Nice 1 Guth - looks like youve shut him up, fora whole day so far..!!
Men are better at Science
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
- Status
jennyRater said:
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.
Jaybee from his cast said:
Haha...you can't make real money in science.
Jaybee from his cast said:
I earn my own goddam money, working akward shifts you jerk - and Im not married!!
my legs dont need waxing if you must know
When did this place become so inane?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
When the moderator stopped moderating.
at least this litle gender slagingmatch seems over.
I guess the result of the debate is inconclusive.
Maybe I should throw a bit of petrol on the fire.
There seem to be more men in higher academic positions. Does this prove that men are better at science?
Maybe I should throw a bit of petrol on the fire.
There seem to be more men in higher academic positions. Does this prove that men are better at science?
No.spuriousmonkey said:
There are more men in higher positions in many fields. This is a result of history, not necessarily talent.
Let anecdotal evidence be damned to the pit, unless you are going to reduce the question to a personal opinion.
And then let the personal opinion be damned to the pit if it masquerades as empirical evidence.
spuriousmonkey said:
no one's proved us feminists wrong or shut us up, so I think weve won..
Even if men migth LIKE science more + thus get the jobs more often, they arent neccessarly BETTER
Gray cole
The problem is that you're demanding an absolute proof that men are better at science. Otherwise (as I am intepreting; and let me know if I'm wrong), there is no difference between men and women in science. It's going to be a while for there to be absolute concrete proof. Therefore, no one knows for certain which gender is better at science. All I know is that it's extremely probable that men are better.
Which gender do you think is probably better at science?
The problem is that you're demanding an absolute proof that men are better at science. Otherwise (as I am intepreting; and let me know if I'm wrong), there is no difference between men and women in science. It's going to be a while for there to be absolute concrete proof. Therefore, no one knows for certain which gender is better at science. All I know is that it's extremely probable that men are better.
Which gender do you think is probably better at science?
A slightly better was of putting it would be, that slightly more men are better at the metnal disciplines associated with Science than women. But that is easily overwhelmed by cultural factors. I saw a graph elsewhere, (I'll need to look it up again) that showed that Japan had only a couple of percent of scientists as women, and Hungary was somewhere around 40%. And one need only think of the increasing levels of women in universityin Europe and the USA, thats gone from, what, maybe 2-5% to certainly over 20% in the past 50 to 100 years, to see that cultural factors are more important in this case.
People, this is a science forum. If you are aware of any studies indicating that women are, on average, better than/worse than/the same as men at the cognitive activities associated with science, then post some references! Men aren’t necessarily better at science just because you’ve known a few overly-emotional women who were bad at math, and women aren’t necessarily equal at science just because it offends your sense of fairness to imagine otherwise. Let’s see some data to back up all the opinions that are flying around.
I haven’t seen any data on the subject, so I don’t have an opinion on the issue – but I’d say recognizing that I don’t have enough data to form an opinion puts me ahead of all the people here whose opinions are based on anecdotal evidence and popular perception.
I haven’t seen any data on the subject, so I don’t have an opinion on the issue – but I’d say recognizing that I don’t have enough data to form an opinion puts me ahead of all the people here whose opinions are based on anecdotal evidence and popular perception.
Classic.
Here we have a condescending Jaybee scratching at Guthrie….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have Guthrie shrieking his way towards a defense of the feminist bitch in the middle…….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have the feminist bitch twirling her pom poms and slaughtering the English language in defense of my gender……… with what she calls logic.
You're all fucking women- its like a Macy’s fitting room in here and it smells like fish.
You can't even do the simple of placing a cogent argument in defense of your thesis.
Good example, moron goes:
I don't care to defend women , but say something and back it up.
The female brain is adept at some things the male's isn't and the male's adept at some things hers is not, simple biology.
You give her a physics problem, and her brain is likelier to process it verbally where his will do it mechanically.
This would explain why men are, despite history, better at science than women.
Don't give me cant about it only being history, whoever said it- the most brilliant girl in my physics class could still not match the fluidity of problem solving of the most brilliant male.
However, to say one trait or the other is superiour depends on what you value.
Socially, I value capitalism and warfare- which takes brute force and labor.
So the male trait wins.
I also value family.
So the female trait wins.
Intellectually, I value logic and structure. So the male trait wins.
Artistically, I value prose and music.
So the female trait wins.
Yet according to this, Mozart is a woman and Lady Lovelace a man.
Therefore:
1)Humans like what they agree with
2)Agreement is a value
3) A value is preference
4) and that preference is what we ultimately call ‘superior’
Ta-ta- in other words, I hate women.
Here we have a condescending Jaybee scratching at Guthrie….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have Guthrie shrieking his way towards a defense of the feminist bitch in the middle…….. with what he calls logic.
Then you have the feminist bitch twirling her pom poms and slaughtering the English language in defense of my gender……… with what she calls logic.
You're all fucking women- its like a Macy’s fitting room in here and it smells like fish.
You can't even do the simple of placing a cogent argument in defense of your thesis.
Good example, moron goes:
Because the smartest thing to come out of a woman’s mouth was Einstein's cock, yah?
I don't care to defend women , but say something and back it up.
The female brain is adept at some things the male's isn't and the male's adept at some things hers is not, simple biology.
You give her a physics problem, and her brain is likelier to process it verbally where his will do it mechanically.
This would explain why men are, despite history, better at science than women.
Don't give me cant about it only being history, whoever said it- the most brilliant girl in my physics class could still not match the fluidity of problem solving of the most brilliant male.
However, to say one trait or the other is superiour depends on what you value.
Socially, I value capitalism and warfare- which takes brute force and labor.
So the male trait wins.
I also value family.
So the female trait wins.
Intellectually, I value logic and structure. So the male trait wins.
Artistically, I value prose and music.
So the female trait wins.
Yet according to this, Mozart is a woman and Lady Lovelace a man.
Therefore:
1)Humans like what they agree with
2)Agreement is a value
3) A value is preference
4) and that preference is what we ultimately call ‘superior’
Ta-ta- in other words, I hate women.
Last edited:
jennyRater said:
If you like science more you should be better at science (on average), since motivation is very important in this profession. Because nothing is so bad as an unmotivated scientist.
gendanken said:
the lady Ive used as an avatar - her names Heather Hanson - is doing what shes proud to do, + making good money for it. I dont know if she liked science much at school or not - does it matter? if I had her talent I might be modeling too, it doesnt make me stupid or uncaring for womens rights.
I know a lot of very brainy guys stil wish they lookd like Tom cruise or even Justin Timber-fake..
- Status