I don't understand how this is a serious discussion it seems ignorant biased and sexist to me but if im wrong please correct me.
It's almost like you didn't read the opening post. He re-told the situation and asked a legitimate(to him) question, wanting an answer other than "LOL BOIYZ RUL3!". There are also multiple ways to respond to this reasonably, thus bringing in the "discussion" factor.
He wanted to know if all girls were as weak as his sister, who's punches have no power in them. That's not necessarily biased, as he doesn't directly say that all girls are in fact, weak. He also stated that there are situations where a girl could easily overpower a male with proper training, rather than sticking to the assumed notion that girls are weak.
Sexist? It depends on if you're a prude or not. To a prude, anything that has to do with anything regarding the opposite gender (usually female) is sexist.So this is sexist, if you deliberately think it to be. If you're someone who won't stick someone else with that title until they act completely chauvinistic, then no.
Ignorant? Of course. Though, how can we eliminate his ignorance if we simply leave him in the dark? The first step out of blissful ignorance usually requires a helping hand. Seeing as though he didn't post a deliberate troll post, then I feel we should at least give him a bit of our free time.
When angry, we often give other people hidden intentions simply to justify our annoyance.
but i don't find it it to be we need to teach him its ignorant in every way i find to say you couldn't beat me up so your weak as in a punch uses all your strength if he thinks he can fight well and take down a well sized man with a well placed punch meaning he probably knows how to fight if he knows how to fight and shes just wildly hitting him she gets little strength in leading to next to no damage.
so basically i find if he'd put as much thought as he has in this as he says he has and unless you were home schooled or private schooled i can near guarantee you know this post was more for wasting time then to ask if girls can hit hard.
I don't understand how this is a serious discussion it seems ignorant biased and sexist to me but if im wrong please correct me.
It's almost like you didn't read the opening post. He re-told the situation and asked a legitimate(to him) question, wanting an answer other than "LOL BOIYZ RUL3!". There are also multiple ways to respond to this reasonably, thus bringing in the "discussion" factor.
He wanted to know if all girls were as weak as his sister, who's punches have no power in them. That's not necessarily biased, as he doesn't directly say that all girls are in fact, weak. He also stated that there are situations where a girl could easily overpower a male with proper training, rather than sticking to the assumed notion that girls are weak.
Sexist? It depends on if you're a prude or not. To a prude, anything that has to do with anything regarding the opposite gender (usually female) is sexist.So this is sexist, if you deliberately think it to be. If you're someone who won't stick someone else with that title until they act completely chauvinistic, then no.
Ignorant? Of course. Though, how can we eliminate his ignorance if we simply leave him in the dark? The first step out of blissful ignorance usually requires a helping hand. Seeing as though he didn't post a deliberate troll post, then I feel we should at least give him a bit of our free time.
When angry, we often give other people hidden intentions simply to justify our annoyance.
but i don't find it it to be we need to teach him its ignorant in every way i find to say you couldn't beat me up so your weak as in a punch uses all your strength if he thinks he can fight well and take down a well sized man with a well placed punch meaning he probably knows how to fight if he knows how to fight and shes just wildly hitting him she gets little strength in leading to next to no damage.
so basically i find if he'd put as much thought as he has in this as he says he has and unless you were home schooled or private schooled i can near guarantee you know this post was more for wasting time then to ask if girls can hit hard.
No time is truly wasted when you have free time and choose to waste it. If it was for wasting time, then the man is a genius for being able to get up to almost 8 pages of alleged foolery.
Many people are afraid to think, in fear of short circuiting. Thus, they allow others to think for them. Eventually he'll find an upgrade and begin processing thought. Until then, I don't feel the need to ignore him entirely unless he decides to ask a blatantly stupid question with absolutely no back-story, no details, and no reason to really answer it because he probably already knows the answer.
I notice a lot of people bring up the point about women giving birth adding to their overall pain tolerance and reverence.
Having more pain tolerance and having to deal with more pain throughout life aren't the same thing. Women aren't naturally pregnant, but can get pregnant and have a child if they choose to. There are drugs and other medicines to lessen the pain and keep the woman from dying. This would mean that a woman has the option of going through the pain (giving birth), or skipping most/all of it (C-section/infertility).
There are males that look at women giving birth like "Holy shit, nope.", but truth be told, if males absolutely had to do it, they would. Thus, giving birth gives no merit to women because they can just as easily not give birth, and men can't give birth at all.
I'm not saying that women do/don't have more pain tolerance than men, I'm just saying that the act of giving birth doesn't statistically prove anything, as it's not something both genders are capable of doing, but both genders are certainly capable of -not- doing it. Try a test with bullet wounds or something.
In the case of who is stronger, the obvious answer in terms of muscle mass is men. Women can get stronger and more athletic and beat up a skinny guy, yes, but if a man and a woman were to be trained exactly the same from birth, and then thrown into combat with one another, the male would be stronger simply because of his body structure. When thinking of this, take in consideration how high school fitness tests have different, and usually lower expectations in order to be fit for women as opposed to men.
On a side note, kicking or punching a male in the testicles makes you no stronger nor better than them, regardless of if you're a male or female. If anything, it shows that had they had the appropriate pelvic protection, you'd be absolutely out of options, thus making you tactless in general.
I find that a lot of males today seem almost superhuman in how quickly they can avoid or try to prevent testicle shots, probably due to growing up next to Little Suzie who's mother told her that whenever a boy bothers her to "hit him in the twigs and berries".
I've already stated that a couple pages ago, but yeah. The reason why anyone can tolerated child birth is because the woman's body releases massive amounts of hormones to lessen the pain. And that single(or couple) of moments are the only times where women have far superior pain tolerance. Other times, they are just like anyone else. My mum kicks me in a particleboard bone-y part and over reacts to the pain. My female friends can shrug off that 80mph tennis ball I accidentally served into their side.
I'm at least 6'4 so im sure i could take 95% of the female population 1 on 1. But of course there are professional boxers, martial arts, etc,etc. females out there that would stomp me
Umm. How to say this, if a woman knows what she will do in a fight, she will turn your jewels into powder. Fine powder.
Anyway in my opinion there are no weak girls. In my school in a diffrent class, a girl beat up a bully so hard that he was on the floor and whimpering in pain. Do you hear me? IN PAIN! After that show i dont think that girls are weak.
Depends on what kind of girl she is. My sister never exercises nor does any strenuous activities and could barely lift a gallon of milk. On the other hand, when I was in highschool, Many of my classmates either were cheerleaders or played basketball(best girls basket ball team in my state) and as a result had greater arm strength than me. It all depends on what kind of people they are. They can be anorexic and bulimic or simply not exercise. Those women have no physical strength. On the other hand you have women like this.
How old is your sister and what are her lifestyle habits?
If I were to be raped by an oompah loompah, my assailant would look like that.
[laffin'] And all this time I thought my post was invisible or sumpin'.
Psychology Today: Why Pretty Girls Can't Do Math: In the August 2011 issue of the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, psychologist Laur Park shares the results of a series of studies with college-age women in which she finds that when women think about romance, they become less interested in studying STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. College-age men, however, can get interested in romance without any impact on their engagement with math and science.
Math is not for Girls: The Stereotype Begins Early: That's the conclusion of Dario Cvencek and his colleagues at the University of Washington, who wrote a provocative study recently published in the prestigious journal Child Development. In the study, the authors wanted to know whether elementary school children, some as young as first graders, already hold on to the stereotype that "girls don’t do math." Research has shown that in the US both adults and older children believe that math is a male activity and this stereotype is believed to be responsible for the gender gap that exists in math achievement (that males tend to outperform females in math).
Female Teachers May Pass on Math Anxiety to Girls, Study Finds: After a year in the classroom with female teachers who say they are anxious about math, girls are more likely to share that attitude — and score lower on tests, researchers say. Girls have long embraced the stereotype that they’re not supposed to be good at math. It seems they may be getting the idea from a surprising source — their female elementary school teachers.
How Negative Expectancies and Attitudes Undermine Females' Math Confidence and Performance: A Review of the Literature: There is a common belief that females are less mathematically capable than males. This belief is fairly constant across populations (see e.g. Eccles, 1987). Classroom studies have shown that this belief is in place by the time children enter the third grade (Crawford, Herrmann, Holdsworth, Randall & Robbins, 1989). This belief is mirrored by students' parents. By the time children enter kindergarten, parents expect girls to do better at verbal tasks and boys to do better at math (Lummis & Stevenson, 1990). This belief continues through elementary school (Entwistle & Baker, 1983) and on throughout the academic process (Hyde & Linn, 1988; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
New York Times: Where Are the Women Executives in Silicon Valley? Though it won’t be news to anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley, a new study confirms that tech companies are woefully behind in including women among their board members and highest-paid executives — not to mention the engineering ranks.
New York Times: Out of the Loop in Silicon Valley: Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies, and 22 percent of the software engineers at tech companies over all, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology. And among venture capitalists, the population of financiers who control the purse strings for a majority of tech start-ups, just 14 percent are women, the National Venture Capital Association says.
I do admit that out of our remaining four physics students, three are male and I alone represent the female side. But in our long math (alternative for "short math") courses the ratio is 50-50 (student count around 16). I'm 18 years old and in a Finnish "highschool" and it's my final year. The reading "vacation" for the finals began just last week. I dare to say that no male in our school tops my math and physics average in grades.
Edit: I am also in a belief that the male sex considers me attractive.
I do admit that out of our remaining four physics students, three are male and I alone represent the female side. But in our long math (alternative for "short math") courses the ratio is 50-50 (student count around 16). I'm 18 years old and in a Finnish "highschool" and it's my final year. The reading "vacation" for the finals began just last week. I dare to say that no male in our school tops my math and physics average in grades.
I've heard very good things about Finland in recent months. Great health system, low unemployment, fewer work-hours per year than any other developed country, excellent schools. It's nice to count another Finn among my friends!
Your testimony is interesting but it's also anecdotal. As you know, it doesn't carry much weight compared to systematic studies. (Speaking of studies...the statistics are summarized nicely in a series of charts here.)
I'll tell you something about those studies. They establish that there is a widespread belief that girls have less math and science competence. They establish that girls, on the average, have less math and science achievement. But they don't -- can't, really -- prove that girls have less native math and science ability. All of the scholars are careful to blame the disparity in achievement on attitudes, beliefs, and social factors.
In other words, while they can't deny that girls have less ability when it comes to math and science, no one is ready to say that they were born that way.
Do they have evidence to support this position? Not really. Maybe it's just political correctness. I admit that I stand firm with them in holding this conviction despite the lack of evidence. If girls were raised with the same expectations as boys, if the media didn't bombard them with harmful definitions of femininity, if there were a level playing field...then girls would do at least as well as boys in STEM subjects. I believe this wholeheartedly, without a shred of evidence!
In recent months I've made quite a study of the lack of women in computer, software, and Web careers. I've learned a few things:
Employers don't discriminate. The small percentage of women among their employees mirrors the small percentage of qualified women who apply for jobs.
Women aren't prepared for high-tech careers. The number of women majoring in computer science and computer engineering (both of which require advanced math, FWIW) is quite low. Employers who want to equal the imbalance and hire more women are stymied by the lack of potential employees with relevant skills. This is known as the Pipeline Problem.
Women in high-tech firms don't advance the corporate ladder as smoothly as men do. A recent study established that men advance more rapidly into management. The reason? Motherhood. Women with parental responsibilities tend not to put in the many extra hours that high-tech firms require of their top employees. Women who take time off to have children never regain their career momentum...in fact, when they return to work, their progress is found to be slower.
Most women -- more than half -- find the workplace an unsafe environment. Even in high-tech companies, even in 2012, women are the target of sexual attention that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe. More than half of women report incidents at their jobs, even in Silicon Valley.
Women have formed organizations, clubs, and support groups to address the challenges they face in high-tech careers. There are a lot of such organizations! They focus mostly on the Pipeline Problem, and on sharing anecdotes about workplace pressures and how to meet them. I don't think these organizations can solve the problem, but they can chip away at it.
merriment wrote...
I am also in a belief that the male sex considers me attractive.
Spoiler:
I find you attractive, and I don't need the picture to make you so. Smart girls are hot.
Because you took the trouble to engage with me and provoke this, another in my series of TL;DR posts, I'll share one of my very favorite songs with you!
Hots for the Smarts
Richard Thompson
I like a girl in satin
Who talks dirty in Latin
A girl who’s flirty
When she quotes Krishnamurti
If she likes to be goosed
While reciting from Proust
I’ll know she’s my kind of creature
Among her delectables
Her intellectables
Must be her sexiest feature
CHORUS
I’ve got the hots for the smarts
The hots for the smarts
IQ off the charts
Give me brains over hearts
I’ve got the hots for the smarts
I like a girl from Mensa
With a furrowed brow
When the tenses get denser
She gets it – and how!
I need a polymath
Called Cindy or Cath
Who likes her Plato not too platonic
An autodidact
Who can add and subtract
While sipping her Tolstoy and tonic
I need a girl with a feel
For Faraday’s wheel
A girl who’ll drool
For Fleming’s Left Hand Rule
Now you may like pin-ups
Of girls who do chin-ups
Like Xena the Warrior Princess
But I’ll take to dinner
My Nobel Prize winner
With plutonium stains down her dress
I like a girl who knows loadsa
Kierkegaard and Spinoza
Who likes to play chess
Humming Porgy and Bess
She must be able
From her logarithmic table
To find all those decimal places
And what do I care
That she’s nothing to wear
And her teeth are imprisoned in braces
I want a girl with a brain
The size of Siberia
With a haughty disdain
Of all things inferior
I don’t want a learner
With a Bunsen burner
She must be the finished article
Who sees our attraction
As chemical reaction
And charm as merely a particle
I want a PHD
Who reads Linear †˜B’
Who applies her lotion
With a Brownian motion
Now some men may favour
A girl who’s a raver
A tease or a saucy young minx
But I’ll get undressed with
The girl I’m impressed with
Who’s tunnelling under the Sphinx
I’ve got the hots for the smarts
The hots for the smarts
IQ off the charts
Give me brains over hearts
I’ve got the hots for the smarts
All your proof behind your statement is indeed convincing. I was merely responding to your fairly provocative opening of the subject. It is true that women tend to care for other areas in life more often than mathematics and sience. But - as you stated - this doesn't mean their capability of performing and studying those is at all inferior to men. Glad to hear that you were actually with me on this all along :)
It is an interesting subject though. I, for example, could never imagine myself in the management of some large company, nor in the head of some major research. I tend to crumbel under pressure very easily. I wonder if capability to leadership has any part in all this.
Also to what you said about "not needing the picture" made it sound like you assumed you'll find a picture of me in the spoiler. This is not the case :) Anyhow, I'm flattered. And I loved the song haha. Intelligent men are my weak point too. It's funny, but true that men wearing glasses often make me have a second look.
[laffin'] And all this time I thought my post was invisible or sumpin'.
Psychology Today: Why Pretty Girls Can't Do Math: In the August 2011 issue of the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, psychologist Laur Park shares the results of a series of studies with college-age women in which she finds that when women think about romance, they become less interested in studying STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. College-age men, however, can get interested in romance without any impact on their engagement with math and science.
Math is not for Girls: The Stereotype Begins Early: That's the conclusion of Dario Cvencek and his colleagues at the University of Washington, who wrote a provocative study recently published in the prestigious journal Child Development. In the study, the authors wanted to know whether elementary school children, some as young as first graders, already hold on to the stereotype that "girls don’t do math." Research has shown that in the US both adults and older children believe that math is a male activity and this stereotype is believed to be responsible for the gender gap that exists in math achievement (that males tend to outperform females in math).
Female Teachers May Pass on Math Anxiety to Girls, Study Finds: After a year in the classroom with female teachers who say they are anxious about math, girls are more likely to share that attitude — and score lower on tests, researchers say. Girls have long embraced the stereotype that they’re not supposed to be good at math. It seems they may be getting the idea from a surprising source — their female elementary school teachers.
How Negative Expectancies and Attitudes Undermine Females' Math Confidence and Performance: A Review of the Literature: There is a common belief that females are less mathematically capable than males. This belief is fairly constant across populations (see e.g. Eccles, 1987). Classroom studies have shown that this belief is in place by the time children enter the third grade (Crawford, Herrmann, Holdsworth, Randall & Robbins, 1989). This belief is mirrored by students' parents. By the time children enter kindergarten, parents expect girls to do better at verbal tasks and boys to do better at math (Lummis & Stevenson, 1990). This belief continues through elementary school (Entwistle & Baker, 1983) and on throughout the academic process (Hyde & Linn, 1988; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
New York Times: Where Are the Women Executives in Silicon Valley? Though it won’t be news to anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley, a new study confirms that tech companies are woefully behind in including women among their board members and highest-paid executives — not to mention the engineering ranks.
New York Times: Out of the Loop in Silicon Valley: Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies, and 22 percent of the software engineers at tech companies over all, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology. And among venture capitalists, the population of financiers who control the purse strings for a majority of tech start-ups, just 14 percent are women, the National Venture Capital Association says.
I can see nothing of your text saying that girls are worse at math. It says that there's less girls doing math and it lists reason that are not girls being bad in math. I also find it pretty odd how you can make such a claim while implying that women are not physically weaker then men when it's pretty much a fact that they are.
[laffin'] And all this time I thought my post was invisible or sumpin'.
Psychology Today: Why Pretty Girls Can't Do Math: In the August 2011 issue of the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, psychologist Laur Park shares the results of a series of studies with college-age women in which she finds that when women think about romance, they become less interested in studying STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. College-age men, however, can get interested in romance without any impact on their engagement with math and science.
Math is not for Girls: The Stereotype Begins Early: That's the conclusion of Dario Cvencek and his colleagues at the University of Washington, who wrote a provocative study recently published in the prestigious journal Child Development. In the study, the authors wanted to know whether elementary school children, some as young as first graders, already hold on to the stereotype that "girls don’t do math." Research has shown that in the US both adults and older children believe that math is a male activity and this stereotype is believed to be responsible for the gender gap that exists in math achievement (that males tend to outperform females in math).
Female Teachers May Pass on Math Anxiety to Girls, Study Finds: After a year in the classroom with female teachers who say they are anxious about math, girls are more likely to share that attitude — and score lower on tests, researchers say. Girls have long embraced the stereotype that they’re not supposed to be good at math. It seems they may be getting the idea from a surprising source — their female elementary school teachers.
How Negative Expectancies and Attitudes Undermine Females' Math Confidence and Performance: A Review of the Literature: There is a common belief that females are less mathematically capable than males. This belief is fairly constant across populations (see e.g. Eccles, 1987). Classroom studies have shown that this belief is in place by the time children enter the third grade (Crawford, Herrmann, Holdsworth, Randall & Robbins, 1989). This belief is mirrored by students' parents. By the time children enter kindergarten, parents expect girls to do better at verbal tasks and boys to do better at math (Lummis & Stevenson, 1990). This belief continues through elementary school (Entwistle & Baker, 1983) and on throughout the academic process (Hyde & Linn, 1988; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
New York Times: Where Are the Women Executives in Silicon Valley? Though it won’t be news to anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley, a new study confirms that tech companies are woefully behind in including women among their board members and highest-paid executives — not to mention the engineering ranks.
New York Times: Out of the Loop in Silicon Valley: Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies, and 22 percent of the software engineers at tech companies over all, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology. And among venture capitalists, the population of financiers who control the purse strings for a majority of tech start-ups, just 14 percent are women, the National Venture Capital Association says.
I can see nothing of your text saying that girls are worse at math. It says that there's less girls doing math and it lists reason that are not girls being bad in math. I also find it pretty odd how you can make such a claim while implying that women are not physically weaker then men when it's pretty much a fact that they are.
Excluding 8th grade, all of my math teachers were women. Especially my Calculus teacher. She's really good and personally I don't understand why she loves calculus.
Well I dont think they're weak but It is expected of men to be stronger because of the stereotypical idea that men have to protect their women. However I have seen some girls in my karate class take down bigger guys than them, so I wouldnt dare say they're weak.
Also girls can endure lots of pain than guys. I mean when they give birth they have to force their baby out creating a large hole in the girls ass and that must be really painful (Just a theory). That alone proves that women arent weak.
men wearing glasses often make me have a second look.
I am so going to upload a pic to these fora someday soon.
I'll be waiting. Also lol, this was all you picked from my response? Seems like I have to work on conversation other than debating and fangirling.
(btw) OT:
We do chin ups for fun after every tang lang training. Men from five to fifteen (or more, can't remember /o\) and women from 0 to 5. OTL. Men are stronger. Muscles grow more and the growth is much more rapid with men than women in teenage (the peak of muscle growth).
Also girls can endure lots of pain than guys. I mean when they give birth they have to force their baby out creating a large hole in the girls ass and that must be really painful (Just a theory). That alone proves that women arent weak.
I don't think girls give birth through their anus. I'm absolutely astounded that you even managed to think that for this long. Hopefully that was just a typo or a Freudian slip of some sort.
Wordmangler, I'm going to assume your "OT" was a joke. Albeit a poorly thought out one. The notion that men will become obsolete or whatever has been dis-proven time and time again, and that notion is used primarily by extreme feminist lesbians. Publicly stating large-scale biased, and factless gender war-esque things just make people look like complete idiots with the logic of an illogical 4 year old. (Some 4 year olds are logical)
While there are jobs that women perform relatively poorly in, there are also jobs that women simply don't feel like doing. Construction working and plumbing, for instance. Honestly, I doubt anyone actually wants to do the latter, but males generally get whatever job they can get in order to make ends meet. Polls have shown that women prefer office-like jobs, or anything that won't get their hands dirty. This is nothing to be ashamed of or to flame someone for, because society tends to steer women in the direction of a "clean, pretty, and pristine" sort of mindset(Though I've met quite a few who are complete slobs).
"Just get the machines to construct things" isn't much of a response, because it would take mechanics and technicians to construct and program the machines, both of which seem to be male-dominated these days. And sure, yes, more women could program the machines to do etc. But once you've got a machine that can fully construct buildings and program themselves, you don't just not need males anymore, you don't need humans at all in that situation.
Simply put, the notion that any gender role can be completely replaced and become obsolete or whatever is just pointless immature garbage that those of lesser intelligence spew out when they're in a bad mood and feel like taking a spin at being philosophical or whatever. A man can live his entire life without a woman and not give a damn. A woman can live her entire life without a man and not give a damn. To expand that from a single person of that sex to the entire sex would be, and is, completely blasphemous and poorly thought out, as there are some men who are raised by their parents to worship the ground women walk on, and women who are raised to depend solely on males and expend their resources for pointless things.
I guess regardless of if it was meant to be a joke or not by you, the notion in general is a joke itself.
@Kensouke: Babies can be delivered from what I know either in your vagina or going through C-section, though there are 12 ways to go about giving birth. Though when I said ass I did mean it in the wrong way. My mom's words when I asked this when I was a kid made me believe that babies come out in the ass as well.