Oke...now I sort of see where you're coming from Ravera.

With regards to the sexism....I do sometimes steer back to that but that's only because the guys here are so stubborn and refuse to admit that women if not better are surely equal to men.

Damn people here are so stubborn and refuse to admit that grass is black and sky is green..

I'm not saying men are better Aranka, but we are NOT equal on almost any field. The two sexes are different. Just because a bench is not better than - let's say - a brick wall, doesn't mean they are the same thing.. Face it once and for all!

Don't really agree with the metaphor there Malamute

A better one would be:
Just because the one is just a beer (men) doesn't mean they are also champagne (women)

rubbish. are you talking about hermaphrodites now or what? -"doesnt mean they are ALSO"

and even when you try to correct my metaphor which was as neutral as possible, you cannot resist to use words like "one is JUST a" when talking about men.. you have a serious problem Aranka. Sorry - i would love to, but i cannot help you.. and unfortunately no one here can.. (this time i was not being sarcastic)

You almost make it sound like I am a nutcase Malamute. There is no need to get personal though. Not even when you disagree with the debate. I can't help it that champagne is classier then ordinary beer ;-)

I'm not saying men are better, but we are NOT equal on almost any field.

So men aren't better, but their skills do not equal that of a woman's? There we have it... the closest thing you'll get to a guy admitting girls are better. Happy now Aranka?

Sigh... he isn't claiming one of the sexes are better just that they are different. I agree with Fridge here that changing the metaphor was stupid. He especially used just neutral objects to not offend everyone so why changing it to making something better than the other needed to be done eludes me.

I think you still have jetlag Aranka since the quality of arguments you present decline. Women and men should be equal in the sense of law, women and men will never be equal same as 2 different groups of people will never be equal. For example I am very good at economics and mathematics, but I'm much worse in keeping my room tidy which makes me better in some areas than most women and worse in some ares than most women... I really detest how modern feminists demand much more than equality, for example parities are an example of disequality and preferable treatment towards women. Men and women are not equal, they do not need to be. People misinterpret the word equal using it with a scaling context trying to prove who is better/worse, when in fact in modern society (not all countries by any means) the word equal is nothing more than an empty phrase. Equal is only used in the context of treatment and, at least on the professional field you are free to demand it and you will receive it, on other fields it's just personal preference.

Really empowered women do not need to use the word equal in the same way really confident people do not need external affirmation. You may be bright, but the words you choose make you look very childish in the understanding of many things.

Room cleaning? o.o
Sexist pig. At least use a non-sexist approach to fight this argument. Such as how women are typically more diplomatic and men are more violent~

Please learn to read and search the definition of example, I have no patience to teach you both things.

"For example I am very good at economics and mathematics, but I'm much worse in keeping my room tidy which makes me better in some areas than most women and worse in some areas than most women." Tidying your room's not a skill! It's not something you can be better or worse at, it just depends on how much you're prepared to do. I think this is why it comes across as strikingly patronising, it's as though you can't think of any actual skill for your example. Perhaps you were just trying to wind people up though? Incidentally, this article about gender bias in mathematics is very interesting - https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdweckmathgift.pdf

Agree with icvictoria and Naomi here.

I do think you were intentionally trying to troll around a bit here Carl.
Sorry to say but I expected more from you.
Especially in the context of first calling me childish and using no arguments with my metaphor it's extremely childish to then use a very similar metaphor to degrade women.
Although you have no time to explain anything to Naomi I do recommend you find the time to look up the word - "hypocritical" - it might apply in this case.

Furthermore you're saying my arguments are declining over time but did you, or anyone else for that matter, actually take the time to read my longer responde at the start of page 10 ??
I don't think so...nor did I expect anyone to do so.
On a discussion site like the internet it's mostly just better to do one-catch one liners then bother with long elaborations of one's opinion.

Ok, how about I change that room thing which is seen as very bad for some reason and replace it with patience... especially patience I do not have to continue discussion when people focus on meaningless details rather than the actual meaning.

As far as the article goes, statistics in psychology and sociology is a very poor excuse for science, so I would never go as far as to say that women are genetically programmed to be less effective with analytical thinking. The fact is that really does not matter, I've been teaching maths and economics in extra-curricular activities since high school and what I know from experience is that as far as attendance go I have at least 10:1 men:women ratio. Does it say something about inherent predispositions? No. Does it say something about the general average? Probably much more.

Oh, I did not see your response in time...

I did not use a single metaphor Aranka, nor did I degrade women or had the intention to. You also should learn to read it seems...

Carl - I wasn't trying to imply that you were suggesting anything more than statistics by posting the link, and I didn't post it for your benefit. A lot of the arguments against sexism on here have been winding me up, and I have found some of them more offensive than anything that they're a reaction against. I'm trying to spread about a more informed view of gender issues to counter it. Women are just as much a part of the problem as men are, and we all need to take an active role in remedying it. And by active role, I don't mean shouting about how terrible is, I mean looking at ourselves and identifying the areas where we hold irrational views, and by educating ourselves by reading academic articles, studies etc. It's particularly important for women to do this, I think. I felt I had to post about your example simply because I knew other people would... I did think there was a lot of truth in your post. Equality isn't something that can be applied without context. As such, there's no blanket equality between men and women, simply because the term doesn't apply.

aranka, on the internet no one f***ing cares who you are in real life, they dont give a shit if you are a male or female, so stop drawing attention to yourself trying to say you are different, and should be treated differently. This whole sexism discussion wouldnt have started in the first place if you hadnt tried to gain attention

Ironic how the people who say that tend to emphasize the difference though.

It's comical in a twisted way xD

Victoria, this is for you http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html It's a short essay on contemporary feminist theory, its badly written but easy to read and packed full of insight.

The stanford article was misleading garbage, I assume you read it. Would you like to discuss it?

"the view of math as a gift can not only make women vulnerable to declining performance, it can also make them susceptible to stereotypes, so that when they enter an environment that denigrates their gift, they may lose the desire to
carry on in that field." This is a HUGE leap and there is not evidence cited to support it. Why does the writer assume they become suseptible to stereotypes? why does she assume there is a negative stereotype/environment? A terrible lack of scientific rigour, as one comes to excpect from a female psychologist =D. She then breezes into what can be done about this problem, which turns out to be "addressing students’ beliefs about the nature of ability." Which doesnt need to be gender specific at all.

She goes on to say that a group given 8 training sessions on, among other things, how to do their homework, tend to do better in their school work. No shit? Where was the control group that was given 8 training sessions on how math is an ability? Or on maths. Was this double blind?

The message here is surely, "work hard and you will succeed", boy or girl, intelligent or stupid, black or white. Why is it being dresssed up as a feminist issue?

looks like you're back from vacation aranka.

are you gonna accept my challenge game or will you back out?

Such as how women are typically more diplomatic and men are more violent

Really now? You're trying to fight gender stereotypes by bringing up just another one of those stereotypes? Please, sort out how you think of yourself and your role in society and if your being a female is of any relevance for your perception of yourself in the competition that is our everyday life. Then we may be able to talk.