/sci/ - Science & Math

well without women I wouldn't be here. Other than that not really.

>>4360352
No, they're supposed to be caretakers, but retarded feminists propaganda has just made them all spoiled bitches.

They have no function anymore, besides being a warm hole.

However, technology is quickly closing the gap.

I prefer feminine boys.

I care about all human beings. They fall under this category. Why wouldn't I wish them all the best?

>>4360479
>what the fuck happened

They were given rights. I mean that in the least misogynistic way possible, given the circumstances.

But seriously, there's a reason women and children are grouped together historically. What happens when you let a child eat whatever he wants, do whatever he wants? Chaos. They weren't made to regulate themselves. Male and females have a symbiotic relationship, they do the dishes and make sandwiches, we keep them in check. Simple as that.

>mfw I'll never be apart of the glorious 1950s master race

>>4360503

>I mean that in the least misogynistic way possible

>Proceeds to say incredibly misogynistic things

Ooooo, how terrible for you to live in a world in which you have to deal with women on somewhat more equal terms, instead of having the expectation of having a house-servant you can fuck.

Honestly...

I don't even care if you're just trolling, it's nice to vent this because there really are people who think like this, and worse.

>>4360507
>Proceeds to say incredibly misogynistic things
That's exactly my point. Now that we've been thoroughly indoctrinated into the retarded "women's rights" way of life, saying something that is true, which contradicts that image is viewed as misogyny. My comment:
>I mean that in the least misogynistic way possible, given the circumstances.
was very deliberate.

Some other anon said it really well, I'm paraphrasing here:
>'Misogyny is HATING women. I don't hate women, just like I don't hate my dog. Pointing out the ways I'm better than dog isn't dog hatred, it's just fact."

I wouldn't have put it that way myself, because I don't see inferior/superior. I see purpose. Like someone might say a spoon is inferior to a knife at cutting a steak, which is technically true, but the spoon's purpose isn't to cut. The spoons purpose is to scoop, and the knife would be an inferior scoop next to the spoon. I simply think that it's not women's purpose to be 'independent', 'strong-willed', and other feminist bullshit. I think their purpose, biologically even, is a caretaker role. There's ample evidence to support this. And the male is a, biologically, a more dominant role.

So the purpose of that comment wasn't to say I'm not a misogynist in the eyes of current day society, but to show that indeed I don't hate women, but given the circumstances, I know that my comments will be misconstrued as such. Just as you indeed proved me right.

tl;dr men and women are biologically different, serve differen't biological purposes, and the feminist movement has warped the natural order of things.

No I don't care for them, they gave up that long ago. Time was when a woman needed a good man to provide for and protect her. Now they just go around looking for who can get them to the top of the social ladder, then they just end up getting physically and/or emotionally beaten. And you know what? Every time I hear of such a case I laugh on the inside.

>>4360529

Very well, then, you're a chauvinist, not a misogynist. It doesn't make you any less incorrect.

If you want a natural order, though, you're going about it very wrong using a computer. Astonishingly, computers aren't a part of life on the savannah! Similarly, neither are cell-phones, medicine, or space travel.

The fact is, humans can move beyond what some might consider "natural". Men and women have every bit as much capability to fulfill just about any role. From a purely biological perspective, women have just as much capability as men for decision-making, leadership, and any other skill you care to name.

I'm not going to deny that there aren't biological tendencies; you are correct that women have more of a Tend-and-Befriend than Fight-or-Flight reflex. Both are potentially beneficial/harmful. None of this in any way suggests, though, that a patriarchal society is in any way better. It is, in fact, usually far worse.

At the very least, you fail on the grounds that a society that pigeonholes about 50% of its population is going to minimize the utility it gains from them compared to one that allows freedom of action.

>>4360545
>Very well, then, you're a chauvinist, not a misogynist.
Nope, not a MALE chauvinist either. I don't think we're better, I just think we are different.

>Men and women have every bit as much capability to fulfill just about any role. From a purely biological perspective, women have just as much capability as men for decision-making, leadership, and any other skill you care to name.
[citation needed]

>>4360552

Question: Would you place men in a leadership role over women, and have women be subservient to them? If so, you are a chauvinist.

Also, intelligence tests show men and women to be more or less equal (there is more variance, both ways, in men than women but, on average, men and women both tend to do about the same on IQ tests). That indicates that most people are about the same when it comes to decision-making and basic intelligence.

Reported for not science or math. Reported for sexism.

>>4360564
>Question: Would you place men in a leadership role over women, and have women be subservient to them? If so, you are a chauvinist.
Yes, but that doesn't make me a chauvinist anyway you split it. Firstly, because simply putting one in a leadership position doesn't mean they are a superior being, which it's obvious you assume without question. Secondly, because chauvinism is a general term and you keep using incorrectly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chauvinism
>biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.
As I tried to hint before, your, false, assumption, is that I'm a MALE chauvinist. Which I'm not.

>Also, intelligence tests show men and women to be more or less equal (there is more variance, both ways, in men than women but, on average, men and women both tend to do about the same on IQ tests). That indicates that most people are about the same when it comes to decision-making and basic intelligence.
This is retarded on multiple levels. One, because studies consistently show a non-negligible IQ gap between genders, favoring male. Two, because IQ isn't the end-all-be-all for cognitive capacities and inclinations. Thirdly, just because one CAN do something, doesn't mean they SHOULD do it. I.E. I could, if I fell victim to insanity, cut a steak using a spoon, but I really shouldn't.

And if you are going to ask me to support my argument:
>"The Census data show there is often a clear difference between the career choices of men and women. While women dominate the occupations in Healthcare Support, men represent a higher percentage of workers in the Construction and Extraction occupations. Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters and Steamfitters are more likely to be male, while Secretaries and Administrative Assistants are more likely to be female."

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/publications/gender.htm

Women chose the more 'care-taker' jobs of their own volition, showing the clear biological predisposition.