I'll ever have the little boy I dream about. You already have yours)


I'm having a hard time believing Gedanken is female, I wouldn't put it past someone of his intellect to successfully impersonate a woman, with his twisted psyche, grinning maniacally as he pulls the wool over hundreds of posters eyes at an 'intelligent' forum.
Chug antifreeze.

Not in the mood so....cheers.

Bells:


Don't you see? In order for me to be 'female' my nouns should be ovulating.

(Aside: You're pregnant? I'm a little depressed and envious but, - Congratulations.

Every time you look on that boy or girl count your blessings. This is a planet to beautiful to waste away on the small stuff (like gender issues).
This planet is what you'll give that child of yours.
This planet is what I'll never give one of my own.

I don't think I'll ever have the little boy I dream about. You already have yours)


Chug antifreeze.

Not in the mood so....cheers.

Jesus, I'm sorry...keep trying, keep getting different opinions. There are women in their 50's having kids. Take a leaf out of MY book here, although you may think I have a nerve...well, that's exactly why I got as far as I did in business.

I didn't let society keep lying to me about women's REAL position within it, so why should you just accept what the prognosis/ses? Go overseas if necessary, the Medical profession is more often divided than not on such issues.

But hey, none of this matters because I KNOW you're really a man - I mean, how else would you know what Antifreeze is?

;)

Good luck,


Jaybee.

I don't think I'll ever have the little boy I dream about.
Why not? If you have a girl just place it in one of those chinese dieing rooms and try again.

Bells,
I think I should cyber-parent this child of yours.
IMHO 2 women simply don't have the tools to raise a well rounded individual. Regardless of how well one of them mimics a man.
We live in the same town too, who knows? Your son might be trying to sell me a house in the future, I don't want people I'm doing business with getting giddy over the bulge in my pants.

Jaybee:



I didn't let society keep lying to me about women's REAL position within it, so why should you just accept what the prognosis/ses? .
Thy tireless, gruesome idiocy......

You have nothing to say to me beucase I agree with you.
You're only hanging on looking so godamned brilliant.


But hey, none of this matters because I KNOW you're really a man - I mean, how else would you know what Antifreeze is?

I can also read resistor bands.
GASP!
Oh my god, Gendanken has testes!


Why not?

I'm a spinster in waiting.

I was looking forward to going up against Bells, as she clearly brought some heavy firepower for her gender here, but I would consider it immoral to rile a pregnant woman. Nine months from now, however, it's open season

Oh come on you tiresome pussy, quit stalling and try to refute your idiotic contradiction.

This has started to sound just like the "he or she" thread...

Perhaps we should talk about tigers?

Oh come on you tiresome pussy, quit stalling and try to refute your idiotic contradiction.

Perhaps you would care to specify:

1) The contradiction I made (as you understand it, anyway);
2) Why YOU think it's idiotic;
3) What on Earth made you think I was trying to refute it.

Make your answers precise, concise, and relevant. The fact that I've asked for clarity so early in our discussion does not bode well for your chances of continuing it with me.

I don't have time for those who waste theirs.


Jaybee.

I don't have time for those who waste theirs.

then why waste so much of your own writing all that anti feminism stuf?

then why waste so much of your own writing all that anti feminism stuf?

All that 'stuf' is a service I'm happy to provide. I've successfully shown that that women steer away from the (non-social) sciences in favour of the social ones because, of the two, their brains prefer the social ones, and the gulf in preferences is FAR more marked in girls than boys.

I have found through experience that defending myself against people barely out of their teens is somewhat time-inefficient.


Jaybee

All you have shown is a huge bias against women that causes you to interpret facts in a way that (falsely) feeds your little baby-bird ego.

You have also shown that you aren't one-tenth the scientist that many women are, so according to you, since career choices are made due to brain differences, you are vastly deficient in the "skills" that make men such good scientists. You use your woman skills - communication - to do your work. You jaybee, you talk-talk all time for job, you woman, ugh ugh, where my club?

You have also shown that you become much more polite when dealing with some of the women who showed up to make you look stupid, because they scared you.

Jaybee


but I would consider it immoral to rile a pregnant woman. Nine months from now, however, it's open season, by which time I will have dozens more examples of evidence for my case, flooding out of Pilot Training schools, licenses in hand..
Let me guess, your wife gets pregnant and you make her wear pink and a giant bow in her hair, refuse to let her leave the house lest her delicate sensibilities be subjected to the cruel male world and only speak to her in hushed tones so that she is never upset. :rolleyes: Or could it be that you need 9 months to come up with a better argument? And if all else fails imitating OBL is the final solution..

My dear little boy, I'm not riled, merely amused. I am riled however when my head is hanging over the toilet at 2am while the child's dear father is standing behind me telling me that eating something will help the morning sickness pass and then lists what he can make for me... amongst toast, he lists bacon, eggs, steak... all of which make me hurl even more and even while I feel the contents of my body coming out through my mouth, I can still get riled enough to tell him where to go. Pregnant women are not delicate flowers that need to be wrapped in cotton wool. Offer any pregnant woman steak when she's suffering from a severe bout of morning sickness and you'll end up being the one trying to protect your delicates.


I'm having a hard time believing Gedanken is female, I wouldn't put it past someone of his intellect to successfully impersonate a woman, with his twisted psyche, grinning maniacally as he pulls the wool over hundreds of posters eyes at an 'intelligent' forum.
And yet none of us could ever assume that you'd ever have the talent or intelligence to pretend to be a woman. Funny that. :) Gendy's a she who can read and write. *GASP* Who'd have thought.. a woman doing what only a man is supposed to do. Stop sounding so much like you're a member of the former Taliban regime.


FUCK OFF, LITTLE BOY.
And here you are saying that men are better at being scientific. How about you just don't use yourself as an example to prove your point? Hmmm?

Gendanken

Thank you.

However thinking about the state of the world that this child is being born into depresses me at the moment. It's fast become a place where no-one should raise a child. There aren't many places of beauty left in this world that has not been touched by man's dirty hands. I find it depressing that I'm told by my doctor to not eat larger species of fish due to the toxins they have accumulated in their bodies, because it could pose a direct risk to the foetus. When she told me this, I kept thinking to myself what in the hell will this child have to contend with when it's growing up. Everything is now brought into an even scarier perspective.

Lou


I think I should cyber-parent this child of yours.
IMHO 2 women simply don't have the tools to raise a well rounded individual. Regardless of how well one of them mimics a man.
Speaking from personal experience Lou? Is that where you think your not quite right tag stems from?


We live in the same town too, who knows? Your son might be trying to sell me a house in the future, I don't want people I'm doing business with getting giddy over the bulge in my pants.
Yes we do live in the same town. And what you don't know Lou is that I tracked you down, rummaged through your garbage bins to find a used discarded condom, and after a slurp with a turkey baster later.. voila! We have baby. But we'll let my boyfriend believe he's the real father ok? After all, evolution dictates that the female will look to any mate that can best support herself and her offspring. Sadly for this child, I found all the little Barbie underwear, you're obviously fond of wearing judging by the stains you left behind, discarded in your bin after the turkey baster was already successful. So you just don't quite cut it anymore. But get rid of that fetish Lou and you never know... this child might start calling you Daddy after all.

And you don't need to worry Lou, I don't think the child will be walking around with a magnifying glass to try spot that 'bulge' in your pants. We'll just hope that your genes are weak.

Bells said, "And here you are saying that men are better at being scientific. How about you just don't use yourself as an example to prove your point? Hmmm?"

Sorry, I was using him as an example to make him see his real problem and hopefully find other solutions. I'm just a giver, what can I do?

Also, congratulations, you already know you will make it through all of this stuff you're dealing with, but then you get the joy of not sleeping for six months, or a year. One step at a time, I suppose. But, from what my friends say, it is all worth it and I know it will be for you too.

Jaybee


Let me guess, your wife gets pregnant

I'm single, and deliberately so - you cannot POSSIBLY think I'd be so stupid as to just SURRENDER 50% of everything that she didn't pay for?


and you make her wear pink and a giant bow in her hair

Mmmm, delicious thought! Although between sexy and aggressive, and sexy and kittenish, I'll take the former everyday. I'll like my women to be the best kinds of feminists; the ones who wear leather, look DAMNED good in it too, party in Studio 55 until 3 am, go home, throw us on the bed and fuck my brains out until the feral growling from both our mouths is drowned out by the rumblings from our stomachs for breakfast.


refuse to let her leave the house lest her delicate sensibilities be subjected to the cruel male world and only speak to her in hushed tones so that she is never upset. :rolleyes:

I believe in treating a woman like a lady, until she merits or requests (Mmmm...) otherwise


Or could it be that you need 9 months to come up with a better argument? And if all else fails imitating OBL is the final solution..

Say what you like about that evil bastard, the man is a genius; who else (but Bush?) could have crafted such an attack? The Pentagon no longer pentagonal, hundreds of Jews killed, and brings the Middle East war ONTO New World soil for the first time ever.


My dear little boy,

Ahhh wait now; don't use that word unless you've physically pinned me beneath you, and if you have, don't be so polite about the surrounding language. Moreover, I promise you, even leaving aside my 6'0" and 244Ibs of bodybuilt muscle, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing small about me.


I'm not riled, merely amused. I am riled however when my head is hanging over the toilet at 2am while the child's dear father is standing behind me telling me that eating something will help the morning sickness pass and then lists what he can make for me... amongst toast, he lists bacon, eggs, steak... all of which make me hurl even more and even while I feel the contents of my body coming out through my mouth, I can still get riled enough to tell him where to go. Pregnant women are not delicate flowers that need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

For all your scriptual and descriptive aggression, and general chutzpah, you're nonetheless a delicate, flesh and blood human being who is capable of being hurt, emotionally or physically. I can well imagine that, up to today, you've left several of your male sparring partners on this forum, who weighed in at twice what you did, on the proverbial canvas staring up at the lights, regaining consciousness and screaming with terror.

Trouble is, you're a prizefighter who now happens to contain another human MUCH more vulnerable than yourself.


Offer any pregnant woman steak when she's suffering from a severe bout of morning sickness and you'll end up being the one trying to protect your delicates.

I suggest you buy some Muesli for breakfast.



And yet none of us could ever assume that you'd ever have the talent or intelligence to pretend to be a woman. .

Nor the time.


And here you are saying that men are better at being scientific. How about you just don't use yourself as an example to prove your point? Hmmm?

Gendanken

I AM good at acting within gender - as that post showed.

[QUOTE]Speaking from personal experience Lou? Is that where you think your not quite right tag stems from?


Yes we do live in the same town. And what you don't know Lou is that I tracked you down, rummaged through your garbage bins to find a used discarded condom, and after a slurp with a turkey baster later.. voila! We have baby. But we'll let my boyfriend believe he's the real father ok? After all, evolution dictates that the female will look to any mate that can best support herself and her offspring. Sadly for this child, I found all the little Barbie underwear, you're obviously fond of wearing judging by the stains you left behind, discarded in your bin after the turkey baster was already successful. So you just don't quite cut it anymore. But get rid of that fetish Lou and you never know... this child might start calling you Daddy after all.

And you don't need to worry Lou, I don't think the child will be walking around with a magnifying glass to try spot that 'bulge' in your pants. We'll just hope that your genes are weak.

Geez, you're crazy!!

Really, I kind of envy and sympathise simultaneously with your boyfriend. You can guess why.

We're going to have fun today:


I AM good at acting within gender - as that post showed.


Time for pork chops.
On the grill: a slab of hot meat we call Jaybee.

The FDA requires all food skinned and chopped up- so- this crunchy bacon is sexless.
Doesn't matter a lick if Jaybee's a man, a woman, or both. Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer.

This organism has to date:
1.Rambled about society being deluded.
1.a information overload

2.The dumbing down of our species,
3. His so called men of 'mechanistic intellect'
4. and somewhere between "Dalle's raw sensuality" and opinions on Bollywood you'll find him giving his readers advice on how to set up a business.

A total of five threads obsessed with society intercepted every now and then by a trip to the art section where the fags hang.

This is the same species that wrote this:

All I've said, this whole time, is that women are, by their nature, attracted to the talky, feely subjects than to the mechanistic/abstract ones
The same imbecile who, in a thread saying men are better at science, would play Grieg and Mozart to a fetal brain and think he's fucking doing something.

Ain't that right Jaybee, you fucking idiot?

You 6 foot 200 something pound hunk of fat-head.
I wonder how you must look all bent over a desk and counting out numbers, its hot. Cause that’s “manly”.
And the spatial-mechanistic skill you must show every now and then when you sharpen a pencil.

Do you even eat meat?