Why do women suck at math and science?

[The Right Hand of God]

Has anyone ever noticed this? When it comes to math, most women seem to be complete dopes.

Is this why women enrolled at universities and colleges everywhere generally major in some BS humanities program... or is it because women have no interest in the more rigorous disciplines?

I'm guessing the gender disparity in math/science achievement is because of innate differences between male and female, but some of you social constructionists out there probably blame it on the "big, bad Patriarchy."

Discuss.

[Crowley]

Probably has something to do with testosterone. But man, what's with the metro avatar? You look like the biggest sissy to ever walk the halls of Phora.

[Opus131]

You'll find that men tend to suck at literature and linguistics

Which is why the greatest writers happen to be men.

[Ixtab]

Your avatar strikes me as a depiction of the typical Obama-voting leftist.

[The Right Hand of God]

Your avatar strikes me as a depiction of the typical Obama-voting leftist.

No, I'm actually very conservative, thank you very much.

[Ixtab]

No, I'm actually very conservative, thank you very much.
Your avatar shows otherwise.

[elbwgreez]

No shit sherlock.

Seriously, women are not wired to care about transcendent truths like math or even the wheel. They are wired to raise children. It's a good thing cause no one else wants to.

[Larrikin]

This is also why they tend to vote left wing as they aren't logical thinkers (which is needed if you want to have a discussion about economics), usually basing their knowledge in the realm of emotions and empathy while men will base their knowledge around logic and facts.

Which implicates the rather naive idea that voting left (or liberal) is largely emotional and/or inherently illogical. Conservatism appeals as much to emotion as liberalism (especially religious conservatism) and communism/socialism are hardly reknown for their empathic tendencies nor for their major female protagonist.

Furthermore, until the 1970s, women tended to vote more conservative ("right") than men and it is a hardly credible claim that the "brain wiring" of humans changed within a couple of decades.

[Opus131]

Nooo... it's mainly because in the enlightenment period where they did all their famous works the women folk were too busy popping out 13 children and raising them to adulthood.


Nonsense. Women are incapable of genius. Their job is to nurture, not create. You are using the same type of idiotic excuse leftist employ to justify black failure.

[Larrikin]

Nonsense. Women are incapable of genius. Their job is to nurture, not create. You are using the same type of idiotic excuse leftist employ to justify black failure.
"Creation" is an inherently female trait, as they are the ones giving birth and raising the children which is the very essence of creation. To limit the meaning of creation to scientific or cultural achievement is false.

Second, in environments where women are enabled to participate in latter areas unihibited, they advanced those fields. All societies in which women participate are more advanced, better equipped and culturally more productive than oppressing partriachal counterparts.

Society as a whole is rarely advanced by single genius (apart from the artistic fields maybe), but rather by the tideous thinkers fleshing out vague ideas and tideous workers implementing them.

[Mackie]

on the original question; they dont. not here; on highschool and college level anyway. infact they tend to perform better than their male peers but only slightly.
guys however tend to perform better in languages, crafts, sports and "practical" kind of studies.

I dont have any direct source on this; there was however something about this in the recent OECD studies on student performance.

[Sonya]

Nonsense. Women are incapable of genius. Their job is to nurture, not create. You are using the same type of idiotic excuse leftist employ to justify black failure.

Male IQ varies a LOT more than female IQ. Men love to say "look at all the male geniuses; that proves we are better" while conveniently leaving out the large population of male idiots (as in far below average IQ).

There are fewer female geniuses AND fewer female idiots. The AVERAGE IQ is typically about the same (with the exception being the negro, female groids are typically more intelligent than their male counterparts. The females turn out far far more above average IQ specimens, grant it the population is miniscule but I think are 5 times more genius level groid females than groid males).

As far as the math/science question goes, I think most females have very very little interest in it which probably relates back to the left/right brain differences.

[Opus131]

Male IQ varies a LOT more than female IQ.

Except it has nothing to do with IQ. That's just a typical modern explanation to satisfy current materialistic thinking. A man with average IQ has an higher potential of being a genius then a female with high IQ.

[Sonya]

Except it has nothing to do with IQ. That's just a typical modern explanation to satisfy current materialistic thinking. A man with average IQ has an higher potential of being a genius then a female with high IQ.

Most entrepreneurs that become millionaires aren't exceptionally bright; it is testosterone and personality traits that allow them to succeed and become richer than their MORE INTELLIGENT male counterparts too.

[Opus131]

"Creation" is an inherently female trait, as they are the ones giving birth and raising the children which is the very essence of creation. To limit the meaning of creation to scientific or cultural achievement is false.

More feminist mumbo jumbo. Women do not create life. Nature creates life, and is one of the most basic and mundane of biological functions even the lesser of organism is capable of. And even assuming the analogy was pertinent (which it isn't), it is men who create life by inseminating the ovule. The job of any women is to nurture it into being.


Second, in environments where women are enabled to participate in latter areas unihibited, they advanced those fields.

No they didn't. The world is still waiting for the advent of a single female genius. It will wait for a long time still, for such a thing is a biological impossibility.


All societies in which women participate are more advanced, better equipped and culturally more productive than oppressing partriachal counterparts.

You are probably comparing western civilization to modern day Islam, a society who's failures are based on their genetic inadequacy more then their cultural stagnation.

Within western civilization itself however we find that creativity was greater when feminism still wasn't the dominant force in our society. This problem was tackled by a psychologist named Gordon Rattray Taylor in a book called Sex in History, in which he explores the dichotomy between the two modes in which a society operates, a male based mode (Patrist), and a female based mode (Matrist). Patrist societies tend to be "value" based societies and in their purest form are extremely objective and restrictive, where as Matrist based societies are extremely relativist and permissive. According to Taylor, any society which moves from a strict patrist mode to a free matrist one will experience an explosion in creativity and progress, at least at first. What happens next however is that once the values and objective ideals set by the initial patrist phase begin to be dismantled, society quickly turns to extreme decadence and it will eventually destroy itself, as masculine objectivism gives way to pure feminine relativism.


Society as a whole is rarely advanced by single genius (apart from the artistic fields maybe), but rather by the tideous thinkers fleshing out vague ideas and tideous workers implementing them.

And a society is destroyed in a similar way, by the tedious tinkering of a million of little relativist brains, all assiduously engaged in the delusion of their own self determination and "empowerment".

[Opus131]

Most entrepreneurs that become millionaires aren't exceptionally bright; it is testosterone and personality traits that allow them to succeed and become richer than their MORE INTELLIGENT male counterparts too.

Its more then that:

http://www.mensaction.net/video/Vagina-Vocational-Centers.html

[Crowley]

Men love to say "look at all the male geniuses; that proves we are better" while conveniently leaving out the large population of male idiots (as in far below average IQ).

I think most men accept the fact that women are "better" as a gender than men. There is even a proverbial saying, "My better half", when the man refers to his wife. He isn't kidding when he says that. Men are the ones starting wars not women, but men are the geniuses, you can't take that away from us.
Women are "better" because they nurture. Women are also better looking than men. Men are the more interesting of the two genders, but "interesting" is an old Chinese curse.

[Hartmann von Aue]

I think most men accept the fact that women are "better" as a gender than men.

Maybe women want us to think that? Maybe we ourselves are biased in favor of them? I'm not saying it isn't true, but there we have a strong bias to think that. I think one of the main reasons for male support of feminism is because they do not want to think badly of female family members.

There is even a proverbial saying, "My better half", when the man refers to his wife. He isn't kidding when he says that. Men are the ones starting wars not women,

Women as sovereigns have been quite warlike.

Women are "better" because they nurture.

Yes, we are biased for our mothers.

Women are also better looking than men.

Another case of bias.

[Kriger]

Never much thought about this before. I can only relate what I myself have observed over a period of years.

I believe ultimately it comes down to where a woman's interests are. I tried running a household for a few days complete with young children and visiting grandparents. It was do-able but I was exhausted. And my mother ended up cooking supper.

On the other hand, certain aspects of simultaneously occuring dimensions I only had to explain in two different perspectives for the women folk to get the gist..even the ones not much interested in theoretical physics.

[Gedanken]

Womyn are better off without genius. A society of geniuses would hardly last long, as creativity is destabilizing. But many womyn are intellectual, which is different from genius. They make intellectually stimulating parents, who provide a nice, intellectual environment for children.

Notice also that while womyn lack the highest kind of genius, they do have some unique skills that men lack, which are important for raising children and bringing balance. All of this is ruined by premartial sex, in which womyn become whores.

[Opus131]

Here is a couple dozen genius level women talking about their respective areas of expertise. Maybe you'd like to check out some of these movies?

http://www.ted.com/

You do know what a genius is, right?

[Crowley]

Maybe women want us to think that? Maybe we ourselves are biased in favor of them? I'm not saying it isn't true, but there we have a strong bias to think that. I think one of the main reasons for male support of feminism is because they do not want to think badly of female family members.

Feminism has helped destroy the West and gets no support from me.


Women as sovereigns have been quite warlike.

And your point is that men are not more warlike than woman or what exactly? Even if an Elizabeth I was sitting on the throne men were still doing the killing. Men are biologically adapted for killing. Women are not. Women are terrible fighters by design. It is not bias. You speak the language of egalitarianism.

You say it is "bias" that I consider women better looking than men. In our species women are the ones biologically adapted for sexual display. Men compete for the attention of females who attract men by sexual allure. Women are not so concerned with the way men look, but more to what he possesses or potentially possesses. Women evolved this way because such women had more surviving children to spread around that particular gene or allele. Men love pretty women. They will start wars over pretty women. Men value pretty women. Females value rich men. Men fight over pretty women. Women fight over rich men. It is not bias it is evolution. With birds it is the males who are better looking. It is called sexual dimorphism.

[Hartmann von Aue]

And your point is that men are not more warlike than woman or what exactly?

Obviously men fight more, I'm just suggesting that women are not averse to men fighting in many cases.

You say it is "bias" that I consider women better looking than men. In our species women are the ones biologically adapted for sexual display.

Eh, women like men as much as men like women I think.

Men compete for the attention of the females, who attract men by sexual allure. Women are not so concerned with the way a man looks, as to what he possesses because then he can support her family.

That's like saying men are not as concerned about how a woman looks but about her purity and faithfulness.

Men are concerned with how women look.

Yes indeed.

Men fight over the pretty women.

Women fight over the rich men.

Look at Melinda Gates. Don't get me wrong I think women are more materialistic than men. But looks trump money with women. I think for women the status of a man can rival his looks and "virility" in importance.

See the difference?

Bardamu I was never saying you were wrong, just that we have a male view of things and do not see woman's thought process.

I think, the biggest difference between men and women is the degree to which they reveal their true thoughts.

[Crowley]

O

Look at Melinda Gates. Don't get me wrong I think women are more materialistic than men. But looks trump money with women. I think for women the status of a man can rival his looks and "virility" in importance.


It all depends on the woman's status. This is something we haven't factored in. A high status woman is a beautiful and intelligent woman. That is all she needs to achieve high status and be fought over by men. These women tend to demand rich men as a base line. He has to be rich to be considered, then the spiritual qualities come into play, how fun he is, etc.


Bardamu I was never saying you were wrong, just that we have a male view of things and do not see woman's thought process.

I think, the biggest difference between men and women is the degree to which they reveal their true thoughts.

I have never considered it this way. You think that men are more honest about their thoughts than women?

[Hartmann von Aue]

These women tend to demand rich men as a base line. He has to be rich to be even considered

I wouldn't be so sure about that. But yes, being poor would be a huge disadvantage for a man - wait - hmmm, maybe that's why men compete with violence over resources.

Seems to be about pleasing women. Very dangerous sports like jousting enthralled the ladies as well. And I wonder how many women were spectators of the gladitorial games.

Or Bull Fights?

Still so sure about saying women are the better sex?

[Hartmann von Aue]

Melinda Gates has a very high IQ and worked for Microsoft as a computer programmer. She would be one of the few women that Bill Gates could talk to on an intellectual level.

50 billion dollars should be able to get a better woman than that. He even had to name his Africa charity fund after her.

At least her children aren't getting the money - that's the consolation.

[Stroemmer]

I'd say that it's because men have evolved to be the breadwinners, the logical, strong, capable half that does the work and brings home the bacon, so to speak. Women have evolved to nurture, care, and raise children and form a family. That's my two cents.

[Crowley]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. But yes, being poor would be a huge disadvantage for a man - wait - hmmm, maybe that's why men compete with violence over resources.

Yes, and? Of course this is one of the reason men will go to extremes over resources. This argument supports my view that men and women are different because of biology not your egalitarian pov that it is male bias that sees difference. The difference is real, the difference is evolutionary.

Seems to be about pleasing women. Very dangerous sports like jousting enthralled the ladies as well. And I wonder how many women were spectators of the gladitorial games.

So what? Men are still the ones engaged in fighting. Men and women are not fungible. Women are nurturing therefore "a better half". Women are skirt that the child goes to cry against. Men are the hammer. Men as innovators are more interesting. Both genders excel in different ways. Male and female are complementary. Is it really so hard to admit women are best at something? You are even hesitant to give them credit for their beauty. Young women in their prime are often breathtakingly beautiful. Men not so much so. This isn't a "bias". It is an objective fact. Martians would think so. But men are the geniuses. This too is an objective fact.



Still so sure about saying women are the better sex?

Sure.

[Hartmann von Aue]

This argument supports my view that men and women are different because of biology not your egalitarian pov that it is male bias that sees difference.

LOL I don't have an egalitarian point of view and I do believe men and women are different because of biology. But there is still bias and it has to be taken into consideration, otherwise our ideas seem crude, simplistic and self-serving.

The difference is real, the difference is evolutionary.

It hardly matters whether it's evolutionary or not - you can understand the difference if you read things like the Bible.

So what? Men are still the ones engaged in fighting.

Right, so that makes men worse? Because you really think women don't approve of violence on their behalf? How often do women demand violence on their behalf, or goad men into it?

Men and women are not fungible. Women are nurturing therefore "a better half". Women are skirt that the child goes to cry against.

Right, we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the extending of that kindness and nurturing of motherhood in altruism is such a common trait in women.

Men are the hammer. Men as innovators are more interesting. Both genders excel in different ways. Male and female are complementary. Is it really so hard to admit women are best at something?

No.

You are even hesitant to give them credit for their beauty.

Because I don't know how a woman judges male beauty, and how it affects them.

Young women in their prime are often breathtakingly beautiful.

Yes indeed.

This isn't a "bias". It is an objective fact.

Oh come on your view that women are especially beautiful, more than men, depends in large part on your being a man. Don't you think so?

[Opus131]

Someone with an IQ at or above 140.

Sorry, but, no, wrong answer. No wonder then there is so much confusion about the real scope of male ability.

[Opus131]

And your point is that men are not more warlike than woman or what exactly?

Considering men fight wars on behalf of women, i really do not understand what feminists think to gain with this line of reasoning. And of course, no woman i ever met appears to be ashamed of living in the comfort and security of the western world, comfort and security acquired by means of the very wars they like to reproach men for.

[Opus131]

Womyn are better off without genius. A society of geniuses would hardly last long, as creativity is destabilizing.

Genius is the only force capable of stabilizing civilization. It is usually men of "intellect" who do the destabilizing, by feinting creativity in fields they actually happen to understand very little thus polluting the pool of human knowledge with half-truths and a whole lot of nonsense.

[Crowley]

LOL I don't have an egalitarian point of view and I do believe men and women are different because of biology. But there is still bias and it has to be taken into consideration, otherwise our ideas seem crude, simplistic and self-serving.

You are arguing against any difference between men and women. Here is your pov: there is no difference in the beauty of males and females. There is no difference in moral betterment. Women and men are equally violent. Oh wait a minute you are not actually arguing this. So you agree with me, but you just feel like disagreeing? If I said that men were better looking than women, couldn't you also label that bias? It is not bias because the opinion is based on the fact that in our species women are the ones who have evolved beauty as a primary sexual characteristic. Men are the ones who consume pornography in huge amounts, not women. You can argue this point on and on, but people generally recognize the relationship between females and beauty. Whole industries recognize it. After the end of World War II when Germany emerged from its bomb-shelters, it was noticed the first thing women did was make themselves up. Women in Hollywood are getting work as long as they are young and beautiful. Men in Hollywood work until they are old. There is real difference between men and women on this question of beauty.


It hardly matters whether it's evolutionary or not - you can understand the difference if you read things like the Bible.

I'll stick with science thank you.



Right, so that makes men worse? Because you really think women don't approve of violence on their behalf? How often do women demand violence on their behalf, or goad men into it?

Not very often. Most women detest violence.




Because I don't know how a woman judges male beauty, and how it affects them.

Oh, I do. What women like in men physically is not so mysterious. They like muscles and height, strong chins, chiseled features, hair. They like confidence, but this is a spiritual quality. They like alpha males, but this again is a spiritual quality. They like cleanliness. They like fashionable men, guys that have some clue about how to dress. These are generalities but accurate for the most part.

[Hartmann von Aue]

I do not share your optimism regarding the weaker sex.

Women today are very depraved, grasping, callous, yet they retain their secretiveness and facile deception.

Yes, women value their beauty, but that's because it's the most important thing to them. Unless you could get inside woman's head and know how they perceive things I don't think you can say "women are more beautiful" - women are more beautiful, definitely in this sense, - that their beauty is more important to us, and it is our opinions that ultimately matter.

[Hartmann von Aue]

They like confidence, but this is a spiritual quality. They like alpha males, but this again is a spiritual quality.

I disagree in both cases.

I'll tell you why. A handsome man is automatically beset by women - this brings instant confidence. An "alpha" is someone who can be on top of the pecking order - is that a spiritual quality or it happenstance? Being able to mimic an "alpha" is considered a way to get women. Hmmmm. I don't know.

I think that the women do want, most of all, the highest ideal of manhood, but this is not being "alpha" or being "confident" - it is being really spiritual, courageous, brilliant - like Lohengrin.

In the same way men want a chaste and virginal bride who becomes an innocent and blameless wife and a loving mother. Intelligent, kind, helpful, beautiful, at peace within.

[Crowley]

I do not share your optimism regarding the weaker sex.

Women today are very depraved, dishonest, callous, yet they retain their secretiveness and facile deception.

Yes, women value their beauty, but that's because it's the most important thing to them. Unless you could get inside woman's head and know how they perceive things I don't think you can say "women are more beautiful" - women are more beautiful, definitely in this sense, - that their beauty is more important to us, and it is our opinions that ultimately matter.


What optimism? Humanity is doomed. Women are only less depraved, and this almost completely due to hormones. When the real shit hits the fan, it will be the men butchering each other. When you peer into the distance at approaching strangers, it won't be women that will have you on your guard. You can get inside a woman's head through reading. They are not completely mysterious afterall. I find them rather the same, with exceptions.

I have to go read my books. Nice talking with you.

[Kriger]

Pre-conceived notions really need to be thrown out the window with this one. For one thing, like it or not, the woman is the center of the household. Meaning: she is the one who brings it all together into a functioning family unit living in a compatible home. There are always exceptions to the rule. From where I stand, this looks to be a natural inborn skill with most women. If the young women of today do not know how to use their skills in this manner obviously they need to be taught.

It's a process involved here. Isolate and define the problem or problems. Work out the best solutions to the problems recognizing realistically that there are no complete and/or perfect solutions.

The solutions then need to be implemented. Too many times the problems never get solved because no one took the solutions and put them into action.

After all is said and done, I can safely say that it really doesn't make much difference if a woman is good at math and science or not. What makes a difference is that the women who are good at it need be encouraged to educate these skills into a fine art to be used for the good of the folk.

Nothing gets done just thinking about it.

[Morgan]

Reading views on here it becomes blindingly obvious why many American companies are actively seeking to not employ white American men.

Views like this are not helpful in making companies pleasant places to work. I expect many neg rep for this of course but as this is not real life I'm not so bothered.