Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why cant we all just get along :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soph1990)
    why cant we all just get along :P
    An answer to that question would solve most problems in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    Well OP you seem to be missing the fact that men are genetically physically superior, in general (and would have been much more so the case when mankind first began). So obviously, men just literally and physically took the dominant role. There should indeed be a gender equality in today's society, but please it really really pisses me off when people even try to argue then men are not physically dominant, which is obviously the cause for it.
    Pretty much this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Yes, women are disadvantaged from the moment they are born, yet how does this devalue my claims? We're not handing out sympathy votes here. I'm simply stating observed realities. The causes and effects are pretty irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.
    You are interested in taking the underperformance and faults that you notice in many of the women you encounter as evidence that women are inferior. I am interested in taking those same problems, unpicking the causes that underpin them, and discussing how to address them so that the potential of half of the human race can be utilised more effectively. If you accept, as you appear to have done here, that women's supposed 'inferiority' is explained primarily by the roles that society has created for them and cultural expectations of their behaviour, it stands to reason that this inferiority is transient and artifical, not fixed and inevitable. It can be removed by encouraging women to overcome these barriers, by inspiring them to aim higher and by dismantling gender stereotypes. Unfortunately you are doing exactly the opposite. Interesting.

    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Doing well in GCSE exams =/= capable of rational thought. It's slightly worrying having to state this.
    You seem to be suggesting that people are either capable of rational thought or not. Let me suggest something else to you. Everyone is capable of rational thought to some degree. The depth and quality of their thought, the extent to which they deliberately cultivate reason and their relationships with their emotions are the things that differ. GCSEs and A Levels may not be challenging in comparison with Higher Education work but they do demand some evidence of reason. Let's not be too glib about their signficence - especially as a vast proportion of the population never progresses beyond this level of qualification.



    (Original post by Ex Death)
    No doubt. Though it doesn't explain why the best in pretty much every field is always a male. This is actually pretty irrelevant though as the topic was that of rational and objective thought, not of intellectual ability. I hope I don't have to explain to you how these are two very different things.
    Being at the top of a profession usually demands years of progression, promotion and training, so it's hardly surprising that professions that have only been opened up fully to women relatively recently are still dominated by men at the top. In fields that have been more women-friendly for longer, women are indeed frequently at the top. When this is combined with obvious problems - the fact that a combination of biological and cultural factors make pregnancy disruptive to many women's careers, for instance, and the well-known fact that they tend to have lower expectations and ambitions for promotion - your observation becomes even less surprising. But really all this should be obvious to you. Once again your 'objective' and 'rational' mind seems to be displaying something that suspiciously resembles gross negligence. Oops.

    I'm also not quite sure how you hope to severe the link between rational thought and intellectual ability. The two are not one and the same, of course, but the ability to make connections, understand causation and make reasoned judgements is of course central to overcoming intellectual challenges.



    (Original post by Ex Death)
    For the record, getting onto a medicine course isn't difficult. As for your question, who knows? Maybe girls are more hungry for money. Maybe they get a kick out of 'helping others'. Maybe it's because, god-forbid, all clever people choose to do medicine courses.
    Ah, so when men dominate their fields and excel at what they do, this is clearly a reflection of their talents. When women succeed, this is a reflection of their financial greed or wishy-washy 'caring' principles. I see.


    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Again, who knows? Maybe the feminist brigade has them by the throat. Maybe the marketing team ran out of space in the 'intellectual achievements' section so they added this little snippet of self-promotion.
    I certainly haven't noticed any discrepancy between the capacity of men and women for rational thought at undergraduate or graduate level. I'm not interested in promoting myself, as I hope my blank TSR profile demonstrates, but I can assure you that I should know. I frequently socialise with some of the world's leading experts in my field, and they haven't noticed that discrepancy either. Doesn't look like the work of the feminist brigade to me.


    (Original post by Ex Death)
    I understand how it's hard to believe if you are to apply precedent to the masses. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it when I say I actually am.
    A lack of objectivity is hardly the preserve of the 'masses', as you so contemptuously call them. Why else would leaders in their fields disagree over so many things? And as no human being is free from emotional impulses, prejudices, mental habits and asspumtions, describing yourself as 'objective' looks rather silly. Anyone who has the arrogance to believe in their own objectivity is in pretty serious trouble.

    (Original post by Ex Death)
    This doesn't come into it. Besides, men are only attracted physically to women; they certainly won't care how 'competitive' she is.
    Initial attraction is physical. The decision to enter a relationship with someone is based on more than that. And of course it 'comes into it'. Women and men generally want to be happy, to be liked and appreciated by those around them and to be successful by whatever standards they internalise. Not only is a woman's ability to achieve these ends sometimes constrained by a refusal to exhibit what is expected of her (often vulnerability and emotionalism), but the very standards of happiness that she absorbs are likely to be influenced by gender expectations.

    It's more socially acceptable for a woman to display her emotions than for a man to do so. Women who hide their emotions or appear unaffected by them are often accused of unnaturalness and coldness, which holds them back at work and in their personal relationships. Is there no chance that this might help to explain why women appear more 'emotional' than men? Is there no chance at all that you are misunderstanding the implications of your observations? - or at least underestimating their complexities?

    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Yeah next time I'll be sure to factor in the role that cavemen have played in the oppression of women so that I can justify my being a rational person. Damn those hairy f*ckers for not letting the women participate in their hunting endeavors. I think you'll find that history is irrelevant here as men and women are given EXACTLY THE SAME opportunities in this day and age. Obviously there will be some minor excepetions to this but please don't be foolish enough to bring any of these up as counters.
    Men and women's opportunities cannot be defined by quotas and anti-discrimination legislation. They begin to be formed the moment a child is born. They are shaped by the way in which gender is defined and played out in their family lives, their schools, on the tv shows they watch, in the books and magazines and newspapers that they read. It is a matter of expectations and beliefs as much as a matter of the physical availabiliy of jobs. Your failure to acknowledge this is absolutely laughable.

    If you tell women that they are irrational and weak, bombard them with images of females as victims with frequent emotional outbursts, tell them that it's natural, ok and even necessary for them to behave like this and encourage them to be suspicious of rationality from an early age... can you really be surprised that the average woman appears more influenced by her emotions than the average man? No. Can you change this? Yes. That's what I'm trying to do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    men dont have babies, and also the bible had that whole thing in about eve being created from adams rib
    obviously it occured before the bible was so widespread but that probs plays a part
    men are just bigger and stronger etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    silly thing to ask/say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    men are superior

    why do women have periods?
    because they deserve them
    :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A crappy metaphor was the first thing that sprung to my mind. I won't bother sharing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roloqueen)
    You are interested in taking the underperformance and faults that you notice in many of the women you encounter as evidence that women are inferior. I am interested in taking those same problems, unpicking the causes that underpin them, and discussing how to address them so that the potential of half of the human race can be utilised more effectively.
    Ok good luck with that. In the meantime, I'll stick to what I can observe in the present and declare that as fact.

    If you accept, as you appear to have done here, that women's supposed 'inferiority' is explained primarily by the roles that society has created for them and cultural expectations of their behaviour, it stands to reason that this inferiority is transient and artifical, not fixed and inevitable.
    Certainly true to an extent, but as I've already stated, women are born at a disadvantage not solely due to contextual influences. We are also talking in biological terms here as I think we can both agree that women are more likely to appeal to emotion as a 'natural' function. I seems you are agreeing with me, overall, but whether the notions of these contextual influences are subject to change is relatively arbitrary as I am dealing with the present (not 2050's utopia). I'm merely stating facts here, not the imposed rationality behind them and their claims to moral legitimacy.

    Does it mean that Lionel Messi is not the greatest footballer is the world because all the disabled kids around the world were never given a chance?

    It can be removed by encouraging women to overcome these barriers, by inspiring them to aim higher and by dismantling gender stereotypes. Unfortunately you are doing exactly the opposite. Interesting.
    I am? I didn't know presenting an accurate and brutally honest depiction of reality was my attempt at oppressing the female gender. Usually, in order to tackle a problem, one has to face it. Honestly, what you said right there sounds like you attended your typical feminist prep school with brainwashed nuns feeding you all manner of bullsh*t propaganda. I'll just assume you got carried away a little there.

    You seem to be suggesting that people are either capable of rational thought or not. Let me suggest something else to you. Everyone is capable of rational thought to some degree. The depth and quality of their thought, the extent to which they deliberately cultivate reason and their relationships with their emotions are the things that differ. GCSEs and A Levels may not be challenging in comparison with Higher Education work but they do demand some evidence of reason. Let's not be too glib about their signficence - especially as a vast proportion of the population never progresses beyond this level of qualification.
    GCSEs simply do not require true rational and objective thought to do well in them. I know this because I did well in my GCSEs and when I did them I was not capable of it. I'm becoming evermore doubtful you actually understand what it entails. Having said this, I'm willing to disregard your terrible (and wrong) GCSE example if you are. Next time, though, don't bother attempting a terrible post-rationalisation in reference to the masses, which again, I've already pointed out is futile on the topic of rational and objective thought.

    Being at the top of a profession usually demands years of progression, promotion and training, so it's hardly surprising that professions that have only been opened up fully to women relatively recently are still dominated by men at the top. In fields that have been more women-friendly for longer, women are indeed frequently at the top. When this is combined with obvious problems - the fact that a combination of biological and cultural factors make pregnancy disruptive to many women's careers, for instance, and the well-known fact that they tend to have lower expectations and ambitions for promotion - your observation becomes even less surprising. But really all this should be obvious to you. Once again your 'objective' and 'rational' mind seems to be displaying something that suspiciously resembles gross negligence. Oops.
    There are literally a handful of professions which have only recently opened up to women (but, hey, let's not mention the extra measures that are currently taking place to tackle this due to increased media speculation). As far as I am concerned, they are negligible seeing as they are a clear minority. As I've already stated I was clearly concerned with the majority where women are now given clear EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES. Unfortunately for you, you were foolish enough to rebut this by way of example, despite my earlier warning. All this talk of lack of potential for promotion is, frankly, sensationalist bullsh*t derived from skewed and bias statistics. Yeah, maternity leave sucks, but most workplaces are fair about this and it is largely negligible.

    Ah, so when men dominate their fields and excel at what they do, this is clearly a reflection of their talents. When women succeed, this is a reflection of their financial greed or wishy-washy 'caring' principles. I see.
    Good job at attempting to skew my, quite clearly, speculative responses. Dare-I-say another terrible post-rationalisation (victimising my statements) for another terrible example?

    I certainly haven't noticed any discrepancy between the capacity of men and women for rational thought at undergraduate or graduate level. I'm not interested in promoting myself, as I hope my blank TSR profile demonstrates, but I can assure you that I should know. I frequently socialise with some of the world's leading experts in my field, and they haven't noticed that discrepancy either.
    They're not exactly going to tell you though are they (supposing they noticed in the first place)?

    A lack of objectivity is hardly the preserve of the 'masses', as you so contemptuously call them. Why else would leaders in their fields disagree over so many things? And as no human being is free from emotional impulses, prejudices, mental habits and asspumtions, describing yourself as 'objective' looks rather silly. Anyone who has the arrogance to believe in their own objectivity is in pretty serious trouble.
    Well, I for one, am free from all those things. You, however, don't seem to be so it's hardly surprising yuo doubt others who may be capable of it. I may come across as arrogant but that hardly deters my ability to think rationally and objectively. I also know people who are capable of this and are not arrogant - mind-blowing, isn't it?

    Initial attraction is physical. The decision to enter a relationship with someone is based on more than that. And of course it 'comes into it'. Women and men generally want to be happy, to be liked and appreciated by those around them and to be successful by whatever standards they internalise. Not only is a woman's ability to achieve these ends sometimes constrained by a refusal to exhibit what is expected of her (often vulnerability and emotionalism), but the very standards of happiness that she absorbs are likely to be influenced by gender expectations.
    Conforming to gender expectations is all well and good, but in a life or death situation, I know I'd be more than willing to drop the visage to ensure self-survival (ala the animal attack survival and my overall point).

    It's more socially acceptable for a woman to display her emotions than for a man to do so. Women who hide their emotions or appear unaffected by them are often accused of unnaturalness and coldness, which holds them back at work and in their personal relationships.
    It's like that woman who won the apprentice recently. She was regarded as 'cold' and '*****y' because she was level-headed and determined for success - but only because she is a woman. I would say that winning the apprentice is a greater accomplishment than maintaining friendships/relationships with a bunch of short-sighted fools. No doubt that you will counter this by claiming that success and accomplishment are subjective but that is a separate topic entirely and all I can say really is that some opinions are simply more worthwhile than others. As for holding them back at work, completely and utterly not true.

    Men and women's opportunities cannot be defined by quotas and anti-discrimination legislation. They begin to be formed the moment a child is born. They are shaped by the way in which gender is defined and played out in their family lives, their schools, on the tv shows they watch, in the books and magazines and newspapers that they read. It is a matter of expectations and beliefs as much as a matter of the physical availabiliy of jobs. Your failure to acknowledge this is absolutely laughable.
    Ok cool but it doesn't change the fact that men and women are given the exact same opportunities these days.

    If you tell women that they are irrational and weak, bombard them with images of females as victims with frequent emotional outbursts, tell them that it's natural, ok and even necessary for them to behave like this and encourage them to be suspicious of rationality from an early age... can you really be surprised that the average woman appears more influenced by her emotions than the average man? No. Can you change this? Yes. That's what I'm trying to do.
    Cool, again, good luck with that. As for myself, I personally haven't done any of those things you've mentioned. I prefer to let common sense prevail and let people work things out for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ex Death)
    Certainly true to an extent, but as I've already stated, women are born at a disadvantage not solely due to contextual influences. We are also talking in biological terms here as I think we can both agree that women are more likely to appeal to emotion as a 'natural' function. I seems you are agreeing with me, overall, but whether the notions of these contextual influences are subject to change is relatively arbitrary as I am dealing with the present (not 2050's utopia). I'm merely stating facts here, not the imposed rationality behind them and their claims to moral legitimacy.
    No. Actually what I've been doing is rejecting your claim that women's 'emotionalism' and men's 'rationality' is down to biology. What I've done convincingly is suggest a range of cultural factors which help to explain the differences that you observe between women and men. You've not been able to deny the existence of these factors but have chosen to reject their relevance and importance.

    All of your claims rest on 3 things. The first is your hypothetical example of the woman who cries about the loss of a child whilst her partner seeks to avert further danger. This carries no weight whatsoever because since you have no evidence of a situation like this actually occurring, I can only conclude that this represents your own assumptions about behaviour - no doubt fed by books and films that you have familiarity with. I strongly suspect that survival instincts would kick in equally for both men and women under circumstances like this, and you'll forgive me if I'm not exactly going to take your word for it that your presumption that a woman would behave stupidly in this situation is evidence of the inferiority of women. I would have picked you up on this far earlier but I assumed it was just an ill-thought-through example that you hadn't intended anyone to take seriously. Since you keep alluding to it as though it's important, though, I've had to change my mind.

    If you want to trade in stereotypes and infantile hyperthetical examples, I could perhaps offer some that are grounded more firmly in commonplace experience. Where exactly is the 'rationality' of the man who refuses to help out his wife with childcare and housework, even if her career is more luctrative and high-flying than this, because he believes that his male pride as the 'breadwinner' is more important than the financial wellbeing of his family? I have known this to happen. Where is the rationality of the wifebeater who (in what suspiciously resembles an emotional outburst) chooses to assault his pregnant wife? Domestic violence and male arrogance are two very consistent themes throughout time, and yet somewhow this sex has a reputation for being capable of rational and objective thought (whilst women who protest and demand more rights and protections are denounced as humorless at best and hysterical at worst).

    The second consists of your 'brutally honest' observations. You have noticed that the majority of women around you appear more emotional and less rational than men. This is perfectly common and understandable observation. However, you have assumed on the basis of this observation that women ARE more emotional and are generally incapable of 'rational and objective' thought - effectively not looking below the surface to try to understand what you are seeing. I have sought to show you that people's appearances and actions do not reflect their actual capabilities. Women are just as capable of rational thought as men and so are not inherently inferior (after all, just because men generally appear less 'emotional' than women does not lessen their capacity to feel emotions, even if they seem less likely to act on them). Once it's been acknowledged that the capability exists, the only remaining space for argument is about how far men and women utiltize this capability and why this is the case... but that's a different matter entirely.

    Finally, your argument really seems to boil down to your assertion that you are a rational and objective person, and that your observations and conclusions therefore cannot be besmirched. I, on the other hand - a person you do not know in the slightest - have been accused of only expressing the views that I do because I've been 'brainwashed'. Effectively you've settled this argument in your own mind by designating yourself the role of rational champion and designating me the role of emotional, irrational moron. That's a great tactic for convincing yourself that you're right and for disparaging your opponents, but from an intellectual angle it's hardly convincing.

    When I brought up the topic of world-class academics who do not think there is any difference between the potentials of their male and female students, you even accused them of simply not having noticed. Now it may be, of course, that you have extraordinary analytical powers that give you an insight into the capabilities of other people that is keener than that of professional academics who speak at international conferences and publish books. It might be that such academics are so blinded by political correctness and stupidity that they sacrifice the integrity of their own work by taking on inferior females in the place of superior males as their research students. It's not likely though, and since I don't know you any more than you know me, I'm afraid you can't expect me to 'take your word' for it. If you were indeed a purely rational and objective person you would be the only such person on the planet. You would also, I suspect, be able to form somewhat more convincing arguments than those that you have put forward here.

    A final word, perhaps, is needed on why this whole conversation has been important. To treat emotions as the natural domain of women and rationality as the natural domain of men is to equate culture with biology. It's a common error made by many women as well as men (which feeds into the fact that, as you've rightly picked up, women often help to collaberate in their own disadvantage). This is the kind of thinking that explains why male emotional and mental health problems are so neglected - with disastrous consequences (the rise in male eating disorders, for instance). It helps to explain why women have not made as much progress towards equality of financial independence and workplace power as their formal opportunities would appear to permit. The mistake you've made is an understandable one, but it's one that we have to stop making if we want to stop perpetuating a monumental waste of female talent and male emotional wellbeing.

    Anyway, this tirade has become ridiculously long. I would apologise, but then if you don't want to be ranted at you should take more care not to come across as a complete and utter prat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roloqueen)
    No. Actually what I've been doing is rejecting your claim that women's 'emotionalism' and men's 'rationality' is down to biology. What I've done convincingly is suggest a range of cultural factors which help to explain the differences that you observe between women and men. You've not been able to deny the existence of these factors but have chosen to reject their relevance and importance.
    I'm pretty sure estrogen is responsible for enacting more emotional responses in women in comparison to men. Is this biological function unfair? Yes. Are cultural/contextual influences on women prior to reaching adulthood unfair? Yes. Does this change the facts I've already stated? No. As I've already said we are not appealing to sympathy here. I see you've decided to ignore my question about Lionel Messi being the greatest footballer in the world. He STILL IS the greatest footballer in the world despite all the people in the world who never were given a chance. It is simply a fact. How are you not getting this?

    All of your claims rest on 3 things. The first is your hypothetical example of the woman who cries about the loss of a child whilst her partner seeks to avert further danger. This carries no weight whatsoever because since you have no evidence of a situation like this actually occurring, I can only conclude that this represents your own assumptions about behaviour - no doubt fed by books and films that you have familiarity with.
    Are you f*cking kidding me? Please don't tell me that you're attempting to invalidate a perfectly legitimate scenario simply because it is hypothetical. Hypothetical doesn't mean that it can't or won't exist. Your assumption about me being influenced by hollywood media is incredibly shortsighted. In films, they will ALWAYS portray a women like this. In real life, a woman is simply MORE LIKELY to behave this way in comparison to a man. Again I must state, how are you not getting this?

    If you want to trade in stereotypes and infantile hyperthetical examples, I could perhaps offer some that are grounded more firmly in commonplace experience. Where exactly is the 'rationality' of the man who refuses to help out his wife with childcare and housework, even if her career is more luctrative and high-flying than this, because he believes that his male pride as the 'breadwinner' is more important than the financial wellbeing of his family? I have known this to happen.
    Bad example. Where is the 'rationality' of the woman coming to her senses and leaving the man for a better life?

    Where is the rationality of the wifebeater who (in what suspiciously resembles an emotional outburst) chooses to assault his pregnant wife?
    Another bad example. The answer to that is that the wifebeater is not being rational. It's a good job though that wifebeaters are a clear minority and most men are not wifebeaters right? The fact remains that the animal attack example would be far more commonly observed in reality by a larger number of women than that of the number of wifebeaters.

    The second consists of your 'brutally honest' observations. You have noticed that the majority of women around you appear more emotional and less rational than men. This is perfectly common and understandable observation. However, you have assumed on the basis of this observation that women ARE more emotional and are generally incapable of 'rational and objective' thought - effectively not looking below the surface to try to understand what you are seeing. I have sought to show you that people's appearances and actions do not reflect their actual capabilities. Women are just as capable of rational thought as men and so are not inherently inferior (after all, just because men generally appear less 'emotional' than women does not lessen their capacity to feel emotions, even if they seem less likely to act on them).
    I'm not bothered by people 'hiding' emotion. That's irrelevant on the topic of rational and objective thought. I'm only concerned when emotion overrides rational and objective thought such that it operates on an almost instinctual basis (which, incidentally, can be overridden by conscious thought - they're simply not capable of it)

    Finally, your argument really seems to boil down to your assertion that you are a rational and objective person, and that your observations and conclusions therefore cannot be besmirched. I, on the other hand - a person you do not know in the slightest - have been accused of only expressing the views that I do because I've been 'brainwashed'. Effectively you've settled this argument in your own mind by designating yourself the role of rational champion and designating me the role of emotional, irrational moron.
    Quite the contrary, in fact. I wouldn't consider you a moron or even brainwashed. Trust me, I've dealt with idiots. Just look at the previous girl I was arguing with. It is good that you seem capable of scrutinising the status quo but I would consider you shortsighted in that you fail to see where my points stem from and the overall greater picture. I, however, fully understand both the merits and the shortcomings of your points and have been able to expand them in light of said greater picture.

    When I brought up the topic of world-class academics who do not think there is any difference between the potentials of their male and female students, you even accused them of simply not having noticed.
    No, I simply speculated that they MAY not have noticed. You on the other hand, are overtly assuming that they HAVE noticed. Can you not understand why I am therefore slightly dubious of this?

    It's not likely though, and since I don't know you any more than you know me, I'm afraid you can't expect me to 'take your word' for it.
    Well that's a shame then isn't it. You must think I'm lying to you when I say I know people who are truly rational and objective.

    A final word, perhaps, is needed on why this whole conversation has been important. To treat emotions as the natural domain of women and rationality as the natural domain of men is to equate culture with biology. It's a common error made by many women as well as men (which feeds into the fact that, as you've rightly picked up, women often help to collaberate in their own disadvantage). This is the kind of thinking that explains why male emotional and mental health problems are so neglected - with disastrous consequences (the rise in male eating disorders, for instance). It helps to explain why women have not made as much progress towards equality of financial independence and workplace power as their formal opportunities would appear to permit. The mistake you've made is an understandable one, but it's one that we have to stop making if we want to stop perpetuating a monumental waste of female talent and male emotional wellbeing.
    I'm not campaigning around the country with a big banner which says 'Men are better than women'. I'm simply stating an observed truth for the sake of the discussion brought forth by the OP. I will admit my first post in this thread was slightly chauvinistic in tone, but it was merely tongue-in-cheek satire to get a post across.

    Anyway, this tirade has become ridiculously long. I would apologise, but then if you don't want to be ranted at you should take more care not to come across as a complete and utter prat.
    Quite frankly, I don't think you're in a position to insult me. Besides, we wouldn't want your emotion to get in the way of your ability to think rationally now would we?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.