Indubioproaggredi wrote:
question: why do some societies not differenciate between girls and woman? thats strange
In our society, women are girls.
Ruth Haring: 'Girls are bad at chess'
Sort:
Beats me. I don't think it should be until they hold a job or become mothers.
Aug 3, 2014
0
#144
I'll agree that girls are bad at chess if someone agrees that boys are bad at running the planet. ;-D
Aug 3, 2014
0
#145
motherinlaw wrote:
I'll agree that girls are bad at chess if someone agrees that boys are bad at running the planet. ;-D
You've got a deal!
Aug 3, 2014
0
#146
She didn't claim that women were GOOD at running the planet... only that men were BAD at it.
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
Aug 3, 2014
0
#148
PearlFey wrote:
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
:-D ! -- wait, though -- are you or are you not counting "raising children" as a difficult and dangerous job? I would.
Aug 3, 2014
0
#149
Mersaphe wrote:
Children can raise themselves, they just need food and water and a roof above their head (and an iPod). If you're a smart person your kid will learn by watching you
Oh, you sweet, dear, innocent thing, you ...
motherinlaw wrote:
PearlFey wrote:
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
:-D ! -- wait, though -- are you or are you not counting "raising children" as a difficult and dangerous job? I would.
I'm being forcibly drafted into the military. Stay safe at home, honey, you might get napalmed by our two year old
I will concede that it's difficult, though. Women are not very good at raising children.
motherinlaw wrote:
PearlFey wrote:
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
:-D ! -- wait, though -- are you or are you not counting "raising children" as a difficult and dangerous job? I would.
It's a legit job, but, admittedly as a non parent, I don't think it's the most talent requiring thing out there. It does show caring and dedication though, sure. I guess in other words I would never call a parent an "artist" just for being a parent :) That's different from being thankful of them of course.
rdecredico wrote:
Only women can create a new life inside their own body.
Until men can do this, I remain unimpressed by any other comparisons between the two sexes.
That's just a biological function. I would think women would be insulted by the implication that they don't have much of a a brain, but that's fine, since they have a uterus. Their only saving grace. I mean after all, educated fleas can reproduce, and do a better job of it than woman.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
rdecredico wrote:
Only women can create a new life inside their own body.
Until men can do this, I remain unimpressed by any other comparisons between the two sexes.
That's just a biological function. I would think women would be insulted by the implication that they don't have much of a a brain, but that's fine, since they have a uterus. Their only saving grace.
Seemed like a pretty good spirited comment just going by his words. And you want to twist that into him saying women are dumber than men, even though he was talking about something entirely different. Scary.
I mean, there is pregnancy, and yes, it's something we should appreciate a lot when women go through that.
Women can't create new life inside their body anyway. What are we, 8 years old?
The protein folds in my mitochondria take into account quantum physics to make energy for me to live. Wow, lets "appreciate" that in a macro social context -- barf.
I've heard technology is developing though to a point where, into the future, women might not need a man for that. Don't remember how though lol.
Aug 3, 2014
0
#157
LongIslandMark wrote:
My id would be much more interested in "bad girls playing chess".
I would subscribe to that thread!
Aug 3, 2014
0
#158
I would never joke about someone being drafted, PearlFey. I was joking about men and women before, but now I'm just confused -- I didn't think the draft had been reinstated, though I have heard about requirements to "register" in case it is. Whatever happens, I hope you never end up fighting in a war.
Aug 3, 2014
0
#159
shell_knight wrote:
The protein folds in my mitochondria take into account quantum physics to make energy for me to live. Wow, lets "appreciate" that in a macro social context -- barf.
If I understood all that, I would appreciate the heck out of it in a macro social context! (Actually, I'm familiar with "mitochondria" and "quantum physics" and "protein" and "folds," but "protein folds in mitochondria?" That's blowing my mind, man!)
Has anyone done a PROPER statistical analysis to see how far women's (and girls') results deviate from the expected sampling bias?
By that, I mean: if there are (just inventing some numbers) 100,000 FIDE-rated male players and 5,000 FIDE-rated female players, what proportion of the TOP players should be female (and no, it isn't the obvious 5%).
Yes. You can start with this thread; there should be some relevant information there. The method in the original post is not rigorous, but there should be some links in the following comments that point to published analyses, which prove that participation rates do not explain the difference in the gender performance gap.