Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Who are the vast majority of scientists?
Who are the vast majority of inventors?
Who are the vast majorirty of labourers?
Who form the vast majority of cultural figures?
Checkmate women.
There would be more females as "cultural figures" if people were "brave" enough to give females a chance. I mean, look at all the U.S. presidents and look at how many of them are female. The reason for this is simply because of people with stereotypical thinking that think males would do a better job, no matter what.
Offline
There would be more females as "cultural figures" if people were "brave" enough to give females a chance. I mean, look at all the U.S. presidents and look at how many of them are female. The reason for this is simply because of people with stereotypical thinking that think males would do a better job, no matter what.
Females in the U.S. don't have much of an excuse. We all have freedom of speech, and the freedom to better ourselves. Most American 'feminists' just choose to pretend to be better by ranting in front of cameras about how men suck.
The issues is in other parts of the world which woman are oppressed due to tradition, backwards religious views, or just plain misogyny. If woman had a more dominant role in society in ALL parts of the world, then maybe there would be more contributions to the foundation of their societies.
There would be more females as "cultural figures" if people were "brave" enough to give females a chance.
It's not that people aren't brave enough to give females a chance, but females aren't brave enough to take their chances.
10 years and still awkward. Keep it up, baby!
Offline
There would be more females as "cultural figures" if people were "brave" enough to give females a chance. I mean, look at all the U.S. presidents and look at how many of them are female. The reason for this is simply because of people with stereotypical thinking that think males would do a better job, no matter what.
One the largest reasons to support my argument is that women naturally don't stand out as much as men, to stand out more they would have to act more like men. Which completely supports my argument that men are more vital to the foundations society.
Men and women have different brains, shaped by hormones and genetics due to evolution. We don't think or the act the the complete same. For example, men have been scientifically proven better at spatial visualisation.
To support your argument, women would have act differently, which is agaisnt femininity, and is blatantly sexist.
You go treejoe. You go. Now we need someone to over-react and start a war over it. Any takers?
Last edited by Pyromaniac (Oct 25 2014 7:47:56 am)
Offline
In 2010, The National Science Foundation reported, women earned 49 percent of doctoral degrees in all science, engineering, and health fields.
The problem isn't women not wanting to be scientists, inventors, etc. It's with employers, who are sexist and tend to hire men.
Offline
buzzerbee, no trolling
I don't know what's more sad, this attempt at trolling or that everyone is actually responding seriously.
ok
Offline
look at the facts matt
men are superior in every way
I don't know what's more sad, this attempt at trolling or that everyone is actually responding seriously.
Here we go! I sense some anger!
Offline
This is statistics. Had we given women pressure to be smart when we were putting them in houses cooking we probably would be more evolved. Treejoe even supports this by saying that the two sexes brains are completely different. The thought process alone by women could have factored in things that men couldn't ever think about since we do think differently.
If you would like me to make a bot for you, go here.
Offline
why are there so few female geniuses
protip: the answer isnt patriarchy
Slushie wrote:I don't know what's more sad, this attempt at trolling or that everyone is actually responding seriously.
Here we go! I sense some anger!
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out that this is obviously trolling.
ok
Offline
Except it isn't.
thx for sig bobithan
Offline
Pyromaniac wrote:Slushie wrote:I don't know what's more sad, this attempt at trolling or that everyone is actually responding seriously.
Here we go! I sense some anger!
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out that this is obviously trolling.
Don't disappoint me, let the hate flow through you.
Offline
Pyromaniac wrote:Slushie wrote:I don't know what's more sad, this attempt at trolling or that everyone is actually responding seriously.
Here we go! I sense some anger!
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out that this is obviously trolling.
I'm not trolling, I really do think guys innately play a bigger role in the initiative and intellectual side of society.
Last edited by treejoe4 (Oct 25 2014 5:41:19 pm)
Assuming you aren't trolling though, what is the point of this topic? Seems pointlessly provocative.
its true fail GIRL
its true fail GIRL
Congratz nob, here you go:
Assuming you aren't trolling though, what is the point of this topic? Seems pointlessly provocative.
Offline
I'm assuming this is trolling but I'll take the bait and make a serious reply.
Men first took societal control back when things were basically determined by physical strength, not intelligence or skill. If you could beat up anyone else you're the leader, and men naturally have better upper body strength and are all around more powerful.
From there, society was male dominated. A system had been set up and it stayed. For centuries women got little to no education and couldn't have any influence on society. It's not because men were inherently more intelligent. It was due to circumstance. Isaac Newton was a poor farm boy but his father saved a noble and Newton got an education as a reward. If it weren't for that luck, he never would have made his discoveries. It was the same for all the women and peasant men. Geniuses, people who could be influential, weren't able to. It wasn't until the 20th century that women were really given a chance to make scientific contributions. However, even then they were faced with large amounts of sexism. Rosalind Franklin had her work stolen by Watson and Crick when she was discovering the structure of DNA. Now, the number of scientists that are women i think is around 33% and is continuing to rise. You could say "how come i don't know any modern female scientists" but how many modern scientists do you know in general? probably around five. So really there is no difference intellectually determined by gender.
However, it is true that men play a bigger role in society. It's how things have been set out. It's not fair, but it's true. It is NOT "innate" though. It's because this is how everything has been built up.
@some man
What do you mean women don't "take the chance"? What about Hillary Clinton who has great odds of being America's next president? What about Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head for campaigning for girls to have the right of education in Pakistan, and continues to fight even after the attempted assassination? What about Rosa Parks who was beaten and jailed for fighting for civil rights? What about Susan B. Anthony who faced massive amounts of hatred for trying to get women's suffrage.
To say that women don't try is ridiculous.
@Failgirl
The idea of the whiny feminist that doesn't actually do anything is really just the extremists. They make themselves out there by just being as extreme as possible, using children, hating all men, etc. To think that those people are a good representation of the feminist movement is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church is a good representation of Christianity as a whole.
Offline
I'm assuming this is trolling but I'll take the bait and make a serious reply.
Men first took societal control back when things were basically determined by physical strength, not intelligence or skill. If you could beat up anyone else you're the leader, and men naturally have better upper body strength and are all around more powerful.
From there, society was male dominated. A system had been set up and it stayed. For centuries women got little to no education and couldn't have any influence on society. It's not because men were inherently more intelligent. It was due to circumstance. Isaac Newton was a poor farm boy but his father saved a noble and Newton got an education as a reward. If it weren't for that luck, he never would have made his discoveries. It was the same for all the women and peasant men. Geniuses, people who could be influential, weren't able to. It wasn't until the 20th century that women were really given a chance to make scientific contributions. However, even then they were faced with large amounts of sexism. Rosalind Franklin had her work stolen by Watson and Crick when she was discovering the structure of DNA. Now, the number of scientists that are women i think is around 33% and is continuing to rise. You could say "how come i don't know any modern female scientists" but how many modern scientists do you know in general? probably around five. So really there is no difference intellectually determined by gender.
However, it is true that men play a bigger role in society. It's how things have been set out. It's not fair, but it's true. It is NOT "innate" though. It's because this is how everything has been built up.
@some man
What do you mean women don't "take the chance"? What about Hillary Clinton who has great odds of being America's next president? What about Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head for campaigning for girls to have the right of education in Pakistan, and continues to fight even after the attempted assassination? What about Rosa Parks who was beaten and jailed for fighting for civil rights? What about Susan B. Anthony who faced massive amounts of hatred for trying to get women's suffrage.To say that women don't try is ridiculous.
@Failgirl
The idea of the whiny feminist that doesn't actually do anything is really just the extremists. They make themselves out there by just being as extreme as possible, using children, hating all men, etc. To think that those people are a good representation of the feminist movement is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church is a good representation of Christianity as a whole.
rekt
Offline
[ Started around 1738911283.7937 - Generated in 0.070 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.7 MiB (Peak: 1.93 MiB) ]