First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Feminists
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/07
@Artgeek:

Yeah. Alright. I’ll watch that in the future.

@Henz- Well, I was talking about when men and women both do the same job but the man makes more money. It’s usually because the man is working harder or better, but people automatically assume it’s sexism on the bosses part just because the boss is usually a man. Because he worked harder than the women when he was an employee.


In the end it depends on the individual. None the less we know the statistics show that more men are hard workers than women. A large portion of America's female workers have a tendency to expect everything to go their way.

The men typically suck the trash up and keep at it. The women expect better, and place a great deal of value in themselves. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s not what an employer is looking for in employees. Again, in the end it’s a matter of the individual. But, statistics are statistics are wastes of money.
Posted 9/3/07
^ Yes, it depends upon the individual, however you cannot claim that men work harder.

Take the UK exam results;
Girls did better in every subject apart from Maths, Further Maths and Physics (or some small proportion of the theoretical sciences). Why? Because girls are more conscientious and work harder! - guys are just as able, on average, and better in some specifics! Why isn't engineering, or computer tech up there as well? - areas which are predominantly male!
687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 9/3/07
Have you guys ever thought about aliens?
I mean its not like humans support aliens do they? Not all of them are bad.
There should be more alienist's in the world. (joke :D)

If you guys are feminist's and you want action done then why dont you go to the prime minister or something to make your feminist dreams come true. I mean your not going to get much done posting threads. Good luck!
70633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/3/07

Take the UK exam results;


I've heard that modern education methods favour girls, as in schools now teach in a way that is more beneficial to girls. There was a reality show that taught a group of GCSE students as though they were in a 1950s school, and the boys showed a marked improvement.

I guess you can't do what's best for everybody.
Posted 9/3/07
^ I can learn perfectly well in a modern school, and I'm male. There are still lots of guys who do well, enough to show that they can... just the rest don't.

Edit: Yes, I'm using individuals and hasty generalisation, however I sincerely believe that guys can do better, just it is their attitude not to.
70633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/3/07
And there are plenty of girls that do badly, I'm just curious why you saw fit to make it a gender thing.
21995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 9/3/07

Tyrfing wrote:


Take the UK exam results;


I've heard that modern education methods favour girls, as in schools now teach in a way that is more beneficial to girls. There was a reality show that taught a group of GCSE students as though they were in a 1950s school, and the boys showed a marked improvement.

I guess you can't do what's best for everybody.

I really can't see how one type of eduation would favor one gender or the other. I belive the results are based more on the individual rather than their gender
Jaeger Moderator
62292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / The North
Offline
Posted 9/3/07
What about the aliens? What about their equality?

No one ever thinks about the aliens.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/07

henz_lan wrote:

^ Yes, it depends upon the individual, however you cannot claim that men work harder.

Take the UK exam results;
Girls did better in every subject apart from Maths, Further Maths and Physics (or some small proportion of the theoretical sciences). Why? Because girls are more conscientious and work harder! - guys are just as able, on average, and better in some specifics! Why isn't engineering, or computer tech up there as well? - areas which are predominantly male!


I don’t see how you draw that conclusion. Physics is the mother of all science, and certainly one of the hardest subjects. So if men are scoring higher in physics then they’re probably working hard. This being said I was talking about America, not the UK. Cultural differences will obviously change things around. As I understand the UK's teaching programe favours females.

Anyway, have you ever studied Benbow? She and her colleagues showed that the male parties within elite groups of people by far outnumber the female parties. Let us look at the SAT scores. (Mind you these following statistics have held up for two and a half decades.)

Men scoring 500-599 on the SAT’s outnumber women scoring 500-599 two to one. From 600-699 men outnumber women four to one. As for those who score from 700 up to a perfect score men outnumber women thirteen to one.

But with this same source of information I can show you that it’s more culture than anything else. Back in the sixties women scored substantially higher on the verbal portion of the SAT tests than men. However, early into the seventies the lines on the chart crossed. Now men are outscoring females. Why? Back then women were expected to be proper and all of that ignorant (in my opinion, but you’re welcome to disagree) jazz. This is not expected these days, and in fact it is often frowned upon. So now men are outscoring women.

These SAT scores are off topic, and are at best indirect. The point is that men are, at least here, and as a sex, the better workers.

I think it’s a part of psychology. When I go out and labor myself to the bones I come home and I feel good. I enjoy the dull ache in my bones and muscles, despite the fact that I abhor pain. Now, whenever I go out and I’m making a lot of money for very little work I enjoy the money, true, but I don’t fill fulfilled.

I think part of the male psyche is the desire (and this is obviously a matter of nature vs. nurture) to work hard and provide. This is most likely built into us through thousands of years of being the family providers, but regardless I think men are psychologically and physically more apt to be good workers than females.

Now mind you, this is speaking of generalizations and aptitudes. Men and women have the same -potential.-

But yeah. Men and women are different in many ways. But I’m tired of people pointing out all these differences and ignoring the notably more numerous similarities. These feminists and their statistics to try and prove women are better than men are only making the gap between men and women bigger. If they keep it up we wont be able to build a bridge over it. Hints the Feminists and their femnazi cousins are hated by society.

Still, if you want to point out differences I can play along just fine. Men are more to the extremes. There are more extremely lazy men than extremely lazy women. There are more extremely hard working men than extremely hard working women.

Statistics support this too.


Posted 9/3/07

And there are plenty of girls that do badly, I'm just curious why you saw fit to make it a gender thing.

Because I had previously given evidence that more guys do badly, therefore it is a "gender thing" - there is a marked difference.

In addition, in your example of teaching in the style of the 1950s, could it not be that the girls did considerably worse in relation, or was it the novelty of the teaching environment, or the separation of sexes in the class room, or the discipline. This example does not give any way to reasonably improve male achievement at school.

One way to achieve overall improvement though, is increasing the dialogue between pupils and teachers. This is one thing that private schools do better, having teachers take a more active part in the students' lives, and the student having a more active part in the lessons.
If the teachers were male this would improve male results no end... the converse occurring with female teachers. Just this first step would be a good start though, even without having a greater number of male teachers (another possible confound in the example you provided).

^ SAT tests require no work. A Levels do! (I've done equivalents of both)

*Signing off* - Over and out. (ie. sorry, but I shan't be continuing this discussion right now.)
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/07
Don't be sorry. I'm done with it anyway. Once again, a pointless waste of text and time. Anyway, at least for elementary to highschool, there are more female teachers.
58645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Boston
Offline
Posted 9/3/07
On a slightly related note since most guys refuse to hit a female for a multitude of reasons does that mean if I run around punching women that I'm helping feminism move forward?

@SeraphAlford women tend to test poorly in comparison to men. This isn't a reflection of intelligence by any means. Due to their emotional conditions women tend to stress out more when under pressure this inhibits ones ability to take tests at the fullest potential of their intellect. (By no means is this a conclusive argument nor is it an all encompassing statement; it's simply an observation from years of studying with some of the most intelligent people on the planet.)
70633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/3/07

In addition, in your example of teaching in the style of the 1950s, could it not be that the girls did considerably worse in relation, or was it the novelty of the teaching environment, or the separation of sexes in the class room, or the discipline. This example does not give any way to reasonably improve male achievement at school.


The selected girls did better than the selected boys at GCSE. The classes weren’t separated though. The reason given was that the 1950s style subjects were more practical based. I think there is something in that, because the boys still did just as bad in English as they had before.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/07

Hopchow wrote:

On a slightly related note since most guys refuse to hit a female for a multitude of reasons does that mean if I run around punching women that I'm helping feminism move forward?

@SeraphAlford women tend to test poorly in comparison to men. This isn't a reflection of intelligence by any means. Due to their emotional conditions women tend to stress out more when under pressure this inhibits ones ability to take tests at the fullest potential of their intellect. (By no means is this a conclusive argument nor is it an all encompassing statement; it's simply an observation from years of studying with some of the most intelligent people on the planet.)


That was the point of my post. He posted saying women score higher in the Uk on said test. I countered saying men score higher world wide on said test. The point was that rellying on tests to decide which sex is statistically the harder worker is foolish.

Anyway, saying women don't test as well as men is not fair or completely true. Most of the people being called upon for these tests are young, and young women mature faster than men. This gives them a bit of an advantage.

As far as the false assumption that women are emotionally weaker than men, and more easily stressed, men commit suicide far more than women. This is especially true amongst the youthful populations. So obviously the men are the ones taking the stress and emotional pain.

In my opinion women are emotionally stronger than men in most ways.

This being said, the tests are too a reflection of their intelligence. Even if they weren’t we do know that there -are-, rather you like it or not, differences between the male and female brains that make men more apt for certain forms of intelligences and women others.

Whatever the case, we can (if you like, though it’s pointless) continue this through PM. Let’s not hijack the thread.
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 9/3/07

henz_lan wrote:


And there are plenty of girls that do badly, I'm just curious why you saw fit to make it a gender thing.

Because I had previously given evidence that more guys do badly, therefore it is a "gender thing" - there is a marked difference.

In addition, in your example of teaching in the style of the 1950s, could it not be that the girls did considerably worse in relation, or was it the novelty of the teaching environment, or the separation of sexes in the class room, or the discipline. This example does not give any way to reasonably improve male achievement at school.

One way to achieve overall improvement though, is increasing the dialogue between pupils and teachers. This is one thing that private schools do better, having teachers take a more active part in the students' lives, and the student having a more active part in the lessons.
If the teachers were male this would improve male results no end... the converse occurring with female teachers. Just this first step would be a good start though, even without having a greater number of male teachers (another possible confound in the example you provided).

^ SAT tests require no work. A Levels do! (I've done equivalents of both)

*Signing off* - Over and out. (ie. sorry, but I shan't be continuing this discussion right now.)


The SATs are a reasoning test. A-Levels are subject tests. They are more related to the SAT IIs or even AP test (but no where close in term of difficulty)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.