Women Rule: Kick Out Corrupt Old Men & Apply Here

[marlon]

No, that's the error in your premise. You're using examples from societies that have ALL discriminated against women. This discrimination has been rather ubiquitous among industrialized nations.

No, and please stop using the same old arguments to make your point. Many examples that i have given clearly show that this argument does no longer count.

Again, you're making completely baseless claims. 50% will agree? Oh, nice way to wiggle out of accepting the truth, "they agree with me, but won't admit it"...yep, talk about denial!

It is very easy to give answers like this while you are not able to actually make a decent point and show me some good counter examples. Again, sorry, but this does not count.

I've already pointed you to actual SOURCES that refute your claim completely, that show that women work BETTER in groups.

No you have not. I have given you specific examples in various fields that show how well all men groups behave and functions. I asked for all female counter examples but you are not able ti give them. Those are the facts and they are undisputed.

I am still waiting though.

Though I laugh when you cite bands as good examples of teamwork. Hee.

Not only bands, dear Moonbear. As i have said already a thousand times : examples in VARIOUS fields.

But i suppose you will now ask what these fields were no ?:rofl:

How many times did those bands break up because they couldn't work together long-term?

:rofl:

When did i ever say such bands lived forever ? I am only talking about the time they were a team and what they achieved AS A TEAM. Again, this is an irrelevant remark, Moonbear.

Oh, by the way, the Eurythmics is not an all female group.

But they were indeed successfull, so why am i not surprised they were not all female.

The Supremes, however, was, and unlike the Beatles, the individual members also were highly successful when they moved into independent careers.

Individual careers yes, but we are talking ABOUT GROUPS. So, again, you are way off.

http://www.history-of-rock.com/supremes.htm

I do know the Supremes, you know...or is this just to have another reference:rofl:

Marlon, I also wonder why you dismiss academics as not part of the "professional" world? It most certainly is a profession.

I already explained that.

Could it be that women's groups and teams are successful in academics, so you need to dismiss academics in order to continue tilting at your windmill?

Ohh, that's so sad...

ps : and i am sure that many of these "great all female groups" (of which YOU once said they do almost NOT exist in the professional world [1]) actually discovered something great or acquired a Nobel Prize.

[1] Read Your Own Posts Moonbear, july 2006 :rofl:

regards
marlon

 

[honestrosewater]

You see, i don't want to go on and on about this but i do think that i have proven something here.

Wow, congrats! You'll want to get it published then, no doubt. Don't forget that when they tell you that you are a crackpot, you can claim that it is a feminist conspiracy or something.

If you care nothing about being a decent scientist, you might still want to be more careful about checking the truth of your claims in case you cross the line with someone and have to defend yourself against charges of libel, slander, or hate speech some day. Just a thought.

 

[Evo]

Marlon, you're being ridiculous now. You know that women have historically been deprived of higher education and positions in business. Yes, there have been exceptions, but very few. In many countries women couldn't own or inherit property or wealth. Of course there are currently more men than women in positions of power, but the tide is shifting.

Are you aware that more women than men are getting college degrees in the US? More men are taking menial jobs and more women are becoming professionals.

"Between 1970 and 2001, women went from being the minority to the majority of the U.S. undergraduate population, increasing their representation from 42 percent to 56 percent of undergraduates (Freeman 2004). Projections to 2013 indicate that women's undergraduate enrollment will increase to 8.9 million or 57 percent of the undergraduate population (Gerald and Hussar 2003). Consistent with these enrollment changes, women surpassed their male peers in educational expectations and degree attainment over the last 30 years "

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_7/1_2/5_7.asp

 

[Moonbear]

Wow, congrats! You'll want to get it published then, no doubt. Don't forget that when they tell you that you are a crackpot, you can claim that it is a feminist conspiracy or something.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head!

Marlon, we're done here. You're just arguing the same nonsense over and over and refusing to listen to the evidence to the contrary. You still have not provided a single, credible source to back up any of your claims, yet continue to make your claims in the face of only mounting contradictory evidence. That's called crackpottery, plain and simple.

 

[Omega_6]

I don't really think I have seen any good evidence from either side lately. Does it really matter how many men or women do this or that? Or how many more "prestigious" men there are than women. Why can't everyone just accept that certain individuals are better at some things than others, regardless of sex.

However, I have seen that women back each other up much more than men...:rofl:

 

[Cyrus]

Hey, now that Marlons a crackpot, can I have his guru award. It be a shame to let it go to waste after we ban him :rofl:

 

[Evo]

Agreed, this thread is going nowhere.