/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5012786]

Do you think women will die out in middle-distant future?
Hear me out: the main function of women in a society is to be sexually attractive to men and giving birth to children, while it was always the task of men to protect women from hostile enviroment and build up civilization.
Sure, women can do everything men can do, they are just not as good at it.
And the two function that are exclusivly female, sex and womb, will be soon accessible through technological means, through female androids and artificial wombs.
In a society with such technology, there would be no unique niche for women, they would have to directly compete with men, which they can't.
So, like every time in evolution, when there are two competitores for one task, but one is simply better suited, the other one would die out.
Would you agree with my reasoning?

[Anonymous No.5012793]

>everything gets replaced with robots
/thread

[Anonymous No.5012797]

[Anonymous No.5012806]

at this rate of feminism (400 miles per diamonds) it'll be the males who become obsolete

[Anonymous No.5012812]

>>5012793
>>5012806

Any serious answers?

[Anonymous No.5012815]

its already obvious that males will be extinct, at least the form

[Lizerd No.5012816]

I think it'd be the other way around considering scientists have found a way to turn a woman's eggs into sperm cells.

[Anonymous No.5012817]

>>5012812

Why?

[Anonymous No.5012820]

>>5012816

So? Even now when reproduction without male help is possible, men are still around. That means that men are needed for more than just making babies. However, that isn't necessary true for women, as I argued above.

[Anonymous No.5012821]

Certain geneticists think the male will die out due to the y chromosomes rapid degeneresence compared to the x chromosome. Fairly controversial opinion however.

[Anonymous No.5012831]

>>5012820
Why are you so against women? Where you bullied by one?

[Anonymous No.5012829]

just sex and womb that will be soon accessible through technological means, ability to do jobs that usually man do will be accessible even sooner

post some sorayama

[Anonymous No.5012834]

> they're just not as good at it

Fails to pass null hypothesis. Testers of all genders have been systematically shown to overestimate male ability on a similar order of magnitude as pay differences. No measurements exist (to my knowledge) in which women are inferior in any mental engagement which is not more easily explainable by the sexism-drenched society.


For a robot to be a better sexual partner than a woman, the AI governing it must be several times smarter than a human being. Thus, rather than the female niche being removed, the *human* niche is removed, as we are evolutionarily outcompeted by AI.

If humans remain extant through artificial breeding programes, like you suggest, then it is equally simple to do it for men and women both, and since that does not require gendericide, that is what will likely occur.

[Anonymous No.5012835]

>>5012831
Probably.

[Anonymous No.5012838]

>>5012831

Ad hominem. My argumentation is not judgmental. I am simply looking at the effects of technological progress.

[Anonymous No.5012841]

>just sex and womb that will be soon accessible through technological means
If by soon you mean in our life time, doubtful.

[Anonymous No.5012840]

Your argument breaks down here:
>women can do everything men can do, they are just not as good at it.

Which is bullshit. And yes, I'm a man.

Technology makes the differences between genders in terms of physical tolerances basically meaningless (IIRC, women handle extreme temperatures and G forces better, for example), but mentally, we're two very different beasts and each has advantages over the other.

[Anonymous No.5012849]

>>5012838

this
>>5012834
and
>>5012793

[Anonymous No.5012851]

Women are not just for sex/womb. They also provide an active social activity for men to perform. We chase after them... In chasing after them we compete with one another, trying our best to outperform each other in all manner of ways: jobs/looks/IQ/charisma etc. So effectively without women, with all our sexual needs taken care of we have no need to progress as people. So i think women are essential to the world, not only that i dont think you would be able to convince people to have children in a mechanical womb... women would not like that!

[Anonymous No.5012852]

>>5012834

Just look at the work-market. The best at everything are always men, there are a lot of jobs that are done almost exclusivly by men and men earn more than women.
Why this is the case, biological differences or sexism, is irrelevant, the fact remains that man are more successive at working than women.

>>5012840

So, which are the advantages of women over men? In which jobs are women more successful than men?

[Anonymous No.5012863]

>>5012851

>We chase after them... In chasing after them we compete with one another, trying our best to outperform each other in all manner of ways: jobs/looks/IQ/charisma etc.

The existence and success of porn proves that most men are very eager to cut the chase and find a easier way for sexual relaxation, even if porn isn't half as good as normal sex.
But what if the sex was as good or even better, due to female robots? The sexual value of women would dramatically decrease.

[Anonymous No.5012866]

>>5012851
>So effectively without women, with all our sexual needs taken care of we have no need to progress as people
>implying sex is the only reason to live

Just escaping boredom would be enough to motivate a mono-gender society to do anything. Though I don't see much point in getting rid of one of the genders. Our reproductive system has worked for millions of years and it's fairly stable. The same can't be said for experimental technology that might have unforeseen effects and fuck us up as a species. It's one thing to lop an arm off and put a prosthesis one, but when you mess around with the reproduction of the species, you're messing around with it's very future.

[Anonymous No.5012869]

dont think so, males have coexisted with females since the difference became notable

[Anonymous No.5012873]

>>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.5012875]

>>5012866

>Though I don't see much point in getting rid of one of the genders.

It won't be a conscious decision, but simply natural selection.
If two groups (men and women) compete for the same niche (workplace), then the less successful group dies out.

[Anonymous No.5012878]

>>5012866

Good stuff mate. I agree that this is the case.

>>5012863

I dislike your comment about porn. I doubt very much that people who watch porn all the time are satisfied, nor happy that they are watching porn. I am sure they would rather be fucking a nice girl! Also, from my experience, women provide a nice warm happy feeling when you are around them and they like you. Pheromones will be a hard thing to simulate...

[Anonymous No.5012887]

There would always be at least a fetishist need for real women as lust objects, so they couldn't really die out.

[Anonymous No.5012889]

>>5012869

Yes, right now men and women have a symbiotic relationship.
Basically, men provide women with everything they need and in return women satisfy mens sexual needs and bear children.
But if new technological inventions can perform this task as good with less investment, there will be no reason for men to keep up this symbiotic relationship.

[Anonymous No.5012896]

>>5012878

>I dislike your comment about porn. I doubt very much that people who watch porn all the time are satisfied, nor happy that they are watching porn.

Yet even if porn sucks, a lot of people content themself with it, simply because it's easier. No think what would happend if there was something as easy as porn but as good or even better as regular sex.

>Pheromones will be a hard thing to simulate...

Why? You can make a robot with artificial skin as warm and soft as the real thing and a AI that can simulate a loving and caring female.

[Anonymous No.5012900]

Will you guys join the borg when the time comes voluntarily without resistance?

[Anonymous No.5012908]

>>5012875
>It won't be a conscious decision, but simply natural selection.
There's nothing natural about what you're talking about. Male and female children are born in approximately equal number from fertilized eggs. That's natural.

>If two groups (men and women) compete for the same niche (workplace), then the less successful group dies out.
So, we let the women starve and die off slowly, because they can't get jobs? This is natural selection?

[Anonymous No.5012915]

Humanity might become asexual, but it won't be a case of one sex dying out.

Also saying that men are better at everything isn't really something that has any real scientific grounding. Box sexes have wonderful qualities that are just as important as each other, and some people posses good quality skills seen in both sexes. I hate feminism as much as the next person, but combating it by being mysogynistic doesn't make it any better

I'm a female. I'm in astrophysics. I regularly perform better than my male colleagues. Got nothing to do with being male or female, just to do with the fact that people are all different despite their sex.

[Anonymous No.5012916]

>>5012896

>Male and female children are born in approximately equal number from fertilized eggs. That's natural.

That's the case right now. But it will be possible in near future to decide if you want male or female children. And parents will tend to get children wich have better chances to suceed in society.

>So, we let the women starve and die off slowly, because they can't get jobs? This is natural selection?

No, a lot of women will be on welfare, and since parents will see that men are doing better than women, they will prefere to get male children.

[Anonymous No.5012923]

Do you fuck heads think just because something is not needed people will just fucking do away with it? Especially if its as fun as sex? What about Alcohol, being gay, war, oil, movie stars, and candy bars? why do we still preoccupy ourselves with that kind of shit when none of its is NEEDED in society, and some of it is even harmful? because some of us find it fun.

[Anonymous No.5012928]

>>5012831

99.8% chance his mother is an unbearable cunt.

[Anonymous No.5012925]

>>5012900
Hell yeah. The borg doesn't discriminate, though. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.5012926]

>>5012915

>Box sexes have wonderful qualities that are just as important as each other

Yes, "everybody has his qualities and is equally important", that's this liberal, good-sounding nonsense we like to belive in.
But the hard reality of our world is that some groups are better then others, and the worsers groups die out. Look at evoulution or human history.

>I'm a female. I'm in astrophysics. I regularly perform better than my male colleagues.

Well, you are hardly representative for the average woman.
There are also women who are 6'5'', but it doesn't mean that women on average aren't smaller than men.

[Anonymous No.5012934]

>>5012928
99.8% of all mothers are cunts.

[Anonymous No.5012942]

>>5012923
>Do you fuck heads
There may be only one fuckhead in this thread, so chill.

[Anonymous No.5012945]

>>5012851
If there were sex bot wifes with great A.I. and they cost £100,000
You bet your ass id shape up and get a good job to get me one of those

[Anonymous No.5012946]

wtf OP?
one task were women are better than men would be raising children for example.
that alone is critical. i cant actually back that up, but i would bet that:
raised by women>raised by men>raised by robots.
So your argument is shit.

[Anonymous No.5012947]

>>5012934
but bearable

[Anonymous No.5012950]

>>5012946
> women are better than men would be raising children for example.
That's a bullshit stereotype

[Anonymous No.5012951]

>>5012947

Yes, thank you for pointing that out.

[Anonymous No.5012953]

No. This is true. They have titties.

Which means... OP doesn't like titties.....

Once again... OP is a Faggot.

[Anonymous No.5012957]

>>5012946

Wether women are better at raising children as men is debatable. However, statistics show that children raised by single mothers are far worser off than children with both mother and father.

[Anonymous No.5012959]

>>5012950
much in contrast to the much more likely true stereotype that men are better at EVERYTHING

[Anonymous No.5012962]

>>5012959
Men are better at everything though

[Anonymous No.5012963]

>Sure, women can do everything men can do, they are just not as good at it. (Citation needed)

HURR LE WOMENZ HAVE LE SMALLER BRAINZ AND NIGGERS ARE LE APEZ DURR

This is /sci/ not /pol/.

[Anonymous No.5012966]

>>5012950
women consitently score higher in tests for emotional awareness and language skills.
i posit that these are more relevant to childraising than math skills or physical ability.

Your turn

[Anonymous No.5012969]

>>5012963

But women do have smaller brains than men and blacks are on average less intelligent than other races.

[Anonymous No.5012970]

>>5012957
Would be interesting if there was a study done to see if male gay couples raise better children than female gay couples.

[Anonymous No.5012971]

>>5012962

Including sucking cock? No thank you. I'll pass.

[Anonymous No.5012973]

>>5012970
or just single fathers vs single mothers.

[Anonymous No.5012974]

>>5012970

wouldnt it make much more sense to test single mothers vs single fathers?

[Anonymous No.5012977]

>>5012966
>women consitently score higher in tests for emotional awareness
I'd like to see how this shits tested

>language skills.
You've got to be fucking kidding me
>Women
>Language skills
get da fuk out

[Anonymous No.5012978]

>>5012970

"..like how in general blacks have lower IQ's"
Dear Idiotic Joe,
in the United States, when matched for IQ with Whites, American Blacks have been shown to demonstrate superior “Working Memory” (Nijenhuis et al., 2004). This is a particularly interesting finding as African Americans tend to be taught by less qualified teachers (e.g. non-certified teachers and teachers with limited experience) than their white counterparts, and are provided with less challenging school work (Hallinan 1994; Diamond et al., 2004; Uhlenberg and Brown 2004). In Chicago, for example, the vast majority of schools placed on academic probation as part of the district accountability efforts were majority African-American and low-income (Diamond and Spillane 2004). Thus, it is somewhat of a surprise that African Americans should outperform white Americans on any portion of a paper and pencil test designed to mimic the structures of western style schooling and culture (Richardson, 2000, 2002).

[Anonymous No.5012984]

>>5012982
In a study which helped to highlight the need for better education for African American children, Serpell et al. (2006) took 162 low-income African American and white fourth graders and assigned them, randomly, to ethnically homogeneous groups of three to work on a motion acceleration task, using computer simulation or physical tools. Or to a control group that did not participate in the learning activities. It was shown that both African American and White students performed equally well on the test of initial learning, with both groups scoring significantly higher than the control group. However, it was also found that African American children’s transfer outcomes were superior to those of their White counterparts (see Serpell et al., 2006). The study demonstrated, empirically, that not only do African American children learn as well as white children, but that they may actually exceed their white counterparts in their ability to transfer learned abilities to real tasks.

[Anonymous No.5012981]

I dont know about you OP but i enjoy fucking women and want them to be part of society just because it feels good.
>thebutthurtistrongwiththisone.jpg

[Anonymous No.5012982]

>>5012978
Educational inequality in the U.S. is a pervasive part of the social system and is primarily a consequence of housing. Since the majority of states determine school funding based on property taxes, schools in wealthier neighborhoods receive more funding per student. As home values in white neighborhoods are higher than minority neighborhoods, local schools receive more funding via property taxes (Kelly, 1995). In addition, there has been a history of social policy which has limited African American’s access to avenues of wealth accumulation (e.g. purchasing suburban homes); so that black families also have far fewer assets than their white counterparts who earn the same incomes (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995). Parents with greater assets are free to use them for things like tutors, purchasing educational materials (e.g. computers), and to pay for private schools and more expensive colleges.

[Anonymous No.5012988]

>>5012875
This has to be a troll.

[Anonymous No.5012992]

>>5012875
In the future most people won't work. Most of the work will be done by robots, didn't you see Wall-E?

[Anonymous No.5012995]

>>5012977
Youre basically worthless

emotional awareness is tested by showing people a sad face and asking them wether its sad or happy. idiot.

">language skills.
You've got to be fucking kidding me
>Women
>Language skills
get da fuk out"

[Anonymous No.5012996]

Toasting in roll bread, but whatever 2/10

I have several replies, each assuming varying degrees of correctness in your post.

Assume everything you've said is correct. Women as still more effective at social interaction. If both sexes compete for dominance, the one with the more cohesive class structure will win (evolution acts on groups too) since groups of women can function more cooperatively than groups of men, natural selection would favor them. (since you're going to be an asshole and want a source on this, I refer you to the wikipedia articles on intelligence differences by sex and bonobos)

But, if we aknowlege that synthesizing egg cells is hundreds if not thousands of years off, and technology exists today which would permit and exclusively female society, it's just more intelligent to eliminate males than females.

Lastly, if you take the big leap and realise that the enormous majority of intellectual differences between "genres" humans (namely "race", sex and class) are due almost entirely to conditioning before the age of 5, you would note that instead of reacting to biological phenomena we should use our knowledge of evolution to shape it (this is like the difference between leper colonies and modern medicine)

[Anonymous No.5012998]

I know this is /sci/, but OP is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.5013005]

>>5012996
its strange that one can troll in a way that will make people point out that women are equal/better than men.

[Anonymous No.5013012]

>>5012998

[Anonymous No.5013018]

>>5012996

>Women as still more effective at social interaction.

No they are not. Men are far more efficient when working in groups. It is a necerssary evolutonary trait to be successful hunters.
Meanwhile, have you ever worked toghether with a lot of women? The amount of gossip and backstabbing is ernormous.

>But, if we aknowlege that synthesizing egg cells is hundreds if not thousands of years off

Thousans of years? Are you kidding? I give it 50 years.

>it's just more intelligent to eliminate males than females.

Men are needed for far more then reproduciton, while women are not.

>Lastly, if you take the big leap and realise that the enormous majority of intellectual differences between "genres" humans (namely "race", sex and class) are due almost entirely to conditioning before the age of 5

That's ideological propaganda with no sicence to back it up.

[Anonymous No.5013025]

Hmm maybe certain Islamic countries are actually right. Maybe Females shouldn't be educated and should just focus on pleasing their husbands. Feminism and same rights for women does seem to bring a breakdown of the family unit and society in general when you really think about it.

[Anonymous No.5013031]

>>5013025
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJEWT_Uitc

[Anonymous No.5013041]

>>5013018

>Men are far more efficient when working in groups. It is a necerssary evolutonary trait to be successful hunters.
Ignoring evidence

>Meanwhile, have you ever worked toghether with a lot of women?
Namecalling and anecdotal

>Thousans of years? Are you kidding? I give it 50 years.
Citation needed

>Men are needed for far more then reproduciton, while women are not.
Reverse arguement is equally valid

>That's ideological propaganda with no sicence to back it up.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005566/

[Anonymous No.5013073]

>>men and women have the same abilities.
You could say that I guess, but do women really have the same abilities if they're not inclined or ever use them?
Women don't do many of the things that men seem better at because they're not inclined. They don't have to, and many of them never develope the same skills through experience. There will always be a man around to help change their flat or swap their altenator out. They're the ones being pursued because in most cases it's the male that carries the more burdensome sex drive. If anything I think that creating artificial reproductive systems would force women into the same kind of race for survival that men are in.

[Anonymous No.5013079]

>>5013025
>>5013031
Why would the government want to break down the nuclear family?

[Anonymous No.5013129]

It sure sounds like guys are making a lot of broad generalizations based on flaky biological oversimplifications and anecdotal evidence here. I guess certain people have to justify their strange, deep-seated anxiety about the opposite sex with some sort of pretext (pseudo-scientific ones are always popular).

[Anonymous No.5013160]

i think the care and nurture program would be hard to replicate for some time in the normal mother infant dyad....its very complex stuff going on their to maximise neural connections in the infant

[Anonymous No.5013165]

the other issue is that women selectivity weeds out alot of beta genes, an android/robot would not have this so death of gene pool, im mean look at how many beta already get through

[Anonymous No.5013167]

did anyone really not notice that this thread is a thinly veiled excuse for OP to indulge his robot fetish

[Anonymous No.5013478]

>>5013167

I did.. But I wanted to call his mother a Cunt...so....

[Anonymous No.5013519]

>>5012786
>And the two function that are exclusivly female, sex and womb, will be soon accessible through technological means, through female androids and artificial wombs.

Not really, humanity is still a long way from singularity. And recreating the womb's conditions in a lab isn't something as easy as you would think.

And I'd say, culture won't allow for gender to dissapear. I say a society where gender transit, MtF or FtM (though only on a superficial level, unless given the BIOTECHNOLOGY) is accepted can be possible though.

Unless you find a way to supress X chromosomes, there will always be women. And, hell, it seems likely for the Y chromosome to dissapear first...at least that was what was said.

[Anonymous No.5013533]

>>5012786
>the main function of women in a society is to be sexually attractive to men and giving birth to children, while it was always the task of men to protect women from hostile enviroment and build up civilization.
That is quite sexist and insulting.
Women 'build up society' just as much as men do.
It is no more our job to reproduce than it is yours.

>women can do everything men can do, they are just not as good at it.
Prove it.

>And the two function that are exclusivly female, sex and womb, will be soon accessible through technological means, through female androids and artificial wombs.
And the two function that are exclusivly male, sex and sperm, will be soon accessible through technological means, through male androids and artificial sperm.

And it is far easier to make men redundant than to make women redundant.
We can already create children from somatic cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic-cell_nuclear_transfer
Lesbians can already have children that are biologically theirs.

Neither men nor women will die out separately. If humans become extinct, we do so as a species.

[Anonymous No.5013592]

>>5013079
When parents don't raise their children, it's up to the state and to any private entity to which the state wants to outsource this task. Elementary school teachers are reporting a frightening increase in the number of new students whose parents send them off to school not knowing the rudiments of reading or arithmetic. When parents leave child-rearing to the state, the state teaches the children whatever it wants to think. Private entities who line the pockets of lawmakers teach the children whatever they want the children to think. Kids are fed unhealthy school lunches (unhealthy adults pay more into health insurance and are less likely to collect social security money), given unsatisfactory educations, and punished or not punished arbitrarily. The education system fosters a reliance on authority and rewards obedience and mediocrity, while dissuading excellence (see No Child Left Behind, which punishes the brightest youth by putting them with the stupidest and most troublesome).

[Anonymous No.5013596]

>>5013533
>Prove it.
When men pee standing up, they make beautiful, elegant, stream. They can use this technique to mark territory, write messages, extinguish fires, and entertain friends. When women try to pee standing up it dribbles all over their legs and they smell disgusting for hours afterward.

[Anonymous No.5013616]

>>5013596
>When women try to pee standing up it dribbles all over their legs and they smell disgusting for hours afterward.

However, the urine works for marking territory; they may entertain friends, because some people are bound to notice the shameful act and laugh and even trigger a person's fetish. Extinguishing fires, that depends on the urine's quantity too.

[Anonymous No.5013619]

>>5013596
Urination is not elegant.

[Anonymous No.5013626]

>>5013596
>When men pee standing up, they make beautiful, elegant, stream
I wish...

[Anonymous No.5013654]

>>5013533
>And it is far easier to make men redundant than to make women redundant.
doesn't make it the best option. as OP said, men have been more beneficial for society throughout history than women. The extra effort to create an artificial womb should be worth it if the men are better. Also, I think it is much more efficient to leave the pregnancy to robots. I wonder how much money and labor businesses already lose due to maternity leave.

[Anonymous No.5013663]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/

[Anonymous No.5013680]

>>5013654
>as OP said, men have been more beneficial for society throughout history than women.
Said, but not proved.

[Anonymous No.5013690]

OP, you obviously do a lot of masturbating. Or you are homosexual.

[Anonymous No.5013746]

Protip: In the biological world, females are always necessary for a species' survival, males not so. Males only contribute to genetic diversity, while females are actually a requirement for the next generation to be born.
So yeah, I completely disagree with OP. It's way more likely that men, if any of the sexes, will be the ones to die out.

[Anonymous No.5013751]

>>5013680
Proven how? it is simply a historical fact. In every field, men have made up the vast majority of the important figures. This is still true today. just look at how many self-made women billionaires there are. Look at how outnumbered women are in science and engineering fields. look at how outnumbered they are at the higher end of the IQ spectrum. Women just haven't been all that important at all, save for maybe literature.

[Anonymous No.5013752]

>>5013690
Perhaps not.
He is sexist, but he may still like having sex with women.

[Anonymous No.5013755]

>American Blacks have been shown to demonstrate superior “Working Memory” (Nijenhuis et al., 2004).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm

[Anonymous No.5013763]

If any gender's gonna die out, it's gonna be the men. It's possible to create sperm from a woman's bone marrow. It's practically impossible to create a biological child grow it outside a womb, but creating artificial sperm from one woman, fertilizing an egg from another woman with it, and sticking that egg back in the woman's uterus is relatively simple. This would result in a normal child with a mixture of genes from the two biological mothers. Also because neither parent has a y-chromosome, the child will be a daughter.

Of course I think this is ridiculous. No matter how advanced technology gets, people will always want to fuck members of the opposite sex, and have children with the people they fall in love with.

[Anonymous No.5013766]

>>5013751
Women have been intellectually oppressed until very recently in the social evolution of Humanity.

Now that we have equal opportunities, we are just as successful as men are.
http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/

[Anonymous No.5013780]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201003/sex-and-iq-dont-ask-we-dont-want-know

[Anonymous No.5013782]

>>5013766
except you still aren't. Like i said, you are still outnumbered in science and engineering fields (and also in self-made billionaires). do you honestly think a number like 83 is anything but anecdotal in the span of 76 years? Again, disparities still exist despite equal opportunity. Even so, there is a reason men obtained a position where they were able to oppress women. The inferior don't oppress the superior simply by luck. Does the U.S. bitch about oppression from third world countries?

[Anonymous No.5013792]

>>5013782
That was only in Phsyics, and still does not contain all female contributions to the field of physics.
It is far larger than you know, and will continue growing.

>Even so, there is a reason men obtained a position where they were able to oppress women.
Physical strength in the prehistoric ages, where women were simply raped.

[Anonymous No.5013796]

>>5013782

Women are on average more intelligent than men but there are also more male geniuses and idiots (IQ > 140 and < 70 respectively)

Tl;dr: Women = more competent in general, extremely extremely extremely few are geniuses, while men = almost as competent in general, more likely to be very significant and contribute a lot.

Through the capitalistic architecture, we can see that men rule in this way because not everyone needs to be a genius, but the ones that move society on often are, and they're men.

[Anonymous No.5013833]

>>5013792
it doesn't matter. you keep ignoring the fact of sheer numbers. women only make up 1/5th of bachelor degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science. and "great discoveries" (those that the average person would know.) are almost completely men, even recently. want to look up the ratio of men to women for Nobel prizes lately? women are also outnumbered 3:1 on SAT math scores higher than 700. lastly, the self-made billionaires point again.
>Physical strength in the prehistoric ages
we got past the point were physical strength mattered for dominance long ago. Everything has been politics for quite some time.
>>5013796
average IQ differences between men and women usually only vary by a few points. some years men are higher, others women are. They are not directly comparable though. They were designed to be scored differently for different groups (ironically, to avoid discrimination and comparisons). However, the huge differences at the higher spectrum cannot be accounted for simply because of slightly different scoring (whereas 3-6 would be). Lastly, the genius spectrum is what really matters. The average person contributes nothing. In any field, the most important figures are a few exceptional people.

[Anonymous No.5013839]

>>5013833
>women only make up 1/5th of bachelor degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science.
>women for Nobel prizes lately? women are also outnumbered 3:1

So it's favourable?

[Anonymous No.5013844]

>>5013839
lol wut?

[Anonymous No.5013852]

>>5013833

Physical strength is determined through exercise, and exercise keeps the mind and body in shape, it makes life 100x easier even if you don't do physical things.

Trust me, I started working out 3 months ago heavily and watching my diet to gain weight (/fit/) and I notice that almost everything I do comes easily, with clarity, and is very easy to understand. Studying is a breeze and my marks have greatly increased, not to mention I love how I look and working out.

[Anonymous No.5013857]

>>5013844
Never mind, I read your post wrong. I'm tired and all.

[Anonymous No.5013881]

>>5013852
watching your diet to GAIN weight? i think that bulking crap is just /fit/'s excuse for being largely a bunch of fat asses. Wouldn't you rather be toned than big?

[Anonymous No.5013886]

>>5013881
Some men want to be very muscly.

[Anonymous No.5013892]

>>5013881
If he looks like a shrimp, he needs to gain weight to build muscle.