/sci/ - Science & Math

They are all virgins with rage

Sure. Women have a bit harder time building muscle. And breasts are in the way for some activities.

Other than that? Nah.

Women are amazing in their own ways, but intelligence isn't their forté.

>>2539681
This. Ignore them, OP.

Girls is purdy, ahyuk.

Women: Beautiful, nurturing, survivalists

Men: Workers, fighters, philosophers

>>2539692
well there are a couple billion smarter than you
and anyone could name a few females scientists who have accomplished more than everyone but a few
the only reason there aren't more is because science was a male profession for a long time

>apples are inferiour because they taste different to oranges

Yes. Women are inferior.

And by your post, I can tell you are obviously a woman. So fuck off.

Reported.

This board is full of trolls, whether stormfags or misogynists.
Or both.

Best policy is to ignore them, because if you make a good post in responce, they ignore it because it will be WAY over their heads and if you rage, they'll fap their flaccid penors in glee.

>>2539717
He so, so, so mad.

>>2539679
us guys are inferior...
look at the Y-chromosome compared to the X-chromosome.
that shit is tiny.

Also, not just Marie Curie.
Rosalind Franklin - X-Ray crystallography - discovered that DNA is a helical molecule.
oh wait, that's all I can think of... maybe because I'm studying Biomed, maybe there are more in chem/phys...

>>2539717
ITT: faggots who can't get pussy

I don't think so. Women have the mental capacity to do just as much as men, it's just that it's been a man's world since the beginning of time. If you're forced to stay at home, have no right to an education, a right to vote, must only answer to your husband, etc etc, I don't think that gives women many opportunities to achieve much.

They just need to stop being fucking stupid about their looks. They care too much about that shit and pleasing men so maybe we'd respect them for once. I know I respect who show self-respect.

Yes women are inferior, they're insecure emotional crybabies who delude themselves thinking they're the center of the universe and go for shit like astrology
And single moms are destroying society.
Now go get a husband who works and you stay at home and raise acceptable members of society.

>>2539797
respect women*

>>2539801
>Now go get a husband who works and you stay at home and raise acceptable members of society.
Nope. Deal with it, permavirgin.

>>2539797
No. Women are simply not as intelligent as men. They have smaller brains, for one, but there probably are other reasons too. Why is this such an unacceptable thing? It's like if men got into a hissy fit at the notion that women are more aesthetically pleasing.

>>2539808
omg do you really believe that? o.O

>>2539808
>implying brain size matters

Women aren't inferior, but they are different. They hold all the resource management when it comes to reproduction, so they have much superior skills when it comes to detecting a liar, cheat or someone reliable than males.
Males don't give so much of a fuck- they only give a fuck because of the advanced detection software that women have, and competition with other males.

>>2539808

Obviously they have smaller brains because they have smaller bodies. Men are stronger and physically built for survival.
But in today's world, your muscles mean nothing, it's all about the brains. There was a time when industry only required you to do physical work such as working machines which is why men were the norm. Now it's about intelligence. I'm sure that if you compare an adult woman brain to an adult man brain they will be different sizes but it doesn't mean it can't fit as much information. That's kind of ridiculous.

>>2539825
>Implying a 5400rpm 1.5tb harddrive is the same as a 7200rpm 2tb harddrive

>>2539843
>false analogies

I know little about the neurological difference between the male and female brain, but there a few obvious factors that suggest that gender roles have a continuing role in society:

1) Women are physically and emotionally better equipped to raise children

2) There have been more notable male figures in history because of the above

3) If women are to abandon their evolved role in humanity and rent it out to state (i.e. child care before the age of 5), we may cause serious social damage

Remember, of course, that most great figures in history wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the love and support of their mother. I think that career-minded women who also have kids should consider their priorities. Of course a man could do the "child raising" and the woman could work, but my proposition hinges on the fact that women are the biologically ideal gender to do so.

>>2539679
The mental capabilities of either sex may be about equal.

The tendency among women to shirk accountability for transgressions/failures (due to being raised to put more effort into preserving a perception of being perfect), however, draws the ire of male superiors, severely hampering promotion in many cases.

Women who wish to be successful will need to do one of the following:
1) Operate in an environment where they are not directly managed by males.
2) Ignore what they were taught in childhood about preserving image over being practical.
3) Be too awesome at their jobs for male superiors to ignore.

>>2539843
>trying to compare a computer to a human brain

wat

>>2539825
It isn't just brain size, but the way the female brain is formed to give certain tendencies that differ from the male. Women are probably naturally less curious than men.

Would somebody please explain what "inferior" or "superior" excactly means in the first place?
physical ability?, mental ability?, amount of fun in life?, number of friends?, number off opponents killed?, number people saved?, contribution to society? bla bla bla i guess you know what i mean...

>>2539870
mental ability you faggot

LOL I TORL U

This is obvious as fuck, you fucking idiots. Jesus fucking Christ.

Average IQ between men and women is the same.

There are statistical differences in the type of thinking men and women use though.

Men tend to think in a linear, literal and goal oriented manner. While women tend to think in terms of pattern finding - not goal-oriented.

>>2539885
ooooh you sound smart! So it is "THE mental ability" like you put you head in some machine and then you get test result "you mental ability lies at over 9000"
That's excactly what we cannot do since the brain is much too complex to form an unbiased rating...

>>2539896
IQ isn't the same between genders. Provide a source.

"Linear" "goal-seeking" and "pattern-finding" are not real things. The difference between male and female patterns of thought is best modeled as what is typically referred to as a difference in intelligence, not in some bullshit categories you made up.

>In the future women will surpass men in terms of accomplishments.
there you go again

>>2539898
You're saying there's no way to measure the speed at which someone's brain processes or assimilates new information? You're saying no test has ever been devised that can accurately tell you whether you are working with a genius or a retard? That's an interesting position. You're 12 years old, faggot.

>>2539858
This, times infinity.
/sci/ is sexist because /sci/ doesn't care about average morons - IQ 100 isn't enough. And IQ is one of those things women aren't bad at.

women are the weaker vessel; sorry, but you were created for companionship and not much else

>>2539903
> IQ isn't the same between genders. Provide a source.
google.com

> "Linear" "goal-seeking" and "pattern-finding" are not real things.
They are concepts which model behaviors.

> The difference between male and female patterns of thought is best modeled as what is typically referred to as a difference in intelligence
Intelligence is a broad subject to which there are many types and aspects. Different methods of thinking can be better suited to different types of intelligence.
> not in some bullshit categories you made up.
Clearly you're a closed-minded git who won't accept anything other than your existing malformed ideas.

women have too much of their brain devoted to mate selection to ever make more than the incidental or once in a generation contribution to science

mate selection is a very important process, btw

>>2539705

/thread

>>2539931
I'm not closed-minded. I'll change my mind the instant you provide a reliable gathering of statistical evidence that says IQ is the same between genders, or a source that quantifies and tests your bullshit categories of "goal-seeking" and "pattern-finding," then gathers reliable statistical evidence that demonstrates a predominance of each in a specific gender.

>>2539903
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_psychology
> The mean IQ scores between men and women vary little.[9] Studies that report variations in IQ between males and females find differences between 3-5 IQ points. However, males show higher variance on scores.
also see >>2539858

>>2539938
> I'm not closed-minded.

>>2539908
well is there? as far as I know there are only tests as to how much the brain is working, which is not the same as how fast, or to put it in other word, effective it is processing... but anyway you sound far to dumb to discuss with have a narrow minded life my dear friend!

>>2539940
The great majority of women fall around the average intelligence. The group of people we call "smart" or "highly intelligent" are almost all men.

>>2539940
>differences between 3-5 IQ points
>differences
Oh, I guess they're equal.

>>2539950
>3-5 points less
Oh, I guess they are "inferior".

>>2539948
And also the group of people we call "stupid"

like this guy >>2539903

lib-tardey is like a science destroying enzyme

lib-tard + science ==> libtard + hurpience

and it can do that shit all god-damn day long

>>2539947
Is there some information we can extract or collect that demonstrates how intelligent someone is? It would be absurd to think not, or else we could mean nothing when we said intelligent. When we say intelligent, we are talking about the presence of very specific traits, such as memory, processing speed, and ability/speed of pattern detection. We can test these traits with tests such as requiring subjects to remember list of words or facts, asking them to perform mathematical calculations, or asking them to identify and extrapolate patterns.

Any inability to measure intelligence implies that the word has no implications, which is a fucking stupid stance. You are 12 years old.

>Just I'm sort of depressed that this forum is filled with stormfags. Sort of like news/, but I hope this forum isn't full of sexists idiots.

You're expecting way too much of /sci/. Noticed the fascists and warmongers yet? Why don't you make a thread about it?

Protip: leave the most science-less science forum to the bigots.

If women honestly want to be considered equal to men, they can go sign up for the draft.

Otherwise, fuck off.

>>2539958
I didn't say women were inferior. I said the differences in the way our brains function is similar to the differences in the way the brains of smarter and dumber people's brains work. You're the one who thinks this means women are inferior.

ITT: people who don't understand what "average" even means. Or more specifically what it doesn't mean.

Using averages, you could make a statement like "50% of people have a below average IQ"

>>2539965
You mean lib-tardase,
Yes it develops a mental effect in the brain which results in people believing everyone is the same. However if you inactivate it with reality some cases have been cured from this lunacy.

>>2539976
> I said the differences in the way our brains function is similar to the differences in the way the brains of smarter and dumber people's brains work.
You really don't understand how intelligence works.

>>2539965
>>2539978
>herp derp libs
Sup /new/fags.

OH LOOK THIS THREAD TURNED INTO A COMPLETE SHITSTORM DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING.

>>2539977
This.
In terms of individuals, whatever the average for whatever arbitrary group you might fall into doesn't really mean anything.

>>2539978

whats the gene sequence for that? XX?....lol, you're not just stupid, you're pussy stupid

THREAD REPORTED
I heard /adv/ is the new /new/. Take it there.

They are superior at creating babies, milk and a bunch of other stuff

op is a cunt-tard

>>2539971
lol no, that's excactly what I'm saying, as long as noone can give me a definite answer as to what the absolute definition of intellignence is, I refuse to categorize people by that...
but I'm probably too young and stupid to understand your ingenious posts.

>>2540056

this post illustrates exactly why girls will never be able to do science

you except that an answer does not exist and you refuse to look at the world around you to find it

go back to ponies thread plz

>>2540056
Nice nihilism, you fucking faggot. You know what someone means when they say the word "intelligent," and you know how those facets will show themselves. What you want to complain about is whether these facets are actually factors in how we should treat other human beings. Being a faggot about the definitions of words has stopped having any value in all but the most limited of contexts since the 60s. You are 12 years old.

>>2540070

so being stupid than shit is the new fountain of youth is it? the fuck am i wasting my time on all these telomerase enhancers

>>2540063
haha I'm a male doing my bachelors degree in math this year(straight As)
I'm just fed up with people talking about things as if there were absoulte thruth about these things...
It's one thing to state an oppinion but it's plainly wrong to say "this is so!" without defining about what you're talking... I hope you will never do real science...

>>2540082

haha....math is like the cunt-tarded nephew of science

>>2540087

When you feed the troll, he just becomes stronger. See?

>>2540082
No, you are not doing your bachelors degree in math this year (straight As). You are 12 years old.

Intelligence is a very specifically defined thing when we say it is what is measured by IQ. If you contest that IQ does not measure intelligence, then that means you have another definition of intelligence that we can measure perfectly well.

Again, the point you want to make is that what is typically called "intelligence" has no derivative consequences, such as a justification for treating women in a certain way. Arguing that a word is undefined makes no sense when we have tests that measure it.

>>2540087

“The study of mathematics is apt to commence in disappointment.... We are told that by its aid the stars are weighed and the billions of molecules in a drop of water are counted. Yet, like the ghost of Hamlet's father, this greatest science eludes the efforts of our mental weapons to grasp it.” - Alfred North Whitehead

You read that nigger, the >greatest science

It would not surprise me if men were slightly more intelligent on average than women. (It also wouldn't surprise me if they weren't.) But slightly more intelligent, as in 3 IQ points or whatever, is seriously not enough to notice, so all the "women are stupid" misogyny is not based on anything rational. Anecdotally I've noticed that it is mostly unintelligent males who seem to be most sure of their superiority.

That said, men and women are obviously not the SAME. While their ability might be basically equal, their personalities are not, because their hormone balance is totally different. There's a reason, for example, that 90% of all murders are committed by men.

I don't have any hard evidence to back it up, but I would guess that men are on average simply a lot more curious than women, and science is an activity for those with a lot of curiosity.

>>2540093
You never used said, that to you intelligence = IQ.
IQ-tests test a very specific part of the abilities of the human brain. i never denied that in normal IQ-test males probalby get the best results simple because most are related to spatial vision or whjat's it called in english (which easier for males evolution and so on)... only this proves the mental superiority of males in a very small field...
that's all I'm saying. Please try to be a bit more specificXD

>>2540130

most IQ tests measure the qualities that make for good scientists and engineers

this is why men do better

make an IQ test that measures for mate selection and emo detection and you'll find women do better

>>2540093
>If you contest that IQ does not measure intelligence, then that means you have another definition of intelligence that we can measure perfectly well.

There are a lot of competing definitions of intelligence:

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

But yes, sure, if you define intelligence as a score on an IQ test, then an IQ test is a measure of intelligence, by (circular) definition.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Good read, basically free from bias and debunks most bullshit from both sides.

Given the intelligence curve of both men and women the average is the same, but men have more extremes than women, this means you get a lot of exceptionally smart men as well extremely stupid men, while you have the opposite for women.

The intelligence and average reasoning of men and women differs, men on average rely more on cold logic and critical reasoning while women rely more on their emotions and preservation instincts. Both needed for the survival of the group as a whole.

It is not about who is superior to who, but about how the differences of men and women are used to guarantee the survival of the group.

That aside from that, I think women wanting to be treated the same way as men is a load of bullshit, sure they can aim for the prestige jobs that usually us dominated by men (usually due to more natural characteristics), but when I see women wanting to take the low payment-high risk jobs only men are willing to do, I will consider "equal rights" feminists are proposing, but that is just my opinion,

The TL;DR from the above: Woman wanting to be a CEO from a major corporation sure, being a welder on a off-shore oil rig ? Hell no.

Time to delete the thread OP, it's a playground with posturing kids now.

>>2540152

fucking lib-tards make such a lame case

what your trying to say is since their is no "solid" definition of intelligence than everybody has to go around saying men and women have equal intellects

look at the real fucking world, women consistently perform worse than men at every age level and at every socio-economic level in any of the area traditionally defined as intelligence(i.e. science, math, verbal skills)

women are not equally intelligent as men...deal with it

>>2540152
As opposed to a non-circular definition?
>>2540130
I'm sorry, I was just provided an example. I don't think what is typically referred to as intelligence is measured by IQ tests, but I do think that a test could be devised.

The stupid, because they are stupid, don't understand the fact that they are stupid.

>>2540166

I don't follow your reasoning at all. Ironically it seems like a bunch of emotional bullshit. Women don't deserve equal rights because almost none of them want to be offshore welders? What?

>>2540166

way to choose CEO, since its one of the most complex and corrupt positions in society

the real issue is forcing major universities to divert significant chunks of resources to training women in math and science and engineering when we could be training men who would be doing a better job

>>2540180

Well, now wait. Do you want me to "look at the real fucking world," or do you want an objective measure? Suppose IQ is in fact a perfect measure of intelligence, and suppose that the average male IQ really is is 3-5 points higher. Well, guess what? That's not a big enough difference to notice. So the "of course women are dumber, just look at them" people are just being stupid and making emotional arguments.

>>2540238
Or perhaps, you fucking goon, the demonstrated lack of intelligence in female's actions is caused by factors only present in situations other than IQ tests (or IQ tests produce their own situations which do not accommodate such factors).

I mean that most people who say "every woman around me is so dumb" is referring to a way of action that may be considered unintelligent but is not really a matter of IQ. Take, for example, a female staying with an abusive mate. It makes sense to say that doing so is unintelligent, but it does not make sense to say that this makes her IQ lower. IQ and typical misogynist accusations of stupidity refer to different realms.

>>2540238

>implying real world observation isn't objective hurp di derp

get off of your bullshit "average" trip.

its about the upper 25-35% that actually have the potential to go to college

when you look at this group in both sexes, the men are far more than 3-5 points ahead of the women, sorry

>>2540013
>>2540013
>>2540013
>>2540013
artificial wombs

My opinion on the matter:

When it comes to selecting for academic or professional positions, the traits of 'man' or 'woman' are irrelevant compared to more specific traits, such as intelligence or conscientiousness, or maybe strength or endurance, and so on.

It may well be that the trait of man is strongly correlated with the trait of intelligence, or that the trait of woman is strongly correlated with the trait of conscientiousness, for example, but it should not be forgotten that it is the respective latter traits that are important and to be looked for.

In the future, women may surpass men in all areas. Or they may not. But this is no more relevant to me than people with blue eyes surpassing people with brown eyes in all areas, or some other statistical fact of that sort. So long as the people who excel are surpassing the people who don't, that is all that matters. And making rules that require people with the trait of 'woman' for one calling, or which ban people with the trait of 'woman' for another, is only a way of considering irrelevant traits and possibly holding back someone could excel if not for that trait.

>>2540260

Yeah, I'll say it's "different realms." One is based on intelligence, and one isn't. But I take your point - men and women behave differently. To someone who is unintelligent or irrationally biased, difference always often seems like inferiority. If men and women tend to act "stupid" in different ways, someone without much insight will notice the other's stupidity without noticing his own, and conclude that he is superior.

I haven't met any women that are competent at maths and physics. Only 2 people I've met that are, are the 2 legit scientists I know, one works for the government, one for NASA.

My field is computer science, and it is lacking women, let me tell you.

Could be selective memory and all, but still.

>>2540263
[citation needed] on the "far more than 3-5 points" thing.

Also,
>its about the upper 25-35% that actually have the potential to go to college

Women do better than men at college, at all tiers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html

Also,
>implying subjective musings on real observation are similar to scientific observations

It was once common knowledge that blacks would never be able to compete with whites in sports. Obviously the "just look at it" approach is flawed.

>>2540329

You've only met two people that you would consider competent at math?

women can accomplish great things too.
Why do men do more?
because in prehistory, men got the food and women cared about children.
That's something that can't be changed, if a couple has children it's the woman that has to stay home in the later periods of pregnancy, can't work as much, has to lactate etc.
Women want children, and that means letting the men doing the nicer career most of the times (you can always begin later in politics, maybe you'll not be a CEO but becoming president of a country ain't bad either even if you get less moneh).

>>2540352

In person, yes. Only a handful actually competent computer scientists, as well.

Maybe my standards are too high? Either way it always seems that there are less women in these fields, and they are usually less competent. It always seems like they are missing huge swaths of knowledge that I would have deemed common sense if you are working in that field.

Things like, you understand Operating System theory and can program in assembly but then do not really understand how transistors work, neither at the physics nor mathematical level. It just astounds me.

>>2539705

So, women are either trophies, mothers or minxes. Are you gay or something, Hemingwayfag?

>>2540370
>Things like, you understand Operating System theory and can program in assembly but then do not really understand how transistors work, neither at the physics nor mathematical level. It just astounds me.

Based on your view, anyone who isn't a polymath is stupid.

>>2540363
>Women want children

Why the fuck do you think we want children? This is /sci/, you moron. We want to make discoveries and earn a lot of money. Children is an obstacle. If we want to coddle something, we get a fucking cat.

>>2540180

Go to any school, you dickhead. Go to any class. The female kids are most likely the more intelligent and hardworking ones compared to the males, because 70% of them havde ADHD.

>>2540400

But... that's necessary knowledge for a computer scientist... at least it would be expected.

It doesn't take a polymath for that, my definition of a polymath is more something like knowing Quantum Mechanics, M-Theory, Artificial Intelligence, Operating System theory, Nanotech Engineering, etc, all at a practical/non-trivial level.

Not knowing how transistors work when you are working in Computer Science is like not knowing General Relativity when you are an Astrophysicist.

>>2540428
>because 70% of them havde ADHD.
>havde

This entire thread is dildos.

>>2540191

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/02/1014871108

Despite what you may think, Women are advancing in leaps and bounds. The review above indicates however that they dont get the same done in terms of science. I wont tell you what the research says but just know that it has nothing to do with sex.

>>2539846

Umm its not a false analogy, and you might be smart enough to deduce a lot of things but clearly not this concept. Larger brain sizes do indeed have the capacity to store more information as the analogy is intended. However its important to note that just because someone has the capacity to use such a large brain does not often stipulate its use correctly/optimally
.
TL;DR just because your brain is big doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter.

>>2540166

Interesting concept - And moreover interesting read, I'll finish it later. What you discuss however is correct in some senses - Men do seem to have a better ability to think critically and keep their attention focused on one thing. Women on the other hand have more connectors in the Corpus Callosum portion of the brain - This allows them to consider things while they perform one function (IE: Multitasking). So ultimately what does this mean? Women evolved one way and Men another. They both serve a specific purpose but the differences don't stipulate negative feedback. sometimes inferiority isn't something to be ashamed of, we all have different attributes and thats something to be proud of anyways.
TL:DR - Women need to stop being cry babies. They have different attributes; So what

>>2539862

>Women are probably naturally less curious than men.

This is true, down on the primordial times women were care takers of the tribe and men were the hunters.

This can be translated like this: see something move around rock.

Women: That can be dangerous, keep self and other children away from it
Men: Food ? Enemy tribesmen ? Predator ? Something I can use ?

>>2540438
Do you know the difference between a Computer Scientist and a Computer Engineer? One works mainly with software and the other mainly with hardware. If you're working working only with software, there's no need to understand beyond what's necessary.

>>2540477
>This can be translated like this: see something move around rock.

>Women: That can be dangerous, keep self and other children away from it
>Stupid Men: Food ? Enemy tribesmen ? Predator ? Something I can use ?
>Smart Men: This may harm me and render me unable to fend for my tribe. Better stay clear.

>>2540497

I still think it would be expected.

Here's another example.

Met some woman a while ago, who was a ``web developer'', but she didn't know what SSL was.

Still think that's unnecessary knowledge?

>>2540512
SSL is still part of software, not hardware. You're making an inappropriate comparsion.

>>2539679

From everything I've seen, women have less variance. Not necessarily in personality, looks, etc. But in physical and mental capabilities women make up a much smaller range if you put them on a graph. Men are all over the fucking place, though. High and low, lots of both.

Individuals deserve credit for their own accomplishments. Looking to boost one's ego because someone of the same sex or same race had success is silly and pointless. That being said. There are some areas where men (on average) have more aptitude than women (on average). Take basketball for example. The best woman player is better than most men, but the 100 best men players are better than all women players. It's not even close.

There has been some highly accomplished women in many fields:

Vera Rubin - astrophysics
Marie Curie - physics and chemistry
Meg Whitman - business & politics
Charlotte Bronte - literature

But they certainly don't capture 50% of the worlds greatest accomplishments despite being a little over 50% of the population. (Sorry to be so politically incorrect, but facts is facts.) Is this lack of successes due to nature or nurture?

Most likely - it's due to a little of both.
.
.
.
oh and I almost forgot .. (assuming OP is a dame) - tits of gtfo.
.
.
j/k

>>2540505

ROFL the level of stupidity involved in this is astounding. If its a group of other men coming to kill us all do you think its wise to just hang out in the cave with no escape route? You're so blind by your silly naive responses. Men don't know the outcome of whats behind the rock, Stop pretending YOU DO.

Genetics don't make blacks inferior.

Women are different, but "inferior" is in the eyes of the observer

There are distinct differences between genders, how else would the same social structure develop 99% of the time independently of eachother?

>>2540524

The example in my first post was just the first thing that came to mind.

I still think it's weird that a computer scientist would not know how transistors work, even if it is part of hardware.

Would you consider the out-of-order operation and cache misses of the processor hardware or software? Many times it's useful to know at least the basics of hardware, because there's many aspects that are half and half.

>>2540524


I didnt know web development was a hardware facet :|

>mfw

>>2540539

u mad, /v/irgin?

I think that women are potentially as intelligent as males. But I also think that they tend to have different priorities than males, and so they develop different skills.

Like I say;

You are looking for a new engineer. One is candidate A, and one is candidate B.

You know this much about them;

One of the candidates is a man, and one is a woman.

One of the candidates is a graduate of MIT, and one is a graduate of some bumfuck community college.

Do you pick based on gender, or do you pick based on what degree they have?


Even if 99% of men are better than 99% of women at a particular task, the only factor in determining whether you should employ them is competence at the task, not gender.

>>2540552

rofl I get more ass than you do hooker, I dont need to pretend to know shit. All I can see so far is that you need some fucking help.

saged - This thread is going nowhere. Bunch of upset hookers looking for more attention.

>>2540569

Oh look, a summerfag that doesn't know how to sage. How precious.

How do do you compare things that serve different purposes and most importantly useless without each other?

Women were made to birth babies, men were made to gather food and protect women and children from predators. Physically, yes, evolution has run its course and made women in general inferior. That's irrelevant today though, since we've evolved beyond evolution, if that makes sense: if one wants to be buff, they go to the gym and work hard to build muscle. Sure, not absolutely everyone can just build muscle, but the vast majority can. It's just a matter of setting priorities for us rather than actual stature in life.
Pretty much the same other than that, though.

>>2540545
>Would you consider the out-of-order operation and cache misses of the processor hardware or software?
Hiccups in hardware isn't part of a software maker's concern. When you're writing software, you'd expect the hardware to act as it should.

>>2540586

Just wait until we develop artilects and I can download my brain into a nanotech android with a silicon based hierarchal temporal memory...

>>2540596
>Women were made
>stopped reading

gtfo, religionfag.

>>2540543
>Genetics don't make blacks inferior.
oh, you

>>2540597

Alright, then. Only exceptional individuals would hold this knowledge, since by your standards nothing beyond the necessary should be ventured into, even though it is more than useful for Operating System design. (Yes, almost needed, branching and out-of-order execution plays a big part in the structure of things at that level)

Then, if we use this definition, I have met no women that are exceptional in their field.

Women are inherently physically inferior, and inherently mentally equal. Our society however fails to reward women for using their brains, so you get a bunch of vindictive children.

>>2540855
So you're saying any inherent equality of women's mental prowess fails to show itself in any social conditions? That's very interesting. It's almost as if no such inherent equality existed.

>>2539679
>sexists idiots.
>In the future women will surpass men

ITT

>>2540624
What's the point of holding technical knowledge that you generally don't apply in your field?

>>2540904
That's bullshit, though.
When a group of children was taken and the boys all given dolls and dress-up toys they would turn the barbies into guns and swords.

The girls would play dress-up with the GI Joes and pretend they were boyfriends and princes and shit.

This stuff isn't learned, brains are wired differently.

Women, by LARGE margins, do not wish to go into hard sciences.

>>2540904

I think there's truth in this, and that's why we need a resurgence of the easy-bake oven and Barbie sammich making kit.

Women want all the benefits of being equal to men without any of the negatives.
The day I can:
-Punch a woman in the face
-See a woman sign up for the draft when she turns 18


Is the day they can whine about being equal.

Last I checked women aren't lining up around the block fighting to be drafted.

They also aren't bitching and whining that it's considered taboo for a man to hit a woman (but a man hitting another man is fine)

>>2540874

Both men and women believe that intelligence is unfeminine. A woman growing up is taught that only her looks matter, everything else is meaningless. The only other legitimate pursuit for them is men, which explains their obsession with relationships.

Women are just as much at fault as men.

>>2540954
That's bullshit. Intelligence is feminine. Feminine intelligence that is. There is a masculine type of intelligence and a feminine type. No one likes retarded chicks.

>>2540936

What exactly keeps you from punching a woman in the face today?

>>2540975

ITT - Stop feeding the troll

>>2540954
Are you retarded?
You think words like "bimbo", which has a seriously derrogatory connotation, mean anything other than that it is unattractive for women to be stupid?

>>2540984
Nothing, but if I did then it would be taboo and scandalous. It would be seen as borderline evil.

If I punched a man in the face it's just "boys being boys".


More importantly, though, feminist groups think women are equal to men...yet are their victims at the same time.

Also, I don't see those cunts lining up for the draft.

>>2540921

What is this group of children you speak of?

>>2541002
>Also, I don't see those cunts lining up for the draft.

The draft? lol, okay. Go play with guns in the mud, I have some sweet oceanography to do.

>>2539679
I give you nobel gender.

But I belive it is because women have been excluded from science way to long.

We need all the brains we can get.

>>2540936

It sounds like you're the one who's bitching and whining.

>>2541030
You don't get it.
Men are forced, by law, to run the risk of being drafted and forced to go to war and die. Whether they want to or not.

Women, however, do not face this possibility at all.

Yet women don't fight to be drafted. They want the BENEFITS of equality without the NEGATIVES.

>>2541055
well duh, and they'll get it because the majority of men are suckers.

>>2541030
Number of women ever drafted into a war and killed in a warzone they wanted no part of: 0

>>2541055

Who in their right mind would demand any negatives?

>>2541063
That's precisely the point, you dolt. Women demand they be "equal".
Being equal implies both the pros and cons of whatever you are fighting to be "equal" in.
If you have the benefits and not the negatives, then you are not equal, you are priviliged.

So women who say they want "equality" disingenuous. They are blatantly lying. They don't want to be equal, they want to be privileged.

So why give them anything? The day they're willing to take the negatives with the positives is they day they can claim they're fighting for "equality"

>>2541060

You've clearly never been to Israel.

I believe, as one grows older, the effect of genetic impulses tends to decrease. This is not necessarily an effect of aging, more like the concentration of more experiences and knowledge.

You walk into a Physics class, and the professor is a mature/old woman, you can almost hear the efforts of past research in her voice. Would you think "what is a woman doing here"? It's not a common sight, but it's a natural one.

My point being, we should first look at things from an age-group specific point of view.

>>2541073

Gayfag spotted.

>>2541083

Typical female reaction. When you can't appeal to a man's masculinity, question it.

>>2541073

Privileged? You gotta be fucking kidding me. I'm a male and I might be white knighting, but fuck. I have a fairly good position in marketing and I can tell you straight away that the reason for why women aren't being hired as often as men is because a lot of high positions are held by cold misogynic pricks.

Whenever a woman has been hired to work with us, she's being mocked behind her back and everyone jokes about who she fucked to get the position. She may be a genuinely gifted and hard-working individual, but she's treated like some sort of sub-human and her opinions matters less to our boss because she's "a softie".

Nevertheless, the women here are good at team-work and creating a better work environment. At least that's something they've managed to do that we haven't.

>>2541074
Israel doesn't count since it is a non-existant place.
Your move

I don't think women are actually less capable. But there are two reasons that they have achieved less:
1) They were socially disadvantaged and couldn't do those things
2) They tend to be less interested in things like science/maths/engineering

>>2541128

I'm not a female, you're just hilariously bad at playing the stereotypical tough guy, so I'm guessing you're compensating for something. And no, not your penis. Well, maybe your penis.

>>2541141

You got me.

>>2541159

-I'm not the guy you were originally talking to.
-This post is longer than your previous one, but identical in content.

>>2540921
this is fucking retarded and wrong fuck this thread

ITS A FUCKING TROLL THREAD.

YOU CAN BRAG ALL YOU WNT ABOUT YOUR HIGH IQ'S BUT YOU CANT EVEN SPOT A FUCKING TROLL THREAD

IM DISSAPOINTED /SCI/

well, i'm going to stereotype right now and say that women are generally worse drivers on a day to day basis. every time i get cut off it's either a woman or the license plate says wisconsin. i kid you not. and as for women surpassing men? yea. basically. because right now are society is overcompensating for the extreme sexism for the past like 10,000 years so much to the point that it is now easier for a woman to get into college than a man due exclusively to the fact that she doesn't have a penis. tell me b, where is the justice in that?

Women and Men are equal in the broad scheme of things. It's just that there are more exceptional men, both for the better and for the worse. Women bear the children, therefore they have MUCH more reproductive value. If a tribe lost half, hell, three quarters of its men, there would be no danger of having fewer children in the next generation. They are instinctively less drawn to risky behaviors as a result.

Men, OTOH, would probably not be able to reproduce if they didn't distinguish themselves in some way. Since no woman wants to have sex with a low-status male, they had to take risks. Dying, from the genes' perspective is no worse than not procreating, so there was a huge selective pressure for it.

This is why we see more men in prisons, boardrooms and battlefields. Their lives are individually less valuable.

I don't understand why women are incontent with their role. If they're halfway attractive, like in the top 80%, and keep in shape, they're comparatively treated like princesses, even when they have terrible personalities. They have no pressure on them to achieve or end up completely irrelevant to anyone. They don't have to worry about social status or have people treat them differently because they're poor/don't have a PHD/haven't killed more than three members of a rival gang/whatever. Being a woman sounds really sweet if it weren't for the gelatinous stinky bloody discharges once a month.

>>2541264
>tell me b, where is the justice in that?
>tell me b
>b

Well, well, well. Look who came to join the show. gtfo, /b/tard.

>>2541264
>tell me b, where is the justice in that?
>b
what the fuck
>>2541266
Why are you implying that all women are content with just being princesses? why can't they be intelligent and successful?
postin in a troll thread

>>2539849 3) If women are to abandon their evolved role in humanity and rent it out to state (i.e. child care before the age of 5), we may cause serious social damage
The way some parents raise their kids, I'd say that we'd be doing damage by NOT putting care in the hands of people who know what they're doing.

>>2541266

Because they have nothing to lose, they are worth nothing. If taking cock and shitting out kids is their only purpose, what makes this society different from Afghanistan? Except for the stoning, unless you live in Utah.

>>2541289
Why can't I talk about my feelings without being called a fag? (I know there are people who won't think it's weird but in 90% of the cases people see a sensitive man as weak and contemptible where a woman gassing on the same way would arouse a chorus of awwws and offers of solace.)

>>2541258
>>2540988

already spotted this shit fest... people still post

>mfw /sci/ continues to feed trolls

>>2541327

No one likes a whiner, be they male or female.

>>2541326
I actually wish for exact gender equality, and wish that there wasn't this idiotic wall between us, but there are biological considerations that can't be ignored. Trying to do so will only cause undue grief.