Women

LOL we have this set S and for each person in the world we give a number to how mutch he/she has contributed to science and mathematics. let this number be the elements of our set S.
Then i make a partition Sm(set men) and Sf(set female)

HOW AMAZING THAT THE ELEMENTS IN THESE PARTITIONS DONT SUM UP TO THE SAME NUMBER WOW ITS A MIRACLE
ARE WOMEN REALY THAT DUMP???!

WHAT ARE THE FUCKING ODS!

>Why have men contributed more to science and mathematics than women?

Traditional gender roles meant men went out and learn the world while women stay home learning... nothing.

Here the way to escape this (for a woman) is to just not be anyone's wife and live a personal life but this cannot happen because women biologically crave having a family (just like men, women just happened to get the short end of the stick when it comes to family gender roles) and that is why nowadays the happiness of women is lowering while men's happiness is just where it has always been (since men really just wanted the sex and prostitutes provide that).

So this never happened naturally but after the industrial revolution and specially nowadays the cost of mantaining a household are too high for most of the uneducated people so now gender roles broke down with both parties having to play the role of providers and therefore now women too explore the world and learn from it.

The downside is that they will be miserable compared to their male counterparts but miserable women can still make contributions to science, and I hope they keep doing just that.

It is weird because I have never craved a family, only having a lot of sex and when I was younger I thought that getting married would imply lots of sex because I would have a pair of tits that would always be available. On the other hand, plenty of women younger than myself have told me that they want daughters and they want to be moms and shit, The problem is that being a mom implies not learning from the world and therefore women will always be incomplete, sadly.

Less obvious bait OP

Right, but in academia women are more successful/get better grades etc. than men

But do they contribute to science and mathematics as much as men in today's society? No, not really. Being more successful in academia doesn't mean anything, it's what you contribute that really counts.

women do not need to contribute to anything, since they can go from man to man who always enjoy contribute for women.

>but in academia women are more successful/

Yeah, but this means nothing. First because everyone knows women suck a lot of dick.

When employers see the resume of a woman they have to take everything with a grain of salt because everyone knows that at least 10% of those accomplishments were obtained through sucking dick and not any kind of honest work. Usually the shitty jobs will still hire them because they don't care, but no one is going to make you an executive when they know your only skill is sucking dick.

By the way, sucking dick is not only literal dick sucking, just in general acting nice to make men like them and therefore give them an edge in everything.

I mean, you know this. I know this. However, I would diverge from the general opinion and say that at leasst 50% of every woman's achievements is gained through dick sucking but I could be wrong.

>He writes this with a picture of the man who "reasoned" that women must have fewer teeth then men, because they were "failed" men, without simply asking a woman to open her mouth so he could check.

That's true. Women posses an overall higher EQ than men, and are more cunning. They know how to deal with people and manipulate them to their advantage.

The only post in this thread that makes a lick of sense.

That post is literally just saying that men are superior to women without actually saying the phrase 'men are superior to women'.

If you don't agree with the posts saying it literally then you shouldn't agree with the posts saying it implicitly, or you should agree with both.

>I know that scientifically, women are the inferior gender
not really, perpetuation of the species cannot occur without women

i dunno what your definition of "scientifically" or "inferior" is but it's pretty clear that men and women are complimentary

>That post is literally just saying that men are superior to women without actually saying the phrase 'men are superior to women'.

This post is a man made of straw.

Women success in academia?
Considering 50% of their assignments are done by betacucks I'd say it's total bs.
I'd say that dumb or weak men did not get the chance to pass their genes to modern time.
only 50% of men ever lived have their descendants living today while for women it's 80%

His post is
>Men have these 3 favourable characteristics that women simply lack

I mean. If he is right but not the people outright saying 'women are inferior' then fuck then I guess saying

>You know, black people just lack these 3 favourable characteristics that makes us white people so succesful!

is not a racist statement. Good to know, retard.

They are descriptive you moron.

You're the one applying value judgements here.

The fact is the bell curve for intelligence in asians, blacks and whites is different, that's not racism, that's just reality, just like it is between the sexes.

Now it might be an uncomfortable truth, but it's still true descriptively anyway.

Deal with it faggot.

Do you seriously not understand the logical fallacies you're using or is this just poor bait?

He's not saying that. He's stating facts that I've heard from other sources. You're the one imposing judgements.

Okay then I suppose

>This group of people have favourable characteristics that this other group of people lack
>Both groups are equally capable

are just fine statements that can easily coexist.

It reminds me of my favorite tautology.
P AND NOT(P)

This truth table is always true my people. The proof was written by a feminist right in this thread.

Yeah but what do those facts imply?

It could potentially be reasons that men are more attracted to math and hard science. But personally I believe it's cultural conditioning that turns women off from those things at a young age more than disposition. What he said is true, but of course it's only statistics.

>This group of people have favourable characteristics that this other group of people lack

You are overestimating a group difference.

Individuals are who they are, and just because a group difference exists, does not mean that individuals cannot be brilliant, regardless of race or sex.

You really sound like a seriously butthurt non-scientist.

>different IQ distribution is inherently superior
>risk taking is inherently superior
>favoring objects to social interaction is inherently superior

You're the only one making judgments here.

>That post is literally just saying that men are superior to women without actually saying the phrase 'men are superior to women'.
this is some bad quality bait

Aristotle deliberately argued that women have fewer teeth than men. His purpose was to show that women wouldn't be able to pick this flaw up, and would follow his reasoning blindly simply because he was a famous philosopher. Too bad, they failed the test and showed that they're dumber than men. Only after Aristotle's death people only realised his claims were "wrong". It was a low-key intelligence test.

>women do not give a shit about some stupidity stated by some beta
>duuurrr women are stupid and men are smart dddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrr

Irrelevant. What's your point?

Wow. I'm actually impressed with the responses here. On almost every other board in Veeky Forums, you'd get the usual "women are born dumb/inferior" drivel. I guess Veeky Forumsentists are smarter than I thought.

for some weird reason, Veeky Forumsposters answered this thread with serious replies

most other times people shitpost these threads to death here (not with women are dumb responses, but usually the opposite point of view)

what you're seeing is an outlier

It has nothing to do with any of those things. It has entirely to do with the fact that since antiquity, women were treated like possessions and were not granted the right to participate in science and mathematics. The fact that there are women who managed to contribute despite these horrors is incredible.

Marie Curie

blogs.scientificamerican.com/budding-scientist/students-with-autism-gravitate-toward-stem-majors/

Don't mind me, just waiting for /r9k/ fags to come to tell us that she didn't make that much of an important contribution to science, or that it was very easy, and yes, I've seen such responses.

Marie Curie and some other women made some contributions, true. But it doesn't change the fact that men contributed more.

There is a logic here too, man is created to hunt and kill, only communication they are good at is communication in squad, other men hunting with them. Women exist more in society at general, so they are much better in dealing with other normal humans, not with animals or agressive humans.

To survive man must kill (read as invent, achieve something, bee good at some stuff), but women just need to be smart.

mostly in useless degrees, yes. then they are featured on CNN with bernie sanders saying everyone should get free college because they are 50 g's in debt for their b.a. in sociology

the skilled women in STEM exist but they are few far and in between. the reality is that USA and canada graduate very few scientists overall and most of the engineers/compsci majors are ahmeds and pajeets, while white men are construction workers and white women go to school for esthetics, or business school if their family was rich

Women think with there emotions,most men do not

*their

...

oh dude!!!

I think men generally are more analytical thinkers while women are more social thinkers. Now this isnt absolute there are women scientists and mathematicians but a lot more early education and middle management workers. But everyone, men and women alike, take this as women being inferior when that is simply not true. Women aren't stupid because they tend to like numbers less than men. And they certainly not inferior if they choose to be full time mothers either.

This is why modern feminism is destroying society. It made being a parent unappealing and convinced them that nobody will love or respect you if you take that path. First wave feminism said you don't belong in the kitchen and then third wave feminism said yeah you don't belong in the kitchen you belong in upper management or STEM. it's all horseshit, they are no different than the Asian parent sterotype who wants their child to be doctor now. Both sides don't respect women or their decisions if they don't align with their ideas of success of greatness.

G+E=P
Even if women were genetically the same as men, environmental factors still get in the way.

>conjecture
>false dichotomy
>racism
>straw man
I sense a future position at McDonald's

...

...

...

sorry to trigger your keyboard PTSD femtard

gr8 meme friend

>false dichotomy
>conjecture

science20.com/news_articles/biological_basis_gender_differences_math-106756

There is a biological basis to explain gender differences. Sociologist have convinced most of is that the human experience is all nurture and no mature.

>racism

I acknowledged that it was a sterotype

>Strawman

Are you saying I'm making one of the goals third wave feminism up? They lament on how there are no women in engineering meanwhile they didn't give the engineering booth at their colleges activity fair a second look.

...

>forever alone guy

Jesus meme harder friend :^)

Feminists are social urgly reject loser crying subhumans. Girls are fun understanding beautiful human beings.

Guess which one you are associated with ;)

...

Got some sweet vintage memes ITT

Memes are cancer

More like viruses imo

did Aristotle also deliberately claim flies had 4 legs and the elements were air, fire, earth and water to prove how stupid flies and atoms were? did you ask aristotle what his point was or did you just take your cues from him and pull shit out of your ass and hope no one would notice?

+1
Men are not smarter than women. It is just a social consecuence.

It is more efficent to have both sexes involved in science and technology.

I differ on talking about ambition, because it is due to dominace.

>le "biology has to predict and explain literally everything" meme
When will this end, and what is the evolutionary advantage of preferring ZFC over ZF?

in the past it was now it's because they live on 'easy mode'

i really wouldn't be where i am if i could get laid and had a cheerful carefree childhood and high school years with partying etc.

it's culture

i am correct, no need to link me to r9k, the overlap is purely coincidental

No, he had bad luck guessing those. It wasn't deliberate. But the women part is definitely true. I didn't ask him, but it's very obvious that he deliberately argued that they have fewer teeth .

>If you aren't involved with STEM, you're stupid

come on

>Veeky Forums constantly makes threads like these claiming women have different brains to men
>Yet reject the idea that a woman can be born with this "male brain"
make your minds up guys

I'll give women on here a chance to prove themselves smarter than the men on here, but I doubt that they'll prove anything other than they're stupid. Can a woman on here give me a proof of Fermat's last theorem?

it's true tho

FPBP

women have contributed less than men because women contribute less. that's the way things are.

Well considering that, at least in most Western nations, women were only allowed to cook and make babies up until this past century it's not a huge surprise that they contributed less to science and math overall than men.

I think the difference between men and women in sciences and academia is marginal and as long as you aren't a feminist nutjob I don't see any reason a woman cannot do well in science and technology related fields.

Not being taught math never stopped Ramanujan, and suffering in general never stopped intellectuals; if a woman wanted to be smart in the 16th century, she could've done it. Women are just much more social than men, and thus much less likely to emerge from their self-imposed nonage.

How someone could so badly miss the point that most people express in this thread (literally the post above you) is beyond me. Only explanation is that this is decent bait. I'm gonna go with that.

Males are the ones who fucking invented and figured out math from the very start

Men are taught that achievements makes them successful.

Women are taught that having good looks makes them successful

There you go.

Because they've been denied education until the mid 1900s. They're starting to pick up the slack after suffrage. Female Nobel prize winners are cropping up.

>implying you did because you're male
You mean several males did and taught it to other males.

>wahh! women aren't subservient caretakers of the home, they want to get out and do stuff
>wahh! why weren't women getting out of the house and doing stuff like us men!

>men are never told to be attractive
>wat is gym
>wat is barber
>wat is male modelling
>wat is bodybuilding
>wat are dating shows like 'take me out' and 'love island
>wat is metrosexual
You're the definition of feminist cuck, I bet you even think gender wage gap, cultural appropriation; college rape crisis and toxic masculinity are real. :')

lel, this

I just wish we had more threads about celebrating individuals instead of shitting on people.
I mean Hypatia of Alexandria was a conic section badass
And I still haven't read enough math to understand Emmy Noether's work

It's simple and has to do with the courting dynamic between men and women. Because of the way that the courting dynamic works out biologically, women spend way more time on/in relationships in their lives than men do, so much that it dominates most of their time, making it very unlikely that the average woman will become an expert at anything early in life.

It's like this. There are basically two phases of courting: 1. Dating/sex and 2. the relationship. Girls decide which guys get sex/dates, they hold the key to phase 1. Guys decide which girls get a relationship, they hold the key to phase 2. Guys love to have sex/date but getting it is not easy; for women, getting dates/sex in phase 1 is easy. Girls want relationships the most, but they know they must pass through phase 1 to have a chance at it.

Naturally, since girls decide who gets to phase one, not men, and girls really want to get to phase 2 because it's their nature, girls are pretty much constantly in some phase of the courting process for their entire lives. Guys, on the other hand, because they only have the key to phase 2, spend much less time in some phase of the courting process than women.

The discrepancy between the time that men and women spend in some phase of a relationship in their lives is why men tend to become experts earlier and more frequently than women, and it's all because women have free access to phase 1 and men do not. The courting process takes up a lot of attention and time, and men just end up having a lot more free time to focus on other things than women.

Emotional thinking it impairs their ability to reason logically and think abstractly. Ever notice smart women act like aliens compared to normal women?

Rando here, I've never felt any pressure by any of those things in my life. Dating shows are cringefests and metrosexuals are embarrassments. I work out for myself, not for my appearance. I trim my own hair to a buzzcut and I don't give a shit about maintaining flowing locks. No woman I've dated has ever complained in the slightest.

But you're a serial shitposter so...

>Guys decide which girls get a relationship, they hold the key to phase 2
wow, we have a true beta here

if guys takes the decision of the relationship, then why are there so many cuckolds and why do men whine when they are not noticed by women and when women refuse to go beyond letting them fuck them for a night or two ?

>Men are taught that achievements makes them successful.
then why do successful men manage to commit suicide ?
why do successful men manage to give up their success for a random woman who decided acknowledge them ?

>then why do successful men manage to commit suicide ?
Boredum

This question is a poison to the otherwise reasoned mind. Men and women most certainly are of a different nature, but you shouldn't frame it as "why are women so stupid". As if the average male you meet doesn't net out as a moron as well, when you look at the bigger picture.

If you want to understand the machinery of the universe, you need to exposure to it. Get to know a decent spectrum of women and then try to resolve what makes it all tick.

Being in control of the relationship phase makes you beta? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Think about it this way. Phase 1 is guys trying to impress girls. Phase 2 is girls trying to impress guys.

Also, I ought to add on. I've been alone most of my life, and there is obvious utility in having an outsider's perspective. It strips a lot of stuff that's just clutter and gives a clearer picture of what happened, what it did, what it does, and then an ability over time to iteratively refine your inference about why it does it. Whether an object, a group, or humanity in the abstract.

This is a topic I've avoided though. Yes, I can easily watch what a female is doing and predict why and what chain of events its part of, along with where it leads. General motivation, etc. But ultimately I really don't know or directly interact with anyone, and there just isn't the means to construct the bigger picture without it. It's like reverse engineering a system, you can watch what all its parts do and when, see some overall patterns, and even get it to do what you want it to. But that's not the same as understanding its nature, and what it is to do these things.

Something to bear in mind.

Can you?

speculation is a bad argument

>According to a story on The Register, the death of Ian Murdock in late 2015 has been ruled a suicide. This news brings some closure to the sad ending of his life. An interesting note from the article that I never knew before: "he was the Ian in Debian; his girlfriend at the time, Debra Lynn, was the Deb." Debian has truly been a cornerstone in the Linux world, and the founder will be missed.

beta cucks till the end.