I was just wondering why is there like 1 woman to every 20 men on this site? I haven't been on here long but I have noticed even when you talk about women no women respond! Its all a bit wierd.
many women disguise themselves under men alias. especially here. same goes for men too. But not me, I am a guy and I am a guy here too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! <--- http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982
Either you're not a feminist or your a male or your trying to start somethin. Its a science forum, siiieeenncce. Traditionally, how many women were into science??? They took care of babies, cooked and did laundry. Thats changing slowwly but steadily. Why are you miss independent pretending we're living in a star trek episode yet???
I think it's the same way with most forums. There aren't that many women who leave tracks on the Internet, compared to men. Why? Probably the same reason they don't leave that many tracks in the real world.
just like one-day-butterflies burn out like a violent flame and in next day...all is gone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aherm you are well out on that ratio, the actual ratio is more like 100+ to 1. Just try to name 10 birds who post here? You will never do it!
If you weed out the precocious, insulting, whining, bragging, cranky, and just plain stupid posts, women are reasonably well represented in the actual discourse of this forum. I'm sure we still outnumber you, but the ratio is surely more in line with your ratio in other substantive activities, after several millennia of repression by the post-Neolithic religions. Be welcome and please stick around. And let your eyes pass right over the posts that no self-respecting woman would have written. Some of the "discussions" about women are so outlandish that even we older married men who have at least a rudimentary acquaintance with your half of the population don't even know how to begin to respond. Bear in mind that the average age of the members is somewhere around fifteen and you'll realize that the answers to some of these quandaries will be revealed only by the passage of time, not through words.
Its a yin yang thing. Men just tend to be more pro-active, and women more receptive. Takes both to make a world...yang is merely more visible.
I conjecture that most assumptions of a writer's masculinity/femininity come from the reader's perception of his/her diction. I also conjecture that in a controlled test, our intuition in this matter may be shown to be more misleading than we originally presume. There are interesting linguistics articles on this but I'm too lazy to look 'em up. There's also (rumored to be) a fun online gender-checker based on user's textual input. It wasn't operational when I tried it about a year ago though.
Heh. This thread is making me laugh already. The true answer? Most women have better things to do (draw your own conclusions about our female members from this Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
I'm a woman and a science student. Traditionally women were not into science because lets see THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED to be educated in the same way as men. I bring to ur attention Nobel prize winner Barbera McClintock. She couldn't study a graduate course in genetics in her university because they didn't take female students, even though she already had achieved a degree. She worked in the universitiy's labs and achieved many great discoveries with her team and got her PhD in 1927, but because she was a she, there was litte hope of her attaining a position as a lecturer at that university she already worked at. A friend of hers asked another uni to give her an assistant professorship they accepted and she started work in 1936. But she was left out of academic activities the other staff could attend. But in 1951 she was an accepted scientist figure until she proposed the transposable elements (genes that moved) theory she had been working on. People didn't believe her but then as technology grew someone else rediscovered what she had found, she finally got recognition for her amazing discovery in the 70's but got the Nobel prize in 1983. 35 years after her original paper. Compare that story to Watson and Crick. They used someone elses Xray diffraction patterns (1 of them was a woman) to deciphur the double helix structure of DNA, in 1953. and they got the Nobel Prize in 1953. Ofcourse there's was a much more important discovery but it still shows the point.
It's because women don't use the Internet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Whackzzz"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Interesting idea. Maybe there should be a study?
:bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Arent you more interesting in her brains? Tut tut
