[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 67 KB, 650x479, Roundhouse_wipers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225531 No.2225531 [Reply] [Original]

Greetings /sci/
Is the gender roles of our society completely biological? Is the only reason why women earn less than men biological? If not, (which I pressume most of you think) how come this divide has come between men and woman? Why is it here and how can we work against it?

>> No.2225538

>women earn less than men is biological
yep
when you get a sex change, you'll make less money (assuming you're a guy)

I know that you'll get a sex change because you are mega gay

>> No.2225551

They are mostly cultural. It is there now because as a social fact, it does more for its own continuation than the opposite movements. We can work against it by talking against it.

>> No.2225559

>>2225551
Why does women put themselves in this shitty role then if it's a fact?

>> No.2225570
File: 283 KB, 418x548, intellectual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225570

Gender is a spectrum.

>> No.2225577

>>2225531 Is the only reason why women earn less than men biological?

The only reason? No. The largest reason? Likely. In intelligence tests men are much more likely to diverge from the mean than women are in both directions. Women are more likely to be of average intelligence, men are much more likely to be either extremely intelligent or extremely stupid. There is a strong correlation between intelligence and income level. The gap between highest earners and median earners is much larger than the gap between median earners and lowest earners.

Because there are many more intelligent men than intelligent women, and men use their income as a way to demonstrate how attractive they are, it's natural that men would earn more than women.

>> No.2225582

>>2225531
The "pay gap" is a direct result of the majority of women working in the public sector, and thus trading money for job security.

>> No.2225592

If you want to hire someone to a high paying position you would prefer someone trustworthy. With a man there's a slight chance he can be trusted, with a woman there is no chance she can be trusted.

>> No.2225600
File: 244 KB, 480x640, b6a2412e22237ead89539afeae65b7a802858f0f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225600

it doesn't exist anymore because information economy has taken over. but yes its biological, We're programed to be more submissive, variation is key here and I don't have anything against equality, but compared to men, a lot of women find some fulfillment in being vulnerable and cared for. there are some species of animals where this situation is entirely reversed, so it's not like women CAN'T be dominant ever, it just so happens that women in our species are submissive.

>> No.2225607
File: 127 KB, 900x1000, Sisters before misters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225607

>>2225577
>>Because there are many more intelligent men than intelligent women, and men use their income as a way to demonstrate how attractive they are, it's natural that men would earn more than women.
this contradicts your whole post by the way, if men are both stupid and intelligent in both directions, they would average out with women, making them on the whole, not more intelligent.
the whole women make less thing is starting to evaporate pretty quick though, with our recession, women tend to be the winners.

>> No.2225613

>>2225607
Reread the post.

>men are much more likely to diverge from the mean than women are in both directions

There are more stupid men than stupid women
There are more average women than average men
There are more intelligent men than intelligent women

The average is about the same. The difference in income between a stupid person and an average person is very small compared to the difference in income between an average person and an intelligent person. End result: men make more on average

>> No.2225616

>Citing status quo as biological fact
>Supporting biological "fact" by citing status quo

Is sure is tautological here.

>> No.2225619

>>2225613
>trying to explain something to a woman using math

haha oh wow

>> No.2225622

sex is genetic
gender is cultural

do we really have to go through this again?

>> No.2225624

>>2225613
only the rereading is necessary, I'm a little lesdexic sorry. I didn't see the second intelligence
>>2225619
I sited animal breeding behavior.

>> No.2225628

>>2225624I sited animal breeding behavior.

Could you please sit somewhere else? The animals don't appreciate it.

>> No.2225631
File: 17 KB, 429x241, male_female_bell_curve_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225631

>>2225613
there are more stupid women than stupid men
there are more average women than stupid men
there are more intelligent men than intelligent women

>> No.2225635

>>2225631
>there are more average women than stupid men
i meant more average women than average men

>> No.2225637
File: 71 KB, 250x250, 1283355275048.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225637

>>2225631
Not being able to chuck a spear and rotate a hypercube in your own mind is not a significant difference asshole.

>> No.2225638

>>2225631
Wow the bell curve is shifted AND stretched for g intelligence. The equality is not so severe with other tests.

>> No.2225644

>>2225637
>bitch can't rotate a hypercube in her mind

How do you manage to live in something so small?

>> No.2225645

>>2225637
>I can't rotate objects in my mind
Must suck to be as dumb as you.

>> No.2225654

>>2225645
>>2225644
The problem is the general intelligence portion of the IQ test was designed with male intelligence in mind. If they had fewer questions about math, memory, and spacial orientation and more questions where the person had to successfully lie to the proctor then women would have better scores.

>> No.2225662

>>2225654
And if they had more questions where points were awarded from stealing things during, we'd have nigger and gypsy geniuses

>> No.2225667

>>2225662
Dude, they suck at stealing. They're always getting caught.

>> No.2225681

>>2225654
lets test for cooking skills, women might score higher there? ohh whats that? the best chefs in the world are men? ahh well at least we tried

>> No.2225688

>>2225681
Women are better at dishonesty

>> No.2225691

>>2225688
>>2225654
Women suck at lying, they just lie a lot more often so there's a larger amount of successful lies but percentage wise it's lower.

>> No.2225693
File: 239 KB, 1000x1102, 1291947635624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2225693

>>2225688
I disagree, women are conditioned to be better liars by having shitty friends, I'm a girl with good friends, and I'm really bad at lying. If you want to test male and female intelligence, you ought to test very young children.

>> No.2225707

>>2225691
They only do so well percentage wise because we know they're biologically incapable of telling the truth. The lie part of the human woman's brain has grown out of control similar to how species of Elk have antlers so large from sexual selection that it actually inhibits their day to day activity. Women can even reprogram themselves to believe their lies in order for the lie to seem genuine, and they instinctively know how to attempt to make people feel guilty for not pretending to believe the lie.

>> No.2225712

>>2225693 I'm a girl with good friends, and I'm really bad at lying.

Tomboy with all male friends detected. You have good friends because you're bad at lies, not the other way around.

>> No.2226212

>>2225654

Nope, the test is gender neutral and only measures g.