/sci/ - Science & Math

Virgin detected.

Yes, we are all aware of the "Bitch's and Whore's" phenomenon OP.

>>>/r9k/

>>2008888
>Virgin detected.
>4chan
>/sci/
so what lol

OP here. I've plowed 2 women in my life. I used to have Romantic notions, and I used to adhere to them. That is until I began to uphold rational, logical, and reasonable ideals, then women seemed and appeared to me as stupid pieces of shit whom I need not have to live to the standards to. It is they who must live up to my standards now.

>>2008884ANYTHING a woman can do well, a man has done better; only one exception, giving birth.

Women traditionally didn't need to have as much physical or mental power as men, they just need to be good at lying to men. They aren't built to make you happy, they're built to make babies. If you had to carry around a baby factory your body would be less efficient as well.

>loses blood and becomes hormonally unbalanced.

The losing blood thing has to do with shedding of iron. It's a little more complicated than just a flaw. I'm just glad I don't have blood coming out of my crotch every month.

Everytime homosexuality seems to be a better option.

>>2008906
Of course women aren't worth having romantic notions for. If they know you value them they have no reason to want for your company. You seem like you've just taken the complete opposite approach. There probably is a happy medium somewhere. They're called prostitutes. Lets you know what you're getting before dropping time and money into the bitch.

>>2008927
I'm not even gay and I'd rather have sex with men than deal with women.

>>2008927

Now if only there were a "Gay Pill".

God damn women, man. I'm tellin' ya.

>mfw I've taken everything good about women and men and combined them in myself


You mad heteros?

>>2008941Now if only there were a "Gay Pill".

You've never heard of Poju?

>>2008945I've taken everything good about women and men and combined them in myself

You're a futanari lesbian?

> Women are irrational creatures who base too much emphasis in mammalian drives and emotions.

Riiiight. Because men never, ever let their dick do the thinking.

OP, see
>>2008904

>>2008953
>mfw he thinks tits are a good thing

>>2008945
Are you a tomboy girl?

The sad thing is this.......

I would have probably given up on women long ago if women like my grandmother never existed.

She is so god damn traditional. She understands her place. She nags moderately, but with good reason. She is heavily contented to be thanked for anything she does. She is pleasant to have around for company. Great cook. Clean. Pretty back in her youth. Knows when to be submissive to a higher authority (husband/father). Loyal.

They would never make them like her again, unless of course their are men and women who lay down the law with their daughters. In the west, women are permitted to get away with so much.

Girls are allowed to sleep overs, but what in fact happens often is that they go over to their friends house, who sneak out of the house with the help of permissive mothers, and they go out with older guys who get them drunk as fuck and take advantage of them.

fuck.

>>2008958

mfw he thinks all futanari have tits

I think maybe men have been a LITTLE too harsh on women over the years, prompting the feminist movement and women now exploiting their gender status to flip the power balance.

>>2008956
Women don't need men. Women just tollerate us.

>>2008964go out with older guys who get them drunk as fuck and take advantage of them.

If they're having fun how are they being taken advantage of? Go fuck some lolis, you'll feel better.

>>2008969

well that's just weird

>>2008927
I'm bisexual, but in practice I only have gay "partners." The attraction is there, but I just can't stand to deal with women and their BS long enough to form a relationship.

OP's contentions are wildly exaggerated, but women are just not fun to interact with socially. For the most part they have no conviction, drive or unique personal interests. A woman tends to be a microcosm of the society at large. They also tend to have a lot of emotional baggage, whereas I prefer people who can enjoy and appreciate the world without interposing such a layer of personal context on everything.

>>2008976

I'm a rational creature. I don't need to stimulate the end of a sensitive gland on my sexual organs to feel "happy". I do often bust a nut, only to dissipate excessive testosterone.

Basically, I just wish I could find a companion in a woman. "A second half". But most women are such cunts.

>>2008984
I hear ya, bro.

>>2008984

You're really not a purely rational creature, it's a biological fact. Stop pretending.

>>2008984I don't need to stimulate the end of a sensitive gland on my sexual organs to feel "happy".

It doesn't hurt.

>>2008984I just wish I could find a companion in a woman. "A second half". But most women are such cunts.

Life isn't a fucking Disney movie. Of course women are going to put themselves before you, and will lie to you without a moment's hesitation. That's just what women do.

>>2008994
I'm rational. Not by choice, but I am.

Sometimes I wish homosex weren't so gross. Men are so much better. Women have it so easy that they end up stupid and lazy, especially if they're attractive. And they have bad taste in just about everything. Like anon said, everything is socially oriented for them.

If I had money and a job for whores it wouldn't be so bad, but then I would feel like a hypocrite for being controlled by emotions/urges so much. Do any of you try to master your domain?

>>2009001
Nobody is completely rational. Rationality entails that you choose the best possible course of action to further your own interests (whatever those are, rationality doesn't actually specify what your motivations can be, only that you choose what's objectively the best means accomplishing them) in any situation. Say, for instance, that you're in the situation of a Chess game and there's $1000 dollars on the line. A rational agent, by definition, would always choose the best move to obtain the prize. In other words, a rational agent could play any game perfectly. The requisite computational resources exceed what's actually available from all the matter in the universe, so you'd have to be God, effectively. The whole idea of rationality is an abstract simplification of how one should act under ideal circumstances. Claiming to realize this ideal is supremely arrogant, since you're basically declaring yourself God.

This isn't science or math.

>>2009010

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself.

>>2009012
NOPE

That's a shitty definition. A better one is that you make the best decision given the available information and your capabilities.

>>2009010

I believe the solution lies on men who earn higher livings to marry and procreate with bitches who uphold good morals/ideals. That way the stupid cuntish attractive bitches running around will clean up their act if they want to live well.

The trick is for men with good finical means or who will have good finical means, not to cave for women who uphold ideals of fat cats.

>>2009025
This board isn't for you.
Try /b/.

I too dislike wommens. lol 1 in 20 males is in one of the rational subgroups (_NT_), while one in 2,000 women are.


Also,
>>2008964
This boy was raped by his grandmother

>>2009039
>wommens
Why do /b/tards leave thier cage?

>>2009043
>i have autism

must suck for you

>>2009024
You can define the word "rational" to mean whatever you want, but it's a term from formal logic, decision theory and game theory, to which I gave the appropriate definition. None of these theories have any concept of individual "capabilities."

>>2008884

>>2008884
>have attained to much power in society
have attained too much power in society

Also, most of your post sounds like the irrational rant of a emotionally dysfunctional person with little regard for evidence and a strong need to impose your own feelings onto others.

I can only assume this means you are yourself a self-hating woman of the type you so emotionally describe or that you are stupid and incapable of seeing the irony in hating an entire sex for traits that you so clearly posses.

Come back with evidence for your opinion next time, Especially if you are going to post on /sci/, and try to keep your hot-head out of things. Your emotions are muddling your argument.

Have a nice day, you stupid, ignorant shit.

>>2009047
Why do you state that you have autism and then say that it sucks for me?
If you were trying to imply that I have autism, then it should look like
>has autism
not
>I have autism

-The female brain on average weighs quite a bit less than a male's. It's also wired differently,

-A bunch bullshit is often spouted about the capabilities that a female has above a male's, but its complete shit.

Men can do EVERYTHING better, except of course give birth.

lol @ people raging on the internet while calling each other "too emotional".

>>2009060
>implying the notion of an amount power isn't itself a subjective entity thereby allowing OP to use his/her own interpretation of what too much power entails

Politics isn't physics.

>>2009051
(cont.) In fact, Economics, which uses the concept of self-interested rationality as an idealization of human economic behaviour has had to develop "bounded rationality" to account for the fact that, as I described, people can't act fully in accordance with the rational idealization, even when they desire to. This would be a superfluous development if "rationality" already accounted for human limitations.

>>2009039lol 1 in 20 males is in one of the rational subgroups (_NT_), while one in 2,000 women are.

Please have citation for this.

>>2009039
>1 in 20 males is in one of the rational subgroups (_NT_), while one in 2,000 women are.

u srs? Forever alone is right then.

>>2009051
I got my definition from an AI book with treatments of all those topics. You can continue using whatever shitty definition you want though.

>>2009025
In another ronery thread, some anon was posting about how you can travel to Thailand or Philippines and get a waifu who's loyal with morals. He posited that American women in particular are bitches and whores and I'm starting to degree. A lot of it has to do with their environment.

>>2009063
......

the greater than symbol means quote. Please, this is fucking 4chan, learn the jargon you autistic cunt

>>2009087
I know the FAQs say it's used to quote, but that's not how the society here uses it.
Learn to look at context.

>>2009088
>i'm quoting the FAQ of 4chan as proof i'm correct

you best be trolling

>>2009039 1 in 20 males is in one of the rational subgroups (_NT_), while one in 2,000 women are.

More than 1 in 10 people total is in the _NT_ subgroup. You pulled that statistic out of your ass.

>>2009088
Gotta disagree with ya there brosef. Using greentext for quotes is common.

OP can't get any sex apparently.

There is roughly more women than males in the United States
And they still will not date you

>>2009096
i remember seeing it on some official myers briggs looking site, i might not be remembering correctly or that could have just been incorrect. I would actually like to see the actual numbers tho, i should ask a sociology professor

This is disturbing. You declare that women are inferior to men in every way and therefore should be considered less equal. This however is extremely illogical.

It is quite obvious that some women are much much smarter and more logical than some men, yet that woman should have a lower social ranking? It is quite clear that women are not worse than all men at everything. Some would argue there are few things that women are inferior at when you consider the extremes. Some are obvious like male body builders vs female body builder's muscle mass. Yet the female body builder would have a musle mass much greater than you or me.

Your frustrations are clouding your judgements. Different is not inferior, and labeling a diverse group as all inferior is a greater logical fallacy than most. But that's my opinion.

-Men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue. -http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html

-Women's brain are about 10% smaller than that of men.
-http://library.thinkquest.org/26812/gather/cgi-bin/messages/4.html
-Women have better memory then men
New York University conducted a research on memories of both men and women. They were shown some pictures in a certain order for a second. For the result, women had an average score of 105, which was higher than that of men.

^That shit makes me laugh and proves nothing.

Men are vastly superior to Women genetically, yet women from developed countries feel so self-entitled. Fuck em.

>>2009085
Well, from the copy of "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" by Russel and Norvig I just fetched off my shelf:

"A rational agent is one that acts so as to achieve the best outcome or, when there is uncertainty, the best expected outcome."

I don't see any leeway in there for individual shortcomings. Furthermore, your definition is degenerate, as it would acclaim a tree stump to be a rational entity. Let's examine:

"A better one is that you make the best decision given the available information and your capabilities."

A tree stump has no capability to make a decision of any kind, so by your definition, no matter the circumstances, the stump acts rationally within its capabilities.

ITT: proles and prole problems.

Srsly, judge each person, not groups.

>>2009106
this anon knows what hes doing

>>2009085
Well, from the copy of "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" by Russel and Norvig I just fetched off my shelf:

"A rational agent is one that acts so as to achieve the best outcome or, when there is uncertainty, the best expected outcome."

I don't see any leeway in there for individual shortcomings. Furthermore, your definition is degenerate, as it would acclaim a tree stump to be a rational entity. Let's examine:

"A better one is that you make the best decision given the available information and your capabilities."

A tree stump has no capability to make a decision of any kind, so by your definition, no matter the circumstances, the stump makes the best decision within its capabilities.

>>2009108
>^That shit makes me laugh and proves nothing.

Sure is confirmation bias in here.

>>2009108
>men have 4% more brain cells than women
>Women, however, have 10% more brain nerve cells than men.

ya don't say...

I wonder how much of it is social. Like, women manipulate people by acting stupid. I think this makes them stupider in the end, and they may be worse off to begin with, but they still do OK on tests and things.

>>2009108
There's only one chromosome difference.
Also, bigger doesn't mean it works better.
You can't use some facts and ignore others if you wish to be taken seriously, otherwise you're just spouting your own baseless opinions.

>>2009131
you have autism, your opinion is invalid

>>2009101
10/10
brb I'm going to rape some bitches

>>2009126
That's the book I'm talking about. In that same chapter, I believe, he mentions that under his definition you can't fault the rational actor for failing in some example test because it had no way of knowing how it would fail or something like that. Maybe it comes later. Anyway, getting pretty asspained about my wording when you know what I mean.

>>2009106

Different is inferior when the differences are perceived as inferior.

I treat generalizations as generalizations. This means that I don't assume that all women are inferior by my definition. It means that many, if not most, women that I have seen are inferior by my definition.

>>2009131There's only one chromosome difference.

You only have 46...

>>2009141
We have some logic up in this bitch.
But it's still mostly about opinions and perception.

>>2009149
Well, -half- a chromosome difference to be accurate. Not even half if you consider the difference in the amount of information in the gender chromosomes.

>>2009131

Mesna Membership:The general membership is 65 percent male, 35 percent female. -http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/AboutMensa/Demographics/Demographics.htm

The greatest genius' of all time were men : http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/08/the-massive-list-of-genius-people-with-the-highest-iq/

I don't even know why I have to debate this. It does not take a huge amount of scientific inquiry to figure how inferior women are to men in every single conceivable way, except birth giving.

Don't give me that "But *whimper whimper* women have been oppressed by men for all time, they are still oppressed! *whimper whimper*, its so hard being a woman these days. Laying around and expecting everything handed to you, so hard!"

Women deserve equal opportunity to succeed. I'm all for women progressing themselves from their natural stupidity, but it just does not seem to be happening.

So yea....

>>2009161
NEED I REMIND YOU TRIPFAG THAT WE ARE 99.6472% SIMILAR TO MICE AND 74.31842% SIMILAR TO TREES?

>>2009164
i'v always wanted to be a tree

sadfrog.jpg

>>2009164
hahaha...ohwow.jpg

What are you smoking?

>-Women are indeed genetically inferior to men
only difference genetically is the Y chromosome which is really just a smaller, mutated version of an X. women actually have two copies of X material to work with so shit like: XX -> no hemophilia
means that women are actually more viable genetically.
>-ANYTHING a woman can do well, a man has done better; only >one exception, giving birth.
and yet without birth you wouldn't exist. also, since you haven't provided an exhaustive list of all things humans can do and then somehow rated the effectiveness of males and females at each task then I can only assume this argument comes from some kind of half-assed anecdotal gut reaction.
>-They are pretty much walking,talking,resource hoarding baby >incubators who have attained to much power in society.
this implies that there is a correct amount of power women should have. i since you have yet to identify and support why women shouldn't have equal legal standing this argument doesn't make sense.
>-Women are irrational creatures who base too much emphasis in >mammalian drives and emotions.
however this post contains little reason and much emotional bile.
>-Every month, a non-pregnant woman(who doesn't take birth >control) loses blood and becomes hormonally unbalanced. This is >just fucked up.
it is often argued that men are biologically incapable of being faithful because of their strong sex drive. i think i would say that an inability to control baser instincts all of the time sounds pretty hormonally unbalanced.
>-Women need to re-learn their place.
>-Women of the Western World are extremely hedonistic, and we >tolerate it socially and culturally.
because men of the western world are not hedonistic? unless all men are having gay sex with each other, we can not expect that women will not do as they please with their own bodies if men are going to do so.
>I fucken hate most women.
good for you. this sentiment should weed you out of the gene pool.

>>2009140
That's a separate issue. The author is talking about coping with imperfect or incomplete information, which is different from having limited capabilities of reason. Reason is a process applied to situations and environments as they are presented. If the presentation doesn't include perfect information, then a rational agent will select the course of action leading to the best *expected* outcome. That's covered in the definition. Choosing the best expected outcome in a situation of imperfect information and choosing the best outcome in a deterministic situation are both computationally infeasible in the general case. That's why the book's examples of rational agents are restricted to particular cases in small, discrete environments.

Claiming to always act rationally in the vast, multifarious scope of the physical Universe still would require unattainable powers of computation. So anon's contention that "You're really not a purely rational creature, it's a biological fact. Stop pretending." stands.

>>2009181
>>males genetically more viable

This is only true on the individual level. Males as a group drive evolution due to breeding success patterns and astronomically higher rates of breeding failure.

Besides, that mutated X chromosome seems to impart higher brain function, acuity, and physical robustness.

The X chromosome, in comparison, has less pressure to change, and so changes a whole lot less.

>>2009205
Implying that Y is needed for the human race to continue.

>>2008904

>>2009218

Stop that.

>>2009218

As social creatures with a definite bent for division of labor, I would say that, yes.

>>2009205

X X
|| ||

X Y
|| |i

This is the diference: | vs i.

>>2009205
>>2009181

There are very few functional genes of any kind on the Y chromosome, and genome size is a very poor correlate of overall sophistication, so this whole line of debate is thoroughly idiotic. The marbled lungfish has 130 billion base pairs in its genome to our 3.2, and I don't exactly see them building space ships.

This thread is so full of pseudo-intellectualism and amateur gloss on evolutionary biology that it hurts, and it's not confined to one side of the debate, either.

>>2009181
I will not be weeded out of the gene pool. I will earn a lot of money in my future and thus will be able to decide the proper person to procreate with. Someone to pass my superior genes.

I'm 6 foot.
Handsome.
Intelligent.
8 inch cock.
Body of an Olympian God without even trying.

I try to understand as much as a God (if one were to exist) would, that doesn't make me one. I'm human, which means I am not perfect.

Women on the other hand, do not hold this ideal as ordinarily as a man would. The grossly disproportionate amount of men in academics compared to females is appalling. This is due to to the majoritive attitude of women to act like house pets.

So eat shit, cunt lover.

Side note: Love the anonymity of the internet, makes letting your inner dispositions so easy to do without free of negative reprisal of a society dominated by stupid women.

>>2009205
>Besides, that mutated X chromosome seems to impart higher >brain function, acuity, and physical robustness.

i like the 'seems to', real fucking scientific man. not circular logic or anything. "i am superior, therefore my genes must be superior. my genes are superior, therefore i am too."

you do realize that your inferiority complex towards women will make you less likely to procreate right? something to look forward to.

>>2009236
That last line, he admits to trolling.

>>2009232

Considering that the SRY gene creates a dedicated hormone producing organ that females don't possess that causes marked physical differences, I think that we can say it makes a large difference. And evolution does affect males more. This is the reason, for instance, you can generally tell the promiscuity of females in a species by looking at testis size as a rough measure.

>>2009236
>8 inch cock.

pic :3

wanna come over and engineer sometime?

>>2009247
That's implying that testical size is only in male DNA and not female. The Y chromosome doesn't tell how it should be grown, just that it should be there.

>>2009256

Fuck off you faggot. I do not pursue physical relationships that would yield no fruit if ever needed to. I can deny myself pleasure.

>>2009241

Actually, I'm pretty sure I hold a host of shitty genes. Family history of anemias, asthma, allergy problems, obesity, immune problems(I kinda trace most problems back to the immune stuff. Probably some sort of immune event that likes attacking the thyroid early in life, among other things).

And I say seems because correlation does not equal causation, and it is not always strictly the case, as individual differences between humans seem to slightly outweigh gender differences in many aspects, so there's a lot of statistical noise which makes our body of knowledge less sound than it could be.

>>2009265

Sure you can. But why would you do that?

>>2009265
Although it is wise of you to realize that relationships that start online never end well, it is foolish of you to even respond to that post at all.

>>2009236

yes, the 6ft olympian sex god is on 4chan on a friday night. sure thing capt'n.

>I will not be weeded out of the gene pool. I will earn a lot of >money in my future and thus will be able to decide the proper >person to procreate with.

so you're looking for a gold digging whore, but you complain when you find them?

the reason you don't know any intelligent women, is because they're avoiding your sorry, close-minded ass.

>>2009268
So then the post he was linking is still shit, according to what you just said.

>>2009277
Gold digging whore my ass
All women marry someone who they THINK will make a good living.

>>2009277
Plus, he doesn't know any int females because he isn't even looking for them, he's just looking for the dumb ones. People often only see what they look for, it's a mental thing.

>>2009283
Then why do some females go after guys who they know full well will never attain any sort of wealth or power?

>>2009277

You'd be surprised how a man like myself, well educated, culture, intelligent, good looking, worldly, etc.

Would be so individualistic and lonely. Its hard for me to find anyone who can relate to me because of my intelligence. The only people capable of carrying on a decent discourse with me are professors.

I dedicate myself to the arts, science, math, literature, music etc.

I'm not looking for a gold digging whore. My ideal woman is someone who shares the same ideals as I aka Education/Knowledge/Perfection/Altruistic Love=Life.

Meh.

>>2009290
they don't
If they do its because they think they can "change" them or because they want sex

>>2009283

*logical* arguments about groups of people usually start with:

all
never
none
always

because why waste time,? might as well judge everyone at once. everyone in group "whatever" are all always like "whatever" right?
that's logical isn't it?

>>2009281

I never commented on OP's opinions. Quit being a stereotypically irrational woman.

>>2009300
I wonder about that. I think they instinctively get with a guy who is in their league. They know deep down whether this guy is going to go out and be a failure or not. So, some women "try" to change their man, but deep down they know they will fail.

>>2009303
OP has nothing to do with this and don't assume that I'm female.

>>2009302
Hey buddy women are just a certain way
I know because I can tell from my mom and sister
my sister for instance is not a hoe, she's only have had one boyfriend. But I know she'd ditch him if she found out he wouldn't be able to get a career.
Hell even my mom told me that part of the reason she got married to my dad was because at the time he was working at the stock market. Had he been a mechanic or something, she probably wouldn't have married him.

>>2009300
>because they want sex
Even just one exception to a rule you make up disproves the rule. Absolutes don't exist.

>>2009318
I was going to say that I have had girlfriends without showing any sign of future success, but then I remember they all had mental problems. Your point seems plausable.

>>2009322
who would you rather marry a chick that's ugly or a chick that's good looking?
Lets assume they were both smart and calm
Do you get my point yet?

>>2009290
to be impregnated by an alpha male

>>2009322
Even one exception disproves your rule that "absolutes don't exist." I offer the "absolute" that a straight line can be drawn through any two non-coincident points in Euclidean 2-space.

>>2009333
Also keep in mind that women instinctively think men who are confident are more likely to be successful.
Even if that's not the case.
Like if they found a guy who had a salary of say $60,000 but is introverted and they found another guy who had a salary of $30,000 but he is confident and had some sort of plan on how he would make millions some dumb bitches would probably fall for it.

>>2009333
Hm, yes, but it's highly unlikely that I would find a smart, calm, attractive female interested in me, I'd be lucky to get just 2 of those features.

In my personal experience 99.9% of all attractive females are narcissists.

>>2009357
Prove that it's straight.

>>2009358
That sorta explains how I've had gfs before.

>>2009100
>sorry 4 him

>>2009364
Oops, I meant to add this:

99.9% of attractive women are narcissists. Nothing wrong with being a narcissist unless it is unwarranted narcissism (loving yourself for no reason based on merit or earned traits).

>>2009364
but not the self-improving 4chan sort

the I'm a Big Beautiful Queen now lick my anus sort

Isn't there a theory that women don't do things like men because they can give birth? The theory explains that men do the things they do because they're afraid of death and want to be remembered and leave something behide.

>>2009381
Exactly, men only succeed more because they have greater motivation to do so.

>>2009379

4chan is a scummy lot. But I have always viewed 4chan as a gigantic pile of shit with 24 karat golden corn kernels. Imagine a barn filled with shit, up to the brim of the roof. Then drop 3 corn kernels made of gold and mix well. That is 4chan.

>>2009390
lol damn its true

>>2009318

so you know two women that might behave in someway, clearly all women must be just like that. that makes so much sense.

thank god you know those two women or else we'd never be able to figure anything out about all the rest of them.

no really, thanks for telling me all i'll ever need to know about half of the god damn population of the world.

it's all so simple now. if i meet one person, or just a few, of a certain type i can now understand all of them.

oh and since yesterday was cold and a thursday and can assume all thursdays are cold too, right? RIGHT?

lrn2logic

>>2009390
well yeah lots retarded dropout stoners but nowhere else do I hear people wanting to improve/learn so much too. /fit/ /fa/ /mu/ /sci/ master race

>>2009390
This is highly accurate. After all, 4Chan is a reflection of the internet as a whole and vice versa.

>>2009318
Moms teaches daughters, it happens in my family too. But at a glance, anyone can easily see that what few female friends I have aren't like the females in my family.

>>2009390

You could replace every instance of the word 4chan in that post with 'humanity' and have it be every bit as accurate.

>>2009418
This is also highly accurate. I endorse this post.

>>2009416
Well there are guys who care more about romance and looking at rainbows with someone than sex.
There will always be exceptions, I'm just talking about how I perceive based on experience and observation on how most women work.

Couldn't the difference in men and women's abilities also be a result of a social expectancies and other social phenomena? I mean, when you burn wood and measure the ashes you can't proclaim that the wood lost mass because you failed to isolate the experiment. The world does not exist in black in white.

>>2009442
>guys who care more about romance and looking at rainbows with someone than sex
meeeeeeeeeeeee!

>>2009450
yeah but you're gay...
I hope
Seriously if you're straight and you named yourself yuri bunny there is something wrong with you <_<

>>2009453
I am straight and I know I'm not normal, this isn't news to me.

In fact, that rainbow-haired unicorn girl is my profile pic on Facebook.
Normal is over rated.

>>2009458

i like you. (not that way) at least you're not doing 'hurr hurr males WIN cuz we says so' . you seem a lot more normal that the rest of these assholes

>>2009444
Okay can we at least agree that woman's
brains are high wired being more social and empathic than men or is that a GENERALIZATION too?

>>2009475
That's hormones, not brains that do that. But you're half right and that sorta counts for something.

>>2009471
I would sex with her.

>>2009485
I hope that if (IF) she were to ever exist in RL, that she would be a centaur so that I could ride her. But I'd probably fuck her either way if she offered.

>>2009475

as long as you truly judge women as individuals then generalizations aren't harmful. it's only when you say, "that woman can't maths because i knew one woman who couldn't so they all must suck"

>>2009499
I judge my past gfs as individuals.
1st mental
2nd emo
3rd missing
4th emo
5th homocidal

I in no way base all females on a few screw-ups.
/proud

>>2009496
Okay that does
Yuri I'm going to kick your ass over the internet
prepare for an e-beating

sexist troll detected

>>2009524
Bruce Lee may have killed Chuck Norris in The Way of the Dragon, but how does he fair against the awesome might of Super Chuck Norris?

>>2009546

>>2009474
>Yuri Bunny
>normal

lol whatever you want to believe. This is just what guys really think. They're always talking about "yah bro I fucked this dumb bitch so hard last night" etc.

OP, we, people today, are living a contradiction: we are taught that we have a body with specific capacities built by evolutionary tendencies. Like sexually dimorphic traits, antagonistic traits which provide an advantage to one sex against the other. All these traits have been built during a long period in which living conditions were VERY different from what we have today. Evolution does not make men and women equal, or different, or same, or any other way. Evolution doesn't care what you do to pass your genes on. If sexual difference is a good strategy, then it will be used, if sameness is a good strategy, genes don't give a fuck.

So, I understand the (frustrated) spirit of your post, as people today are living a hell of a social environment, full of contradictory rules which have accumulated for centuries, for social and political reasons.

Women equality is not a philosophical invention, it's mostly the creation of economic changes, because the big capital was interested in getting more working hands and taxpayers, so freeing up more women was the way to get their votes and get more money. But most women are not really interested in equality per se, they are interested in becoming legally autonomous and free to enjoy a position of power, from which they can use both the status of freedom and evolutionary advantage of having males compete over them. It's an abusive evolutionary situation and a big contradiction that will not end well. You cannot build a bigger male whose sex drive is based on bigger motivational force coming from testosterone and expect this fella to play sissy communication games to basically make himself accepted by a weaker being who calls the shots, even though nature did not build a weaker creature to call the shots, in the first place. The human species has cornered itself in a very stupid place, which will lead to either great transformations in the proximate future in the social landscape or an evolutionary gridlock.

>>2009511
I too judge my past gf's as individuals...

1. child
2. child
3. horny child
4. foreigner
5. bipolar
6. married
7. flake
8. might have been a man
9. married flake
10. cute but stoned
11. easy
12. my first wife, not a bad person, for a woman
13. happy but shallow
14. pothead
15. hippie fugitive
16. pothead
17. alcoholic native american
18. schizophrenic violent felon
19. child with daddy issues
20. redneck
21. low self-esteem
22. cheater
23. liar
24. too into me
25. old enough to be my mom, but young at heart
26. not that into me
27. shallow
28. gold digger
29. gold digger with drug habit
30-76. repeats of previous
77. my current wife

with a large enough sample size we can see that people in general are pretty fucked up. Just have to keep eyes open for the exceptions.

>>2009562
>1/77
Not bad.

>>2009562

i think that list says more about you than it does the women you've dated.

/holy cow you're a whore, sorry.

>>2009559

OP here, good post. But I think you fail to take a lot in consideration. Your scope is very "West" centric. Plenty of women in this world who understand and proport Males who exhibit strong characteristics.

Alphamales in the West should look elsewhere for breeding material. Get these lazy white bitches off their asses.

>>2009562
I might've settled for number 24 and then gotten a 2nd number 24. For what reason? Test subjects for lab work and maybe a threesome too. But it wouldn't work out because I'd end up accidentally show one far more attention than the other and then snowball effect.

>>2009562
>8. might have been a man
Are we talking about girlfriends here?

>>2009381

It's called the
Bitches Ain't Shit But Hoes and Tricks Phenomena

>>2009592
>implying there are alpha males anywhere on 4chan

>>2009594

She really got annoying quick, not sure why.

Threesomes are fun for occasional entertainment, but not as a way of life in my opinion.

>>2009598
That opinion doesn't belong there, it has nothing to do with the linked post.

(pic related, it's your post)

>>2009595
Yeah, she had the proper parts and all, but hairy chest, deep voice, square jaw etc.

I didn't go for her because of her looks though.

>>2009602
I think I'd like to have a girl obsess over me, just as long as she doesn't threaten to kill me.

>>2009614
cool story bro

>>2009618
It's flattering at first but she was really servile and hard to respect. No conversation either, very weak personality.

This thread is balls.

/thread

>>2009642
OP's ideal girl.
Yeah, that would get boring fast.

>>2009592
Of course I was talking mostly about the developed world, or more precisely about industrialised countries.

I wasn't writing a paper/book here, just giving a shorthand reply.

But it's my turn to point out that women from outside the West who immigrate to the West quickly become infected with the same mentality. So this mentality of entitlement based on "gender equality" is spreading like a virus. Just look at the speed of "progress" in some Arab countries, where women have been gaining some degree of equality in status lately, especially in the working area.. which proves the point I was making,. First come economics, then all the philospohical-ideological BS to justify the change in status quo. Then comes this evolutionary disease called equality which nature did not program at all. No one is equal in nature, everyone is competing.

>>2009661
If you want to see competition, look here:
>>2008904

>>2008888

Detecting a virgin on /sci/ is like finding a child at a preschool.

i mad that this thread is seriously still alive, especially since we aren't /r9k/.

Where do you think you're getting with this, Yuri Bunny?

I think OP seems dumb, insecure, and very deeply butthurt, but why give him the time of day? You're not going to make less misogynists, you know.

>>2009717
i've been responding with sage in the email each time
>not yuri

'Your gender needs to learn its place.'

OP likely got ban hammered IRL by a girl and can't accept the humiliation.

>>2009689
That's a retarded idea. The brain has evolved for attachment, and there is a reason why women are more stressed and men are physically bigger.
Are you some kind of a feminist gay man? Or a transsexual? A man would never think like you.

>mfw you can't get pussy

>>2009751
I am neither gay nor a tranny.

>>2008884
You need to hang around with better women.

>>2009768
I've got a few pussies until now, one of them used to be a model. But I still share OP's view. I'm not a pussy-whipped feminist, or a neutered politically correct pathetic excuse for having two balls and a dick.

human females basic biological problem is menstruation. shit's fucked up. it's what makes them genuinely crazy bitches. it's also pretty much already been fixed with modern medicine, and is a non-issue for pre-pubescent and post-menopausal females.

the rest, 'woman', is totally social, and far more of a real problem. this is the thing that needs to be fought, the idea of gender-typing. this has been started but it has really been the destruction of the male gender; this is wrong because the male gender is the natural state. femininity is based in submission, it is the result of woman-kinds (necessary, for their own good and the good of all those around them) suppression over countless millenia (the entire history of the species and then some, going back to our pre-human ancestors).

basically the entire biological form is outmoded anyway.

>>2008927
Except most gays have the problems women have, they're vain, prissy, and shallow. It isn't a problem with women, it's a problem with femininity.

OP, the problem with women is what cultures tell women to be like. In America they're finally beginning to get a sense for their own identity, so of course they're a bit bitchy and confused, but if you find the rare few that care more about their individual personalities, not what society says they should be like, you'll be happy. The trick is to just find a girl who cares about something more than social definitions of gender. Best of luck, bro.

>>2009945
>basically the entire biological form is outmoded anyway.
Hahaha, oh wow! The biological form which was built as a result of many thousands of years of continuous evolutionary efforts is 'outmoded' because you're sitting in front of a computer and become an addict to complacency! This should go into an anthology of evolutionary retardation.

>>2009957
> many thousands of years of continuous evolutionary efforts
> thousands

OP should find himself a man.

Worked for me; haven't looked back.

>173 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
For fuck's sake, /sci/

Haha, this is rich, and not a single person in the thread has an iota of intelligence?
YEah you boys go ahead and enjoy your circle jerk. I'll just be reading some studies and doing science instead of wanking off on eachother in one big gay 4chan troll orgy.

>>2010007
>not a single person in the thread has an iota of intelligence?
Intelligent people can see what an awful thread it is.

>>2009945
oh and i feel i should add just for the hell of it that this guy is full of shit and PMS is a psychological condition caused by culturing and the only real physiological conditions arising from menstruation is a very slight change in hormones and the physical feeling of blood leaking out of your vagina. Basically any culture that doesn't stigmatize menstruation never had to put up with that bullshit.

youre stupid. girls are not inferior

>>2010007
>>2009106
Only two posts that are logical.
I don't give a fuck if your have a testes or ovaries, if you can do the job at the optimum wage to quality ratio, I'll hire/work with you. Otherwise fuck off.
Now excuse me, I should be working in audocad.

>>2009163

Women are oppressed, and I can say that without whimpering because that shit goes on all around you, faggot.

>>2010249
>Women in the 3rd world are oppressed
>Women in the 1st world were oppressed 30 years ago

Fixed.

>>2008906
>>2008906
>>2008906

Haha, butthurt cuckholded much? Who fucked your girlfriend? I FUCKED YOUR GIRLFRIEND!

And as a PhD student I can assure you, I know girls who are WAY smarter than you'll ever be.

>>2010255
The USA JUST got rid of pay discimination for women
Of course the US doesnt really qualify as a 1st world country since only the coastal areas are developed, everything in between consists of pseudo-theocratic backwaters and everything south of the Mason-Dixon line would turn into Rwanda without federal subsidies
for all their pissing and moaning about "small government" those ex-confederates depend on it just to tread water economically

>>2010289
USA resident, and I agree. However, I am from the northern-east coast and as far back as I can remember (1985-90-ish), women haven't been discriminated against by being paid less for the same work.

There is, however, the issue that lots of women, here at least, choose not to be career oriented. It's foolish to think that a woman that just has "a job" to pay bills should make the same salary as a man (or another woman for that matter) who is very focused and passionate about their career. That's the kinds of trends that feminists tend to point at. Boo hoo, single mother of three doesn't get paid very much as a cashier at wal-mart. I can guarantee that in any professional setting in the north-east USA, anyone that puts in the same work gets paid the same, independent of reproductive hardware.

My GF, we are a couple for 2 months now.

Last week she admitted that we are not equal(genders) and that am smarter than her.

I made her my GF because she seemed the most humane woman i ever knew, most logical woman i ever knew and after what she said i realized that she actually accepts her role in biology/society/etc.

She helps everyone and be nice to everyone AND she's an atheist, she the most non-hypocritical woman i ever knew.

The fact that she's nice, a woman and an ATHEIST shows how good her understanding and logic is for a woman.

And she tries to please me in every way she can from sexual to nonsexual, the admits it and actually DOES that.
Not even comparable to the previous GFs i had.

Am very lucky to have her, sometimes i can't just realize that i have found this kind of girl.

no matter how much you hate them, without them, you, or anybody for that matter, would be here

so suck it up

Smart =/= education

Because:
education =ONLY memorize and repeat.

Strength etc. have no real use in the modern world

Basically all studies have shown there is little to no correlation between gender and intelligence. This is not some faggot on 4chan's perception of the world, actual scientific studies.

So what is the reason for the lack of females maths and science if not intelligence? I would guess that in general women are discouraged to enter fields like engineering because of the general male dominance in those fields, you wouldn't want to be the only girl in a class of 30 males would you?

I'm male btw

>>2010307
No, she's actually smarter than you, and you, being the real dumbfag. She just made you believe that she believes that you're smarter than her; so you won't pull any tantrums about how superior men are, and just conformed with your 'society'.

also i'm a guy here.

>>2010313
This. I know a girl who is 'smart' by means of education (almost straight A's), but fuck she can wipe her ass with knowledge she has. I have classes with her, and I'm yet to see her apply the memorized data on practical situation.

Just so we’re clear, femanon here (16/f/Aus) not some butthurt teenage boy whiteknighting on 4chan.
It’s late, I should be studying, but for some reason I feel like getting into a debate with OP, who IMO is a faggot. /sci/ is a slow board, hopefully this thread doesn’t 404 before I get my kicks.
As said I should be studying, whole thread is therefore tl;dr; I will address OP’s points only.
- Women are genetically inferior to men.
This is /sci/ and I therefore feel justified in requesting proof. What exactly do you mean by ‘genetically inferior’? The term makes no sense. Each human, male or female, has two copies of each gene, one on each chromosome of the complementary pair on which that particular gene is located. One gene comes from the mother, and one from the father. Which of the two genes is expressed has no bearing on whether that gene was inherited from the mother or the father – read up on dominance, recession, codominance etc, moron. The ONLY difference, genetically, between males and females is the X/Y chromosomes. I suggest you learn some basic genetics before making a pointless statement like this.
- Anything a woman can do well, a man has done better.
In short I’m too fucken lazy to go find some examples, but this one just reeks of bullshit. I’m sure it’s already been addressed. To add a point, women have had a lot less time to try doing things well, because for the last couple thousand years we’ve had douchebags with penises telling us to get back in the kitchen. It’s kind of difficult to discover penicillin when you’ve got six kids under ten and you’re trying to run a home without electricity. Try it sometime.
- Women are walking, talking, resource hoarding baby incubators.
Yes, we are baby incubators in the sense that women are the sex that bear children. I fail to see how this is an argument. We walk, talk, and ‘hoard resources’ in much the same way that men do.

- Women have attained too much power in society.
Bullshit. Women do not have anywhere near the degree of ‘power’ that men do. A woman earns less than a man doing the same job equally well – this is not power. We are underrepresented in the pure sciences, in business administration and in politics, to name a few. Others have pointed out that women have historically been oppressed and are just starting to break free of it now. I will not go over this again.
The way I see it is this. The world’s population is about 50/50 male and female. I have never seen any convincing proof (this is /sci/ morons, proof = peer reviewed articles) that females are less capable than males at any task describable as ‘power’. Therefore, until the percentage of females in positions of ‘power’ exceeds 50% your statement is unjustified.
- Women are irrational and emotional.
Ever heard of the Myers-Briggs personality indicators? The indicator you’re looking for is the third one, the distinction thinking vs feeling. My Myers-Briggs is ENTJ. I am a thinker. I don’t have statistics and cbf finding any, but I would not be surprised if the ratio of thinkers to feelers was higher for men than for women. However, this doesn’t mean that ALL women are emotional before they are rational. That statement is one that I often encounter from men who’ve been burned by women who are emotionally demanding and/or irrational. Don’t think that because you got caught by one bitch, we’re all the same.

- Loss of blood/hormonal imbalance.
I fail to see how the normal hormonal cycle of a woman is ‘unbalanced’. You cannot point out a basic biological difference between men and women and try to claim it as a serious argument for anything. Any woman who has a clue about her own body learns what her hormonal cycle means for her. Personally, I find that for about two days every month I can get upset about nothing. Therefore, I avoid making important decisions when I know I’m not at my most rational. Simple. Personally I like the effects of being on a hormonal cycle. Rather than being mediocre all the time (the way men are), I’m shit sometimes and great other times. If I work with it, rather than against it, I can make better use of my intelligence, my creativity and my physical strength.
You appear to be like most men and assume that PMS accompanies menstruation – wrong. PMS, for those women who experience it, tends to be worst on the few days immediately prior to menstruation. And the loss of blood statement is honestly laughable – go back to the stone age! To say the very least, it isn’t even blood, it’s the uterine lining. Since you apparently agree that women are good at giving birth (oh dear god, what an amazing concession) then you can’t exactly decry it as horrifying and wrong.
- Women need to relearn their place.
What place, douchebag? My ‘place’, just like yours, is wherever I choose to be. I have an IQ of 140+, and enough self-discipline to put in the study, get an education, and do something worthwhile with my life. Why should my ‘place’ be subservient to a brainless loser with the work ethic of a goldfish just because he has a penis and I don’t? If you’re arguing from rationality – what’s best for society in general – then explain to me how we’re better off if we place stupid, incompetent and/or sociopathic men ahead of the most intelligent and hard-working of women in the social hierarchy?

- Women of the Western world are hedonistic.
You won’t find me arguing. The whole fucking Western world is hedonistic, and that’s the problem. Again, you are allowing a stereotype to dictate the way you view all women – instead of noticing women who don’t embody the characteristics you hate. I will refrain from ranting about how the hedonism of Western society in general is fucking up the whole planet and everything and everyone on it.
- I fucken hate most women.
Your problem, faggot. Smile and wave, girls, smile and wave.

>>2010342
>>2010342
Yes and No.
What you fail to see here is that women praise men to make them do the job and they do it UNCONSCIOUSLY.
Its wired in their brain.

Ask any other woman today and will bitch about equality WHILE still praising men unconsciously saying this like : you are man you have to pay or you are a man dont be afraid to do this or you are man go make my life better etc etc.

Thats the main difference.

>>2010361
>femanon here (16/f/Aus) not some butthurt teenage boy
Right. You're some butthurt teenage girl instead. So much more authority.
>>2010363
>We are underrepresented in the pure sciences
This one I know for a fact is false. The others I just have vague indications of falsehood. I work in the pure sciences, and more than 75% of the people I work with on a daily basis are women. Granted, the ratio for the whole company is probably 50/50, but that still refutes your assertion. Grow up and get a job before you complain about biased work fields.

>>2008884
>women are genetically inferior to men
Actually it's the other way around as women are far far less likely to contract X-linked recessive conditions such as colour blindness and Hemophilia, due to the fact they have two X-chromosomes.

The rest of your post is bullshit too. This coming from a guy

+1 to femanon, keeps the thread interesting.

>>2010361
>16/f/Aus

>mfw excuses for being the weak sex

havent had enough time? i think women have been around just as long as men

also:
>>2010363
>A woman earns less than a man doing the same job equally well
Unless you live in a 3rd world country, or a fantasy land, this one is again pure false. Again, grow up and get a job before you make assertions about the work field.

>>2010372
>This one I know for a fact is false. The others I just have vague indications of falsehood. I work in the pure sciences, and more than 75% of the people I work with on a daily basis are women.

Fucking idiot detected. Nice sample space of 1 company, that proves beyond a doubt that the sciences are full of women

>>2010380
Because 1 data point is less of an example than 0 data points.

>- Anything a woman can do well, a man has done better.
>In short I’m too fucken lazy to go find some examples

mfw she disproves her point.

I can find examples of durpdofijaspdoifj but am too lazy too ,nice one.

Cooking,engineering,sports,philosophy etc.
The only thing a woman can do better is socializing and having high emotional intelligence, which she developed cause she is weak at the rest.

>>2010384
I'm not the one making random assumptions and declaring them as facts. Anyway, on the subject:

>Females Are Equal to Males in Math Skills, Large Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101011223927.htm

>Few Gender Differences in Math Abilities, Worldwide Study Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105112303.htm

>>We are underrepresented in the pure sciences

Mfw nobel prizes awards in hard/pure/natural sciences to females didnt' changed in first and second half of 20th century where women actually had education like men.

Also mfw women have bigger percentages at college exams and still contribute NOTHING compared to men in sciences to this date.

>>2010401
No, I'm agreeing with you that women are equal to men, but I'm trying to stop you from going full blown animal farm and saying "women are more equal than men".

Basically, if you feel women are underrepresented in science; become a scientist and contribute instead of whining about it. Lots of women do, but unfortunately, lots of women choose the whining route too.

Same goes for most of the other fields you mention. Contribute instead of complaining.

>>2010401
>>2010401
I read both the time they were published.
AND ALL OF IT IS BASED ON EDUCATION.

E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N = memorize and repeat.

Good Grades =/= smart

Especially the first one is a joke.
Just read it.

Also the "study" is made by butthurt women.
And the most fucked up part is when you read "PSYCHOLOGY".
Not neuroscience.

>>2010402
this.
>>2010401
As some here said those studies are based on education.

Its like a ferrari and gocart are competeting BUT the speed limit is at 20mph.
OBVIOUSLY BOTH WOULD GO AT THE SAME SPEED.
If you SET THE LIMIT AT 200(replace with innovation, scientific discovery, critical thinking, etc etc etc) then FERRARI WOULD FLY TO THE MOON.

>>2010423
/thread

Its like measuring intelligence on rock-paper-scissors instead of chess (which obviously is not credible but it is 1000 times better than the former)

>>2010409
>implying I'm a women and not already doing engineering

But yea I'm going to stop arguing with you if we agree and move onto this guy:

>>2010415
You are an idiot.

if you didn't like those try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

tl:dr we are basically for all intents and purposes equal, maybe males by like 2-4 IQ points on average

If women were clever, they wouldn't have had to rely on men to give them the vote or give them equal education. They would have got it themselves, through their own hard work. It's the same as Africans. If they had any intelligence, they wouldn't have let the whites exploit them and instead farmed their own lands and made their own scientific advances.

It's simple. They aren't clever. Despite all attempts by western countries to bend their education systems towards a female mindset; they still contribute nothing to history, science, maths, literature, engineering or anything remotely useful.

I don't dislike women. I enjoy their company and I don't think they deserved to be bullied or picked on like some of the people on this website. However, anyone who says they're equal in ability or outcome to men has their head in the sand.

>>2010434
I read it before, the whole article.
Obviously you didn't.

>>2010434

average =! span

OK FEMANON.

I forgot, can you remind me of a great female PHILOSOPHER???

>>2010434

>woman doing engineering

Enjoy getting called at work and being asked by the guy on the phone to put the engineer on, not his secretary.

>>2010450

See

>>2010437

Trying to explain anything requiring thought or judgement, as opposed to regurgitation, won't go down well with a woman. Sciences, philosophy, history and maths are to be avoided. Stick to Art and perhaps Music if she's really bright.

>>2010437
That's where we're different; I think everyone has the right to be bullied and picked on. That's how we grow as equal individuals.

You can't expect to live in a free society and not expect to feel offended or be teased. Take your pick.

>>2010450

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_philosophers

>>2010459

I'm not saying they should be protected from it, I'm just saying it doesn't need to instantly happen.

Everyone needs a chance to prove their worth. But women shouldn't have it easier or get more chances, like they do.

>>2010453
I actually meant by that that I'm a male doing engineering.

And your point is perhaps a reason why there are so few women engineers

The meaning of life is to get laid.Women can get this done without any effort while raging teenagers sit on 4chan and call them inferior.

>>2010462

Sorry for my lack of reading comprehension.

>>2010460

Great?

where?

Any /sci/ male can out-"philosophy" those women.

>>2010463

Have you read the thread?

The only raging is being done by women and white knights. This isn't a /b/ argument, it's actually one of the more rational arguments I've seen on 4chan.

>>2010467
I'm not sure "tits or GTFO" or "get in the kitchen, bitch" counts as philosophy...

>>2010474

Neither does "men are evil and need to die", but they're allowed to put that in print.

>>2010461
>women shouldn't have it easier or get more chances, like they do
But they don't.
>Enjoy getting called at work and being asked by the guy on the phone to put the engineer on, not his secretary
is exactly why women often don't feel like they are able to do engineering.
For a lot of women it is really difficult to be the only chick in an engineering class or whatever

>>2010477
>>2010477
mfw "they dont"

>>2010479
mfw you didn't bother to read the rest of my point which explained "they don't"

OP is a fucking idiot. Women are awesome; and they are every bit as capable and human as you. I don't get some guy's hate toward women. Yeah, they can seem to be complicated and difficult sometimes; but you know what....we can appear that way to them oftentimes too!

It's all culture. The driving forces of our culture makes it OK for men to be douchebags and women to be gold diggers. In fact our society encourages these things. The simple fact of the matter is, it's all comes down to the person themselves regardless of their gender/race/orientation. Don't pass judgment on other so hastily.

Seriously dude, if you hate women that much; go move to the middle east with all of the other extremist wife murders and bomb makers. You don't deserve to live in the west.....

>mfw faggots in this thread think educational ability isn't correlated with intelligence

>>2010486
Hate (racism, sexism, etc) is pretty easy to understand, actually. We live in a world of competition. If we can write off certain groups of people as unfit to compete, our individual chances of success are better.

Nevermind actually being good at the competition for jobs, success, a mate, etc. Just ridicule those different from you and then you'll be in the top running.

Basically, it's the same reason people drive sports cars; they're compensating for lack of skill/intelligence/physical prowess.

>>2010487
That's like saying dolphins are smarter than people because they can jump through the hoops better...

Oh, and if women are genetically inferior to me; then why is the X chromosome becoming bigger and starting to secrete poison that kills or hampers y chromosomes?

Oh that's right, because if there is any ultimate future in the human race it involves women. Sorry guys, they are the reproducers, and therefore they are the first to both evolve and develop. Women evolve at a substantial rate in comparison to men for example; because we simply provide an external component, and nothing in nature prevents women from being able to develop the ability to self fertilize.

The idea when a species switches to such reproductive measures is that it is entering a fine tuning of the species. Instead of going for diversity, the aim is instead to let the strongest of the genepool survive and then rapidly evolve.

>>2010500
Do you understand evolution? Evolution isn't linear; organisms have to diversify randomly to be naturally selected. If you remove the diversification component, there is no evolution.

>>2010499

>mfw you think dolphins are better at jumping through hoops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnwfeit8R_M

>mfw you just compared college success to jumping through a hoop

>>2010527
Didn't watch the vid, however,
>college success to jumping through a hoop
Yes, at least at the undergraduate level. Can't speak for grad school, as I have no personal experience, but my bachelor's degree was nothing but disciplined hoop-jumping.

my ideal women is my computer .. i love you computer i hope you gain AI some day

>>2010538

>mfw you went to a shit tier school

>mfw you downplay the intellect required to jump through the metaphorical hoops

Just because you had the required intellect to make the task you were presented with, say memorizing some historical facts, exercises in discipline doesn't mean that's true for everyone.

What it likely means is your an underachiever and poor high school results/apps got you into a shit tier school.

My BS is from the top engineering school in my field, and while I won't say I worked super hard I know a bunch of people who damn near killed themselves and still got meh results.

>>2010558

>Implying women intelligence.

>>2008884
Let me guess, you're a virgin? Let's not even get to the fact that more women are attending Post Secondary Education and have more degrees than men. Face it, the only reason why men have led for so long because you oppressed them, well now the game has changed and intelligence is the most valued commodity something men severely lack.

>>2010584
>>2010584
> MORE WOMEN HAVE DEGREES

> MY FUCKING FACE WHEN THAT JUST DISPROVES YOUR POINT

You say they got more degrees but where's science? innovation? invention? etc etc etc.

If they they got more degrees then MORE than 50% of sciences discoveries would'v made by women.
BUT
the percentage is insanely low, a joke.

One word=education.


>>2010565
Failed example as you dont imply DIFFERENT gender.
Which is clearly the whole point.

Women can memorize and repeat but suck at critical thinking which is the result of original things.

Suck not unable.

inb4 virgin
I had ex's had sex, plus 2 times with prostitute and now i have a serious relationship with a girl.

It is impossible for you that a person can appreciate and love one thing AND have objective opinion on it?

Grow up.

>>2010584

Note to women: I think the OP is retarded to, but posts like this just suggest that he is right.

>>2010621
i second the:

>It is impossible for you that a person can appreciate and love >one thing AND have objective opinion on it?

Ppl get too biased and femanons acting like theists when it comes to this kind of arguments.

>>2009322
How about 0 Kelvin?

>>2010584
>>2010584

> women having less education => assume gender oppression, 'inherent difference in intelligence' as an evil sexist conclusion
>men having less education => assume inherent difference in intelligence as a good sexist conclusion
>mfw obvious double standards

>>2010621

The point is this: you over limited what is reflective of intelligence to the point where apparently only critical thinking producing new scientific results qualifies.

I'm reminding you that many other things can require and/or demonstrate intelligence.

Since you are clearly fond of science, think about the observations you are using as evidence (namely most top end academic productivity comes from men) in terms of an experiment. Clearly if you do not control for inputs other than intelligence as a function of gender then your results are unusable. Can you think of anything? Perhaps women just aren't as interested in making new scientific discoveries? When you compare the success of an evenly gender split group (n>=100) of researchers randomly selected in each of several non-gender bias specialties and with a similar number of years experience and show that the success of the males generally exceeds the success of the females then people will start believing you. In reality even the study presented above doesn't control for various other factors particularly well, but it's a damn sight better than your "evidence" and that's about all you can ask for in anthropological research.

ITT: overgeneralization, narcissicism, and excessively concrete thought processing by OP

>>2010365
>>2010365
>>2010365
>>2010365
>>2010365
>>2010365
You are so intelligent!! I love when you pointed out the PMS part. Holy shit, people are so idiotic. You are incredible. IS THERE ANY WAY TO CONTACT YOU? I want to message you on MSN so badly. :[ I'm katbastard@live.com

>>2010657

>Perhaps women just aren't as interested in making new scientific discoveries?

That is certainly possible. What are your alternate hypotheses?

>>2010704
no, that is an answer to a stupid statement.

>go to bed last night
>wake up today, check /sci/
>this ridiculous troll thread is still on the front page.
facepalm.jpg

>>2008884
ITT: OP cannot attract a mate.
>laughinggirls.jpg
Pic related

>>2010657
I didn't said they are inferior as a gender.

We are talking about Intelligence.
And yes it can be many things.

So women developed a keen emotional intelligence, instead of being able to fix, invent stuff etc they became good at socials, manipulating(not in the bad sense) others around to have better chances at their main role which is reproduction.

Thats why women are social junkies, they crave for acceptance much more than men do.
(its not a negative comment)

The reason virgins guys are so hateful is because they are usually 'weak', women are not Bitches because then dont like you.
Its hardwired that they chose strong genes to ensure survival of the race.
Thats why the males must be the ones to prove themselves.

Stop crying, its biology.

One, talking about woman's keen emotional sense AND at the same time saying we all have the same brain capabilities is a hypocrite.

There are obvious Differences in male and female brain and body structures.

There is no such thing as equal, for anyone.
Only Different.

And that, COMBINED with respective environment FORMS what we call "superior/inferior".

Which is subjunctive whether we look at it purely socially or pure biologically.

We're a life form that has 2 different types, one that protects and one that breeds.
There is not subjective superiority, just different Jobs.

This is a generalization.
Note that there is no 100% female or male.
Which complicates things even further.
And explains some other things.

But so far things are pretty solid looking at macro level.
Which is the way to understand some things.

inb4 i hate females.
Please dont, i just try to be as much subjective as i can.
I support objectivity not a football team.
Am always ready to add new info, debate etc and maybe change my mind at certain things.