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

Men are better than women. Sorry but they just are. Watch

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    No. In the past boys out performed girls be A LOT, because of major sexism in society and how exams were taylored just for boys.
    Now they have an element of both sides in the exam system, and so things are more level. Girls out perform boys, but not by a huge amount there are still a lot of successful boys.
    Therefore, of course this isn't sexism towards boys (generally speaking). They made the system more equal, not just feminist.

    You can't compare the widespread sexism that we used to have, to the fact that boys underachieve compared to girls a little bit.
    How were exams tailored just for boys in the past?

    And if you believe they were biased towards boys in the past, how can you be sure that they are equal now, rather than being tailored for girls?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    How were exams tailored just for boys in the past?

    And if you believe they were biased towards boys in the past, how can you be sure that they are equal now, rather than being tailored for girls?
    As you mentioned before... Boys tend to be better at remembering lots of facts, where as girls are better at writing essays...
    In the past exams have been almost entirely fact remembering, and short questions, not essays or anything we've already discussed that girls are good at too.
    Now, they have a mixture. Almost every exam I've done has started off with a few pages of short answer questions (fact remembering), and had a short essay question at the end (worth roughly half of the marks). You can't say fairer than that.
    Obviously this kind of system is followed where possible, depending on the topics.
    That seems pretty equal to me.

    Plus the fact that girls are no longer told to do "girl" topics like cooking and steered away from "boys" subjects...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clara78)
    this thread is not about getting laid seriously is that the only thing that comes out of your brainless head
    No, however is there any point in taking the bait and spouting a lot of womans rights crap when thats basically what the OP wants?
    If he expresses these views in public im sure he'll soon find not many self respecting women want much to do with him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    You have to realise though when it comes to promotions women will always face a problem because they can become pregnant and subsequently leave to raise a family. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but from an employers view, that is the worst scenario to be put in. You promote someone on the basis that they will stay there and keep improving as a replacement would be hard to come by. So to invest a large amount of time and money into someone who drops everything for 9 months is damn hard, and as I previously said, many women tend to retire early to raise their family. The only way around this would to have a clause in the contract to prevent pregnancy but that is far from legal.
    As for the Arabic man, what job was it? Was there public interaction or security checks?
    Colonialism can't be argued to be linked to almost all the problems in Africa. My point about Africa shows that black culture is non-compatible with western culture as Africa is a pretty large mess and that blacks in western society are mostly not shinning examples of how to be a good citizen.
    oh I don't remember, but it was on a thread on here a while back.
    It's not fair to assume all women who apply for a job are automatically going to have children. I don't know if I wanna have kids yet, and if I do I will be working part time for the first 5 years of their life. What about when they start school and I can work full time again?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    oh I don't remember, but it was on a thread on here a while back.
    It's not fair to assume all women who apply for a job are automatically going to have children. I don't know if I wanna have kids yet, and if I do I will be working part time for the first 5 years of their life. What about when they start school and I can work full time again?
    Well the company also does not know if the person will have kids as it is not legal to ask or act on such information. The only way to fix this is to make it legal to ask or women will have to accept this dilemma that companies face.
    The problem with working part time :
    - Why have kids if you are not spending much time with them?
    - Only low paid roles can be part time as you can not have part time managers or directors.
    - School is not 9 - 5 so what would the kids do when you are working? That would just be terrible parenting on your part (modern mothering)
    - So what if you can work again after 5 years. A company can not fire someone legally because you want to work again and can not hold a job place vacant for you for 5 years.


    Basically, it is impossible to have a good career and to be a good mother at the same time and women need to learn this and realise that being a good mother is far more important then being able to buy a bigger tv.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Well the company also does not know if the person will have kids as it is not legal to ask or act on such information. The only way to fix this is to make it legal to ask or women will have to accept this dilemma that companies face.
    The problem with working part time :
    - Why have kids if you are not spending much time with them?
    - Only low paid roles can be part time as you can not have part time managers or directors.
    - School is not 9 - 5 so what would the kids do when you are working? That would just be terrible parenting on your part (modern mothering)
    - So what if you can work again after 5 years. A company can not fire someone legally because you want to work again and can not hold a job place vacant for you for 5 years.


    Basically, it is impossible to have a good career and to be a good mother at the same time and women need to learn this and realise that being a good mother is far more important then being able to buy a bigger tv.
    So I guess that answers the question as to why men are more likely to get higher in society. Nothing to do with the intellectual abilities of either sex, or whether one sex is better than the other, it's simply because society thinks that a woman who wants to do the same is a bad mother.
    Or a woman who stays at home and let's her husband work is a gold digger.
    Or a single mother who doesn't work is a bad mother.

    Seems we can't win.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    So I guess that answers the question as to why men are more likely to get higher in society. Nothing to do with the intellectual abilities of either sex, or whether one sex is better than the other, it's simply because society thinks that a woman who wants to do the same is a bad mother.
    Or a woman who stays at home and let's her husband work is a gold digger.
    Or a single mother who doesn't work is a bad mother.

    Seems we can't win.
    I never said a housewife is a bad person or a gold digger :confused: In fact I think it is an essential role that Britain needs to stop looking down upon as it is resulting in many unhappy families and broken homes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Well the company also does not know if the person will have kids as it is not legal to ask or act on such information. The only way to fix this is to make it legal to ask or women will have to accept this dilemma that companies face.
    The problem with working part time :
    - Why have kids if you are not spending much time with them?
    - Only low paid roles can be part time as you can not have part time managers or directors.
    - School is not 9 - 5 so what would the kids do when you are working? That would just be terrible parenting on your part (modern mothering)
    - So what if you can work again after 5 years. A company can not fire someone legally because you want to work again and can not hold a job place vacant for you for 5 years.


    Basically, it is impossible to have a good career and to be a good mother at the same time and women need to learn this and realise that being a good mother is far more important then being able to buy a bigger tv.
    Men can stay at home and look after children while the woman works... It doesn't have to happen the old "traditional" way.

    But on your points:
    1. If you're working part-time, you ARE spending a lot of time with your children, that's what part-time is.
    2. Generally it may not be particularly highly paid, but it depends what industry you are in really. Some jobs can be very flexible, and if you're self-employed you can earn as much as possible while controlling your own hours.
    3. School isn't 9-5, it's 9-3. There are after school clubs that most children love to go to anyway, or friends that can have your children with theirs the days you're working (for you to return the favour other days of the week)... Or there's the option that a lot of part-time jobs have you only do half days anyway (9-1 for example, often 4/5 hours at a time, because then companies don't have to give you a lunch break).

    So there's plenty of ways to make that work, while still spending plenty of time with your children.
    And that's assuming the woman should have to do this too... The man could instead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    I never said a housewife is a bad person or a gold digger :confused: In fact I think it is an essential role that Britain needs to stop looking down upon as it is resulting in many unhappy families and broken homes.
    Sorry, I did not mean to make it sound like you had said that, but it is basically what a lot of people seem to believe. I just think if a woman wants to stay at home it should be her decision and nobody elses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Men can stay at home and look after children while the woman works... It doesn't have to happen the old "traditional" way.

    But on your points:
    1. If you're working part-time, you ARE spending a lot of time with your children, that's what part-time is.
    2. Generally it may not be particularly highly paid, but it depends what industry you are in really. Some jobs can be very flexible, and if you're self-employed you can earn as much as possible while controlling your own hours.
    3. School isn't 9-5, it's 9-3. There are after school clubs that most children love to go to anyway, or friends that can have your children with theirs the days you're working (for you to return the favour other days of the week)... Or there's the option that a lot of part-time jobs have you only do half days anyway (9-1 for example, often 4/5 hours at a time, because then companies don't have to give you a lunch break).

    So there's plenty of ways to make that work, while still spending plenty of time with your children.
    And that's assuming the woman should have to do this too... The man could instead.
    But women are better when it comes to looking after children....which is no ****ing surprise now is it? :rolleyes: Stop trying to fight nature for no reason and just go along with it.
    As for your points:
    1.Do you know who spends more time with their kids then parents who work part-time? Parents who don't work at all.
    2. If you are that desperate for cash and have to work part-time then maybe you should have waited to have kids.
    3. You should be there for your children. What happens if they are ill etc? Also when your child is young they will go to bed not soon after 5pm so you will not really interact with them at all during the week.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    But women are better when it comes to looking after children....which is no ****ing surprise now is it? :rolleyes: Stop trying to fight nature for no reason and just go along with it.
    As for your points:
    1.Do you know who spends more time with their kids then parents who work part-time? Parents who don't work at all.
    2. If you are that desperate for cash and have to work part-time then maybe you should have waited to have kids.
    3. You should be there for your children. What happens if they are ill etc? Also when your child is young they will go to bed not soon after 5pm so you will not really interact with them at all during the week.
    Women are not universally better at looking after children, that's bull****. I know SO many fathers these days that are amazing.
    It depends on personality of the individual, not someone's gender.

    Some people will always be working-class, why does that mean they shouldn't have children? You don't have to be with them 24/7 (although it's a nice luxury for those who can) in order to give them a good upbringing.
    If they are ill, you can look after them... The same as most people do. You know there's not a lot of families with mothers who do NO working these days.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Women are not universally better at looking after children, that's bull****. I know SO many fathers these days that are amazing.
    It depends on personality of the individual, not someone's gender.

    Some people will always be working-class, why does that mean they shouldn't have children? You don't have to be with them 24/7 (although it's a nice luxury for those who can) in order to give them a good upbringing.
    If they are ill, you can look after them... The same as most people do. You know there's not a lot of families with mothers who do NO working these days.
    Ah, here we go again substituting in opinion over scientific fact. Go find a paper that proves me wrong.
    If you can't be/don't want to be with your children and would rather work then you have horribly ****ed up priorities and will raise yet more insecure children.
    If your kid is ill and you have to take the day off work, don't complain when you don't get a promotion yet the guy who will always be in does get it. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Ah, here we go again substituting in opinion over scientific fact. Go find a paper that proves me wrong.
    If you can't be/don't want to be with your children and would rather work then you have horribly ****ed up priorities and will raise yet more insecure children.
    If your kid is ill and you have to take the day off work, don't complain when you don't get a promotion yet the guy who will always be in does get it. :rolleyes:
    None of that is opinion... The same can be said of men with children. It doesn't have to be a woman, and you know it.
    Clearly you're not going to pay attention to anything I say though, because you just ignored it all. I can't be bothered any more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    None of that is opinion... The same can be said of men with children. It doesn't have to be a woman, and you know it.
    Clearly you're not going to pay attention to anything I say though, because you just ignored it all. I can't be bothered any more.
    Until you link a paper it is opinion and womens multitasking skills make them a better mother. :rolleyes:
    You also avoided everything I mentioned about being absent from work and failing promotions due to this. You going to ignore this and hide in your bubble of denial or actually confront this issue?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Until you link a paper it is opinion and womens multitasking skills make them a better mother. :rolleyes:
    You also avoided everything I mentioned about being absent from work and failing promotions due to this. You going to ignore this and hide in your bubble of denial or actually confront this issue?
    You have provided no paper either.
    I don't need to show a paper, it's common sense that everyone knows. Multitasking really has little to do with raising children.
    I had a friend that I grew up with who lived down the road from me, and both her parents worked. Her Dad worked part-time, and mostly night shifts, and her Mum was a Nurse. So her Dad did most of the work during the day, looked after all of the children... He did just as good a job as anyone, she was brought up well, the family had enough money, and now she is at university.

    That's just one example, because there are a lot more cases like this these days. It doesn't HAVE to be the mother always with the children, that's a stupid old tradition... And both parents CAN work and still give children a good upbringing.
    You are just SAYING they will miss a promotion due to the children occasionally being ill, but again that's not necessarily the case. Most employers are more understanding than that, but it depends on which industry the parents are involved in.
    I don't know what century you think we're living in, to be honest
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    U
    http://johnlincoln.blog.com/2011/03/...-men-or-women/
    ^ This is just a little page talking about which gender makes better entrepreneurs (written by a man). It discusses quite in depth the pros and cons of each.

    Just an example of how that multitasking can make women better at business, while still able to manage their homes and help with the children.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    You have provided no paper either.
    I don't need to show a paper, it's common sense that everyone knows. Multitasking really has little to do with raising children.
    I had a friend that I grew up with who lived down the road from me, and both her parents worked. Her Dad worked part-time, and mostly night shifts, and her Mum was a Nurse. So her Dad did most of the work during the day, looked after all of the children... He did just as good a job as anyone, she was brought up well, the family had enough money, and now she is at university.

    That's just one example, because there are a lot more cases like this these days. It doesn't HAVE to be the mother always with the children, that's a stupid old tradition... And both parents CAN work and still give children a good upbringing.
    You are just SAYING they will miss a promotion due to the children occasionally being ill, but again that's not necessarily the case. Most employers are more understanding than that, but it depends on which industry the parents are involved in.
    I don't know what century you think we're living in, to be honest
    Your lack of knowledge to do with biology is scary.
    The reason why women can multi-task is so that they can raise children well. How the hell do you not know this?
    The man you mention worked night shifts so when was he up? I doubt he was awake to collect the kids from school etc and who are you comparing him to when you say he did a great job? Great that his kids are not in prison or great that his kids have a very solid and healthy relationship with him?

    Both parents can not work and have happy children, nor should both parents need to work or want to work. Young children needs parents for emotional security, and to know that your parents want a bigger tv over you would be some what crushing. However as most couples do both work, this would explain why so many kids nowadays are thick and very insecure.

    Most employees are understanding? Maybe some crappy little company would be, but not a major firm, which is why men have more higher roles then women proving my point.
    (Note the quality difference in my source compared to yours )
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Your lack of knowledge to do with biology is scary.
    The reason why women can multi-task is so that they can raise children well. How the hell do you not know this?
    The man you mention worked night shifts so when was he up? I doubt he was awake to collect the kids from school etc and who are you comparing him to when you say he did a great job? Great that his kids are not in prison or great that his kids have a very solid and healthy relationship with him?

    Both parents can not work and have happy children, nor should both parents need to work or want to work. Young children needs parents for emotional security, and to know that your parents want a bigger tv over you would be some what crushing. However as most couples do both work, this would explain why so many kids nowadays are thick and very insecure.

    Most employees are understanding? Maybe some crappy little company would be, but not a major firm, which is why men have more higher roles then women proving my point.
    (Note the quality difference in my source compared to yours )
    We have moved way beyond the need to stick to these gender roles we have evolved into. Women may be better at multitasking, but as I've explained in this day and age you don't need that to do a good job of looking after your children.

    You doubt he was up? You're just making things up about people I know... He was there all day with them. He'd drop them off to school and nap during SOME of the day (getting some housework done in the middle too), collect his kids from school, spend time with them, and have another short sleep when his wife got home before work.
    And yes, he had a very solid healthy relationship with his kids. The fact that you assume children who's parents work will "end up in prison" is ridiculous. Both my parents worked (my mum part time), and all of us turned out great (currently moving onto good career prospects, etc). Our family is very close and happy.
    Parents can work and have happy children, end of. Because it happened with my family, and the families of most people I know, and in the example I gave of the man looking after them in the daytime...
    You're making assumptions not backed up by anything, I'm explaining based on lots of examples throughout my life the FACTS of parenting. You can work AND be there for your children.

    Who said both parents working is about having a bigger tv? Again, a stupid assumption. It's almost always about providing for the children better and giving them a more comfortable life.

    Most employERS are understanding... But neither of us can prove this point. Your source just gave figures, with nothing backing it up on the reasons WHY. Further more, it was figures on CALIFORNIA, a single state in another country... It hardly represents our entire society, and again it didn't address any "why"s.
    So your source is a load of crap.

    Having parents that work doesn't make children "thick and insecure". My parents both worked and all 5 of us turned out very confident and intellegent (obviously we all differ slightly).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    We have moved way beyond the need to stick to these gender roles we have evolved into. Women may be better at multitasking, but as I've explained in this day and age you don't need that to do a good job of looking after your children.

    You doubt he was up? You're just making things up about people I know... He was there all day with them. He'd drop them off to school and nap during SOME of the day (getting some housework done in the middle too), collect his kids from school, spend time with them, and have another short sleep when his wife got home before work.
    And yes, he had a very solid healthy relationship with his kids. The fact that you assume children who's parents work will "end up in prison" is ridiculous. Both my parents worked (my mum part time), and all of us turned out great (currently moving onto good career prospects, etc). Our family is very close and happy.
    Parents can work and have happy children, end of. Because it happened with my family, and the families of most people I know, and in the example I gave of the man looking after them in the daytime...
    You're making assumptions not backed up by anything, I'm explaining based on lots of examples throughout my life the FACTS of parenting. You can work AND be there for your children.

    Who said both parents working is about having a bigger tv? Again, a stupid assumption. It's almost always about providing for the children better and giving them a more comfortable life.

    Most employERS are understanding... But neither of us can prove this point. Your source just gave figures, with nothing backing it up on the reasons WHY. Further more, it was figures on CALIFORNIA, a single state in another country... It hardly represents our entire society, and again it didn't address any "why"s.
    So your source is a load of crap.

    Having parents that work doesn't make children "thick and insecure". My parents both worked and all 5 of us turned out very confident and intellegent (obviously we all differ slightly).
    What do you mean we have to move away? Your brain is still wired like that and you can not change your instinctual feelings over night. This attitude has probably led to the massive increase in depression among British women. These roles have worked fine so why change them?
    You say your parents both worked and raised you well? I beg to differ with your degree choice.
    The fact that both your parents worked means you do not know what it is like to have a parent who is free to give you time.
    As a child which would you want, a bigger tv, a nice holiday, or to see you mum more? Recent surveys support the latter. If they have to work simply to keep the kids fed, then maybe they should not of had kids as they obviously could not afford it.

    You claim that UC Davis Graduate School of Management is a crap source? Right, you obviously are living in your own little world and reject anything that disagrees with it. So have this source and try to pretend it does not exist are just google the issue yourself as it is widely recorded.
    Also every employer I know, and everyone I know in a senior position has mentioned that working mothers are a problem because they will occasionally phone in and can not work due to their kid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    What do you mean we have to move away? Your brain is still wired like that and you can not change your instinctual feelings over night. This attitude has probably led to the massive increase in depression among British women. These roles have worked fine so why change them?
    You say your parents both worked and raised you well? I beg to differ with your degree choice.
    The fact that both your parents worked means you do not know what it is like to have a parent who is free to give you time.
    As a child which would you want, a bigger tv, a nice holiday, or to see you mum more? Recent surveys support the latter. If they have to work simply to keep the kids fed, then maybe they should not of had kids as they obviously could not afford it.

    You claim that UC Davis Graduate School of Management is a crap source? Right, you obviously are living in your own little world and reject anything that disagrees with it. So have this source and try to pretend it does not exist are just google the issue yourself as it is widely recorded.
    Also every employer I know, and everyone I know in a senior position has mentioned that working mothers are a problem because they will occasionally phone in and can not work due to their kid.
    Working doesn't lead to depression.
    My degree choice means I'm not doing well? I'm heading into a huge working industry with many options, good knowledge and plenty of different routes available to me. I'm doing very well.
    I know what it's like to have parents who give me free time, because they still did! This is my point. My Dad worked from home; it means he worked longer hours, but was still around. My mum worked while we were in school some days of the week (but not all), so there was always someone around (and in the evening, both of them). I fail to see how you can think this is "giving me no time".

    Who said anything about big tvs and holidays? again, making assumptions. My mother's wages payed for our extra curricular activities (because these are EXPENSIVE), so that they could give us every opportunity in life.

    Regardless of WHERE you link was from, it was based on a small study of a state in another country (irrelevent to us), and didn't explain WHY there were less women in higher jobs (or even specualte) so it was pretty irrlevent to our argument.
    Why can't the father phone in sick occasionally and look after the sick child? It doesn't need to be the mother. Men are just as good at looking after children these days.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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