Tiaexz does a girly job and why Kadagar prefers to be grappled by burly fireMEN

[Husar]

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.

Sigh...

A) No, you have not, you have shown the symptoms and claimed the causes fit your stereotypes, you have not proven any of that.

B) Horses are also physically stronger, doesn't mean that they were well-paid in the real world.

C) And ignored that that does not inherently make the wiring of men superior. Wikipedia having some vague reference to a bogus scientist doesn't count.

D) So you have claimed that a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash and prejudices leads to more prejudices and unfair disadvantages. Congratulations!

The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!

"Nuh uh" is a strange word to describe a bunch of links to interesting studies that disprove your claims.

Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

Does that mean not paying slaves was also okay since they didn't really contribute anything anyway going by how much they were paid?

[Kadagar_AV]

wrote stuff

I'll answer you in full when I have time... But... Still no example of women doing better than their male peers, then?

[Montmorency]

So, Kad, sorry to break it to you but we have given examples of fields in which women outnumber men, such as optometry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and gynaecology. These fields were all majority-male a generation ago. Obviously the reasonable explanation would be to posit a difference in social standards, but according to your hypothesis either women are somehow just better-suited to these specialties in some unspecified ephemeral way - in which case, why optometry and not ophthalmology? - or became so very suddenly over a handful of years. Either way, that's drivel. Furthermore, you have bizarrely misinterpreted the Wiki summary - or meretriciously, probably - in a way that takes tentative and value-neutral low-level differences and systematically attaches negative value to female differences and positive value to male differences, in addition to going on to posit further differences not supported by the data (and of course giving them skewed valuations along the way). You literally could not beg the question harder here.


You want a summary of my documents? OK, here: you're so wrong it's not even funny. What's worse, though, is that you're not even trying to find ways to support your core points besides the degenerate babblings you persist in posting. I'm done here speaking with someone who likely has impaired learning ability and very low-functioning communicative skills compared to the normal range of adults (including most of the Negroes and women you so demean).

@HoreTore: Let's just say there are ways to take advantage of university database permissions.

Can't you download those files, "a" and "c"? I download them fine.

Try here:

b.pdf
a.pdf
c.pdf

[Kadagar_AV]

So, Kad, sorry to break it to you but we have given examples of fields in which women outnumber men, such as optometry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and gynaecology. These fields were all majority-male a generation ago. Obviously the reasonable explanation would be to posit a difference in social standards, but according to your hypothesis either women are somehow just better-suited to these specialties in some unspecified ephemeral way - in which case, why optometry and not ophthalmology? - or became so very suddenly over a handful of years. Either way, that's drivel. Furthermore, you have bizarrely misinterpreted the Wiki summary - or meretriciously, probably - in a way that takes tentative and value-neutral low-level differences and systematically attaches negative value to female differences and positive value to male differences, in addition to going on to posit further differences not supported by the data (and of course giving them skewed valuations along the way). You literally could not beg the question harder here.


You want a summary of my documents? OK, here: you're so wrong it's not even funny. What's worse, though, is that you're not even trying to find ways to support your core points besides the degenerate babblings you persist in posting. I'm done here speaking with someone who likely has impaired learning ability and very low-functioning communicative skills compared to the normal range of adults (including most of the Negroes and women you so demean).

That women outnumber men does not mean they out-do men.

You STILL don't get it.

Guess what, eventhough women outnumber men in gyneacology, guess what a top 10 list of the worlds best shows.

[Montmorency]

gyneacology...top 10 list

I'll just leave this here.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll just leave this here.

Good, as I find you arrogant and incapable of having a civil conversation. Especially in a forum, not a university setting where nerds fling kneejerk reports at each other.

That women are majority might be because men are less interested in the field.

At the higher levels, though, men seem to outperform women even in fields where women are majority. Am I wrong?

Heck, look at horse jumping in Sweden... 95% of young practitioners are women, in the national team 6 out of 7 are men. Tell me again how women compare equally with their male peers?

You can look into pretty much whatever field, and in the top ranks men still outperform women.

[Husar]

Good, as I find you arrogant and incapable of having a civil conversation. Especially in a forum, not a university setting where nerds fling kneejerk reports at each other.

That women are majority might be because men are less interested in the field.

At the higher levels, though, men seem to outperform women even in fields where women are majority. Am I wrong?

Heck, look at horse jumping in Sweden... 95% of young practitioners are women, in the national team 6 out of 7 are men. Tell me again how women compare equally with their male peers?

You can look into pretty much whatever field, and in the top ranks men still outperform women.

And 7, as we all know, is a most representative sample size to make a scientific point...

In the german team it's apparently 2 out of 4, not counting the two trainers and the veterinarian, does that scientifically prove that our women are superior to swedish women now?

And that top 10 list was hilarious, as Monty already noted.

[Greyblades]

Are you people still feeding the troll?

[Kadagar_AV]

And 7, as we all know, is a most representative sample size to make a scientific point...

In the german team it's apparently 2 out of 4, not counting the two trainers and the veterinarian, does that scientifically prove that our women are superior to swedish women now?

And that top 10 list was hilarious, as Monty already noted.

How does it look among young participants in horse jumping? Still 50/50?

If not, it's yet another example of the trend I try to show here, no?

That top 10 list shows that 6 out of 10 who got people to vote for them, were men. I never said it showed anything else.

However, show me the damn lists where women do well?

I 100% agree that none of my examples individually PROVE anything. However, the sheer MASS of experience that men seem to come out on top makes a combined evidence.

Again, if women are equal to men, it should be damn easy to show it.

Yet all the people who declare equality actually DO, is throwing feces at anything showing men do better. Without being very good at showing that women can in fact do equally good or better.

And that reeks of political correctness.