Cool, a sexist discussion. We have had racists like TJ and others but not a dinkum sexist discussion. Racism has had a good innings. Thank you very much for sticking up for females. And thanks too for bringing the technology dimension to it. Note that I have not called you a sexist because unlike TJ, you are very polite and reasonable, albeit wrong. Being wrong is fine.
First, I should hasten to point out that I am not sexist, I firmly believe women should be treated as human and as evidence that I'm not sexist, some of my best friends are women. Not only that, I have three adult daughters and a grand daughter. How broad-minded is that [...oh good joke there Mq].
Seriously though, joking aside, one of the central issues of being female [other than their missing Y chromosome] is that their brains are adult about 3 years before male brains. Some people, not quite as soundly, claim that male brains never actually mature.
3 years earlier maturation out of a 13 year process is a very big deal. The reason nature has arranged for females to be fully grown 3 years earlier than males is not an accident. In the finely tuned battle for survival, it mattered more for men to spend longer with brain development because they get into the seriously dangerous dramas requiring lots of brain power and also to attract females whose measure of man is more to do with his brainpower than the size of his genitalia, contrary to what you'd think from the proportions of spam in email which try to persuade men that the size of their penis matters more than the size of their brains. Sadly, they get money from men who lack size in both areas.
Being scientific, we can make predictions from the fact that women's brains mature three years younger.
For example an obvious prediction is that females will do better than males in reading and thinking at age 14. Sure enough, they do. They stay ahead too, right into the beginning of university time. That's because brains are not fully developed at puberty. At puberty, human brains are more akin to chimp brains. It's only by about age 22 that males are fully formed.
Not coincidentally, it's also then that males go racing ahead of females who by are 22 are pretty much in their dotage. Men are just hitting their stride.
It's not a coincidence that the supersonic intellectual achievements are by men of age about 22 to 28. That's because by then they have absorbed all the information available on their special subjects and have developed the brain power to leap to whole new dimensions such as inventing relativity theory. < Most of our discoveries are really just finding out what already exists in nature and then building layer upon layer of complexity.>
CDMA doesn't "exist in nature" and neither does the theory of relativity. Nor does financial relativity theory. Even a plain old excavator does not exist in nature though there are moles and other ground digging creatures.
Perhaps you have never had real job. <As a kid I used to think that if we simply had the right technology the planet would be better. Based on what I've seen thus far I don't think that's the case > I have done serious manual work. I can assure you that having the right technology makes the planet enormously better. By hand, I could lift 100 kg around, put it in my van and whatnot. With a forklift, I could load whole pallets of cement in seconds. One of our daughters had a tumour in her neck and our son had lymphoma. Short straws! Without technology, they would have failed on takeoff and ceased to exist. You might think it better that they be dead, thereby reducing CO2 production, but to me the world is better that they are alive.
The reason people buy technology by the ton is because it makes their lives better. Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber agreed with you, but even he used technology - explosives and courier systems.
The reason that women didn't and still don't invent things is that their brains are not intended for that: <
There are women scientists today. Women didn't invent as many things in the past because for the most part they weren't allowed > They are designed for having babies and feeding them. They are also designed to conduct eugenics programs. They eliminate unwanted genes from the gene pool. They don't mate with just any old bloke wandering by with an erection of which attractive women find there are a great number.
Women look through the available males and choose those with the best package which surveys say includes at the top of the list intelligence, kind, humorous. A shapely ankle and good curve of breast do not rate highly in women's evaluation of men. Many women are so disheartened by their choice of males on offer that they decline all and go down like kamikaze pilots, taking their own and those males with them, dying unbred.
You don't often read what a great job women are doing with eugenics. That's their primary role. It's normally claimed that their primary role is care-giving nurturer. But as TJ has pointed out, they lack basic competency for that function other than lactation and cuddling in the first year. In fact, the basic female human role is to eliminate undesirable male DNA. Eugenics.
There are other predictions we can make too but that's enough for now.
There is one interesting fact, you might not be aware of. Women descended from non-Africans can all trace their DNA back to a single female who left Africa about 90,000 years ago. Men can all trace their Y chromosome back to a male who left Africa only about 20,000 years ago.
What that tells us is that life for males is a lot more competitive and dangerous than for females.
When tribes compete with other tribes for lebensraum, they get into a big fight. The females and children run to the back, the males to the front. When the males have killed each other enough, the winners take over all the females and children who then form a much bigger tribe. The males don't kill the opposing females, who quite fancy the new males anyway. New females are of course highly desirable to the winning males.
In primates, females in general hop the fence to mate with males from other tribes - it helps their offspring and spreads the load of carrying their DNA.
It's tough being a male. There's danger at every turn. Safety is not an option. Competition is essential. Plumage important. Pretending to be intelligent a very good idea. Women meanwhile, laze around polishing their fingernails, gossiping among their friends, picking out the supreme alpha males who have the privilege of producing the next generation. He also has the job of inventing ways to catch wildebeest, grow corn and invest in the stock markets. He gets underling males to do that work for him. They hope to get the second string females. She goes shopping and reads women's magazines about Oprah and matings of the alpha males and females.
That's the short answer.
Women aren't really scientists though they can learn how to do some statistical work and read a thermometer [though not a map]. Here's an explanation [if you are female, the science and maths of it will be too difficult but the description should be enough] lagriffedulion.f2s.com
If you can get through that, there's more: lagriffedulion.f2s.com
And more: lagriffedulion.f2s.com
And from last century: lagriffedulion.f2s.com
The reason women do well at reading is because that's what's taught until puberty. By the time serious maths and science are being taught, women have long since had a fully grown brain. As you know, you can't teach an old dog or woman new tricks. You can't even teach an old man new tricks.
The current fashion is woe about boys under-performing educationally compared with girls. The reason is that their brains are slower growing. Females should be extended at a younger age into maths and science. Males need access to development for a longer period. But no matter what you do, you can't make female brains take longer to develop which is the underlying problem. Well, you might be able to hormonally mess them up but that's probably not a good idea.
Here's another prediction. More women believe in CO2 as a problem than men. I guess about 2:1.
Mqurice |
