Again, though, how is the lesson plan geared for men? (Which right then and there shows that there is a mental difference between men and women.)
My lessons didn't seem gender biased. I can understand that a teacher might be prejudiced against women and make it harder for them, but other then that I fail to see how the lesson plan favors boys. I am sure that is something not taught in advanced teaching 401
Now don't forget guys: Make sure to use WEP encryption keys and turn on your MAC filtering and change the default IP and password. And for god's sake, change the SSID from linksys to something else.
If the study shows the conclusions are based on biological and not social restrictions then it is not just sticking an explanation behind some stats.
To solve a "problem" we need to know the cause. If women are inferior to men in some mental capacity - to bring them "up to speed" could only be possible if we knew what was restricting them in the first place.
Then again, even if we do have facts proving it, people do not always like to acknowledge the truth. "The world is round, I can prove it." "Yea thats nice, you are a heretic, the world is flat. The earth is at the center of the universe." "But i can prove it" "Die heretic"
I am sorry, your sexist statement cannot be true. Both men and women live equally the same amount of time. You are nothing but a bigot and a sexist who should be burnt at the stake. Your riches and your power should be removed and given to those oppressed men who work long and hard to gain equal rights because they DO live the same amount of time as women....all that evidence you may have cannot be true because I fail to acknowledge that I might die before some woman.
And that is precisely why I fill out "Asian" on forms that ask for my ethnic locale...because I am from Israel, it is in Asia and to exclude me from "Asian" because my eye's aren't slanted is just well inaccurate
It is true there are a lot of outside factors. But in almost any research like this there are infinite variables that can corrupt the data. The only way to help minimize this corruption is to utilize large test groups and perform many different tests looking at different angles. When enough of these tests point to the same direction we have a theory. It is not perfect and maybe one day that theory would be disproved - but it is a fairly accurate and ACCEPTED form of study on our planet.
For a moment there - take out the potential bias of life, the guilt you may experience, etc. Just look at it from a scientific point of view. Is it possible that one gender has an advantage over another gender in a given subject (science and math being more analytical)? If so, while it may hurt someones feelings to know this, it is still a fact of life.br>
So why are you not OK with one gender having an advantage over another biologically? And even if you are not OK with this, does that mean you don't want to find the facts? If the facts state that men are smarter in math and science then women are you going to disagree with it because you do not like it?
Well back up the findings. Apparantly there is some Harvard president who disagrees. No offense to you, but his credentials are known to me and seem pretty impressive compared to yours.
So again the question remains: who is biologically "smarter" when it comes to math and science? And even if it is a small difference, the difference is there.
You completly, and consciously, took my writings out of context which is irresponsible.
Again, answer the question - given all else equal, would you rather have the person with a better knowledge of brain surgery or the person with less knowledge of brain surgery performing brain surgery on you?
The rest of your writing is just fluff that does not apply to this question.
Now once you answer this question we have to ask - who has the advantage. So if men are smarter then women in brain surgery I would rather have a man do it, and vice versa.
Given your example of a fire - which doesn't really apply - I would not reject the first person who came to rescue me because of their gender - thats stupid. IF I had a choice though, I would rather have the person who was stronger, faster and more likely to survive through the rigors of walking next to a fire.
The "all else equal" is required because people will go and say "but our system is not equal" etc et all.
We are talking about the pure science of it - are men more capable then women in math and science? Yes or no? For this article and argument I could care less if society is being fair to one group or not, all I care about is knowing the answer to my question. After I have the truth, then we can talk about being "fair"
You are comparing 16th century Europe to the 21st century in terms of equality?
While our society is not perfect, it is far better - in terms of equality - then 16th century Europe where men dressed up as women and acted.
And while I agree men have an advantage in society; at least in our society - the walls have been breaking down. Though in terms of education - women do not have barriers of getting into school and getting a fair education. In fact, through affirmative action women have a leg-up (even if they do not want it or need it).
I do not think anyone here said that we live in a meritocracy. But that doesn't mean we are on the complete end of teh scale.
I also never said that men WERE deficient in art and literature - only that they may be. Lets also not forget that in the past, many women wrote under male pseudonames so their works would be published and read.
30% and even 40% is less then 50% (duh) and thusly the minority. So assuming you are correct that 40% of women think like men, and vice versa - it seems that most males and/or females think in a particular way.
Now what are the thinking patterns these studies were researching? What is the limit of these studies? Do they include learning capabilities (not behaviors). Men and women might EQUALLY study in math - but who is better given all else equal? Does this study touch on this subject?
Actually it is a way to quell some people. Many people are willing to take the notion that they are inferior in some aspect if you compensate it by saying they are superior in another.
I definitly am not assuming anything as I am not the one doing the research.
Nothing said that life has to be equal in fact due to the notions of "survival of the fittest" and the evolution of things to work it like that - I am pretty sure that life was NOT intended to be equal.
I think controversial, in its most basic of meaning, is when two groups disagree on a topic. "Honey I want chicken" "No dear we are eating tofu" - controversy. We do, however, try and make the word mean a little bit more so we do not (generally) apply it to issues of inconsequence.
Even facts can be controversy. Apparantly some do not believe...i.e. The catholic church believing the earth is the center of the universe. Controversy even though there was proof against this notion.
So he is either stoned out of his mind or hasn't gotten sleep in about three days. Man look at the dark redness around his eyes. I have seen racoons with lighter shades.
Just because we do not know something is happening, does not mean it isn't happening.
And while it is convenient to blame society and the teaching methods - sometimes it is just an excuse.
At least the grade school/highschool (same school) that I went to, the teaching seemed pretty equal. Same thing with college. I never experienced a teacher who shrugged off a female student in the math and sciences. In fact, it seemed that most of my teachers were female. In my K-12 career only I had two male science teachers and one male math teachers...the rest were female.
So your reasoning for not uncovering what is already a fact of life is because some people will misuse the information?
On a devils advocate side, there is some merit. Well put it this way. If you know that one gender is smarter then another gender - given all else equal, who would you most likely want to perform brain surgery on you? And if you say the dumber one, you are a liar.
Oh and stating a fact is not abusive. Though abusing a student because the student might be dificiant is not excuseable. Have you ever noticed in college both mentally and physically retarded students? I have seen them - and none of the professors have abused them as far as I know.
And while in the hands of evil people this can be bad I am of the mindset that most of our government do actually have our overall interests at heart. So while it might be "scary" to think that a TV sat is a spy sat, it is good to know we have such things around too. They might save us at some given time - or potentially catch a criminal.
Now, another reason I am not particularly worried about spy satellites is because I don't exactly do illegal activities. That and I do not have a window on my roof, I am not to worried if the CIA wants to track me going from home to work, to the bar, and tripping myself all the way back home because I am obliterated from all the vodka, triple sec, and tequilla I swallowed.
What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
I don't know - for knowledge sake? We do lot's of research that seems pointless, but we do it for the sake of knowing. Also, if we know there is a "problem" we might find a way to fix it. If we know that biochemically women are inferior to men in terms of math and science, maybe we can correct this.
But to remain ignorant to facts of life because we do not like to acknowledge such things? Come on now...do you like living in the shadow? Ignoring the potential woes of life because it doesn't have a nice jingle to it? Maybe we should ignore doing studies on ozone depletion because the answers won't sound nice.
Political correctness is a burdeon on free speach. It was designed to protect people from harassment, but like many other things, has been twisted and abused through the years being shoved down our throats with a bull dozer. I remember being in college (95), it was my freshman year. About 25% of the freshman orientation classes were about PC. I stopped going to all of my orientation classes because I couldn't stand it anymore.
If someone wants to make an educated statement - even if it isn't pretty - they should make it free from fear.
Bill,
Your statements are kind of scary, and really saddening. That someone has to "shut-up" about saying something factual just because it's controversial and it might lose them their job? This person made an educated statement, for a purpose and he get's flak for it. He knew what he was saying, he had the courage to do the "right" thing. Then we go and tell him that he should keep his mouth shut?
Interesting, yesterday was MLK day, should he have kept his mouth shut too? He would be alive today if he did keep his mouth shut. I guess MLK was an idiot for speaking out.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, though, how is the lesson plan geared for men? (Which right then and there shows that there is a mental difference between men and women.)
My lessons didn't seem gender biased. I can understand that a teacher might be prejudiced against women and make it harder for them, but other then that I fail to see how the lesson plan favors boys. I am sure that is something not taught in advanced teaching 401
And after the mass destruction they realize that the spam box was a zombie of some poor 80 year old woman's computer.
Sides, platoon of M1A2's is so resource intensive and requires sending our boys to someone's lawn... lets use precision guided missiles.
Now don't forget guys: Make sure to use WEP encryption keys and turn on your MAC filtering and change the default IP and password. And for god's sake, change the SSID from linksys to something else.
Because it isn't PC for men and women to be anything but equal.
If the study shows the conclusions are based on biological and not social restrictions then it is not just sticking an explanation behind some stats.
To solve a "problem" we need to know the cause. If women are inferior to men in some mental capacity - to bring them "up to speed" could only be possible if we knew what was restricting them in the first place.
Then again, even if we do have facts proving it, people do not always like to acknowledge the truth. "The world is round, I can prove it." "Yea thats nice, you are a heretic, the world is flat. The earth is at the center of the universe." "But i can prove it" "Die heretic"
Didn't i say we should from different angles?
And how is education geared for boys over girls? Please tell me there is proof of this?
I am sorry, your sexist statement cannot be true. Both men and women live equally the same amount of time. You are nothing but a bigot and a sexist who should be burnt at the stake. Your riches and your power should be removed and given to those oppressed men who work long and hard to gain equal rights because they DO live the same amount of time as women....all that evidence you may have cannot be true because I fail to acknowledge that I might die before some woman.
No you buffoons, everyone knows its : 2101 S. Denmark Road, Jefferson, OH 44047
And you call yourself knowledgable people. Frickin morons with laser beams i tell you.
I never knew until now. Hell going to their site, look at the bottom, says nothing of Denmark Here
And that is precisely why I fill out "Asian" on forms that ask for my ethnic locale...because I am from Israel, it is in Asia and to exclude me from "Asian" because my eye's aren't slanted is just well inaccurate
curiousity is killing this cat. ....must...hold....lunch...down...
It is true there are a lot of outside factors. But in almost any research like this there are infinite variables that can corrupt the data. The only way to help minimize this corruption is to utilize large test groups and perform many different tests looking at different angles. When enough of these tests point to the same direction we have a theory. It is not perfect and maybe one day that theory would be disproved - but it is a fairly accurate and ACCEPTED form of study on our planet.
For a moment there - take out the potential bias of life, the guilt you may experience, etc. Just look at it from a scientific point of view. Is it possible that one gender has an advantage over another gender in a given subject (science and math being more analytical)? If so, while it may hurt someones feelings to know this, it is still a fact of life.br>
So why are you not OK with one gender having an advantage over another biologically? And even if you are not OK with this, does that mean you don't want to find the facts? If the facts state that men are smarter in math and science then women are you going to disagree with it because you do not like it?
Well back up the findings. Apparantly there is some Harvard president who disagrees. No offense to you, but his credentials are known to me and seem pretty impressive compared to yours.
So again the question remains: who is biologically "smarter" when it comes to math and science? And even if it is a small difference, the difference is there.
You completly, and consciously, took my writings out of context which is irresponsible.
Again, answer the question - given all else equal, would you rather have the person with a better knowledge of brain surgery or the person with less knowledge of brain surgery performing brain surgery on you?
The rest of your writing is just fluff that does not apply to this question.
Now once you answer this question we have to ask - who has the advantage. So if men are smarter then women in brain surgery I would rather have a man do it, and vice versa.
Given your example of a fire - which doesn't really apply - I would not reject the first person who came to rescue me because of their gender - thats stupid. IF I had a choice though, I would rather have the person who was stronger, faster and more likely to survive through the rigors of walking next to a fire.
The "all else equal" is required because people will go and say "but our system is not equal" etc et all.
We are talking about the pure science of it - are men more capable then women in math and science? Yes or no? For this article and argument I could care less if society is being fair to one group or not, all I care about is knowing the answer to my question. After I have the truth, then we can talk about being "fair"
You are comparing 16th century Europe to the 21st century in terms of equality?
While our society is not perfect, it is far better - in terms of equality - then 16th century Europe where men dressed up as women and acted.
And while I agree men have an advantage in society; at least in our society - the walls have been breaking down. Though in terms of education - women do not have barriers of getting into school and getting a fair education. In fact, through affirmative action women have a leg-up (even if they do not want it or need it).
I do not think anyone here said that we live in a meritocracy. But that doesn't mean we are on the complete end of teh scale.
I also never said that men WERE deficient in art and literature - only that they may be. Lets also not forget that in the past, many women wrote under male pseudonames so their works would be published and read.
30% and even 40% is less then 50% (duh) and thusly the minority. So assuming you are correct that 40% of women think like men, and vice versa - it seems that most males and/or females think in a particular way.
Now what are the thinking patterns these studies were researching? What is the limit of these studies? Do they include learning capabilities (not behaviors). Men and women might EQUALLY study in math - but who is better given all else equal? Does this study touch on this subject?
Actually it is a way to quell some people. Many people are willing to take the notion that they are inferior in some aspect if you compensate it by saying they are superior in another.
I definitly am not assuming anything as I am not the one doing the research.
Nothing said that life has to be equal in fact due to the notions of "survival of the fittest" and the evolution of things to work it like that - I am pretty sure that life was NOT intended to be equal.
I think controversial, in its most basic of meaning, is when two groups disagree on a topic. "Honey I want chicken" "No dear we are eating tofu" - controversy. We do, however, try and make the word mean a little bit more so we do not (generally) apply it to issues of inconsequence.
Even facts can be controversy. Apparantly some do not believe...i.e. The catholic church believing the earth is the center of the universe. Controversy even though there was proof against this notion.
So he is either stoned out of his mind or hasn't gotten sleep in about three days. Man look at the dark redness around his eyes. I have seen racoons with lighter shades.
Yes. So whats your definition (please quote yourself, not the dictionary)
Just because we do not know something is happening, does not mean it isn't happening.
And while it is convenient to blame society and the teaching methods - sometimes it is just an excuse.
At least the grade school/highschool (same school) that I went to, the teaching seemed pretty equal. Same thing with college. I never experienced a teacher who shrugged off a female student in the math and sciences. In fact, it seemed that most of my teachers were female. In my K-12 career only I had two male science teachers and one male math teachers...the rest were female.
So your reasoning for not uncovering what is already a fact of life is because some people will misuse the information?
On a devils advocate side, there is some merit. Well put it this way. If you know that one gender is smarter then another gender - given all else equal, who would you most likely want to perform brain surgery on you? And if you say the dumber one, you are a liar.
Oh and stating a fact is not abusive. Though abusing a student because the student might be dificiant is not excuseable. Have you ever noticed in college both mentally and physically retarded students? I have seen them - and none of the professors have abused them as far as I know.
And while in the hands of evil people this can be bad I am of the mindset that most of our government do actually have our overall interests at heart. So while it might be "scary" to think that a TV sat is a spy sat, it is good to know we have such things around too. They might save us at some given time - or potentially catch a criminal.
Now, another reason I am not particularly worried about spy satellites is because I don't exactly do illegal activities. That and I do not have a window on my roof, I am not to worried if the CIA wants to track me going from home to work, to the bar, and tripping myself all the way back home because I am obliterated from all the vodka, triple sec, and tequilla I swallowed.
What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
I don't know - for knowledge sake? We do lot's of research that seems pointless, but we do it for the sake of knowing. Also, if we know there is a "problem" we might find a way to fix it. If we know that biochemically women are inferior to men in terms of math and science, maybe we can correct this.
But to remain ignorant to facts of life because we do not like to acknowledge such things? Come on now...do you like living in the shadow? Ignoring the potential woes of life because it doesn't have a nice jingle to it? Maybe we should ignore doing studies on ozone depletion because the answers won't sound nice.
Political correctness is a burdeon on free speach. It was designed to protect people from harassment, but like many other things, has been twisted and abused through the years being shoved down our throats with a bull dozer. I remember being in college (95), it was my freshman year. About 25% of the freshman orientation classes were about PC. I stopped going to all of my orientation classes because I couldn't stand it anymore.
If someone wants to make an educated statement - even if it isn't pretty - they should make it free from fear.
Bill,
Your statements are kind of scary, and really saddening. That someone has to "shut-up" about saying something factual just because it's controversial and it might lose them their job? This person made an educated statement, for a purpose and he get's flak for it. He knew what he was saying, he had the courage to do the "right" thing. Then we go and tell him that he should keep his mouth shut?
Interesting, yesterday was MLK day, should he have kept his mouth shut too? He would be alive today if he did keep his mouth shut. I guess MLK was an idiot for speaking out.