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.