The 'Yes' to Sex App

Rothbardian Girl said:
I will readily acknowledge that men, on the average, tend to be physically stronger than women, and this will affect their representation in certain physically intensive jobs (mining, logging, etc). However, I would have to question how useful harping on that fact actually is, given that in truth, a lot of men simply aren't cut out for those jobs either.

I think the question becomes more ambiguous (and tends to provoke more anger/controversy) when it starts to get away from physical strength and more towards psychological or intellectual traits. I think we've all heard such tropes as "men are good at math; women are good at English," "men are rational; women are emotional," and "men should work; women should stay at home and raise children". Only some of these beliefs have any physio-biological basis; many of them are actually "folk knowledge" or more generally, cultural stereotypes (think the math/English and rational/emotional dichotomies). Other cultural stereotypes have since been debunked; for example, people actually used to believe that if women walked or rode horses, they would become infertile. In short, people used to believe all kinds of things about women that we now know are frankly BS. In addition, today's technology is evening the playing field a little bit.

That all being said, the real danger of holding certain beliefs about gender roles is that they tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. As a very simplistic example, it has been shown that when girls are reminded that they supposedly are naturally bad at math, they tend to do worse on math tests. Similar effects and results hold in the natural sciences, as well. The effect is to dissuade women from trying anything "outside-the-box," and that is fundamentally limiting and not acknowledging the beautiful variances in human ability and inclination. Also, I'm not at all claiming that this is some conscious effort to oppress women. Many people don't realize how incredibly damaging stereotypes can be. The "blowback" of promoting such views is that fewer women will actually try math and science - a deadweight loss that could be corrected by simple attitude adjustments.

Well, someone might say, if women are bad at science and math, wouldn't it be good to tell them that before they waste their time trying to get an advanced degree? They could be spending all that time raising children! But if we're going to have that mentality, let's IQ test everyone and map out their careers for them. Get a D in gym class? Maybe you should become a cellphone salesman and not a firefighter. Obviously the latter is a reductio ad absurdum, but I think the point holds. The truth is, using gender, IQ or fitness to predict what people should do, or shoehorn them into certain pathways in life, is highly inefficient. And this leads us to the crowning achievement of libertarian thought - that since we suck at predicting what people want and what they are good at, markets are superior to central planning. Prosperous societies are characterized by freedom of exchange and gains from trade. Limiting a woman's desire to and confidence in making her own career decisions leads to inefficiency; again, a totally avoidable deadweight loss.

Again, I don't think it's a conscious effort on the part of people who believe in traditional gender roles to limit women's choices. I'm sure some women feel secure in being able to be provided for, and some men enjoy providing for women. However, many people embrace state controls for the sake of security as well. Ultimately, though, we need to consider and prioritize freedom over "good vibes."
Click to expand...

First of all, a graph of male and female IQ rates generally looks like this:

iqdistribution-men-women.png


Women have a tighter distribution. Men typically have more geniuses, but also more morons. It always bothers me how people complain about the gender gap in ultra high level fields occupied by .01% of the population, but don't notice the corresponding gender gap at the lowest levels of society.

Like it or not, men and women have different brain structures. First of all, women have smaller brains (by about 10%). Recent studies have shown that although women have smaller brains, they make up for it by using them more efficiently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ally-smaller-brains--use-efficiently-men.html


Women typically have more active and well developed language centers:

"The corpus callosum -- the bridge of nerve tissue that connects the right and left sides of the brain -- had a thicker measurement in female fetuses than in male fetuses.

Observations of adult brains show that this area may remain stronger in females. "Females seem to have language functioning in both sides of the brain," says Martha Bridge Denckla, PhD, a research scientist at Kennedy Krieger Institute.

Consider these recent findings. Researchers, using brain imaging technology that captures blood flow to "working" parts of the brain, analyzed how men and women process language. All subjects listened to a novel. When males listened, only the left hemisphere of their brains was activated. The brains of female subjects, however, showed activity on both the left and right hemispheres."

While men typically have more robust spatial and geometric brain regions:

"Boys generally demonstrate superiority over female peers in areas of the brain involved in math and geometry. These areas of the brain mature about four years earlier in boys than in girls, according to a recent study that measured brain development in more than 500 children. Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. Conversely, the same researchers found that areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills (such as handwriting) mature about six years earlier in girls than in boys."

But that's not all!

"...male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills."


Please read this entire article, you'll learn a lot I promise!
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

-------------------------

That's the science, now for anecdotal evidence! I'm actually sort of a smart guy, and when I was at my university I met plenty of extremely smart, hard working women in the sciences. Unfortunately, a huge portion of the women in my class dropped out to easier majors before Junior year (interestingly, it was all the most beautiful ones, I guess the ones with the most estrogen?). So my upper division coursework was a very male dominated environment.

I got to know several of the girls, and the thing I noticed most of all was how unhappy they seemed to be. I suppose we were all unhappy, suffering as we were under the workload, but the women in particular seemed very unexcited with the subject. Much more likely to rush through and get the homework over with rather than really taking their time working through the proofs to make sure they understood everything.

Now, it's certainly not fair to generalize based on anecdotal evidence, but I typically place my own observations of the world at a rather high level of consideration. And so I wonder, what is the purpose in this huge monumental effort to squeeze more women into the sciences, a subject that they just don't seem very happy to be in? Why is it so wrong that it's a male dominated industry? After all industries such as Health Care, and Education are overwhelmingly female dominated, and I don't see any huge push to get more men involved there.

Men and women are different, so why are we insisting on equality of outcomes? It doesn't make a lot of sense really.


Other links for further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/men-women-different-brains.htm

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

http://www.brainfitnessforlife.com/differences-between-the-male-and-female-brain/
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
First of all, a graph of male and female IQ rates generally looks like this:
<snip>

Women have a tighter distribution. Men typically have more geniuses, but also more morons. It always bothers me how people complain about the gender gap in ultra high level fields occupied by .01% of the population, but don't notice the corresponding gender gap at the lowest levels of society.

Like it or not, men and women have different brain structures. First of all, women have smaller brains (by about 10%). Recent studies have shown that although women have smaller brains, they make up for it by using them more efficiently.

<snip>
-------------------------
Click to expand...

At the risk of seeming blasé, my response to most of the brain structure stuff is a "So what?" For one thing, women don't actually possess a greater bilateralization of language function. This is an old myth from the 1980s. See this and this study for details (the studies are from 2004 and 2009, respectively). In addition, while male brains may contain more gray matter by volume, women's brains typically contain a higher ratio of gray to white matter. (NB: Interesting excerpt from the abstract: "Although statistically significant sex differences and asymmetries are present at this level of analysis, we argue that researchers should be wary of ascribing cognitive functional significance to these patterns at this time.") However, this difference in ratio may be explained by the size difference, which has no bearing on actual intelligence (are blue whales smarter than humans?). Even men's supposed superiority in spatial processing isn't always clear (source):
Results showed that sex differences are significant in several tests but that some intertest differences exist. Partial support was found for the notion that the magnitude of sex differences has decreased in recent years. Finally, it was found that the age of emergence of sex differences depends on the test used. Results are discussed with regard to their implications for the study of sex differences in spatial abilities.
Click to expand...

Moving on, there is simply no proof that differences in brain structure translate into differences in behavior. A competing theory, known as "compensation theory," posits that the inverse is true: differences in brain structure translate into similarities in behavior. Such a theory would explain why men and women perform similarly on tasks even with differing patterns of brain activity. In any case, it is important to be skeptical of "experts" using this rationale to push gendered educational practices. There exists a definite "self-fulfilling prophecy" regarding stereotypes and girls' performance in STEM fields, as I referenced earlier, and research seems to support this:
ibid said:
We discovered that nation-level implicit stereotypes predicted nation-level sex differences in 8th-grade science and mathematics achievement. Self-reported stereotypes did not provide additional predictive validity of the achievement gap. We suggest that implicit stereotypes and sex differences in science participation and performance are mutually reinforcing, contributing to the persistent gender gap in science engagement.
Click to expand...

Addressing the second portion of your post...

DevilsAdvocate said:
That's the science, now for anecdotal evidence! I'm actually sort of a smart guy, and when I was at my university I met plenty of extremely smart, hard working women in the sciences. Unfortunately, a huge portion of the women in my class dropped out to easier majors before Junior year (interestingly, it was all the most beautiful ones, I guess the ones with the most estrogen?). So my upper division coursework was a very male dominated environment.

I got to know several of the girls, and the thing I noticed most of all was how unhappy they seemed to be. I suppose we were all unhappy, suffering as we were under the workload, but the women in particular seemed very unexcited with the subject. Much more likely to rush through and get the homework over with rather than really taking their time working through the proofs to make sure they understood everything.
Click to expand...
Like you, I chose a major that had a high percentage of males and was generally regarded as the most difficult major outside of some of the engineering majors - mathematical economics. It was generally known as the major that received all the engineers who flunked out of that curriculum, and more still would filter down to some of the business majors, such as finance. I watched my class sizes dwindle year after year as well. My last econ class was what can best be described as a mashup of advanced calculus and real analysis (it involved a lot of proofs of economic results using calculus), and there were three girls and five boys; one of the girls and two of the boys left within the first two weeks of the course. I'm not actually sure, though, that dropout rates tell us much about innate gendered ability. For one thing, some professors are quite frankly not very welcoming towards females, again tying into the whole self-fulfilling prophecy thing. (I am sure males experience bias as well, in some situations.) I had some that were more likely to ignore females in their classes and/or treat them in a rather unprofessional manner, sometimes bordering on creepy. When professors act like this, it tends to shut women (I believe it would shut anyone down, if they weren't receiving proper attention) down, make them less likely to contribute, and in turn less likely to care about doing a thorough job on homework and/or proofs. Subtle discrimination (probably unintended, most of the time) is very hard to notice, but I personally had a linear algebra professor who was this way, and everyone talked about it. Yay for anecdotes.

More generally, I believe anyone can blossom in math with the proper guidance. We're crossing into another subject here, namely the state of math education in the US; I honestly believe it is rather perilous, so I frankly don't think anecdotal evidence gives us much to work with here. Advanced math courses suffer from high barriers to entry and in some cases, a poor rate of return on investment in learning time. In short, I think there is much to criticize with the math educational system before we try to delve into explaining whether males and females perform markedly differently in math, and why.

DevilsAdvocate said:
Now, it's certainly not fair to generalize based on anecdotal evidence, but I typically place my own observations of the world at a rather high level of consideration. And so I wonder, what is the purpose in this huge monumental effort to squeeze more women into the sciences, a subject that they just don't seem very happy to be in? Why is it so wrong that it's a male dominated industry? After all industries such as Health Care, and Education are overwhelmingly female dominated, and I don't see any huge push to get more men involved there.
Click to expand...
To answer that question, we have to identify where the unhappiness is coming from. You seem to see this "female unhappiness" as a result of innate differences in male and female ability, while I see it as a general unhappiness with the way many math and science courses tend to be taught in university (which is really the compounding of a problem that starts as early as the first years of schooling). I want to unravel people's biases if they are based on outmoded stereotypes and see where the chips fall from there, while others seem to want to pretend these biases are fixed and settled. I saw many men get steamrolled by modern algebra and number theory courses that I earned solid grades in, and yet almost no one is crying for them - they're focused on essentially telling women "no, you won't be able to perform" while not bothering to examine how the system oppresses everyone.

DevilsAdvocate said:
Men and women are different, so why are we insisting on equality of outcomes? It doesn't make a lot of sense really.
Click to expand...
I am in fact advocating for equality of opportunity rather than outcomes. No one is insisting on quotas to correct the discrepancy, but moreso a removal of barriers, which do in fact exist (the stereotypes, as I have mentioned before). Unfortunately "men and women are different" is a popular refrain that has contributed to a retardation of progress on the matter. "Men and women are different" has been used to smuggle in simplistic and lazy thinking time and time again. Why the eagerness to open and shut the book?
 
On a subject related to the OP:

http://www.rt.com/usa/263405-sex-apps-blamed-disease/

Casual sex apps blamed for rise in STDs – report

Sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise in the US, with health officials pointing the finger at casual sex arranged through social media. In addition to dating apps, they blame promiscuity, drugs, alcohol and failure to use condoms.

A report by the Rhode Island Department of Health pointed at the alarming rise of STDs in the state between 2013 and 2014, with gonorrhea up 30 percent, HIV infections up by 33 percent, and syphilis soaring a shocking 79 percent.

“New cases of HIV and syphilis continued to increase among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men at a faster rate than in other populations,” the report noted, adding that “infection rates of all STDs continued to have a greater impact on the African-American, Hispanic, and young adult populations.”

While better testing partly explains the increase, health officials also highlighted “high-risk behaviors that have become more common in recent years,” such as “using social media to arrange casual and often anonymous sexual encounters.”

Other risky behavior factors were: “Having sex without a condom, having multiple sex partners, and sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

Rhode Island officials say their alarming STD rates are part of a trend throughout the US. Although the latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are from 2013, there have been reports of spikes in HIV and syphilis from New York and Texas to Utah.

According to CDC data for the period between 2001 and 2011, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the rate of HIV infection dropped by 30 percent for the general population, but rose by 132.5 percent for the “gay and bisexual men between the ages of 13 and 24.”

An STD clinic in Salt Lake County, Utah, has started asking patients about specific contact apps. Lynn Beltran, an epidemiologist at the clinic, told ABC she was not surprised to see a rise in STDs.

“It’s been the perfect storm,” said Beltran. “Our attitude kind of shifted, where it became more acceptable to engage in casual sex.”

Beltran said she had seen an uptick in syphilis and gonorrhea rates, and that many of the newly diagnosed patients said they were sexually active through dating apps.

Anthony Hayes, managing director of public affairs and policy for the Gay Men's Health Crisis, told ABC News social media wasn’t to blame so much as “our failure to provide young people with comprehensive, effective sex education and access to condoms” and affordable medical care.

Between 2003 and 2009, when prostitution wasn’t illegal in Rhode Island due to a clerical error, the state registered a 39-percent decrease in gonorrhea infections among women. A 2014 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research also found a 31-percent decrease in the number of rapes reported to the police.
Click to expand...
 
Rothbardian Girl said:
I don't believe I've ever seen you post a serious post in my time on this forum, so I'm not expecting much here... but I think you're going to have to do a little better than that response. I hope this isn't what passes for debate these days.
Click to expand...


Ok, I have lived it. I flew fighters in the military, was top in my class. I also instructed. Then they started to allow women. They gave a few of them to me, I guess as I was precieved as a gental guy (I was). But in my career as an instructor in both the military and for a major airline, the women get a long leash, and eventually pass, where a guy wouldn't. Your example of firefighters, they lowered the standard to accommodate women, so we are all less safe now.
 
Carlybee said:
I'm not getting riled up. Sounds like you are. Stating that men should "do the hard jobs" is a relative statement. Something doesn't have to be physically demanding to be hard. There are jobs that are mentally taxing too. It sounded like you implied that men do all the hard work so women can stay home and have babies. I've been a provider my entire adult life so things don't always fit in a neat tidy little box like that.
Click to expand...

Oh does it, then? I'm just making a point. You're the one who keeps ardently disagreeing with me seemingly because you're offended by something I'm saying, and then saying things like, "Of course women are better suited for bearing children", when that was my point in the first place! Whatever it is that you disagree with me on, you're not making it clear.

And I'm sorry, but men do most of the mentally taxing jobs as well because, again, that's just the way it is. Am I saying a woman is incapable of said jobs? Absolutely not. Am I in any way implying that a woman should not do those jobs? Again, no. But the reality is hard to escape that men dominate both physically and mentally challenging professions. It's just part of the circle of life. I really don't know why it's so hard to understand. It doesn't threaten your independence or individuality. If finding the perfect mate isn't high on your priority list, then you needn't worry about traditional roles at all. I'm just saying it's best for the purposes of procreation and family.
 
If a woman is going to have a kid and doesn't breastfeed it, she just shouldn't have kids. It's selfish to deny a child proper nutrition and important antibodies because of a career or some other self-interest. I unfortunately got industrial baby formula as a kid so I'm partially retarded, probably.
 
Warrior_of_Freedom said:
If a woman is going to have a kid and doesn't breastfeed it, she just shouldn't have kids. It's selfish to deny a child proper nutrition and important antibodies because of a career or some other self-interest. I unfortunately got industrial baby formula as a kid so I'm partially retarded, probably.
Click to expand...

+rep

Even my little sister, who got pregnant at 16, understood that. It's not hard to figure out why men became traditionally dominant when you take into account common effing sense.
 
Rothbardian Girl said:
There is simply no proof that differences in brain structure translate into differences in behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of baffled by this ridiculous statement. If differences in brain structure DIDN'T result in differences in behavior, then why are the brain structures different? Evolution clearly engineered the differences, which would be pointless if they didn't change behavior at all. I'm sure you can see the flaw in the logic here. These differences begin appearing during the fetal incubation period and develop consistently throughout childhood. This is not due to environmental factors.

I mean, first of all it's just ridiculous on it's face. Of course differently structured brains would have different aptitudes and capabilities. But if you want to answer the question, why are men and women able to achieve similar results on tasks even with different brain activity? Well imagine a multitude of different animals trying to compete in a high jump contest. Each animal has a different method for getting over the bar. The dolphin flops over, the giraffe steps over, the tiger leaps over. Each one of them can get over the bar using the tools it has at it's disposal, but the method it uses to get there is completely different. Similarly each brain when confronted with a task to solve will train itself over time to solve the task with the tools it has at it's disposal. Got to memorize something, how do you do it? Some people sing a song, some people build a memory palace, some people put a name and face on it in their mind. In the end, different people with different aptitudes can accomplish the same task in a variety of different ways.

But now let's say you were to raise the high jump bar, higher and higher. All of a sudden the animals with the natural aptitude for the task are going to be the ones that find success, and the others will find themselves working harder and harder for diminished results. For example, raise the bar to 8 feet, the tiger bursts all it's muscles, struggling and straining, giving it all it's got. Meanwhile the giraffe simply shrugs and steps over the bar. In the long run, your natural aptitude will determine a lot about what tasks you're intrinsically better at, and what tasks aren't a good use of your effort.

-----------------------

Now brain structures vary just as much as body structures do. Differences in the physical abilities of bodies are much more easily seen. As an example, here is the Olympic 100m sprint:

OB-UA904_0805bo_G_20120805170407.jpg


Now, do you notice anything....similar about all the men in the race? Something...something....hmmm what could it be? Well in any case this is the Olympics, you can be sure that everybody on the starting line not only trained their bodies to the limit, but they also had certain natural aptitudes that raised the potential of their abilities higher than others without those aptitudes.

We could argue that the reason Caucasians don't make it to the Olympics in the 100m is because they aren't trained well enough, or maybe they aren't trained from a young enough age. Or maybe they were raised in a way that prejudiced them against sprinting. Or maybe, they just don't have the fast-twitch muscle fiber density and high center of gravity needed to compete at that level. Maybe they don't have the aptitude.

-----------------------

Blaming 100% of the variation on social factors doesn't follow, no matter how intellectually pleasing it is. Men and women evolved for hundreds of thousands of years filling distinct social roles in the family structure. These evolutionary changes radically differentiated their bodies, and it follows that it worked a similar process on their brains (which is what seems like happened). The end result being that each has an aptitude in different things corresponding to the necessary functions of their social role.

Brain power is not a resource spent frivolously, our brains account roughly 20% of our total energy consumption. Humans would likely be selected strongly to maximize the efficiency of their brain power. This means tailoring the brains of men and women suit the tasks they performed most often in their separate social roles. (The brain was one of the body parts undergoing fierce selection pressure in human evolution). Therefore, it would make sense that women would be more emotionally sensitive, more social, more linguistically gifted, because these all supplement her role as caregiver. While a man would likely be visual, because this skill supplements his role as a hunter.

I can't say I have proof of this. But it makes a lot of logical sense to me, especially with how it lines up with the observed differences in male vs. female aptitudes we tend to see in society today. Examining brain structures only lends further support to this. In any case, it wouldn't be logical to hold a default position that men and women have equal aptitudes.


But besides all that. The fact is that a lot of women probably could do good work in the Sciences, but would rather make use of their far more highly attuned emotional and interpersonal sensitivity. Not only do they have a comparative advantage here over men, but they are doing something that seems to truly make them happy and fit with all their aptitudes. Why would a woman choose to teach preschool rather than pursue a Medical Degree? Could it be that she loves kids and they stir her heart? And is it unnatural for her to love kids? I don't think so.

I just don't see huge numbers of women signing up for a field that's very dry, boring, and devoid of social interaction. Requiring long drawn out periods of introspection and isolation. This just isn't how women tend to be wired. It's not just because of the way they were raised. It's something far deeper and more fundamental than that. I've seen women brought to tears by a laughing baby video. These kinds of emotional experiences drive straight down deep into the core of her being, it's not just because she was given dolls instead of trucks as a kid.


---------------------------

If you'd like to talk about gender bias in schools, have a look at the other side of the coin.

The Gender Gap
http://educationnext.org/gender-gap/

Boys are being harmed disproportionately by the educational system. Something like 90% of elementary school and middle school teachers are female. This has huge consequences. First of all, there are no male role models, second of all, female behaviors are reinforced.

"However, the opportunities for boys to be exposed to male role models are distinctively disadvantaged across the nation by the dominance of women in teaching. Some have posited, not without warrant, that female teachers instinctively reinforce “female” behavior and fail to acknowledge, or even punish, the gender-specific behaviors of boys."

Not only that, but these female teachers consistently grade boys lower than girls, in a shockingly sexist fashion:

"Researchers also agree that the overall academic prowess of girls is not due to more smarts. In fact, boys and girls share very similar cognitive abilities. In non-cognitive skills, however, differences are significant. A 2012 study by Christopher Cornwell, head of the economics department at the University of Georgia, and colleagues found that boys on average score 15 percent lower on an assessment of non-cognitive skills (engagement in class, ability to sit calmly, interpersonal skills) than girls. The study falls short of calling teachers sexist, but points to the fact that the majority of elementary teachers are female, for the first time suggesting that a gender gap persists as a function of educators’ behavioral perceptions of their students."

Also, the modern educational system is not well suited to boy's learning styles. And in fact seems like it's set up specifically to meet the educational needs of girls:

"Learning styles, in general, also vary between boys and girls. While many girls absorb academic lessons by listening and looking, many boys rely on kinesthetic learning, that is movement and touch, to master new information, Cox says. The typical classroom, however, rarely involves moving around. In fact, students are expected to sit still in rows of desks while the teacher delivers the lesson."

Quoted source:
https://coe.lehigh.edu/content/reverse-gender-gap

Boys are dropping out of High School at alarming rates. The problem is so bad that more than 60% of college students are currently female. All of higher education is female dominated, except...you guessed it...math and science. The last refuge in the college system where men are actually finding success. And this state of affairs is currently under fire by feminists and Social Justice Warriors. People who claim to be pushing for gender equality, while at the same time blatantly ignoring huge inequities in male vs female college admissions and high school graduation rates.

In my opinion, it's kind of sick to advocate changing textbooks and teaching methods in Math and Science to accommodate girls at the likely expense of boys, meanwhile ignoring an Educational System that systematical fails boys and their educational needs at practically every level.

------------------------------

On a personal note, I've been through this in a big way. I actually wanted to be a writer growing up. But I was treated so horribly and unfairly by radical feminist English teachers in High School that I had to set those dreams aside. Despite my years of experience writing short stories, and sky high standardized test scores in reading and writing, I was consistently graded lower on essays than weed smoking cheerleaders who could barely tie their shoes. In class, it felt like I was being persecuted, like I had done something wrong that I couldn't understand. (During one incident, my teacher actually started throwing things at me during class). I actually failed English, took the AP test behind my teachers back, passed it, and got credit for the class anyway. My teacher did not react kindly to this, and confronted me red faced and boiling angry the next time she saw me.

It wasn't until later that I began to realize that it was my teachers own bigotry that was driving all of it. So I turned to Math and Science. These teachers were all male, and greatly supported me and encouraged me, giving me some of the first good role models I ever had in the public education system. Thanks to them, I was able to find success doing something I was good at.



PS: I probably went off the discussion a little bit. But to make a final point, the way that math is taught in schools is generally pretty atrocious and can be significantly improved. The problem is more with the schools system itself.
 
Warrior_of_Freedom said:
If a woman is going to have a kid and doesn't breastfeed it, she just shouldn't have kids. It's selfish to deny a child proper nutrition and important antibodies because of a career or some other self-interest. I unfortunately got industrial baby formula as a kid so I'm partially retarded, probably.
Click to expand...

Obviously it's best but there are some women who women can't breastfeed due to certain surgeries, low breast milk, or taking medications that can crossover.
 
PaulConventionWV said:
+rep

Even my little sister, who got pregnant at 16, understood that. It's not hard to figure out why men became traditionally dominant when you take into account common effing sense.
Click to expand...


Yeah...an example: like those guys from Jackass who staple their penises to their leg. Or more recently the guy who lit a firework on his head.Those guys are great examples of male superiority in common sense.

Tell it to any mother who raised a boy child about this common sense superiority you speak of.
 
Last edited:
Carlybee said:
Yeah...an example: like those guys from Jackass who staple their penises to their leg. Or more recently the guy who lit a firework on his head.Those guys are great examples of male superiority in common sense.

Tell it to any mother who raised a boy child about this common sense superiority you speak of.
Click to expand...

I guess the woman didn't have the common sense to raise the boy child with common sense.
...
badum tsssh :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pmbug
Signal - end to end encryption communications app
Replies
0
Views
275
pmbug
pmbug
PAF
Best-selling Apps Made by Israeli Spies Revealed
Replies
1
Views
65
unknown
unknown
pmbug
Walking around and painting the town
Replies
3
Views
3K
pmbug
pmbug
PAF
Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal
Replies
1
Views
113
unknown
unknown
Occam's Banana
Metadata shows FBI’s "raw" Epstein prison video was modified
Replies
7
Views
118
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top