[ 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: 44 KB, 389x543, 1337730747950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908585 No.4908585[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why don't girls like science or math?

I mean seriously, what makes them less able to into intelligence?

>> No.4908586

>implying science isn't a girls thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

>> No.4908590

>>4908586
all of my no.

>> No.4908593

Who said they don't? There are tons of women in graduate school in all of the sciences.

I think there have also been psychological studies that predict that on average women score mostly between average and above average on a Gaussian distribution of grades and men usually rank at both the highest and lowest on the same distribution. Correlation is not causation, but it's interesting data to consider.

>> No.4908629

most of them are too busy being social and sucking cocks. To ensure their chances of reproducing. Like your mother.

>> No.4908642

Most of the people who got admitted to top grad universities in my university were girls
the only ones who went to Ivy, MIT, Cal, etc etc were only girls, full ride too

>> No.4908643

We live in a sexist society where girls grow up brainwashed by certain stereotypes. It's a cultural thing.

>> No.4908664

>>4908643
>women
>brainwashed
>implying brain

>> No.4908668

>>4908664
2 off from trips brah and that post would have been 100%

>> No.4908712

How is this on the front page of /sci/ a week after Sally Ride's death..
Trolls on trolls on trolls on....

>> No.4908716

>>4908642
>the only ones who went to Ivy, MIT, Cal, etc etc were only girls, full ride too

MIT and Caltech is impressive. Ivy schools are not as they are liberal arts affirmative action shitholes.

>> No.4908810

>>4908716
>Astronauts
>implying they aren't retards that society is willing to give up.

>> No.4908927

There's female mathematicians and scientists. There's LESS of them, if that's what you mean.

Could be that they tend to be more emotional, rather than rational, could be that they're still 'catching up' from previous oppression.

>> No.4908938

People keep telling me females are into science.

Yet my University ratio of Electrical Engineering male to female is 1 females to 36 males.

Physics faculty is like 1 famles to 16 males.

The only faculty that females outnumber males are economics, social studies and languages.

All the engineering is dominated by males. You can fiddle the diddle all you want but engineering females are rare as fuck in my Country.

>> No.4908950

>>4908938

engineering != science

engineering is the mindless application of scientific results. Women dominate science and are the masterminds behind your slave-like labors

>> No.4908955

>>4908643
It's funny.

There was this I don't remember what country it was but it was a Nordic type, there a man conducted a report on how in the most advanced countries on the world the nordic ones where theres the most HDI and money equality and most money per person then anywhere else by average... females still go back to the traditional jobs.

They have 100% full freedom of what to pick and do.

Yet they by themselves pick to go for the more social jobs such as nurses, teachers, doctors, language expert and so on and so forth. Not many pick the more male oriented jobs that require physical strength or specific focus on one subject such as with a scientist.

They study also showed that females tend to excel at school study. They're way better and technically "smarter" then males yet they're worse at their jobs once they finish the studies.

>> No.4908960

>>4908950
Yup there sure is a lot of female physicist at CERN or at Intel...

Just look at the inventions and what being done in the world. You'll find that there many more cutting edge science male names then females ones.

>> No.4908980

>>4908960
You know why? Because even in the 90's many teens TV programs and magazines said a women's goal is to find a man and quit her work to raise a family.
Top scientists are usually older so there is a selection bias, there were far fewer opportunities for women back then.

>> No.4908984
File: 37 KB, 460x276, 6a013487b06318970c014e5fdb0292970c-500wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4908984

>>4908960
>Yup there sure is a lot of female physicist at CERN or at Intel...
>If I only imply it I don't have to prove it's true.
Fabiola Gianotti head of the ATLAS experiment at CERN.

>> No.4908996

>>4908984
http://alicematters.web.cern.ch/content/international-women%E2%80%99s-day-2011-cern

Yes theres females at CERN yet the percantage is still not near 50%... It's more like 20% to 80%

>> No.4909000

>>4908996
That's good considering. 20% is a lot of people. You think it's been a level playing field for the past 60 years?

>> No.4909013

>>4909000
It's been a level playing field since millions of years, yet men have ruled societies and dominated the sciences everywhere and anytime. Let's not kid ourselves

>> No.4909016

>>4908955
>They study also showed that females tend to excel at school study. They're way better and technically "smarter" then males yet they're worse at their jobs once they finish the studies.

Because women excel at rote memorization but fail at actually using what they memorized.

>> No.4909028

Marie Curie?

Lise Meitner?

Barbara McClintock?

Gertrude Elion?

Jane Goodall?

Mary Anning?

Mary somerville?

Irene Joliot (and her mother?)

Rosalind Franklin?

>> No.4909031

>>4909028
A list of half-known names means norhing statistically

>> No.4909032

>>4909013
>men have ruled societies
And subjugated women. That is not a level playing field.

>> No.4909035

>>4909016
>Because women excel at rote memorization but fail at actually using what they memorized.

>Baseless claims everywhere.

>> No.4909044

>>4909028
Don't forgot Emmy Noether. She is probably the smartest female scientist/mathematician there was. Just go read about all her accomplishments.

>> No.4909056

There are tons of women in biology, neuroscience, and medicine; moreso than men even. Still a fair amount in chemistry as well. It's only the heavily quantitative sciences that you don't find many women in. The most cited reason is that women are worse at math than men. However, another explanation is that women prefer sciences that deal with behavior, society, and life, hence why they're so over-represented in the social and life sciences. Meanwhile men seem to prefer building and designing so you find them enormously over-represented in engineering and physics. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass either, the differences I've described are found throughout the human lifespan, and are even found in other primates.

>> No.4909060

>>4909028
Citing names... and more to the point, running out after just a few... just makes the point stronger.

Those few names validate the claim, they don't diminish it.

>> No.4909067

>>4909032
I mean it's a level playing field by definition if you cconsider it long term. If men have ruled societies they somehow earned it. The fact that emperors were male doesn't mean women couldn't learn stuff and express their intelligence, that's a superficial excuse feminists use. Were are all the romans and greek female philosophers,scientists,writers,teachers. You'd think if they were really eqially smart they'd come up with something with all the time they had at home, even if they were 'oppressed'. Galileo was 'oppressed' by the church, it sure didn't stop him. Where are all the female galileos? The fact that women were not considered apt to the sciences or politics is not the CAUSE they didn't get involved in those fields. It's the other way around. I'm not saying womem shouldn't habe the same opportunities etc. But we cannot deny the blinding, factual truth. Every comparative iq study agrees there are several times more extremely-high-iq men than women. That doesn0t mean we should teach girls that they are stupid or can't do some man-jobs. Though the harsh truth is most of them can't. At least until we evolve differently

>> No.4909078

>>4908593
>>4909056
>tons of women

>implying the few women in the sciences are all hambeasts
This would explain a lot.

>> No.4909088

>>4909067
I mean it's a level playing field by definition if you cconsider it long term. If men have ruled societies they somehow earned it. The fact that emperors were male doesn't mean women couldn't learn stuff and express their intelligence, that's a superficial excuse feminists use. Were are all the romans and greek female philosophers,scientists,writers,teachers. You'd think if they were really eqially smart they'd come up with something with all the time they had at home, even if they were 'oppressed'. Galileo was 'oppressed' by the church, it sure didn't stop him. Where are all the female galileos?

You just put a massive doorstop on your own statement.
The field has definitely, and permanently, been made unlevel -- because men are more aggressive, and take charge, even by force, and even to the detriment of both parties and both genders.
Women have historically been given almost no access to education.
Women have historically been given almost no access to leadership.

Both of those are needed to be the name at the top of the paper.

>> No.4909112

>>4909088
I didn't make myself clear, what i meant it's that it's not like we were put on earth by some entity that said women must be inferior, nature is a level playing field.
>no access to edication and leadership
if women were great leaders or scientific minds they'd habe access to those positions. They didn't cause most of them didn't care. There were a few example of very strong determined women wo reached positions of power, and that proves men can accept female leaders if they're good leaders, there just were very few female leaders.
Stop lying to youself it's ridiculous, the proof is everywhere, women were bad at those things, plain and simple. They weren't 'oppressed'.
it's like if a couple very evolved gorillas started blaming us for oppressing them for millennia and not alloeing them to build cities, do math, and rule the world. That's how ridiculous the 'oppression' statement is. Gorillas didn't do that cause they were inferior, and uncapable to do it, plain and simple.

>> No.4909122

I think the biggest reason is that science can be a lonely place. It has less to do with intelligence and more to do with them not being able to socialize while doing such work.

>> No.4909126

I actually know more women in sciences than men, granted I'm only an undergrad, but the lab I volunteer in is mostly women, and the only math major I know is a fairly attractive girl.

>> No.4909148

>>4909088
Then were are all the great female painters,sculptors and musicians?? You certainly don't need formal education to excel at those, but still, women, despite all the free time they had at home, never excelled in those fields, or at least much less frequently than men. It's not like we burned female paintings, were are they then? Why isn't the number of famous female painters or composers even comparable to that of men?

>> No.4909154

>>4909148
I like Madonna.

>> No.4909160
File: 90 KB, 504x1005, 20100516.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4909160

Picture related.

I can't think of one family I know that tries to make the daughter smarter.

>> No.4909161

>>4909154
I like Madonna too.
And Lady Gaga.

>> No.4909178

>>4909161
Implying they aren't high-testosterone women.
Also they don't compose their music, or very little of it. Male producers behind the curtains do.
they are mere entertainers. Good looking objects, dancimg and singing for the pleasure of men. That's what women truly are for. Attention, and being attractive to men.
They do write some of their lyrics, but it's just sentimental and superficial stuff. Women aren't capable of much more than that, though they're getting better

>> No.4909189

>>4909160
All the Asian ones?

>> No.4909193

>>4909178
I like Taylor Swift. She make her own music.

>> No.4909196

>>4909189
Living in southern USA I can't say that I know any Asians.

>> No.4909202

>>4909160
Stop lying to yourself and mixing cause and effect. Studies havr shown that men are instinctively attracted by boy-toys and girls by girly toys. My parents gave the same toys to me and my sister, and enrolled us in the same courses. I turned out more intelligent, better at sciences, better at playing the inatruments we both went to classes for. Women have no interest in excelling, and i can understand it. They only wanna be good looking and desirable. That's what my sister turmed out to be. A nerdy attention whore, who does stuff for attention, not to get good at it. Success for women is attention, that's the way they're hard-wired

>> No.4909208

>>4909202
Sounds to me like you have some sister issues.

>> No.4909216

>>4909193
I seriously hope you're trolling. Her music is aweful and extremely simplicistic, especially for a genre like country which is supposed to be complex as fuck. Listen to some brad paisley or some country classics. Taylor swift can barely hold a guitar, it's the perfect proof that womej are worse at everything they try to do. She's just an attention whore lile all women (and an ugly one at that)

>> No.4909222

>>4909202
>Women have no interest in excelling
>Success for women is attention, that's the way they're hard-wired

A female acquaintance of mine is the best math major I know. She was born in a super christian family too. Everything pointed to her turning into a dumb baby machine like most women but she became a math major all by herself.

>> No.4909236

>>4909208
I don't think so, i'm just exposing general truths about how women are inferior and it's clear everywhere. If anything she has brother issues cause she's always lived in my shadow. I was better at everything and more successful. I have a great relationship with my sis, but i have to admit she's inferior, sadly. We had the same parent went to the same classes and same school. Yet i'm the 'genius' and she's average at best

>> No.4909258

>>4909222
One exmple doesn't mean anything. She probably would turn out to habe very high testosterone levels if she got tested. I love strong women and i'd like to see more of them, but they are the exception.
Plus 'math major' is not such a great achievement, anyone with some determination can do it. Studies show there are more women than men in the slightly higher than average iq area, but many more men in the extremely high iqs.
Anyway i too know manu women who are decent at math (uni professors). In my experience they tend to be good at doing network-related stuff, and some branches of geometry. They're also great at sociology , literature and psychology.. but that's pretty much it

>> No.4909262
File: 174 KB, 631x743, naiset.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4909262

Because, son, women are fucking stupid.

>> No.4909271

>>4909258
>One exmple doesn't mean anything.

You used your sister as an example so why can't I use someone as an example?

>She probably would turn out to habe very high testosterone levels if she got tested.

Baseless accusations.

>Plus 'math major' is not such a great achievement

Say that to any math major. I dare you.

>Studies show there are more women than men in the slightly higher than average iq area, but many more men in the extremely high iqs.

Lots of possible reasons have been posted in this thread. Namely the cultural one.

>Anyway i too know manu women who are decent at math (uni professors). In my experience they tend to be good at doing network-related stuff, and some branches of geometry. They're also great at sociology , literature and psychology.. but that's pretty much it
>they're great at this this and this but you know whatever they're women

You can stop being sexist now.

>> No.4909276

The majority of women are not into analyzing, classifying, measuring, understanding systematically as much as males. It's a proven statistical and cultural effect. Some researchers believe that autism, with its tendency of systematizing and analyzing, is a "super-male" trait that is largely sexually linked.
That doesn't mean that individual women can be as, or more, skilled in these areas than other individual men, but it's a mass trend that is visible in many different ways.
No argument for keeping them out of these areas... but it is partially an explanation for why so many don't care. Politically incorrect but true.

>> No.4909287

>>4909271
I agree. I am a math major and whenever someone tries to downplay the degree I put them in their place very quickly and they fuck off fast and beg for my forgiveness.

>> No.4909293

>>4909287
oh, look at this. i found a special little snowflake.

>> No.4909299

>>4909271
>You used your sister as an example so why can't I use someone as an example?
Fair enough, but i just used that example in response to that comic, and i thought it could be considered relevant because we were raised equally but turmed out to be vdry different. Anyway you're right an example means nothing
>She probably would turn out to habe very high testosterone levels if she got tested.

>Baseless accusations.
It's not an accusation, and i don't consider it a negative thing. But it's a fact ghat women higher in testosterone are stronger and more determined, so assuming that is not 'baseless'

>say that to any math major
I know a few. I'm not sayin it's not an accomplishment, but anyone with slightly above average iq can do it. I think what she did after the major would be more relevant. Is she a prominent professor in her field of choice? Publishing man frequently cited papers?
I'm not saying she hasn't, or can't, or women can't in general. Just that 'math major' by itself doesn't mean much, if anything. Did she at least graduate cum laude?

>you can stop being sexist now
I'm not sexist in the sense that they shouldn't have the same opportunities. I'm sexist in the sense thay they're different, and i'm racist in that sense too. I refise to deny evident scientific truths in the name of polytical correctness, and 'everyone is equal' feelgood bullshit, sry

>> No.4909304

>>4909293
Good job bro. When was the last time you had an original thought?

>> No.4909312

>>4909287
Degrees aren't worth shit. Any determined non-retard could get a degree in anything. I'm thinking about getting some more degrees for myself, but that'd be p useless except to show off. I'm better off studying on my own, the pace of university is painfully slow, they target retards

>> No.4909322

>>4909304
ironic that you'd also use such a generic insult..I'm not gonna have a pissing contest with you. by the way you typed your original statement, i would guess you'd be some deluded child.
> I put them in their place very quickly and they fuck off fast and beg for my forgiveness
seriously, who the hell talks like this? i'll take your word that you're actually in college, but you must be autistic or something to be that old and think like that.

>> No.4909484

Here it comes. You can say whatever you want but it's true. Because of evolution, women can't into think as well as men. It's the same reason why women are bad with directions. Men were hunters and they needed to find their way back so they think in true 3-D unlike the women who stayed in the huts, caves, whatever the fuck that just needed to stay alive to pop more babies out of their vags.

Men naturally excel when it comes to understanding and learning.

>> No.4909500

Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. If I were to be tested, I would most likely have above average testosterone levels?

This requires further investigation; where may I acquire such a test?

>> No.4909502

The male and female brain are different.

The differences are down to sex hormones.

Male brains tend to be better at logic and mathematics, amongst other things.

Female brains are better at other things.

Women still have testosterone - some more than others. This is why some women do excel at science.

Genetics also plays a role, as does upbringing. An intelligent woman brought up in a scientific family may not have a male brain but she still has a human brain which is a very powerful thing and very similar to a male brain, so she may pursue a science career.

>> No.4909504

>>4908585
society mainly in the west. western society promotes beauty of body over smartness of mind. Its a sad system in place due to greed

>> No.4909514

lack of the same amount of grey matter in their brain

>> No.4909528

why do girls need to be socially conditioned to get into science and math?

>> No.4909531

Jesus Christ the amount of bullshit in this thread is just appalling. Please stop posting, people. You'll just make it worse.

>> No.4909541

I love the lists of female scientists and mathematicians that always leave out Ada Lovelace.

>> No.4909565

>>4909541

Ada Lovelace is always mentioned in every single thread about female scientists. Her and Grace Hopper.

>> No.4910037

Girls are afraid of intelligence. When confronted with intelligent men, they realize what they are lacking.

>> No.4910290

maybe its the same thing that makes them half as likely to have asburgers syndrome

>> No.4910335

Intelligent women act less intelligent than they are and aren't likely to pursue "intellectual" persuits because it's not advantageous or necessary for them to do so.

I know an incredibly attractive girl with an IQ above 160 who was secretly helping me with calculus homework in highschool when she wasn't even taking the class. This is just one example, but she's incredibly attractive, her boyfriend is incredibly successful. She's more intelligent than him but that's not socially accepted so she doesn't act more intelligent.

>> No.4910339

>>4910335
*pursuit
I just pulled an all nighter forgive me.

>> No.4910344

>>4910335
She must be smart as hell if she could do calculus in high school.

>> No.4910347

>>4910344
It's not that she was able to do calculus in highschool, it's that she was helping me do it when the highest level mathematics class she had taken was entry level algebra.

>> No.4910354 [DELETED] 

>>4910335
>because it's not advantageous or necessary for them to do so.

What? are you saying people don't do things out of interest? you fucking faggot you are wrong fuck off normalfag detected HE HAS NO PASSIONS

>> No.4910356

>>4910347
Still doesn't sound very impressive, it's nothing that points towards having an IQ above 160. Especially since it's high school 'calculus'.

>> No.4910357

>>4910344
I seriously hope that was sarcasm.

>> No.4910364

>>4910356
>implying you can do highschool calculus with an IQ lower than 160

Do you have any idea how hard calculus is?

>> No.4910371

>>4910344
>>4910364

Every time I see someone mention their bewilderment of calculus I am reminded that one single man, Isaac Newton, invented the fucking thing on his own.

Can anyone possibly match that level of greatness?

>> No.4910372 [DELETED] 

>>4910335
>>4910344
>>4910347
>>4910364
0/10

that whore can come back when she is 15 and studying real analysis

>> No.4910374

>>4910372
0/10
metatroll is fail

>> No.4910375

>>4910364
Really not that hard. It really isn't. Not at all.

>> No.4910385

Who's letting the Muslims out of their cages to shit-post in this thread? I thought a board ostensibly about 'science' wouldn't attract so many ignorant fools. I guess reddit really is better after all. I mean, when was the last time someone like Christopher Hitchens had a Q&A with 4chan?

>> No.4910411

>>4910375
You clearly never took calculus. I'm a CS major. That means I'm highly intelligent and so are my friends. All of us failed calculus twice. Only the most autistic math aspies can pass this shit.

>> No.4910414

>>4910411
That was actually pretty funny.

>> No.4910418

>>4910414
You know what's funny? Funny is that we will make much more money than you math autists.

>> No.4910427

>>4910418
No, it's funny because I'm a CS major and none of my friends failed calculus. So it was a good joke, if you're going for surrealism.

>> No.4910430

>>4910427
Are you autistic? How can you like this math crap? We won't need any of it in our programming jobs anyway.

>> No.4910468

cancer...everywhere,..

>> No.4910480

>>4910354
I guess I should have phrased it differently. It's not socially advantageous, and women seem to care more and be more socially conscious than a lot of men. There are exceptions on both sides. Most of the super intelligent women that showed it when I was in school were not as socially successful as the "regular" but attractive women.

>> No.4910504

>Why don't girls like science or math?
>I mean seriously, what makes them less able to into intelligence?

it's not a general rule, there probably exist women that are more intelligent than you and me, but yes on average less women go for the important things in life like science
inb4 stupid people saying "making babies is more important than science", consider this cockroaches make babies too do you consider them intelligent? also once we find a way to become immortal making new babies would actually be discouraged

here are some reasons why most women fail at science:
1. smaller brains compared to males -> lower Encephalization Quotient (EQ), and let's not forget that allometrically men and women are the same
2. less gray matter compared to males (but more white matter, which accounts for more connections between the neurons)
3. current environmental conditions encourage young women to be shallow whores

>> No.4910506

>>4910504
>there probably exist women that are more intelligent than you and me

Fairy tales to >>>/x/, please.

>> No.4910545

>>4908585
Patriarchy keeps them out.

>> No.4910555

>>4910504
>3. current environmental conditions encourage young women to be shallow whores
Seriously, who let the Muzzies out?

>> No.4910564

>>4910555
But it's true.

>> No.4910576

>>4909032

Maybe if women weren't so damn weak and stupid, they wouldn't have been subjugated by their stronger, more intelligent counterparts.

Evolution's a bitch aint it.

>> No.4910581

>>4910564
It's true in the sense that you're "God" is true. In other words, a purely subjective opinion not based on anything but your own shallow prejudices and insecurities.

>> No.4910582

>>4910581
No, it is objectively true. Have you never looked around you? Do you never go outside? Have you never seen women?

>> No.4910587

>>4910576
Evolution is indeed a bitch. It's a shame that you'll never get anywhere without the other half of humanity. Gauging by your opinions, I'd say you're not getting very far with them at the moment.
>>4910582
Quite fitting that you should use the word "seen" when questioning my judgment of women, as if the only requirement for making conclusions as to their conduct is to merely look at them and not interact with them in any meaningful way.

>> No.4910589

>>4910587
When you see a woman is a whore, then there's no need to interact with her anymore. You can save your time and avoid her.

>> No.4910592

>>4910589
We weren't talking about whorishness. Also, you're so fucking stupid.

>> No.4910593

>>4909032

You're absolutely right, we'll never get anywhere without the other half of humanity.

Thus we subjugate their dumb, weak asses and get by just dandy.

Does it bother you that it worked so well for so many years that it begs the question, "is it meant to be that way?"

>> No.4910594

>>4910592
Of course we are talking about whorishness., All women are whores. That was the point you were disagreeing with. Now that I see your ad hominems, it's clear that you run out of pseudo-arguments. Another won debate for me.

>> No.4910608

>>4910593
>When you see a woman is a whore, then there's no need to interact with her anymore. You can save your time and avoid her.
You forgot to add: "avoid her, and crawl back into the basement to masturbate to posters of the pure and virginal weaboo's that adorn my semen-crusted wall".
I'd say that having you avoid them works out much better for them than for you.
>>4910594
I see that attempting to argue with a misogynist is much like attempting to play chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, shit all over the board, and strut around like it's won.

>> No.4910614

>>4910608

This pigeon would kick your ass at chess.

>> No.4910618

>>4910608
>resorts to insults
>lack of arguments

Debate is over. I won. Have fun dwelling in your butthurt. It won't change the truth.

>> No.4910637

>>4910608
>misogynists
Wow. There are still white knights on 4chan? On /sci/ no less

>> No.4910640

>>4910614
Ah, the intellectual version of internet-tough-guy.
>>4910618
At least your own deluded version of it. Oh, and baseless assertions that all women are whores scarcely constitutes any kind of real argument.

No matter, the rest of the world is happily getting on.

>> No.4910647

>>4910640
>the rest of the world
>argumentum ad populum

Going through your fallacy collection?

>> No.4910656

>>4910640
Why are you still here? Women being whores is a fact and no matter how much it upsets you, there's nothing you can do about it. Right now you are embarrassing yourself further and further. None of your posts comes even remotely close to what could be considered an argument.

>> No.4910659

feeding the trolls much?

>> No.4910668

>>4910640

Lets talk facts for a moment.

Until 100 years ago, women had no rights. In that time, we invented the wheel, fire, the steam engine, poetry, music, art, mathematics, and a huge swath of physics, chemistry, and biology.

50 years after that, we split the atom and landed on the moon. Sans a very, very few notable contributions, where do women stand in regard to contributions to any of that? Precisely nowhere.

The reality is you have, collectively, contributed an infinitesimal amount to the rise of the society that you so love.

You are passive beneficiaries. You contribute nothing, yet you take for granted all the things you interact with on a daily basis.

There's some truth for you. It hurts, I know. Try to do better.

>> No.4910692

It's not that women can't, it's that they don't.

>> No.4910693

>>4910692
It's both. They can't and they don't.

>> No.4910702

I don't think this is about ability.
Both men and women have good examples when it comes to being brilliant and being good at science.

But it is a personal choice, when deciding between taking science and not taking science (implying there isn't any cultural pressure for that matter) and it makes me too wonder, why didn't I go to gollege to study science, even though I had good grades and some interest.

I could have chosen science.
Instead I chose mechanics, because it suited me better. It promised me good income and it was something that I was sure I wanted to do.

I think this goes with most girls and women. We have brains (not everyone, I admit that) to do science and engineering, but most of us just don't find those interesting enough and end up in a different career.

And as previous posts have said it, we tend to be more emotional than rational. Maybe it explains some of the lack of women in science.

>> No.4910731

>>4910702
Of course it's about ability. Women simply can't into science. I had some of them in my courses and even those who are considered "intelligent" were still struggeling and had to put a lot of effort into getting a B or a C.

>> No.4910749

>>4910731
Your statement is that "women can't into science"?
What about those who are working at the CERN?
What about women scientists? Are you denying their abilities or their feminity?

Don't want to be angry feminist or anything, but your comment was pretty narrow-minded, basing it just on your own experiences

>> No.4910755

>>4910749
I think their work is either of lower quality or they require a lot more time to achieve the same things men can achieve.

>> No.4910776

>>4910749
the question is not whether they can't rather than why they don't want in the first place
also why are there so few of them
it's more like an exception of the rule

>> No.4910786

>>4910755
So women are capable of doing science, but they don't do it as well as men do? Interesting.
I think you may have a point there, but what fields are we talking about?
Do you have anything to support this?

>> No.4910788

>>4910786
>but what fields are we talking about?
All fields, including social sciences.

>Do you have anything to support this?
Anecdotal evidence, derp.

>> No.4910790

>>4910776
That's a good point.
I have never thought of that. Thank you.

>> No.4910802

>>4910788
okay, I respect your opinion.

>> No.4911065

>>4910802
>opinion

You mean objective truth.

>> No.4911331

>>4909202
read this really quick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

>> No.4911363

>girls can't into science/intelligence

My three closest friends are science majors. Chemistry, Psychology (she can into Bio but she wants to help people) and Biology. I'm Anthropology/Sociology (I can into Chem).
We're all black and female. The Chem and Psymajors bothe have 4.0 ans we're seniors. My mom's a computer engineer.

>> No.4911366

>>4911363
though I do have to admit I can't into typing.

>> No.4911398

>>4911363
>I'm Anthropology/Sociology
>I can into Chem
pick one

>> No.4911400

>>4911366
Considering you're black and female, that was quite a good effort! Congratulations.