Comments by "SepherStar" (@SepherStar) on "The Land Where Women Rule: Inside China's Last Matriarchy" video.

  1. Sage Thinker You have the nerve to ignore all of the contributions a woman makes, and all of her sacrifices, and devalue the traditional role of a woman and ignore it's importance. A woman brought you into this world and if you are like most people, a woman put your needs above her own, taught you not to eat dirt, taught you how to feed yourself, and not to sh!t your pants. What a woman did to you to make you so bitter towards them, I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the kind deeds of 1,000,000 women go ignored by you and cruel deeds of 1 would be that which you judge all women by. I have respect for men and their contributions, you can have respect for women and theirs.
    15
  2. Sage Thinker " Men provided the majority of food by fishing and hunting while the animals men hunted skins were used for clothing aswell, " You are quite obviously not talking about modern western society here.
    14
  3. Sage Thinker But speaking of easy office job, my sister's husband has an office job. He goes to work and works at his desk at his office job. My sister is a chef, and a wet nurse, and works as a nanny, during the day and at night, and she is a buyer, she buys all of the supplies for the house, and a currier because she often has to go get them herself. She is also a personal assistant...she does the laundry and runs all of the errands and makes all of the appointments. She also is a taxi driver, taking the kids everywhere and occasionally driving her husband too and from work, and she also is a maid on top of this, cleaning the entire house, and she does each one of these jobs full time. If you keep ignoring and devaluing the role of women in society, of course you are going to be miserable and resentful and think you as a man have to do all of the work, when you in your traditional role work one job and a woman in her traditional role works 9 jobs. And sometimes she also works outside of the home to help her husband make ends meet, making that 10 jobs.
    14
  4. Sage Thinker I would like to point out some things for you to think about. 1. You hate feminism but consistently hold equal contempt for women in traditional roles, the contributions of which you devalue or ignore. 2. You have made claims about tribal societies, which, for the most part, are incorrect, suggesting you have spoken on a matter you have not taken the time to educate yourself on. In addition, instead of admitting you might have spoken too soon, you attempted to change the context from tribal societies to modern societies to cover yourself, as if that would not be apparent to everyone. 3. Your belief that a woman is merely a vessel in which to incubate a baby flies in the face of the most basic of scientific knowledge, and to be honest, I'm confounded by this, because that half of our nuclear DNA, and all of our mitichondrial DNA comes from out mothers, is something that I imagine should be taught in elementary school, or middle school at the latest. I do not mean to sound condescending but I worry sir that your views of the world are based on your ignorance of it and I implore you to challenge your perceptions, be open to the idea that you might be wrong, and educate yourself.
    13
  5. Sage Thinker When "the truth" flies in the face of reality and you only tell it to yourself to make you feel justified in your misogyny.
    12
  6. You are like the man with the legs who thinks the man in the wheelchair has it easy because he doesn't have to walk anywhere.
    12
  7. Actually, if you are referring to the period during the industrial revolution, women also worked the coal mines and in factories, and so did the children. In some instances, depending on where you were in the world, the main wage earner in the family was actually a teenaged daughter who worked as a servant in a more affluent household.
    12
  8. Sage Thinker Have you never read a biology book or taken a science class? A person inherits 50% of their nuclear DNA from their mother, and 50% of their nuclear DNA from their father, and 100% of their mitichondrial DNA from their mother. The sperm contains 23 chromosomes with the fathers genes, the egg contains 23 chromosomes with the mother's genes, and the mitichrondrial DNA, and this is what you are made out of. Though it's not relevant to the conversation, and should not be seen as any claim that one sex is superior to the other, you might find it interesting to know that you do not actually need a sperm to replicate an organism, but you do need an egg. In the process by which an animal is cloned, nuclear DNA from a cell is implanted into an egg or an egg with it's own nuclear DNA removed...depending, and this will develop in a similar fashion as a naturally fertilized egg. Some species also have virgin births by different biological processes depending on the species.
    11
  9. Sage Thinker It is really not relevant to the subject at hand. Evolution has favored sexual reproduction in most species, and in humans, while a female could raise a child on her own, this is far from optimal, evolution has dictated that the healthiest societies are ones in which both males and females respectively are equal contributors in their roles. However, because you have made a claim that appears to be incorrect, I shall refute it. "Estrogen Emerges as Most Ancient of All Hormones" Columbia University. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol26/vol26_iss21/2621_Ancient_Estrogen.html Again I should stress that whether estrogen arose first or testosterone arose first is irrelevant to your apparent claim of men being superior or women being inferior because, in a species that has evolved to favor sexual reproduction, both sexes are generally necessary.
    11
  10. Sage Thinker Sir, I do not think you are close to winning Noble Prize. Though I will put the question to you....what if all women died during child birth and men were left to do everything? Do you think the human species were to survive if men just plopped the baby in the crib and went to build buildings and roads all day? Is that all society is? Buildings and roads?
    11
  11. By the way, new born infants need to be fed every 2 hours around the clock, and do not sleep through the night until they are at least a few months old. Human infants are helpless. They have no means of defending themselves other than crying, and are incapable of tasks as simple as pulling a blanket off of their head. They put everything in their mouths and need near constant supervision, and have the greatest risk of choking to death on the planet. Then they start learning to walk while continuing to put everything in their mouths and that means they then need constant supervision. It's a 24 hour, 7 day per week job to raise a kid and you don't really get a break until they go off to school.
    10
  12. Sage Thinker This article does not support your claim that most wars in history were started by women. It found a 27% increase in wars in Europe when countries were headed by Queen reginas. A queen regina is a queen who was the daughter of a ruling king, and ascended the throne, and thus becomes the head of state, and takes on the duties of a ruling King. The article states that countries more often attacked the countries of these Queens when they were single, as opposed to married, which may be one factor in the increase in wars, and also that when these Queens were married,they tended to divide their responsibilities with their husbands, allowing them to more effectively pursue foreign policies. In short, it's speculated that the increase in wars was due to the fact that single ruling Queens were more likely to have their countries attacked, and married ruling Queens were more likely to have the administrative resources to launch effective military actions. It in no way supports your claim that most wars were started by women, because the article talks about Europe, not the world, a small time from, not most of human history, and if her country was attacked, she didn't start the war.
    10
  13. Sage Thinker Well we know humans can live without electricity, as we have managed to go all of human existence, barring the last 100 or so years, without it. And as I previously said, it's actually the women in most tribal communities that bring in most of the food, with gathering and gardening. So I don't see a reason to believe they would starve. As for artifical wombs, the fact remains that to raise the children, you would need some of the men filling traditional female roles of raising children and home making, while the other men go out and build roads and buildings. The traditional roles of human females are necessary for the perpetuation of the human species, the traditional roles of human males optimize survival rates of the human species. This does not mean that males are less valuable than females. Life would be very hard without males for a variety of reasons. But it does mean that there is no basis to your claims about females.
    10
  14. Red Walker I think what it is is he has low self esteem. Someone or something has made him feel bad or insignificant for being male, so he tries to devalue and cut women down to raise himself up. That's unfortunate because no one should feel so low that they resort to that. He gauges his value relative to those around him, rather than on his own merits. Hopefully someday he will become a more self secure person and realize that all human beings have inherent value and being a male or female does not make one person less valuable than the other.
    10
  15. Sage Thinker Far from most women die as a result of pregnancy. The highest maternal mortality rate is found in Sierra Leon, where most women don't have access to modern medical care. It has a rate of about 1,360 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. That means, if the country had 100,000 pregnant women, 1.36% would die as a result of pregnancy. Even in instances where the mother dies, it's rarely the men who are left to care for the child. It's usually a female relative. If no female relative is able to care for the child, the child often ends up in an orphanage. Even if the man did stay at home and care for the child, he would then be filling a woman's traditional role. People did not starve in Europe because many of the men had been killed in war. People starved in Europe because all of the food went to feed the men fighting the war and you can't plant crops when a war is being fought in your field and your town is being bombed. Yep, most farmers and fishermen today are men, but as I said, in tribal societies, women in their traditional roles farmed and gathered.
    9
  16. Sage Thinker In tribal societies, that's not actually true except in a small number of hunter gatherer societies which exist in areas that vegetation is scarce. In most hunter gatherer societies, women provide the majority of food by gardening and gathering. In some of these societies, women and men both may participate in hunting if the society uses netting techniques that require animals be scared out of bushes. Hunting with weapons is something that is primarily a male activity, and while this brings in prized protein sources, they do not comprise the majority of the food supply. Most tribal societies, however, are not hunter gatherers but pastoralists. Most of their food is in the form of dairy, and sometimes blood, or meat from their livestock. In these societies men often only have two responsibilities, and those are to shepherd the livestock and occasionally slaughter them, while the women gather the firewood, fetch the water, build the houses, make the clothes and jewelry, milk the animals, process and cook food, and feed the children and look after them. These are primarily African tribal societies. In Amazonian tribal societies, they are not pastoralists and the division of the labor is a little more even, with men building the houses and assisting more in gardening and food processing.
    8
  17. Sage Thinker Anyway sir, I'm sorry that you as a man feel so devalued that you feel the need to devalue women. You should not buy in to such notions of men being less than women or women being less than men, or men being more than women or women being more than men. Both men and women are complimentary contributors to society.
    7
  18. Sage Thinker You know, I think a person like you, the only way you will ever understand how significant the contributions of a caregiver is to society, is if you are the one who was tasked with being the caregiver. I'm not a caregiver. I work. But I often help my sister, who is a caregiver, and I'm not sure that I would ever have the energy to do it myself. It takes all of her time, and if you don't raise kids right, there is a real risk they could become psychopaths or detrimental to society in some way. And by the way, when you devalue women by attacking their traditional role and it's significance, you are also attacking men who are caregivers.
    7
  19. Sage Thinker A 27% increase in wars in Europe between 1480 to 1913, when Queen reginas were on the throne, according to the article, which pointed out that the Queens did not always start said wars. They got attacked, in more instances than their male and married counterparts. Hillary Clinton has never had the power to declare war. That power is reserved for the president of the United States. I don't know much about Margaret Thatcher, she was prime minister during the Falkland Islands War, in which Argentina invaded/asserted their claim to the Falkland Islands...depending on which side you take. But it's my understanding that in the UK, whether or not to engage in military conflict is not declared by the prime minister alone but decided by a cabinet consisting of the prime minister and other individuals, and then has to be approved by the House of Commons. Though I'm not entirely well versed in the matter.
    6
  20. Sage Thinker Are you sure that is the Quran? I'm not muslim, so forgive me if I am wrong, but It is my understanding that that is a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, which is regarded as a holy book but not part of the Quran itself. And, it does not state that most women are destine for hell, it states that when your prophet saw hell, most of it's occupants were women. Anyway, I'm obliged to end the conversation and leave you with that. May you someday be rid of this hatred of women you have and find peace.
    6
  21. Sage Thinker Women are dependent on men to protect them from other men.We can agree on that. And yes, women rely on child support from men in western countries, western, modern countries which you claim men created. But how am I overvaluing a woman's role?
    6
  22. Sage Thinker English class in the US is critical thinking and comprehension. It's the ability to understand situations and what is being communicated. Course work often entails reading essays and stories and analyzing them, and writing essays that clearly and concisely articulate that which you wish to communicate. The skills stressed in mandatory American English classes are integral to being able to understand and navigate the world, even in STEM fields. I would not say STEM fields are "hard", though for most they are certainly time intensive. What actually makes something easy or difficult is how well your brain is wired for it. Some people excel more at mathematics than essay writing, and would say mathematics is the easier of the two fields, and some people excel more at essay writing, and would say that is the easier of the two fields (By the way, the prestige of STEM professor in academia is measured by the number of papers he or she has published, and the amount of grant money, which is obtained through written proposals, he or she can obtain). If a woman excels at a STEM field then she excels at a STEM field, and there would be no reason to exclude her from it based on her sex alone.
    6
  23. Sage Thinker My claim isn't that women are superior to men. My claim is men aren't superior to women. Again, understanding this statement involves critical thinking.
    6
  24. Sage Thinker Yes, if for whatever reason, males died after impregnating women, and women continued in their traditional roles, society would continue to persist some generations longer than it would if women died after giving birth, and men continued in their traditional roles, because the traditional role of the woman is paramount to the survival of the species, while the traditional role of the man optimizes survival.
    5
  25. Sage Thinker "And do you think if men weren't out building, fixing and doing the dangerous jobs society would survive? Look it's you feminists who say men aren't needed anymore yet the children raised by single mothers nearly all grow up to be criminals and murderers so clearly children do need fathers." If supporting the traditional role of a woman as a home maker and care giver makes me a feminist, then I guess I'm a feminist. I didn't say men aren't needed. I said men optimize the survival of the species. To that end, I do agree with the latter part of your statement on the importance of the presence of fathers. It is you who are the one who is saying women don't contribute anything important.
    5
  26. Sage Thinker Look at your own fascination with videos about war and battles.
    5
  27. Sage Thinker Elizabeth Báthory? You are really reaching now. But only one of us has to dredge up obscure people from history, or vaguely related articles on small, obscure tribes in the rain forest, and attempt to spin it to make potential exceptions into the generalized case. Since you are so inclined to do so anyway, look up photos and videos of ISIS, wars, and whatever battles and militant groups please you. When the majority of the people in those videos gathering in groups and waving guns and swords and launching rockets at and destroying cities like Homs and Damascus (which have been destroyed many times over by armies of men for centuries), are women, you will be correct in your assertion. When the history books talk primarily about armies of 100,000 of women, overthrowing whatever army of other women, and sacking cities, you will be correct in your assertion, but the people in all of these scenarios are not women, but men. Understand, this is not attempting to paint men as bad people, or proclaim that all, or even most men are horribly violent...most men are law abiding citizens. It is just the fact of our species, that like most other mammalian species, the males are more inclined to physical violence than the females. It was not evolutionarily favorable for the females of our species to be as inclined towards physical violence because of her role as primary care giver. It's more favorable for a woman to defuse a situation or use passive aggression.
    4
  28. Sage Thinker Men commit more crimes than women due to the effects of testosterone on the brain. It has nothing to do with number of mutations. While men are more likely to score in the gifted range on IQ tests, they are also more likely to score in the mentally retarded range. The latter is due to the fact that a number of important genes exist on the X chromosome, and because women have two X chromosomes, they have a back up if there is a bad gene on one of them. Men only have one X chromosome, so if there is a bad gene on it, they don't have a back up, making them far more susceptible to sex linked disorders that cause mental retardation. As for why there are more male geniuses than female geniuses, there may actually not be. It might only appear that way due to bias in IQ tests, where subsections emphasize tasks which are more relevant to men than women. much like current IQ tests are biased towards people in the developed world because they focus on testing tasks and ways of thinking which are more applicable to the developed world, than say life in the African bush.
    4
  29. Sage Thinker The situation in Libya is probably one you know more about than I, as you are Libyan. The role of Hillary Clinton in the United States participating in the military action in Libya was that it is believed that President Obama decided to permit US involvement on the input of Hillary Clinton. Was there not, though, armed groups of men in Libya attempting to overthrow the government before American involvement?
    4
  30. Sage Thinker Yes, there are women who are child abusers and spouse abusers. No one is saying that violence women do not exist. You claimed that "women tend to be more violent and war hungry (than men)", which is the claim I refute.
    4
  31. Red Walker And the irony is he does not even apply his own logic evenly. For though he thinks that if one woman does something bad, and many men do something bad, then all women are bad, and he conveniently ignores the men, but he also thinks that if one woman does something good, and many men do something bad, then all men are good, and he conveniently ignores the woman. In his mind, single tyrant female leader = Most women. Hundreds of tyrant male leaders, and armies of militant men = Irrelevant. Legions of male city builders and scientists = Most men. Single female city builder or scientist = Irrelevant.
    4
  32. Sage Thinker The story of creation in the Quran parallels Genesis. That is undeniable. But as for women being destine for hell and men being superior to women, I will not ask you to quote, for your hatred of women corrupts your perspectives and may drive you to commit blasphemy, if not in writing, then in your mind. You should not say another word and should pray that your mind be rid of this hatred for God's creation.
    4
  33. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question...
    4
  34. Red Walker No, but I'm sure his mum would love to know what he thinks of her.
    4
  35. Sage Thinker I'll read up on Margaret Thatcher, but it does not change the fact that most physical violence is instigated and perpetuated by males.
    3
  36. Sage Thinker Scroll up. I didn't delete it.
    3
  37. Sage Thinker I make a distinction between violence and other forms of abuse and aggression. The problem with many of these studies, is that they don't. They cast a wide net on what they consider violence, if they even use the word violence. They are like those studies that try to prove that most men have sexually harassed women, when the researchers defined simple compliments or innocent gestures as sexual harassment.
    3
  38. Red Walker And I don't know who his god is but I know a bit about Islam and I'm pretty sure the Quran does not hold women in such low regard as this guy.
    3
  39. Sage Thinker Do you know what a perfect example of the importance of social intelligence is? The Tesla vs. Edison affair. We can both agree that Tesla was a rare genius with abilities in engineering that far surpassed anyone that I know of. However, though he was also noted to be charming and a good showman, he was lacking in social intelligence, and got royally screwed by the more socially endowed Edison. Edison was able to use his social prowess to drive Tesla, despite his genius in engineering, into the ground, and Tesla faded into obscurity and died destitute because of it. Do you know what the electric company in my area used to be called? "Edison". Edison was socially intelligent enough to get the backers, and the money, and become a brand name, and sway the minds of people in his favor, despite the technological short comings of the ideas he marketed.
    3
  40. By the way, the problem with computers is that, even though they can perform complex calculations, they lack critical thinking skills. Their critical thinking abilities are only as good as the algorithms on which they are based, and it's incredibly difficult to come up with an algorithm that rivals even the critical thinking abilities of insects.
    2
  41. Red Walker There are women who excel at spatial reasoning...I'm one of them, and there are men who excel at social reasoning. I agree that a person can improve in both areas with practice, whether they are a man or a woman, though I think, on average, men are more spatially inclined and women are more socially inclined.
    2
  42. Sage Thinker In situations where women are more likely to cry, men are more likely to be violent. Both are expressions of emotions. As for chess, that relies on spatial reasoning and spatial planning. So we would expect more men to excel at chess. The social reasoning and planning equivalent for a woman would be navigating complex relationships. So it's no surprise that there is an unusually high number of female soap opera writers. It is chess with social relationships instead of pieces on a board that move in a geometric fashion. As for women being more superstitious, and more likely to believe in "illogical" things like witches, if you are going to claim belief in witches is illogical, you must also declare that a belief in Allah, jinn, angels, and shaytan are illogical. Are you claiming they are illogical? Your ISIS friends are killing people who refuse to believe in such things, and also too those who are accused of practicing witchcraft. And most of those ISIS people are men.
    2
  43. Sage Thinker There is a 0.2 point difference between the total average male score in mathematics and total average female score in mathematics. Males scored 0.2 points higher than females in mathematics. 0.2 points is 0.95% of the combined total average score of males and females. In other words, males did less than 1% better. A statistician would then ask "But is it significant?" To determine that, you would have to calculate the P value. Would you like to calculate that for us? And if it turns out that your P value indicates there is a statistically significant difference in the performance of males and females in mathematics, would you like to justify how you conclude that females are inherently worse at mathematics, rather than just not interested in the subject? Also, would you like to justify how you determine that one's performance in mathematics is a better indicator of all around intellectual superiority than say, critical thinking skills and communication skills, because that is what the subject of "English" is in the United States, and females scored, on average, 0.8 points higher than males, and 0.8 points is 3.96% than the combined average score of males and females.
    2
  44. Sage Thinker I imagine you read this book recently, as you didn't previously know that women contribute more than half a person's genetic material. The sperm does indeed determine the sex of the baby in most instances, however there is no evidence that the first human was a man. In fact the first human male and female probably arose alongside each other from germline affecting mutations. There was likely not a male and female non human who produced a male human who mated with a female non human and produced another human. There was probably a, group of related male and female non humans who produced humans. Normal, healthy humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. This differs from all other great apes, who have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Closely related species with different numbers of chromosomes can sometimes produce offspring, if the chromosomes of the two individuals are similar enough for a process called meiosis to be successful. You can look up meiosis. However the offspring of these two species will have an unmatched chromosome, and will likely be unable to produce offspring themselves. So we know humans are probably not the result of a single hybrid event.
    2
  45. Sage Thinker I would like to see the mathematical proof of your claim. And why are you so focused on chess? That's not the ultimate measure of human intelligence.
    2
  46. Sage Thinker I did read them, and I also downloaded the Excel spreadsheet and had some fun. I would like to make a correction to my previous post. I missed a column on account of small screen size when selecting columns to sum in Excel. The difference between the average male and female scores is about 1.2 points, which is just less than 6% of the average score. The same questions apply. Is that a statistically significant difference? I also did notice that males scored on the ACT, 0.2 points higher on average. But the sections of this test are "Reading, English, Mathematics, and "Scientific Reasoning". Reading is a relatively gender neutral at this level. While more males are affected by dyslexia, those who are either don't get to the point of taking the ACT, or overcome it by the time they do take the ACT, or they might have a "reader", so we would expect males and females to have similar performance levels on this sub test. Males scored, on average about 0.4 points lower than females on reading. You can calculate the P value to determine if that is statistically significant. If we were to consider reading, for the sake of the ACT a gender neutral subject, that leaves English, Mathematics, and Scientific Reasoning, which is also known as Science Reasoning, and seems to be composed of mathematical word problems. I don't object to the idea that males are inherently slightly better at math than females. They might very well be, or not, but we can assume they are if you wish. My claims are that 1. Mathematics alone is not a good measure of human cognition. 2. Females, while they may be outperformed by males, even if slightly, in tasks such as visual spatial reasoning, and perhaps mathematics, outperform males in other tasks, such as critical thinking (aka "English) and social reasoning. Thus, I would like to point out, the ACT does not have a "Social Reasoning" subsection. It has a gender neutral subsection...reading, a subsection which may be inherently favorable to males...mathematics, a subsection which may be inherently favorable to females...English, and then another subsection which may be inherently favorable to males...Scientific Reasoning. So the test may very well be biased against women in that manner. On that note, I will repeat myself. Western females are just not as interested in STEM fields as western males. Even if they do go into STEM fields, many women leave to start families or because they become tired of being a minority in the workplace. Women generally tend to have different interests and priorities than men. They may not be interested in chess in nearly the same numbers, instead preferring to chat with their friends about social situations, and this may be far more relevant to a woman than chess. What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming fish are better than birds because fish are generally better at swimming, when birds generally need to swim more than fly, and so generally excel more at flying. The article you linked to concerning the SATs actually refutes a lot of your claims. It's a 2 part article, and I suggest you read carefully through both the first and second part. Anyway I have address your comments and you still have not addressed mine. Do you intend to at all?
    2
  47. Sage Thinker You evaded my question.
    2
  48. Sage Thinker I don't think there is a basis to your claim "most great writer's are men" as taste in literature is individualistic and subjective. And also understand that literature is a different field from critical thinking and composition. If you would like to talk about women in literature, we can though. As ChaoticButterfly previously mentioned, in western culture, many women previously published under male names to surmount bias of publishers and readers, and many women still do. In fact, many western authors publish under multiple pen names, some male and some female, depending on what they write. It's also not uncommon for authors to try to remain sex anonymous by using initials. A good example of all of this is Joanne Rowling. You might know her as J.K. Rowling, and she was also discovered to have published under the male pen name, Richard Galbraith.
    2
  49. Sage Thinker Maybe you can clarify. I don't really follow your reasoning. For simplicity, If you had 100 coders, and 87 were men, and 13 were women, and 74% of men had their code accepted, that's 64 men who had their code accepted. If 78% of women had their code accepted, that's 10 women. Now before we go any further, understand when you have two substantially different sample sizes of two groups you are comparing, that introduces a sample bias. the larger group will almost always give a better representation of the general population from which it was sampled, than the smaller group. Now here is the statement of yours I don't understand. "So if you do the math and it was reversed and women were 87% of coders less than 50% of women coders would be accepted" If you said women were 87% of the coders, and we had 100 coders total, then there would be 87 female coders. If the percentage of women who have their code accepted remains the same, that is...74%, then 64 women have their code accepted. Of 87 women, 64 women is not less than 50%. It's 74%. So I don't understand where you come up with "less than 50%". Please clarify.
    2
  50. Sage Thinker Some people like Stephen King. Some people like Judy Blume. As far as I can tell, the board of the most prestigious literary prize in the west...the Pulitzer Prize, did not have a female member until the 1980's, and women are still a minority. I wouldn't expect subjects and genres that appeal to women to equally appeal to men so it would make sense that a male board or predominantly male board would be biased towards male authors who write about subjects and genres that would more appeal to men. Gender biased is a hot topic in the literary and entertainment industries, and there have been many papers citing it's existence. Anyway, you have still yet to answer any of my questions to you, and I will not discuss further subjects you bring up until you address them. I will re-iterate one of them. How are beliefs in things such as Allah, jinn, and shaytan more logical than witchcraft (which the quran also discusses). How do you conclude that a woman who believes in witchcraft, by virtue of that, is more illogical and more superstitions than a man who believes in Allah, or jinn, or shaytan? Also, show me how you come up with the numbers and percentages you did in your last post. And why should a woman not study STEM, merely because she is a woman, if she has the aptitude for it?
    2
  51. Sage Thinker You didn't answer my question. You just made another unsubstantiated claim. Are you avoiding the questions because you can't answer them, or are you failing to understand them due to your poor reading comprehension skills?
    2
  52. Sage Thinker Actually, most disorders are NOT caused by women having babies when they are older than 35 years of age. The odds of having baby with Down's Syndrome increases with the age of the mother, but there is evidence to show that the odds of other disorders and birth defects decrease with an increase in the age of the mother. Additionally, the combined prevalence of disorders that are not dependent on the age of the mother, such as recessive and dominant disorders, exceeds the prevalence of Down's Syndrome. You are correct that testosterone seems to improve spatial reasoning skills, and this is a factor in the increased IQ scores of men. But that is consistent with my claim that modern IQ tests are less likely to identify gifted women than men, because they are still somewhat biased towards testing for attributes that are more relevant to men. For example, while a man may excel in spatial reasoning, a woman might excel in social reasoning, but while older IQ tests tested spatial reasoning, they did not test for any social abilities. More recent IQ tests have started to include subtests that test social abilities, but they still focus more heavily spatial reasoning. That being said, I disagree that women put emotion above logic. Women simply tend to more often excel at a different type of logic than men. Men are more likely to excel at visual-spatial, and symbolic logic, while women are more likely to excel at social logic and logic pertaining to executive planning. This relates back to primitive roles among humans.
    1
  53. Red Walker Interesting article. I can tell you, there is a cultural factor to the low number of women in STEM in the west. While STEM fields seem to be low on the list of interests of western girls and women, they are near the top of the list of interests for girls and women in India, where they are considered highly reputable professions. In the west, while there are few women in STEM who are not also immigrants, those native born western women who are in STEM fields tend to be at the top of their class. The reason for this is thought to be the fact that girls are more adverse to failure, so boy who got A's in math in elementary school and middle school, and B's and C's in math in high school, is generally not deterred in the subject, but girls who do well in math in elementary school but who might get B's and C's in middle school and high school, are more likely to conclude they are not good at math, and decide not to go into STEM if they initially had an interest in it. What's left are the girls who did well in math and science all the way through. The ones who were always at the top of their class and managed to stay there.
    1
  54. Sage Thinker Is that in the Quran?
    1
  55. ***** Right about what?
    1
  56. Sage Thinker No, you didn't answer the questions. You literally just made another declaration. Do you believe that belief in Allah is just as illogical as belief in witchcraft? Yes, or no? Are you afraid of what your ISIS buddies might do to you if you say "Yes, believing in Allah is just as illogical as believing in witchcraft"? How do you come by claim that if the situation with the male and female programmers were reversed, less than 50% of the women would have their code accepted? If a woman in a STEM field has the aptitude for it, why should she leave STEM merely on the basis of the fact that she's a woman? Answer the questions. As for a female playwrite better than Shakespeare...as I happen to dislike Shakespeare's work, I would say, all of them. I also think Stephen King's work sucks, by the way.
    1
  57. Sage Thinker If you can't answer my questions, just say you can't.
    1
  58. Sage Thinker Well Sage Thinker. To be honest, I don't think the American offensive against ISIS will be successful, and you will very soon be under their rule. So I would keep the fact that you are actually an atheist to yourself, such that your ISIS buddies don't execute you once they become your government.
    1
  59. Sage Thinker Yeah well I'd probably say that too if I were surrounded by a bunch of masked men with guns who would cut my head off if I had said otherwise.
    1
  60. Sage Thinker Yes they would likely kill you if you practiced witchcraft. But we are not talking of the practice of witchcraft, but the belief in it. So aside from the fact that ISIS might execute you if you proclaimed not to believe in Allahu, how is believing in witchcraft any less logical than believing in Allahu? How is believing in Allahu any more logical than believing in witchcraft?
    1
  61. Sage Thinker Let us say for arguments sake that Mohammed did exist, and that his remains are buried in the tomb at Medina. How does that prove Allahu existed? Also, people were not burned at the stake for lack of proof of witchcraft. They were accused of being witches and burned at the stake in spite of proof of witchcraft because there is a verse in the bible that says not to allow witches/sorceress/sorcerers to live. Men and women both were burned to death, and the juries that convicted them, were in most instances, all male.
    1
  62. Sage Thinker In English, when someone says "for arguments sake", what that means is they accept certain conditions to be true for the purpose of discussing a subject that the assertion is made prerequisite to by one of the parties involved. So let us move on from that and answer my question please. Assuming that is Muhammed buried there, how does that prove the existence of Allahu?
    1
  63. Sage Thinker Here's why belief in Allahu is no more logical than belief in witchcraft. Because both have yet to be discovered through a scientific process. You must be told about witchcraft, and you must be told about Allahu, and you have no way to test the existence of either in a laboratory. If this were not the case...if the existence of Allahu could be discovered through a logical, scientific process, then there would be no need for Mohammed. Belief in Allahu would likely arise through discovery among isolated cultures. The importance of Mohammed as a prophet rests on the fact that belief in Allahu could NOT be logically deduced. It, and the rest of Islam, just like knowledge and belief in the concept of witchcraft, has to be spread by word of mouth, or written words, and the belief of such things must be by faith, not logic. If you believe in Allahu then you must accept that he chose these methods.
    1