Why don't women possess the concept of Greatness?
Is the inability for women to relate to great men of history or male characters in literature who possess seemingly universal characteristics like Hamlet a fault of the author or a fault of the women?
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
apa.org
researchgate.net
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
sciencedirect.com
economist.com
twitter.com
Women suck, man. All of /r9k/ agrees with me. Stupid womens
Please fuck off, my question was serious.
There is a lot of debate around Shakespeare and whether he should be highly regarded or not by feminists.
A woman watches Hamlet and she thinks "Woah, Hamlet is so smart and interesting!"
A man watches Hamlet and he thinks "Woah, I'm so smart and interesting!"
Which of the two is deluded?
It's evolutionary. Men needed to develop creativity and intelligence to be able to hunt for food. In all societies, women are the ones who make babies and men are the ones who do shit. Women attach themselves to men because they know they cannot achieve true greatness themselves.
Cant argue with that desu
t. Man
First, what is your "concept of greatness"? Surely you can not make loaded claims (even in question form) without defining such terms?
Give us examples of your idea of "great men" and why they are great and then we shall answer your question.
>A woman watches Hamlet and she thinks "Woah, Hamlet is so smart and interesting!"
>A man watches Hamlet and he thinks "Woah, I'm so smart and interesting!"
It's the opposite m8
Women can't achieve greatness so they will try everything to make everything and everyone around them small.
It's.. genetic? A side-effect of evolution?
Don't bother and start achieving Greatness
>they know they cannot achieve true greatness themselves.
How did you infer this information? What evidence are you going based on? How can you come to generalize the thoughts of half of the species across the board in race, religion, socieconomic status, etc.?
>Women can't achieve greatness so they will try everything to make everything and everyone around them small.
This tbqh. That's why women are so overwhelmingly liberal. They want a world where everyone is equal, but if nobody is worse off than anyone else nobody is better either.
It's a universal human truth. Argue against it instead of pretending to be retarded.
>make everything and everyone around them small.
This sounds like something someone in kindergarten may perhaps respond with.
"girls aren't as good as us so they try to make everything and everyone around them small"
haha
>claims women don't possess "the concept of Greatness."
>Has no fucking idea what he means by that.
>When asked, will spout some circular bullshit about "greatness" that basically excludes women by definition, and amounts to little more than his opinion.
>If given examples of fantastic work by women, will just deny it because see above.
I think I'll save my time.
>trying to make my post small
Found the woman
Everyone in here is making the claim that
>there is a concept known as "greatness"
>men achieve such concepts of greatness
>women do not achieve such concepts of greatness
>thus women are genetically inferior
If y'all can't identify the flaws in your reasoning, then oh the irony.
Great women are rare exceptions that prove the rule.
>dude greatness doesn't exist lmao it's all in your head
Can women be as strong as men? Can they be as intelligent or creative? Except for a few exceptions, the answer is now, and this is because of evolution.
>Can women be as strong as men? Can they be as intelligent or creative?
Eh yeah, are you retarded?
Tons of women are smarter than tons of men, hell tons of women are stronger than tons of men.
>the answer is now
....okay, can I have a discussion with someone else instead of having to deal with this incompetence and lack of sophistication? I prefer excellence in conversation. You are not prepared for such a matter.
>Eh yeah, are you retarded?
>Tons of women are smarter than tons of men, hell tons of women are stronger than tons of men.
Nope, not really. Women are less likely to be great scientists or artists. This isn't social, it's because of biological gender roles.
Of course, there are SOME exceptions, but they are very rare.
You want to argue or be condescending?
>I prefer excellence in conversation. You are not prepared for such a matter.
...
So you're defining all data that doesn't fit into a set as exceptions no matter the quantity?
Men are not "smarter then women", at best men have a higher probability to be smarter than a random given women but even that I find suspect.
>So you're defining all data that doesn't fit into a set as exceptions no matter the quantity?
They're exceptions because they're rare.
>Men are not "smarter then women", at best men have a higher probability to be smarter than a random given women but even that I find suspect.
If men aren't smarter than women, how come men were the ones who moved mountains, made art, and created civilization? How come, even with equal rights and special privileges in academia, women still haven't been doing great things with the same frequency as men?
Look, the central ideological tenant of liberalism is that everybody is necessarily equal. But there's absolutely nothing that really supports this, and why would it? Do you think the universe or evolution cares about egalitarianism? It's basically the just-world fallacy.
>They're exceptions because they're rare.
No they aren't, not by any means.
If we're talking about strength it would be fair to say men are stronger than women sure, it would be unusual though far from neglible that in a random pairing of a man and woman that the woman would be stronger (given same age).
However in a random pairing of men and women, taking IQ to represent intelligence, its at best a slightly weighted coin toss which would be smarter.
>No they aren't, not by any means.
>If we're talking about strength it would be fair to say men are stronger than women sure, it would be unusual though far from neglible that in a random pairing of a man and woman that the woman would be stronger (given same age).
It would be very unusual. If women and men have demonstrable biological differences in strength, why exactly is it so impossible to believe that they have biological differences in intelligence?
>However in a random pairing of men and women, taking IQ to represent intelligence, its at best a slightly weighted coin toss which would be smarter.
Source?
Why don't men possess the concept of Humility?
Men posses humility, women don't.
>Source?
Take your pick
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
apa.org
researchgate.net
sciencedirect.com
Cause they are not trying to get laid.
Did you even bother to check them? No they don't. Thats a weighted cointoss like I said
>SAT scores are indicative of intelligence
I'm not the one who linked it
Did you read it?
>In this study we found that 17- to 18-year old males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than did their female counterparts on the 1991 Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). We analysed 145 item responses from 46,509 males and 56,007 females (total N = 102,516) using a principal components procedure. We found (1) the g factor underlies both the SAT Verbal (SAT-V) and the SAT Mathematics (SAT-M) scales with the congruence between these components greater than 0.90; (2) the g components predict undergraduate grades better than do the traditionally used SAT-V and SAT-M scales; (3) the male and the female g factors are congruent in excess of .99; (4) male–female differences in g have a point-biserial effect size of 0.12 favoring males (equivalent to 3.63 IQ points); (5) male–female differences in g are present throughout the entire distribution of scores; (6) male–female differences in g are found at every socioeconomic level; and (7) male–female differences in g are found across several ethnic groups. We conclude that while the magnitude of the male–female difference in g is not large, it is real and non-trivial. Finally, we discuss some remaining sex-difference/brain-size/IQ anomalies.
Why did you post an image for ants?
The regular image required an Elsevier subscription
>males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than did their female counterparts
OP here.
I did not claim women can't be great. Please develop a reading comprehension, retards.
I asked why don't women possess the 'concept' of greatness. Meaning why don't they themselves strive to achieve such a thing, rather they strive to achieve other ideals whereas men are principally preoccupied with this obsession.
>In this study we found that 17- to 18-year old males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than did their female counterparts on the 1991 Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT).
wow, a whole 3.63 percent.
Can't you all stop making this threads?
We all know men are more intelligent than women. There's no need to "discuss" this everyday.
>Hamlet
>universal
Fuck off normalfag he's /ourguy/
From the researchgate link you posted
>There was a high degree of concordance across tests and no sex difference was observed in overall estimates of general intellectual ability (GIA) on the WJ III.
>tfw autist posted a study that went against what he was initially trying to argue
It's laughable that you think all men by default are occupied with greatness. It's very likely that men are, in a general sense, more focused on their own 'legacy' than women are, and the reasons for this should be explored. But to say no woman out there strives to be great is about as misguided as saying all men strive to be great.
>I did not claim women can't be great
>why don't women possess the 'concept' of greatness
So women can be 'great' but they don't actually have a concept of what is great? Are you autistic? It seems to me you're simply looking for affirmation of your own bias perspective. Have you ever actually had an intelligent conversation with a woman who you weren't trying to fuck?
see
Such faggotness can only be achieved by you it seems
Why didn't permanently pregnant chattel make any civilisation? Gee I wonder.
But I'm sure you're going to tell me the historic surpression of women is a lie/female conspiracy.
Oh, also
Happy New year.
>why are women so much worse than men?
>They even think they're great themselves when they should be recognizing greatness of others
>luckily I, as a man, am great enough to realize the inferiority of woman
sure is the opposite
I don't know why I'm bothering to argue numbers with people who need an education in reading basic statistics
Whatever I'm done playing pre-school teacher
>It's laughable that you think all men by default are occupied with greatness.
Kill yourself, retard.
I used men in a general sense and if you think the concept of 'greatness' doesn't preoccupy many men then you are deluded. I also used the term in a general sense with regards to women.
Your entire argument is based on the strawman assumption that I mean all men. I did not therefore your entire post is worthless.
Learn about the nuances of language, retard.
>no u
if you think the concept of 'greatness' doesn't preoccupy many women then you are deluded.
Don't tell others about nuance when your argument is based on nothing but constructing ideal monoliths out of a demographic category then speaking of it as a general rule.
Realise that my opinions are based on my life experience and my life experience is that most women aren't preoccupied with this concept.
Provide evidence or anecdotal arguments to the following, thank you!
Okay, then I'll reiterate my question CuriousMonkeyfrend, how can women be great if they don't actually have a concept of what greatness is? Or better yet, perhaps you should define greatness for me. If I am truly the louse you say I am, then you as the OP must enlighten me. Please explain and use tiny words so I might fully understand.
You're seriously using anecdotes as proof? Fucking kill yourself.
How about go fuck yourself, burden of proof is on you dipshit
>Why didn't permanently pregnant chattel make any civilisation? Gee I wonder.
>But I'm sure you're going to tell me the historic surpression of women is a lie/female conspiracy.
They weren't "suppressed", they just have a certain biological role. There's nothing wrong with women being mothers and not pursuing science and art, They simply cannot do it, and that's perfectly fine, women don't give a shit about those things anyways.
>Provide evidence or anecdotal arguments to the following, thank you!
>Provide evidence OR anecdotal arguments
>Provide *EVIDENCE* OR
>disagree with liberals
>FUCK YOU FUCKING KILL YOURSELF FUCKING BIGOT
hmmmm
What are you fucking talking about?
You are a retard, you are applying the concept of the burden of proof to life experiences with the opposite gender.
Are you insane? Get mental help!
You're arguing semantics
>It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is
I already answered this question, retard.
I did not mean 'ALL' women, I used the term 'women' in a general sense.
The fact you are arguing semantics instead of having a proper debate reveals to me you are in fact a brainlet with no opinions.
Leave my thread, dork!
Women couldn't vote or own property just over 100 years ago dumbass.
Funny thing about this thread is, you can clearly feel which posts here are made my women
Yeah, what's your point? They didn't need to. Women give birth. Because of this truth, they will always, ALWAYS be different from men.
>admit to having no argument
>resort to ad hominem
Buh-bye
>every post has to be a le argument on Veeky Forums
>Buh-bye
So if you had the ability to give birth you'd be okay with having no civil rights?
>Uses Burden of Proof argument with subjective life experiences
>Gets called out for being a retard and using scientific jargon that is not applicable to such a debate
>haha ad hominem
Kindly fuck off, brainlet.
What's your point? Women evolved for different things than men. Men are doers, women stay home and take care of the children, at least that's how it should be in a non-degenerated society. Getting rid of gender roles is inefficient and weakens our societies.
>disagree with alt-right
>FUCK OFF BRAINLET THIS ISNT HOW Veeky Forums WORKS
hmmmm
>act like a retard
>get treated like a retard
What things you both are doing to me! I wish only to better understand and you shove me out like a dog. You tell me you have answered my question but the only 'answer' you provide is that I initially misunderstood the question you asked. Let us clean the slate and go back to the beginning.
>asked why don't women possess the 'concept' of greatness
Obviously you're a man, so lets begin with the obvious, what is your conception of greatness, in the most basic sense?
>act like a retard
Notice I was acting like you
Want to guess whats at the end of this syllogism?
I'm a fucking Liberal, what the actual fuck are you talking about, none of my posts have been political. The other guy is the one who criticised liberals.
Are you mentally ill?
Superiority, and the drive to be superior.
>Are you mentally ill?
Yes, but thats hardly relevant
Yeah I'm sure you would like a domestic servant sex-slave buddy. At least you basically admitted you're arguing because it would suit you.
Most people with empathy would argue human-beings should be able to choose the life they want to live though.
That would be idealism. The fact of the matter is that we are animals driven by animal instincts and needs. Not everybody can do everything.
The point isn't that there is a monolithic or concrete definition of greatness.
I should have written more in the OP.
The point is that in a general sense many men are preoccupied with the concept.
Simply think of all the books written by men throughout history on Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander etc.
There are more books written about Napoleon than anyone else I believe, and the majority of such books are written by men. This can't be a coincidence.
Many world leaders study men of history and many leaders during the 20th century were obsessed with Plato's conception of the 'Philosopher King'.
The point I was making in the OP was that many women do not relate to such men, in fact, many women hate the need for them to study such figures as Hamlet in education as they cannot relate to him, there is much feminist debate on this.
This was the general idea I was trying to say in the OP.
Speak for you animal
what did he mean by this
>That would be idealism
> The fact of the matter is that we are animals driven by animal instincts and needs
Eh no, the fact of the matter is people actually do currently choose the life they want to live outside shitholes like Saudi Arabia.
You're the one making an assertion based on an idealistic notion of what it is to be an animal
There are a lot of women on Veeky Forums and they'll slide and derail any thread they don't like.
>le naturalist fallacy
>Eh no, the fact of the matter is people actually do currently choose the life they want to live outside shitholes like Saudi Arabia.
>You're the one making an assertion based on an idealistic notion of what it is to be an animal
Not really. Most people live startlingly similar lives and don't do much.
The breakdown of gender roles is a symptom of the breakdown of gender roles (due to global capitalism and liberalism) is going to weaken our society. What do you think happens when we go to a real war? Masculine men and feminine women are the ones who will survive. You can't keep things peaceful and degenerate forever, eventually it'll have to come crashing down.
Argue against it then.
Excellent. I am beginning to understand. Perhaps even agree that men on average do have a higher drive to be superior than women. But tell me is this superior-drive a result of genetic or social differences?
>in a general sense many men are preoccupied with the concept
>many women do not relate to such men, in fact, many women hate the need for them to study such figures as Hamlet in education as they cannot relate to him
Okay, so I am in agreement with you here. But again I must ask the same question as above, is this the result of genetic differences or societal differences?
That's the question I am asking.
>pic related
So, dreams.
I don't argue with hedonistic plebs.
I have gone beyond hedonism (since the age of 12) and now am capable of living through suffering in order to achieve greater ideals.
I am Ubermensch incarnate; the god of all men.
>But tell me is this superior-drive a result of genetic or social differences?
Probably both. Men in pretty much every society except modern capitalism are the ones who take risks and do things. Women and their eggs are inherently valuable, so no tribe would risk sending a woman into war or hunting. Men can spread their seed much quicker and easier, so they're the ones that need to be strong and smart.
>The breakdown of gender roles is a symptom of the breakdown of gender roles
reminder that Nietzsche was a sexist anti-egalitarian
whoops I meant "a symptom of the breakdown of social structure"
>What do you think happens when we go to a real war?
Nukes go flying and we all die
Because they have different roles and different biology. I don't believe they're really inferior for it though. Child-rearing and their relationships to the family build civilization, their relationships to the male define the male.
I think men in general are more preoccupied with power.Men find power fascinating because it's a way to dominate and be assertive.
>He feels the need to tell us he's an ubermensch
still attached to slave morality I see.
So then why do men feel more of a need to take risks, be more 'active' so to speak, than woman do? Is it because men need to see themselves as accomplished while women care more about feeling happy ('accomplished' in a different way) than they do 'making a name for themselves?'
That you are an animal, take off you clothes and play in the dirt like the cynic fag you are.
The Ubermensch recognises his talents and bears no humble nature in the vicinity of last men!