Is there a historical reason why girls do better than boys at school? Are girls inherently more intelligent?

Is there a historical reason why girls do better than boys at school? Are girls inherently more intelligent?

>Are girls inherently more intelligent?
Is that why all the greatest minds and inventors were men?

My guess: the whole system of sitting down in a class basically motionless with no hands on experience appeals to girls more than boys

>Is that why all the greatest minds and inventors were men?
Girls didn't go to school in any large amount until recently.

Probably should have invented female schools a little earlier then

They're good at sitting still and love to sit around taking tedious notes in pretty colours.

Speak to one, they're insecure and generally not very intelligent.

it wasn't a matter of inventing it or not. it was a matter of gender roles and such. women were supposed to get married young and not work. none of that requires any schooling so it was considered a waste to send a woman to school

Is that why all the greatest minds and inventors in recent history have all been mostly men?

Boys just have more pitfalls to fuck them up like video games, anime, obsessive athletics etc.
Most girls are more well rounded in sports while in school vs boys because they know they'll never hit it big professionally with the million dollar +contracts to go all in for it.

They aren't, it's just teacher that gives them higher grades.

I would say that the "greatest minds" are spread more evenly than in the past. in terms of greatest inventors I give it to the guys because like I implied here boys are more attracted to hands on stuff

This basically sums up the attitude of women.

Men invented schools, men overcame innumerable odds and obstacles just to get society to the point where we can learn and have a flourishing culture. Nobody was or is given the easy way to greatness, but men did it, because men are inherently strong.

Women want the fruits of men's labor but not the responsibility. One obstacle trips them up. This is biological, women can't take chances because they're future mothers. Women are inherently weak and weak-willed. No woman can seriously deny this if she takes a minute to realize why she is attracted to strength in men.

>would say that the "greatest minds" are spread more evenly than in the past
You are wrong

They are like insects in that they develop sooner, but ultimately develop less. The bell-curve distribution between biological males and females differs in that men have a greater standard deviation. This indicates more men are UNGIFTED and GIFTED than women in the sort of intelligence that pertains to educability, while women are skewed towards the mean.
I also would like to consider the institutional grrl power discrimination as a factor since you have a majority female profession policing a minority male population.

you're acting as if it was an equal choice for a man and a women to decide to go to school or not. see: wow you sure convinced me

I suspect having a greater natural affinity for reading has something to do with it.

Quality post lad had a hearty kek

Take this cool pic as a reward

>you're acting as if it was an equal choice for a man and a women to decide to go to school or not. see:
If women are so capable, why are they not even able to overcome the relatively small obstacle of social roles until men started giving them rights? Do you think that men don't have obstacles even greater than that? If a woman shows promise, no one would deny them education. It's just that no woman shows promise.

Women do on average better because there's way more retarded boys than girls but also way more genious boys than girls. Girls are just the more stagnant gender, whereas boys are more volatile

>If women are so capable, why are they not even able to overcome the relatively small obstacle of social roles until men started giving them rights?
my fucking god this is just laughable. to extend your logic further you'd say that if black people are capable then why were they treated so poorly in the usa for so long and it didn't stop until white people started standing with them in the 60s. that's just a bullshit thing to say. women and black people were not in a position of power in these two cases. women didn't have the money in the family, they didn't own the properly, etc. they just were not on an equal footing as men so its no surprise that they didn't get on an equal footing until men helped

Women have bigger memories for remembering arbitrary and non-systematic landmarks and names. It goes hand-in-hand with them keeping tabs on their social milieu and how they stand in the immediate social status structure.

Thus you have a higher proportion of women in biology (that skill gets used a lot because there's a lot of labels and naming in regards to pointing out structures and functions)

Computer Science doesn't appeal to them because having a systematic approach to the creation of new structures and models doesn't come easy.

They also have less ability to visualize and mentally rotate objects. Ask any female-to-male tranny.

"I could think about stuff that scared me as a woman, but I also have a sex drive I didn't think was possible as a woman"

If they are equal, they would be able to find power one way or another. I would make the same arguments for blacks.

>Do you think that men don't have obstacles
Such as? It's as you said, the reason men were the drivers of early human development was because of the female's role in motherhood. For men though, nothing short of animals and geography stopped us from conquering all. Women ultimately faced more obstacles because up until the 20th century the world was mostly a patriarchy which didn't allow women to do the things men were allowed. Why? Because men didn't allow so.

If they can be so dominated by men, it seems reasonable to conclude that women are inferior to men.

>Are girls inherently more intelligent?

Inherently more submissive. School is a social obedience system, not an intelligence test.

t. "smart but lazy"

>/pol/ bait thread handwaved as Veeky Forums by adding "historical"
Fuck off.

CONT

Not only that but they're more responsive to social praise and scorn. Getting an A is a feel good feeling that they get addicted to.

I'm speaking for myself but external goals like getting an A don't motivate me. If I like the subject, I'll trudge through bullshit. If I don't like the subject, I don't give a shit and coast on my intelligence. Which fucks me when I get to subjects my intelligence can't devour in one gulp.

I don't know enough about the psychological differences between men and women but there's probably some reasons like that which account for what fields each gender wants to work in.

stop shitting up this thread. if the extent of your argument is that men are stronger than women and that makes women inferior then you need to get your priorities in shape

Yeah but his point about schools is true. I'm never going to let my kids attend public. Either home school or private.

IMO, it's almost child abuse to let your kid go to school in a large city like LA.

>stop shitting up this thread. if the extent of your argument is that men are stronger than women and that makes women inferior then you need to get your priorities in shape
Do you seriously believe that evolution stops at the neck up? If women were not rewarded for intelligence, it makes sense that they are intellectually inferior.

>inferior
The argument wasn't that women were superior but that they have similar capabilities to men. Also, women themselves accepted motherhood, no one forced it upon them which is why they lagged so behind for the sake of greater importance.

>women were supposed to get married young and not work
No, that was the role of aristocratic women. Normal women married in their 20s as is normal enough today and worked before and after as is normal enough now. They just worked in more limited roles.

The 'oppressed' women were the rich ones.
To put it into terms you might understand: does a fucking Kardashian work a normal job?

Poor men were not educated, poor women were not educated. Rich men were educated, rich women were educated. The education was just different.

>you sure convinced me
You claimed they're more evenly spread. Prove it.

List the most influential thinkers and inventors in the last 50 years and prove it you cunt.

I don't think people understand how thousands of years of war and conflict both intensifies evolution for certain things.

Most of history is gangs of men taking over the territory of other gangs of men and spreading their seed in foreign women.

The killer app of intelligence is war.

Women are just as capable as men, they just need men to help them use their full potential :^)

Just came here to say that your post has absolutely nothing to do with what he said, which leads us all to believe you're projecting.

You know what the horrible realization is?

That the drive for women in the workplace is mostly driven by the desire of top males, and of the managers that oversee all of them, to have a harem everywhere.

We are literally being cucked by the cultural complex of "feminism".

>the education was just different
nah, there were different rates of getting an education
you claimed they were different before I claimed they were more evenly spread.

>smarter gender
>couldnt figure out how to make men not see them as fuck toys

Some brains you women have.

cultural complex of "feminism" and the double-faced motivations of men. One face yells equality and the other face calls Barbara in the office to give him a blowjob.

>B-b-ut sexual harrasment!

A lot of sexual harrasment is 4-7/10 men trying to make a move and being rejected by the women.

It's not harassment if you're a 9/10 - 10/10

I never said women were smarter

>fuck toys
wew lad. sure is a funny way to say future deciding job.

>you claimed they were different
I claimed there weren't as many.

A negative affirmation!

SO HAHAHA YOU SEE? I have once again foiled you through use of logic! My laziness may continue! Yours however has come to an eeeeeend!! Muahahaha!

Me: 1 000 000
You: 0

Mmmmmm, your defeat is delicious. Positively ORGASMIC user, come writhe with me whore! WRITHE IN YOUR DEFEAT! AND then ONWARDS TO GOOGLE!

Which is frankly why sexual harassment laws should be abolished.

I like these two posts together

>I claimed there weren't as many.
>A negative affirmation!
These were your exact words: Is that why all the greatest minds and inventors in recent history have all been mostly men?

UPDATED SCOREBOARD:
ME: 100000000000000000000000000000000000
You: -1

>One face yells equality and the other face calls Barbara in the office to give him a blowjob.
We do like our blowjobs

I liked fucking your mother's asshole last night, she kept herself clean and lubed for me and everything. A very caring woman her, sorry if we kept you up last night.

Yes, that means there aren't as many women. Are you daft user?

That was uncalled for user. Uncalled for and rude.

IIRC, the distribution of male IQ is skewed towards fat tails at both ends.

Thus the stereotype of man either being a janitor or a conqueror

>Computer Science doesn't appeal to them because having a systematic approach to the creation of new structures and models doesn't come easy.


In India lots of Women are in Comp Sci. Your reasonings are ad hoc as fuck.

>In India lots of Women are in Comp Sci.
That doesn't make them good at it

>I'm speaking for myself but external goals like getting an A don't motivate me. If I like the subject, I'll trudge through bullshit. If I don't like the subject, I don't give a shit and coast on my intelligence. Which fucks me when I get to subjects my intelligence can't devour in one gulp.


Nice excuses faggot.

how is saying there weren't as many women any different than me saying you claimed there was a differences. it's a distinction without a difference. you faulted me for not backing up my claimed even though you did the exact same thing first

Indians probably go into compsci because it seems like a great way to escape poverty. You'll notice that very little technological development comes from the country

Why are you shifting the goalposts. The men and women are just about the same over there.

>none of that requires any schooling so it was considered a waste to send a woman to school

Thats not even remotely true, especially in the middle ages upper and lower class women were expected to work on farms or the husband's estate while he was off doing business in other lands or at war.

Thats the way its been for many Western Cultures

Indians go for the STEMS a lot.

Because I'm right you crazy bitch.

They manipulate the competent yet awkward boys to do their studying, artificially inflating what you think is their intelligence, since the work they turn in (to which we measure these things) is not theirs.

I mostly had america in mind when I wrote that. but even in your example the women are still confined to working at home

100% convinced me now thanks for your detailed argument showing me the error of my ways

>Why are you shifting the goalposts.
I'm not shifting goalposts, I didn't make the original claim I'm just some other user so that is technically my very first goal post.

In the future however I might shift goalposts, but if I do rest assured in the knowledge that I do it only because I feel like it.

>all upper class women were expected to play piano well in the Victorian era
>there are no great 19th century female composers
hmmm

women in all developing countries can't afford to major in a memehobby subject unlike in developed ones unless they were the idle rich. Iran had to ban women from studying STEM becuase so many women would get trained and the positions just weren't there.

It's an excuse though. I coasted without putting any effort. Then the habit of not outputting any effort failed me when I become an adult.

I've had rough experiences that finally woke me up and gave me that revelation.

The problem space of the world is far larger than even what a genius level intellect can swallow.

being a good player =/ being a good composer

Most men worked on home and most people never went more than 2-3 miles from their village for their entire lives.

Women were kept at home because back in the day there were roving bands of bandits who would rape women if left unattended, and women were attended to constantyl because it was generally accepted that men had to be more expendable while women needed to be protected. Even for the lower class this was true.

>I was talking about america

from which era, because this was still true in the 1600 and 1700's. Women were expected to be well educated, and in the middle ages they were expected to be more well read than their husbands.

>which era
~1800s - ~1940s

when women were also expected to home-school in addition to home-making?

>home
>home
yes

boys have less inhibitions, more distractions, more testosterone, nerd culture is discouraged

You mean when women began re-entering the work force especially in the Industrialized North of the 1800's where children were also expected to work?

Like does it ever occur to people that women in the past wanted to stay at home and go to the park with their kids every now and then and just read and do women shit all day?

when you look at it that way, segregated sex schools did nothing wrong

Yes but it was funny and fucking sluts like your whore mother in the shithole feels fucking great. So suck my lube and semen covered cock clean you faggot and go back to crying into your pillow that I also just got done fucking.

Yes, when you're at home, it just happens that the 16 hours a day one will be awake will not be all dedicated to homestuff, so there is time to do other things.

Diversity = conflict. Conflict = energy deflected away from the learning or from the job.

"Diversity' is the most counter-productive thing you could do to a workplace. And yet it's pushed in all media.

We've focused entirely on women in education at the expense of men, in terms of IQ women cluster around the average while men sit at the extremes.

Almost all geniuses are men, as are most morons, this women oriented school system fucks the 'morons'.

Wut.

I think the India situation is part of the social dynamics of high-population densities. "Alpha" males collaborate to dampen wages, reducing the power of the rest of society and putting pressure on families that are still large.

Women, not only, have to become providers BUT are also attracted to being around top men. The industry that's pumping the most money right now is the whole technology sector.'

And yes, I use ad hoc a lot. The above was 100% ad hoc. Information asymmetry is an unsolved problem.

Not surprising. Look at the most diverse countries in the world (Congo, Uganda, South Africa), look at the most diverse states in America (Mississippi, California, Florida), and they're 99% of the time they're shitholes. The only place I can think of that goes against this trend is Maryland.

The most succesful countries in Africa (Botswana, Namibia) states in America (Vermont, Minnesota, the Dakotas) are all very homogenous.

I don't know how or when we decided diversity was a good thing, when it's so obviously not.

>diversity was a good thing, when it's so obviously not.

Shilibs want holiness without any of the art and ritual of worshipping a God(s). Or rather, their ritual is turning a false proposition into a holy saying and from holy saying into a holy meme-complex.

CONT

But not merely any proposition. It has to be one which portrays them valiant and victorous, even if the proposition is a suicidal one.

They want to stand amongst the migrations and still stand-up and survive, merely to tell the opposing "See, it's no big deal. We're invincible and untouchable.". In much the same way some fool would spend a cold night naked outside just to brag "No big deal".

They're that petty. Right-wing people are also that petty but their ideas represent at least some admission of the need for the mind to be submissive to the reality in front of it.

CONT

When I was younger, i used to think that if all people were freed, they'd spend their time refing techniques and creating beauty in at least one dimension of their lives.

What I realized was that most people freed create peversions of beauty. They're not even noble enough to acknowledge the limitations their faults give them. Instead they want to transcend it, as foolish as any quixotic quest can get. Life as tragedy doesn't enter their horizon other than stories of "My tribe vs. your tribe".

The plain understanding most people get from "Christina's World" (Andrew Wyeth painting featuring one of his neighbors). is perverted into the need for Christina to be superhuman amongst the normally "abled" people. There's no recognition of tragedy beyond social morality of blame and guilt.

Get off the stage

You know, your intelligence level is most likely just about average. Don't kid yourself.

Well, honestly, it's less raw intelligence and more isolation from external motivators. I had a bad childhood. I just wanted to be the opposite of what petty monsters I lived with.

Fine then, I'd be an ass otherwise.

...

being proficient at school does not measure your intelligence level, actually to be good at school you need to conform to the educational standard and do mostly dull and repetitive tasks at which women excel, and which prepare you to be a good wage slave

girls also do better than boys because they are more sensitive to peer pressure

feminists teachers unions steeped in far left nonsense who view awkward troubled boys as inherently bad people, that they will grow up to be "bigots" and have to be socially alienated, nearly every teacher is guilty of singling out a student and ignoring them as they sit quietly at the back of the class if not outright trying to get rid of them, they then ask for pay rises

a girl is doing badly? poor girl it must be because she is having trouble at home, have her attend weekly conselling sessions and get all the help she needs

a boy? why should I help that cringy little prat, it is probaly his own fault, he is insecure and feels sorry for himself, fuck him

Because schools are not about knowledge, but subservience.
I did well in primary school, not because of the education system, but because grandpa was teaching me at home, and made things interesting, whereas schools are boring institutions for molding people, their goal is not to stimulate someone to learn, and to be interested and curious.

>not believing smart but lazy is real
There are so many people that ace tests easily without studying but don't do homework or notes so they chill and sit with the A-.

Wrong (((You)))

It's pretty common nowadays. In fact most people on this site would fall into that category

As women don't work, why didn't they spend their free time organizing schools/education?

My theory is that women tend to have more average IQs while there are stronger disparities when it comes to men (more retards and geniuses that balance each other out).

>girls
>sports
Oh wow.

Le smart but lazy!!!!!!!!


GO-THE-FUCK-BACK-TO-REDDIT!

the MATRIARCHY has been keeping us down all this time,man.

OPEN YO EYES