Quote:
I have read that book. So have lots of other people, some of whom are on the forum -- likely amongst whom are Clay_Allison, Skjie and even Forevergrey, which is why they are suggesting you might be trolling, in their own separate but delicate fashions.
*shrugs*
Maybe. But that wasn't my intent.
Would you mind explaining to me why the book is so bad, please?
Quote:
Firstly, testosterone poisoning does not equate to ambition. Male bodies produce twenty times the amount of androgens that female bodies do, but that makes men tend to violence (and hair loss), not to ambition.
Did I say that?
It is the pre-natal testosterone surge that is the cause of the (general) increase in ambition in most males. Females who recieve a similar wash of hormones also recieve the same general increase in testosterone. Afterwards, all you'll do if you give Mr. Unambitious more testosterone is make him crankier.
Quote:
Secondly, as you yourself point out: a statistical tendency is not a universal qualification, and nor is it a prescription for behaviour. If men are better neurologically predisposed to mathematics than are women, fine; but that does not mean that women must give up all hope of interest in math. Similarly, even if women are better neurologically predisposed to lingiustic communication than are men, then men are still unlikely to let women do all the talking.
Of course. But if you have a man and a woman with equal intelligences and training, the man will still be better at spatial work while the woman will be better at communicating.
Quote:
Emmy Noether and Sophie Germain were mathematicians of note; William Shakespeare and Dante Alighieri were arguably the greatest writers of all time. Naturally, fans of Goethe, Homer, Virgil, Cervantes et al. will all clamour for attention, now. What, those guys were men, too?
Of course they were. They are all outliers.
The bell curve of male mathematical skill has a higher mean than the female one, but that doesn't stop either of them from having tiny numbers of individuals outstanding individuals.
Quote:
You have heard of Shakespeare and Dante, I am sure. Do you know anything about Noether and Germain, though? Does the fact that those women had to publish anonymously or under masculine pseudonyms have something to do with it, hmmm?
Well, for the first I can say that until you mentioned them, I had never heard of either of them. After a little bit of Internet research, I think that is probably because I'm not a university-level math student (or, for that matter, a uni student at all).
Quote:
Thirdly: the phrase "separate but equal" has been used in other political circumstances. In Afrikaans, for example, it translates (approximately) to "apartheid". However, I think the best place to learn about "separate but equal" is from a novel, Animal Farm, by yet another male writer. Gosh, those boys seem to be overcoming their limitations all the time.
Did I say 'seperate but equal'? No, I said 'different, but of equal worth'. Men are better than women at some things, women are better than men at others.
I read
Animal Farm. It was okay. I believe its theme was more about the corruption of power and Communist Russia than anything else.
Quote:
Enforcing stereotypes as policy is tyranny.
WTF? Seriously, where did that come from?
Quote:
Really, the noob was in the wrong here as well,
Really? How?
Also, people, I realize that I might be new to this forum, but please stop referring to me as 'the newb', okay? I did pick a screen-name, and the last time I checked, it wasn't 'the newb'. [/quasi-humor]