I don't conclude that super-maths males are particularly manly or masculine. Those words have common usage which isn't linked to being super-maths-man. <you're stating that math is sexually linked and the more MASCULINE an individual is, the more math ability they have. Therefore, those who are good at math are more masculine (i.e. they are men) than those who are not (i.e. they are women).
Therefore, a man who is lousy at math is less masculine than a man who is brilliant at math. Geeks everywhere applaud you.
>
It wasn't graduate maths studies, it was the top of the top.
<You said that men are genetically superior to women in mathematics. You draw this conclusion from seeing few women in graduate mathematics studies. >
Nor that they are genetically superior in maths, so much as superior in the best of the best's DNA-based ability to develop skill in mathematics and physics.
It doesn't mean they are more manly or masculine, which is normally associated with attributes other than super-duper maths ability, such as big muscles, courage, aggression, stuff like that. One could be the best maths whizzo bloke and be quite epicene - even homosexual [though I suspect not].
The rational conclusion I draw is that female education needs to be different from male, but more importantly that each individual's education needs to be tuned to their personal development. I conclude that women's brains developing earlier than men's has effects on them. One of those effects is reduced mathematics ability in the current education system. If they got the maths sooner, maybe they'd be better than blokes, as maths is like a language and women have more corpus callosum connection [I think that's true though it seems odd to me] and are apparently at least as good as males in language.
Women are maltreated in education is my main conclusion. We misogynistic grumpy types tend to think like that.
Mqurice |
