You can post your own opinions on why women are better as you please. But to say that women are as good or better than men at a physical sport is just being plain silly. Also, the majority of the world's doctors are men, not women, the vast majority of wartime medics are men. Women speak more languages? (lol?)
Oh of course I quoted a man's statement about how women are only good as caretakers and men are awesome soldiers, maybe you did not understand my comments were related to another post :/
Well if yo uare right, then the other guy totally fails in this discussion, and so I have nothing to defend as far as women being not as intelligent.
And yes, I was taught back in highschool that usually girls can speak more languages then men, and come to think about it, I speak 4, my mom 3, my sisters 3, and my brother 2. My father 2. My boyfriend...2 most boys/men I know don't speak more than 2 unless they work as translators.
Also the sports thing, why can't women run as fast and kick a ball as good as men? ALL men are not stronger or faster than all women. I probably know girls who can benchpress more than men in this thread.
The physical difference is about this much: if a man and a woman work out just as much, a man can bench 100kg when woman can bench 85. It is not more than that.
And you have the right to have your opinions on how women are not good at sports, but as long as they keep training separately, how can anyone expect them to get any better. If we can't join in, we can't really get better. thank you for your comments
Read: I don't like your opinion, so you shouldn't be able to voice it. Fail.
Either I wrote that too obliquely or you misread what I wrote. I said you were responding to an idiot. No amount of time or effort will change his views, if they even are his. You should invest less energy writing rebuttals that won't be challenged or have any impact.
On July 15 2011 07:18 nozh wrote: i am just so completely speechless at djbhINDI's post i can't even think of where to begin i'm just going to go kill myself right now this world isn't worth living in with people like him in it bye
You don't know where to begin, or you can't? What part of my post is wrong? Show me where I've demonstrated that I make this world not living in. This doesn't include disrobing truths you're not prepared to handle.
Your long post, about the areas men are better than women and where women are better than men, felt like it was a suggestion to save time and outright dismiss careers like female engineers or a man deciding he would be most happy as a kindergarten teacher.
Otherwise, I simply do not see the point in that post. What do I care about averages? How do I benefit from keeping it in mind, when walking through life? If I instead take up the equality flag, I may find something interesting, I would have otherwise missed. It also feels more fair to the individuals. I guess this is what made "nozh" speechless.
If you generalize men and women instead of looking at the respective individuals, you may overlook something special. For example, the very first programmer was a woman, which makes her perhaps the founder of Computer Science? The term "radioactivity" was coined by a woman, the first research into it was done by her, and she got a Nobel Prize for it.
Also, what you wrote about road traffic was wrong. I remember it as the average man having a higher chance to have an accident for any driven mile compared to the average woman. Perhaps what you wrote about women having more patience is more important than men having more driving skill.
You can post your own opinions on why women are better as you please. But to say that women are as good or better than men at a physical sport is just being plain silly. Also, the majority of the world's doctors are men, not women, the vast majority of wartime medics are men. Women speak more languages? (lol?)
Oh of course I quoted a man's statement about how women are only good as caretakers and men are awesome soldiers, maybe you did not understand my comments were related to another post :/
Well if yo uare right, then the other guy totally fails in this discussion, and so I have nothing to defend as far as women being not as intelligent.
And yes, I was taught back in highschool that usually girls can speak more languages then men, and come to think about it, I speak 4, my mom 3, my sisters 3, and my brother 2. My father 2. My boyfriend...2 most boys/men I know don't speak more than 2 unless they work as translators.
Also the sports thing, why can't women run as fast and kick a ball as good as men? ALL men are not stronger or faster than all women. I probably know girls who can benchpress more than men in this thread.
The physical difference is about this much: if a man and a woman work out just as much, a man can bench 100kg when woman can bench 85. It is not more than that.
And you have the right to have your opinions on how women are not good at sports, but as long as they keep training separately, how can anyone expect them to get any better. If we can't join in, we can't really get better. thank you for your comments
So what I got from that is, your isolated experience and applying int to the whole planet. It's pretty simple why women aren't physically capable as men, Testosterone. The most elite athletes in the world play in leagues exclusive to men. I'm still puzzled as to why people think men and women can do the same things, we are two completely different genders, to believe that we can ever be the same is nonsense.
There are shitloads of ways men are systematically discriminated against, all around the world [1][2][3], and you decide to whine about slang, fans and how bad it is that people hold the door? Really?
So what I got from that is, your isolated experience and applying int to the whole planet. It's pretty simple why women aren't physically capable as men, Testosterone. The most elite athletes in the world play in leagues exclusive to men. I'm still puzzled as to why people think men and women can do the same things, we are two completely different genders, to believe that we can ever be the same is nonsense.
I am not saying we are the same. I am trying to say that women are not less worth than men. I am saying, that no one should be discriminated. No one should be put down based on their genitals and hormone production.
Yes, men can grow stronger physically (most men, some actually have disease that affect their hormones). But I am saying that women should not be treated bad because of that.
And men are being put down in some ways too, and to me, that is equally wrong and I will do whatever I can to help change that.
Because gender aside, we are humans and we have a lot in common, and I don't understand why society always choose to accentuate our differences instead of our similarities
Sure, we are men and women, but we are also individuals. We can't always speak about people "in general" because, today, people actually use their heads. They have different opinions about everything. I know girls who use men. Girls who use sex appeal to get stuff for free for example. I also know that when a boy grabbes a girl, it is "omg sexual harrassment" and when a girl does the same, the guy "should just be grateful a girl touched him". And so on.
These are things I want to change. And to me it doesn't matter why it became this way, all that matters is that people start treating each other with respect.
And raising the issue and having discussions is a great way to start, isn't it? I know I learned things today that will make me a better person and better at discussing. Have a nice evening
And saying women will not be as good as men, does not help. Because we are good at different things, sure, so we can't really compare. My main trouble here is getting som men to understand that women are not less intelligent. We are not mentally challenged, yet we get treated that way.
On July 15 2011 07:34 saris84 wrote: It is the fact that it is not truths, it is just your opinion, however you tell it like it would be true as 1+1...
and the fact that you listed women good at doing things that doesn't require much intelligence, and portraying men as the oh so smart thinker, that IS sexiest.
Because you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to change a diaper or put a spoon in a baby's mouth. Mentally challenged people have children. It aint that hard.
You did not mention that females can often speak more languages, no, because that requires reading, and women don't do that, they clean, cook and wipe shit all thay because that is all we're good for (in your eyes it seems).
You don't have very high thoughts about women. And more people think just like you. That is exactly why women don't get good at sports, because all the best leaders choose to teach the kids with penises.
They did an experiment in Sweden with some soccerteams. They discovered that the girls who were taught to play like boys got better, and the girls who were treated as little wussies at practise, did not become as good. They later merged two teams, one male, one female, and the girls became as good as the boys.
Also it is proven again with a femal isehocke goalie who played a lot of games with men, because she was brought up to me tough. People who have kids let their little girls cry about everything, and they teach the boys to suck it up and be a man. This is the problem. That for years, people have been making a difference in emotional issues among their children.
Also regarding your comments on how women are good medics and men are good soldiers, I think it says more about how men are less intelligent, than the other way around.
Women heal.
Men kill.
Without us, you would die. Without you, there would be no war. The problem isn't that women aren't smart. The problem is, neither are men...
Isehocke. Lawl.
Okay, to the immense and frequent logical fallacies in your posts, and your complete lack of reading comprehension. I'll start with
It is the fact that it is not truths, it is just your opinion, however you tell it like it would be true as 1+1...
Ignoring the grammar and usage errors, lets address your "logic". Not once do you demonstrate even a SINGLE instance where your allegation is true. Are Steve Job's and Bill Gates' achievements my opinion? Are the Rwandan and Biafran civil wars my opinion? Are the military talents of Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon my opinion? Are the discoveries of men like Einstein and Newton and Hawking (and the lack of such discoveries [barring Curie's] on women's part) my opinion? Are the philosophical masterpieces churned out by men like Emerson, Plato, and Thoreau my opinion? No, or at least you fail to prove so (which would make your statement, hmm, an...opinion). Yet, the only thing connecting these facts to my point is my logic, logic which you have failed to disprove - your first sentence has NO backing behind it at all.
and the fact that you listed women good at doing things that doesn't require much intelligence, and portraying men as the oh so smart thinker, that IS sexiest.
Because you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to change a diaper or put a spoon in a baby's mouth. Mentally challenged people have children. It aint that hard.
Exactly. I'm not a sexist, I'm a realist. It's racist to say all African Americans commit crimes. Is it racist to say that African Americans are disproportionately represented in American prisons? No, because it's a fact. Then why is it sexist to say that men are better at things that require intelligence, if the overwhelming majority of historical evidence supports this fact?
Let's look at rocket science, something you bring up in passing. Let's look at a rocket - the chemicals that burn in that rocket, the physics that govern that rocket, the telescope that examines that rocket's destination, the electricity that keeps the computers running that rocket, the computers running that rocket, the designers of that rocket, and the expertise that flies the rocket. EVERYTHING I've mentioned above was first discovered, perfected, and maintained by MEN. Newton, Einstein, Lavousiet, Seaborg, Armstrong, Aldrin, Franklin, Faraday, the Wright Brothers, Galileo. Are women stopped from compounding images through mirrors? Through flying a kite or calculating an electron charge? From experimenting? From writing complex mathematical equations that govern our world?
You did not mention that females can often speak more languages, no, because that requires reading, and women don't do that, they clean, cook and wipe shit all thay because that is all we're good for (in your eyes it seems).
Where is your evidence for this? You offer nothing to prove this. When I say something like, "Great scientists are men," I prove it with examples. Here's an example to rebut your unsupported point: At my school, there are as many male as female language teachers. <See that? That's called evidence. It's not the best, nor can I absolutely prove it to you. So here's some logic.
The greatest writers and readers tend to be a bit more balanced than scientists, but hell.
Look to the great poets. T. S. Shakespeare. Elliott, Robert Frost, Homer, Chaucer. Romeo and Juliet. The Odyssey, Paradise Lost, the Canterbury Tales.
Philosophical writing? Plato. Thoreau. Emerson. Hawthorne. Nature. Each and All. Resistance to Civil Government.
Prose? Dostoyevsky. Orwell. Leo. Steinbeck. Bradbury. War and Peace. Grapes of Wrath. Animal Farm. Lord of the Flies.
Existentialism, Trancendentalism, Post-Structuralism, Modernism, Romanticism. All concepts created by men. All concepts written by men. All works created by men. < See that? That's called evidence. Example. Only from this base can logic be drawn.
You don't have very high thoughts about women. And more people think just like you. That is exactly why women don't get good at sports, because all the best leaders choose to teach the kids with penises.
Women who have been trained by the best leaders (like, say, the STX Coach or the coach of any women's athetic team) fail to compete with men. Why do you think that the great leaders, like Alexander, chose the kids with penises? Maybe KT and SKT want players who win more than a twelfth of their games. Maybe Alexander and Hitler wanted armies who didn't bleed and give childbirth and move slowly and less often and were weaker. Has it struck you that army composition, education, science, and writing didn't happen in a day? There was a very long time over which humans learned that women simply weren't as good as men at these things, and the empirical results, such as all of the great male scientists and lack of great female scientists, concur. The EVIDENCE is on my side, and you provide none.
There's a reason that the greater part of the human race has women taking care of children - women are better at this. It wasn't just decided 10,000 years ago - I've provided logic for this and you haven't provided contradictory reasoning. This is the same reason we use a hammer, not a nail clipper, to pound in nails. Certain kinds of tools are better at certain kinds of jobs. Women just tend to be better at child care and cooking and nursing than they are at composing music or writing or discovering or leading. Once again, you talk of how society has suppressed women, giving them less chance to demonstrate talent. Once again, I'll remind you that this suppression is not just arbitrary, and even when it is removed (like in the US) women fail to compete. Nobody's making all teenage girls or college girls stay at home or cook and clean or even have boyfriends. Yet, only college guys (who have the exact same opportunities) like Jobs or Gates or Zuckerberg create astonishing technology empires. Here, men and women start at the same level, but only men are achieving greatness.
They did an experiment in Sweden with some soccerteams. They discovered that the girls who were taught to play like boys got better, and the girls who were treated as little wussies at practise, did not become as good. They later merged two teams, one male, one female, and the girls became as good as the boys.
Cool. I'll number my responses.
1. Experimentation 101: your experiment is a piece of shit if you're defining things that are completely subjective to be true. What was the methodology of this experiment? How do you measure how "good" someone is at soccer? How do you teach someone to play like boys vs play like girls? What are the precise differences? This experiment is flawed throughout. Just counting goals doesn't mean jack - Real Madrid managed to beat Barcelona 1-0 despite Barca having a significant possession advantage throughout. Barcelona then trounced RM a week or so later.
2. Congrats. One flawed, subjective experiment about one tiny slice of human life vs 12,000 years of evidence from billions of test subjects, this one example totally outweighs the summation of human experience. No, it doesn't.
3. So what? At the national and international level of every sport, we see that the Olympic champions in straight up effort and conditioning (as opposed to coaching) sports like running, swimming, high jumping, etc. are all men. Fastest human? Usain Bolt. Best swimming Homo Sapien? Michael Phelps. Best soccer player, maybe? Harder to define, but you could go with Pele, Ronaldo, Maradona, Messi...all men. The reason the entire world watches the men's world cup but less than 25 nations even play in the women's world cup is the same reason that the US cares about the NFL more than random high school football games...the level of competition is simply higher.
4. Are you actually trying to argue that women are as strong/athletic as men? Everyone in this thread but you acknowledges the undeniable fact that men are stronger.
Also it is proven again with a femal isehocke goalie who played a lot of games with men, because she was brought up to me tough. People who have kids let their little girls cry about everything, and they teach the boys to suck it up and be a man. This is the problem. That for years, people have been making a difference in emotional issues among their children.
What is proven? I can play a bunch of StarCraft with Lee Young Ho or Lim Yo Hwan. That proves jack about how good I am. She was brought up to be tough? Methodology? Consistency? Objectivity? Did she become as good as a pro NHL male goalie? I sure don't think so, and you SURE don't prove so.
However, men like Eisenhower, Clinton, Gandhi, Confucius, Buddha, Lenin...the leaders that are remembered, the leaders in America's textbooks are all men. Revolutionary war? The founding fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson. Civil War? Lincoln and Stonewall and Douglas. France? England? Apart from Joan d'Arc, it was men who defined the military conflicts...Napoleon, Henry, William. One or two examples of really badly done experiments not even proving anything conclusively do not outweigh the past millennium.
Also regarding your comments on how women are good medics and men are good soldiers, I think it says more about how men are less intelligent, than the other way around.
Women heal.
Men kill.
Wow, your statement sounds dramatic but falls on its face as soon as you question the logic behind it.
Men kill? Sure, if you look only at discoveries like the Atom Bomb and the Gun...but what about irrigation? Vaccination? Fertilization? Electricity? Pasteur. Faraday. The men of Sumeria and Phoenicia.
Also, men are actually better field medics than women. Have you seen Saving Private Ryan? Notice that to be a medic takes endurance, physical strength, and a tolerance for violence that women don't usually have? I wasn't saying that women make for better medics than men. I was saying that women make for better medics than soldiers and it's true. In the entirety of history, the great armies, like the Roman, the Persian, the Spartan, and the Indian armies were ALL almost exclusively men. If you're seriously going to say that women make for better soldiers(OR field medics), read a textbook on the conditions of war. Then tell me that the same women who complain about breaking a nail and that require makeup everyday and are testy due to menstruation 3 days a month would do well under battle conditions, to say nothing of physical ability.
Without us, you would die. Without you, there would be no war. The problem isn't that women aren't smart. The problem is, neither are men...
I literally talk of this exact argument in one of my posts...looks like you didn't read them.
Without men, women would die. Without men, there might be less war, but there would be no vaccination, no irrigation, no astronomy, no particle physics, no electricity, less architecture, less art. Hell, men invented the toilet, the telephone, the refrigerator, the computer, the very internet you're using. Do you actually think before you type?
Also, the greatest humanitarians (read: people who stop war) were male...Gandhi, Eisenhower, Buddha, Einstein. You don't cite any examples except for two flawed studies that prove nothing conclusive and don't outweigh every historical example I've cited...and you say that I am flaunting my opinions as fact?
The problem is, women aren't smarter or more ambitious or faster or stronger or better at writing or philosophy or movie making or philanthropy or entrepreneurship or battle or leadership or strategy. The problem is that they don't realize this, will argue in the face of all facts that this is false, and think on top of everything, that they are the smart ones. QQ
On July 15 2011 07:18 djbhINDI wrote: EDIT: Also, look at your pathetic words:
There is no way he should be given so many words.
Read: I don't like your opinion, so you shouldn't be able to voice it. Fail.
Either I wrote that too obliquely or you misread what I wrote. I said you were responding to an idiot. No amount of time or effort will change his views, if they even are his. You should invest less energy writing rebuttals that won't be challenged or have any impact.
Now I'm the one that's pissed.
Oh fuck, I'm sorry. Man, I just feel really awk right now.
Has anyone in this thread read "Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar? It explains how men, from birth are conditioned to be manipulated by woman. It was even written by a woman, whom after writing it received countless death threats from other woman.
On July 15 2011 07:18 nozh wrote: i am just so completely speechless at djbhINDI's post i can't even think of where to begin i'm just going to go kill myself right now this world isn't worth living in with people like him in it bye
You don't know where to begin, or you can't? What part of my post is wrong? Show me where I've demonstrated that I make this world not living in. This doesn't include disrobing truths you're not prepared to handle.
Your long post, about the areas men are better than women and where women are better than men, felt like it was a suggestion to save time and outright dismiss careers like female engineers or a man deciding he would be most happy as a kindergarten teacher.
Otherwise, I simply do not see the point in that post. What do I care about averages? How do I benefit from keeping it in mind, when walking through life? If I instead take up the equality flag, I may find something interesting, I would have otherwise missed. It also feels more fair to the individuals. I guess this is what made "nozh" speechless.
If you generalize men and women instead of looking at the respective individuals, you may overlook something special. For example, the very first programmer was a woman, which makes her perhaps the founder of Computer Science? The term "radioactivity" was coined by a woman, the first research into it was done by her, and she got a Nobel Prize for it.
Also, what you wrote about road traffic was wrong. I remember it as the average man having a higher chance to have an accident for any driven mile compared to the average woman. Perhaps what you wrote about women having more patience is more important than men having more driving skill.
Firstly, straight up wrong. Herman Hollerith or Babbage far preceded the first female programmers. Also, I specifically mentioned Curie in a previous post, leading me to: Secondly, you fail. The entirety of male/female relationship is generalizations. The observation that men are benefited here or there is a generalization. My post isn't a suggestion, it's a logical proof that, apart from EXCEPTIONS, those that buck the trend (remember the analogy of black holes?) men have systematically and categorically demonstrated throughout the ages that they are better. This is me saying "The president of the USA is usually white" and you saying, "Oh yeah, what about Obama?" I'm not trying to say that what I'm saying is true 100% of time, but that it is generally true.
I'm generalizing men and women to show that the GENERAL "sexism" against women is in fact based in GENERAL observation, and is founded on a hierarchy of fact that is GENERALLY true. Did you read the post? I allude several times to the fact that there are exemplary women. On average, which is the only thing that matters when talking of issues that affect more than one person (like sexism!) my post has a very real point, and that is to justify what you and others label as sexism but I prefer to call realism, and demonstrates exactly why the prejudice you and OP feel is misguided is actually rooted in holistic fact and observation. You speak of how the individual can change things - the average does represent the individual. The chances are that the individual woman will be a lot closer to Paris Hilton than Mary Cury, and observation dictates that this is in fact true. A very low percentage of men are as ambitious or constructive to a company as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but at the hiring table, employers keep in mind that there are virtually no women who have succeeded in this way. The chances go according to general rule, which is exactly why my post has huge relevance.
ok so first, YOU said that women are better medics(saying that caretakers are all we are good for), and then, you take it back and say men are. I don't get it, really, could be that it is very late, could be that I constantly have to write and think in a language second to my native one and could be that it was a whole lot of text going on. And yes, I am so sorry for misspelling some things, Icehockey for example. in my country it is called Ishockey. I apologize oh wise man. I will end my posts here since my message is not getting through.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree? You will forever look down on me as you see me as less intelligent,mostly because I don't have as much testosterone and no ancestors of mine where either Einstein or any greek old man. Or Marie Curie for that matter, maybe she secretly was a hefty man because women and science don't match
And I will forever treat you with respect as I think everyone deserve it no matter race, gender and so on. I will respect you as a person who stands up for his beliefs, even if I do not agree that men are better. And if I misunderstood you in any way, I am really sorry.
Please take into consideration, I am a woman, and what do I know. Time to change some diapers, ask strong men to carry my bags, deliver some children and cook for my manly man. How did I ever escape from the kitchen? Omg there is a whole new world out here, ready to explore! Sing with me my friend! "a whole neeewww woooooooooorld.............." Winkwink, sarcasm, and big love to all you people out there <3
On July 15 2011 08:18 Frigo wrote: There are shitloads of ways men are systematically discriminated against, all around the world [1][2][3], and you decide to whine about slang, fans and how bad it is that people hold the door? Really?
I don't think that degree was worth it, OP.
Poor thing! Are you feeling alright?
The OP was essentially about how to improve gender equality in Starcraft. I'm afraid you'll just have to live with the fact that your body just isn't as resistant as a woman's and so you'll die sooner.
Oh and out of curiosity I did go over the list of "male discrimination". I could go over every single one and tell you why it's bullcrap, but this is totally aside the point.
So please don't whine about your life expectancy. If you don't like the thread or don't think it's relevant fine. But at least try to stay on topic...
djbhINDI, you completely ignore the fact that women are indeed catching up to men in achievements in the modern age in favor of pointing to history, where women were systematically put down and oppressed. That is by no means "empirical evidence" that men are smarter anymore than the fact that more hot chocolate is sold during hockey season shows that hockey makes people like hot chocolate. Yes, there must have been some reason that men took the reins; I would say it's because of greater physical strength + naturally being more aggressive individuals. It does not mean that they are smarter.
As we have made more of an effort to encourage women to pursue science & math careers, more women have been doing so and succeeding. (one source). Obviously, this is also influenced by people making an effort to higher women for diversity purposes. I could find plenty of other evidence for you, but my point is that you examine it this problem at the most superficial level possible, ignoring the plethora of other factors that contributes to female underperformance throughout history.
One truly objective piece of evidence about how women's talent has been surpressed throughout history is their increasing representation in the classical music world through the past 200 years. As soon as blind auditions were introduced (where the performer auditions for orchestras behind a screen), the amount of women in professional symphony orchestras shot up from 5% in 1978 to 36% in 1998 (source). This may or may not be correlated to "intelligence," but there's some solid evidence that female underachievement is caused by more than just incapability. And you need to look no further than prodigious modern musicians like Martha Argerich to see that there are really some brilliant women out there in music.
Overall, I don't think "are men or women smarter?" is a question that can really be answered reliably and without bias. What we can say is that many men exist who are smarter/stronger than other women, and many women exist who are smarter/stronger than other men. So just treat everyone as individuals, recognizing their personal strengths and weaknesses. What do you hope to accomplish by encouraging discrimination on a demographic basis? There is simply no point to it.
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
1. IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It's like any other standardised testing system. The only thing accurately measured by IQ is how good you are at taking an IQ test.
2. If you take a society where women have less access to education at are destined to stay at home and take care of the children, sure men are gonna score higher on tests like this one.
3. A very high result on an IQ test can be the result of mental illness, perhaps more common amongst men? I don't know.
4. This is one study on one country.
5. "The mean difference of IQ between men and women is of 5". That doesn't seem too shocking, given the points mentionned above.
It is obvious and inescapable that people view female gamers differently... because they are different. Literally there are very few of them. This isn’t only a bad thing, I bet you a girl can become pro with a lot less skill than a man simply because it would be very good publicity to have a girl on your team.
... And most of us probably want to see more girls in the community, others are probably tired of girls presenting themselves like "hey I'm a girl who likes computer games, I'm an important part of this community. Please vote for me in a beauty contest."
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
1. IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It's like any other standardised testing system. The only thing accurately measured by IQ is how good you are at taking an IQ test.
2. If you take a society where women have less access to education at are destined to stay at home and take care of the children, sure men are gonna score higher on tests like this one.
3. A very high result on an IQ test can be the result of mental illness, perhaps more common amongst men? I don't know.
4. This is one study on one country.
5. "The mean difference of IQ between men and women is of 5". That doesn't seem too shocking, given the points mentionned above.
The quote from the article contradicts like 3 of your points above...
In my 2005 paper in the British Journal of Psychology we looked at 22 surveys sampling 20,000 university students. In 21 out of the 22 studies males always had an advantage. That's a lot. We ignored the survey from Mexico because the results were consistent with a university that was extremely selective with respect to females.
I think it's fairly well know that men have a greater "range" in intelligence. While there's no probably overt difference between the genders in average IQ, like the paper says there's a greater number of men at both ends of the spectrum of very high IQ [and very low IQ.] Something likely due to the interactions between XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes.
I don't really see this anything to use against either gender. It just is what it is. High IQ doesn't make someone better than another person.
Additionally, historically the guy who was posting in this thread about the "inventiveness" of men over than of women. That is generally historically true. I remember reading somewhere about how midwifery has traditionally been a women's issue (for obvious reasons), but no woman thought of the idea to invent forceps to help deliver babies.
Men and women tend to excel at different aspects. No one doubts women tend to be better at emotional and verbal communication. That doesn't make men inferior. Nor should any "potential" advantages men have over women make women "inferior." There are differences that may be due to many different factors whether cultural, genetic, gender, etc.
I don't think they should be swept under the rug in favor of "equality" but they also shouldn't be used to claim superiority or denounce other groups as inferior.
The results from the quote are unpublished. There are two different studies in the paper.
The thing is, you can't make a reasonable conclusion from a summary of a research paper. It would require a very meticulous overview of the methodology used.
There can be a million reasons for which the study showed the results it did. Assuming it is biological disparity is pushing it.
Also if IQ doesn't even measure intelligence, there is no point in having this debate. At the very most one could conclude that certain men are predisposed to do well on IQ tests.
EPT
thank you for your comments 
