why do feminist

Post Reply New Topic

That's not what it said, Bogan. What the articles said - your misinterpretation of one sentence from one of them notwithstanding - is that, statistically, a female investor doesn't jerk her money all over the place on whims, and thus her investments do better in the long term than mens'. Not that 'women loose less because women invest less,' which is what you're apparently trying to pretend that it is saying.

This is not correct.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... of-gender/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... rmance-at/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... iological/
http://blog.californiapsychics.com/blog ... myths.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... s-6390944/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/false ... y-1.617950
http://stereotypethreat.org/index.php/l ... ype-threat

My personal experience is that I was consistently at the top - and I mean *at* the top, not near it - in math from grade school onwards, and was praised for it up until I hit puberty, when all of a sudden teachers stopped praising me for math and science skills and started praising me for English and writing skills.

It's also very probable that men aren't as 'bad at language' as is so commonly claimed:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... ting-skil/


Your argument is like someone saying, in response to the question of why a physics dean preferentially picked male postdocs, 'because men are better at physics,' and then, to the question of how we know that 'men are better at physics,' saying, 'because most physics postdocs and professors are men.'

You are so emotionally invested in thinking that men are better at these things than women that you are ignoring statistically valid data in favor of anecdotes, circular reasoning, and misinterpretations.

They mean the same thing right.

Just because you are good at maths doesn't mean anything. You are one woman.

I read this one it's garbage. It's like saying women are worse at maths because of self esteem or something. I don't really understand it.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... s-6390944/



I never said men were better, I said the opposite, I said I thought women were better traders than men because they take less risks, also I said I would rather invest money with a woman than a man because of that..

See that is the kind of crap that puts people(what the other posters are getting at) off feminists (I guessing you count yourself as one). Like you are claiming sexisim when it isn't there.

Like you get all defensive when I say men are better than maths. But if I say women are better investors surely that is sexist isn't it. How dare I say that

None of those links really say anything. They are just suggesting that men are better at maths because of a mindset.

Read this link, it's 2013 so up to date.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... ath-106756



The red dots show place where girls are better than boys in maths. Black dots, no real difference. Blue dots where boys are better than maths.

It's acutally really interesting, it shows that in places where girls do worse in maths boys do better in reading. Where girls do better in maths boys do worse in reading. One improves at the expense of the other.

If you claim that men are automatically better at maths, you're taking things out of context. Men have are better at spatial skills (which is why men are also better at parking cars) and solving differential equations, but on the other side, women tend to remember formulas and algorithms better than men. At basic mathematics, the genders are roughly equal.

I think overall you can say men are better at maths. If you look at those graphs I put up. That's actual data. School maths is mostly basic maths. In 2009 it shows that a lot of places women are better, but the numbers still say boys score better in maths.

I think it's the only place you can compare. Because you are comparing the same subset of boys and girls. After school, more men will choose to do maths at uni, less women. It's harder to make comparisons then, because I say more men that are average at maths will do it, where as only women that are above average will do it. But I'm guessing can't say without looking at numbers.

I'm not good at math,but it's because I can't keep the numbers in my head,they float off.And it REALLY bores me,just cannot pay attention to it.But I sure can back up a car, never had trouble parking.

well I love numbers , they are interesting and can tell you things . But I have bad spatial skills with car parking. But I'm not to bad.

Um,
do you have any references for this statement?

Not really just an observation

You can pretty much make any sort of comment and find links to back it up. Like LKL saying men were not better at maths and bombarded me with links that didn't really say anything conclusive. .

Anyway I google it and found this, so there you go then.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008 ... psychology

Hmmm this is interesting I just found out that lesbian women make more money than straight women. Maybe it's because they make more money because they have a male brain.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03 ... ight-women
http://jezebel.com/5719826/whats-behind ... an-pay-gap
http://boingboing.net/2010/12/23/lesbia ... ore-m.html

Like a lesbian women will probably not have children(which is a big reason why men will always get paid more than women anyway), but surely because she is a woman and because she is gay she will get will suffer from even more discrimination....right...

Not exactly; they say that men test better at math when a specific mindset is enforced.


That data shows that the gender difference isn't fixed. Girls' performance is increasing over time.

Also, lesbian women aren't influenced as much by the negative views or harassment of the men around them.

I think that NT women in particular are *extremely* susceptible to social expectations, even to the degree of self-sabbotaging to meet those expectations. Whether women have more pressure to conform, or women are simply biologically more socially susceptible, I don't know... but I don't think that any of the studies cited prove that women are biologically less good at math or science.

I don't think so

2003 girls are worse at maths then they are in 2000.

If you read the link. Now this is interesting It talks about how how boys are more sensitive to their environment.



In 2009 with girls improving so much I think you can relate that to the global financial crisis...

Women in general are more social than men. Part of being social is conforming. If you do not conform to you group you don't fit in. So I agree.

That link goes on the assumption that boys are better at math and girls are better at reading. I think it is generally excepted that boys are better at maths. Science is very broad, it will be hard to conclude that men are better at science.

To me the differences are biological. With our ancestors, the men would go out and hunt for food so needed spatial skills, so thus that is why we are better at maths. The women would stay home are look after the children that is why they are more social, better at language.

I haven't seen any data that shows that spatial skills translate into better math performance. I have seen data suggesting that playing video games improves spatial skills, and worsens language skills; since most video games are designed and marketed to boys, boys play more video games than girls.

Also, women in the ancestral environment didn't 'stay home and look after the kids,' they were out foraging for plants with the kids strapped to their backs. They might not have roamed as far as the men, but they weren't in some sort of Flintstone-esque parody of a 50's social arrangement. A lot of those ancestors were migratory, so there likely wasn't even a permanent 'home' to stay at.

Interesting point about the boys being more susceptible to impoverishment and social violence; I'd be surprised if that effect was responsible for the 2009 shift towards more equality. The raw data would show whether or not the increase in girls' performance relative to boys' was due to boys performing worse in 2006 and 2009. That's not the goal at all.

If you actually compare girls and boys performance at schools, overall girls are performing better.
If you want to start talking about equality. How is it unequal if girls are performing better? Most of the teachers are now women. If anything because of that I'd say schools are more suited to girls and equality exists against boys now.

Google anything and you will see girls performing better at school.

This link talks about it, girls are performing better. But you see boys still beat them at maths.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 76438.html

In the graphs you provided, there's a shift towards more equality between boys and girls, at math (more black on the graph). That's all I meant. However, if that came because boys are doing worse at math because of the economy, then it's bad for us all.