How come in games like chess, ping-pong, bowling, pool, badminton, bjj women and men don't compete in the same groups?
Since strength and size are minimally important and what matters mostly is skill...
Because en are fundamentally better at everything which doesn't require manipulation, back-stabbing, mood swings and asking which x you prefer then sulking because they wanted the other one after all.
Because men are terrible sore losers who get problems with their self esteem when they lose to a woman.
>Because men are terrible sore losers who get problems with their self esteem when they lose to a woman.
It's probably more accurate to say that if you lose something to a female everyone, including females, are going to shit on you for it.
If you win then they are going to shit on you for beating a girl (depending on the athletic contest).
usually the competition is MUCH stronger among men, this has nothing to do with men being better, it's the skill pool. separating both is, in my opinion, a big mistake, because that way girls won't evolve and step up their game as much as they could.
for example, it's gokor said in an interview that ronda always grappled with guys, and i'm sure this has to do with the huge skill gap between her and other girls.
It's more that Ronda is one of the few women with a real life long martial arts back ground.
In boxing, a boxer such as Bryant Jennings gets all kinds of hate because he has only been boxing for 6 years. While he's not at the top level of competition and is only finding success because of a weak division he still gets hate and is used as an example of a waining talent pool.
In Ronda's case it's the norm for her opponents to have only been fighting for a few years at most with a non existent sports background beforehand. I'm sure grappling with guys she never beats helps but it has little to do with it.
>It's more that Ronda is one of the few women with a real life long martial arts back ground.
Since women's Oly wrestling has only been a thing for the last three summer games, I'm curious to see if more female athletes from the US are going to go into wrestling.
And then if they are going to start transitioning from freestyle to MMA.
I don't imagine there are as many female wrestlers starting at as early an age as female Judo players unless they are part of families of wrestlers.
Confirmed for never played badminton seriously.
It's a fucking brutal sport cardio wise. Of course men would be better.
Also on the subject, competitive hobbies (not sports) are usually men's playground. You can find that in e-sports where it's a mostly men dominated hobby. Same thing in arts and craftmanship.
Women as a group seems less interested in general. So fewer women into the talent pool leading to fewer exceptional individual.
Same thing why americans wins the superbowl every year. Because they are the only one interested in this sport.
>usually the competition is MUCH stronger among men
Yeah, kinda this.
If we talk about stereotypes (!) and the majority of people (!), respectively: men are usually much more competitive whereas women are much more cooperative and focused about groups.
If you look at the development of children it's pretty obvious that boys are usually good with things that are about competition and developing certain skills (i.e. running), while women have a huge advantage when it comes to communication, social interaction, coping with emotions and so on.
I don't think men are the "better" humans, it's more that women succeed in a different area than men. For example: a men would feel superior when he punched out some dude. A women would feel superiour when she MADE the other guy punching the other guy out - Everybody is fighting with his own weapons.
Nevertheless, those gender debates are usually pretty annoying, so to make it short:
-men and women have different stregths and weaknesses and should learn from each other
-the individual is not only detemined by it's gender or culture, you'll always find grills who love boxing and dudes who are dressmakers
It's such a simple fucking concept to get as well and the fact that people can't digest or retain this infuriates me.
Fun fact: When a man's wife dies he usually ends up dieing alone because the woman did all of the communication and networking.
>lmao they're the most selfishly sociopathic people
Sorry, but it seems you met the wrong girls, dude..
>men have them beat when it comes to arbitration and negotiation too.
Yeah, beat them! We mustn't allow women to be good in anything! MEN! MEN! GOOD GOOD!
So tell me: you're either gay, lovesick or have an inferiority complex - which one is it?
You disagree with me, so I'm "a tool" - because I don't think that women are selfishly sociopathic people?
I'm terribly sorry that most girls I met where kind and had a big heart. And some where indeed assholes, yes.
But hey, I have an AMAZING thought:
Maybe all people are slightly differnt? Maybe some gusy/girls are fucktards and some are cool? Sounds crazy, I know..
Funny, I'm on /asp/ since the very beginning and never went to tumblr. But if I'm not ranting about how bad women are I just HAVE to be scum, right? Hahaha..
>We mustn't allow women to be good in anything!
'we' don't have to allow or disallow anything - they're inferior at pretty much everything by nature, outliers notwithstanding. which goes back to op's question.
now if your question is WHY, the answer is selective pressure. for humanity's entire existence, men have been bred to excel, to reason, to take risks, to suffer the consequences without complaining, and to reap the rewards. women have been bred to conceive and nourish offspring, to manipulate the emotions of people around them in order to succeed at this, and to do so in as much social and physical comfort - and with as little effort or risk of death - as possible. one is concordant with our perspective of what 'success' is, while the other seemingly selfish and useless set of characteristics has been kind of important for the propagation of our species.
tl;dr babymaking has never been a competitive sport.
>Maybe all people are slightly differnt? Maybe some gusy/girls are fucktards and some are cool?
Sure, but there are pretty significance differences in general that foster one kind of behavior or another in most men and women, as made obvious by OP's question. To be clear I had no issue with what >>698722 said, it's pretty much spot on. I only made a comment on the picture they attached because it is ridiculously stupid in defining women in terms of empathy. If anything, women are more consciously and subconsciously oblivious to the trials and tribulations of others than men are, often to their own benefit. They just generally emotionally overreact, which is not the same as empathize. It should have read 'Hard-wired to emote'.
and if you've ever been left wondering, this explanation also works for a whole host of broader questions besides 'why aren't women able to compete in even skill based sports (like chess) that don't rely on strength and size?', such as:
- why do women have a natural proclivity towards attention whoring?
- why is success a turn-on for most women?
- why are most women significantly influenced by the opinions of other women in determining the eligibility of a mate? why is there such a strong dependence on an emotional consensus in women?
- why are women able to talk and talk without saying anything at all?
- why do female babies cry more than male babies? why do parents respond to female babies more quickly than male babies when this occurs, even though male babies take longer to soothe?
- why is it 'women and children first'?
- why is logical argumentation based on facts instead of appeals to emotion considered a more masculine response? why are appeals to emotion generally tolerated if they come from a woman?
>Yeah, beat them! We mustn't allow women to be good in anything! MEN! MEN! GOOD GOOD!
Did you read what you wrote? You're saying that the alternative to beating them is to let them win. If you let someone win at chess that doesn't make them good at chess. Conversely, beating your opponent doesn't mean preventing them from being good at something. The fact that they're better than you is why they can beat you. Think about this for a minute.
>Nice Satanic trips
Gi vs singlet. As a parent i much rather put my little girl in a sport which rules are much easier to understand. Judo is more easily available since anybody can pay a (usually) very small fee to join. Whereas wrestling is much more exclusive and you would see little girl on singlets having much more contact than judo. Lastly folkstyle to freestyle transition usually leaves the athletes playing different games. (Askren, cormier.)>>699170
>they're inferior at pretty much everything by nature
You're completely missing the point. It's not about "Men vs. Women", because there's such a enourmous range about "Men" as well as "Women" - mind that you compare billions of people here. Do you think an female african child soldier has anything in common with an chick from Manhattan?
Yes, when it comes to physical activities, men have serveral natural advantages. But Hereditary factors are complex, even within a certain "race" (i.e. caucasian) you'll find midgets, giants and so on.
>men have been bred to excel (..)
Cute, BB's first social darvinism course..
So we have more garbagewomen than garbageman? And construction workers are all women, because men usually "excell"..? Matter of fact the amount of female managers is increase steadily (see pic) and there's an interesting correlation between the stage of development of a country and the females in higher positions. Managing is a highly competitive field btw..
> to suffer the consequences without complaining, and to reap the rewards
Because most guys aren't lazy fucks?
Because msot countries weren't rebuild by women after their men died in war?
>babymaking has never been a competitive sport.
So all women are "baby breeders" who need strong men to save them..
Allow me to point out that whenever women fought in battles, they didn't do so bad:
>It should have read 'Hard-wired to emote'.
Fair enough, I don't even wanna be the devil's (read: women's) advocate here..
I'm just annoyed when people start with this "male superiority" nonsense. I've seen to many men and women who disprove this and I believe that gender only counts in very few aspects of everyday life..
>The fact that they're better than you is why they can beat you. Think about this for a minute.
But thats exactly the point. Women aren't "naturally inferior" or too stupid, they just don't seek competition if they can somehow avoid it..
A good example is that in Israel women fought during the early wars as pilots. Nevertheless they were denied by the IDF to become pilots until 1995..
Now tell me, is this is about a "fair competition"?
Or are we talking about political decisions here?
Among the ancient Celts women rulers and warriors were so common that when a group of Brigantian captives was brought to Rome in the reign of Claudius they automatically assumed his wife, Agrippina the Younger, was the ruler and ignored the Emperor while making their obeisance to her.
According to Dio Cassius Women competed in gymnastic events with men - nevertheless this stopped somehow and probably not because women weren't suitable for this.
According to the writings of Suetonius, Martial and Cassius Dio, women were also Gladiators. Which didn't stop guys like Tacitus or Statius to think low of those women and to write nasty things.
Diodorus Siculus wrote: "Among the Gauls the women are nearly as tall as the men, whom they rival in courage."
Queen Septima Zenobia of Palmyra (Syria) led her armies against the Roman armies of Emperors Claudius and Aurelian.
>"Women in Roman Britain" - Lindsay Allason-Jones - British Museum Publications - 0-7141-1392-1
>"Women's Life in Greece and Rome" - M.R.Lefkowitz & M.B.Fant - Paperduck - 0-7156-1641-2
Now why do you think women where once magnificent warriors, when some centuries later they were only subdues and held as "fair maids" who should spend their time with knitting and crotcheting (no pun intended)?
Because most men were always afraid of strong women. Because they want them weak and non-competitive.
And I think that it's a sign of weakness when men have such opinions about women.
>Because most men were always afraid of strong women. Because they want them weak and non-competitive.
And women allowed this to happen because they actually ARE weak and non-competitive.
>I play basketball.
>I'm okay at basketball.
>Shaq comes on the court
>Shaq says "white boy get off this court you are not good at basketball"
>Instead of proving him wrong, I meakly go "okay Shaq. Sorry."
>I whine about Shaq oppressing me for generations
I find this amoutn of butthurt disturbing.
You can say what you want, but I'm pretty sure you got your view about "how women are" all by the internet..
>"white boy get off this court you are not good at basketball"
So you feel inferior not only to women, but also to black men? Interesting. You wanna talk about it?
>I whine about Shaq oppressing me for generations
Acording to your logic slavery is allright because the slaves let it happen. And warcrimes are allright because the civilians let it happen.
How's it going, Nietzsche?
I know this is a troll thread, but basically
>chess, pool, bowling
Fine, competition could be just as well mixed in these.
On a professional level they both require insane levels of cardio (the latter especially) and reflexes (the former), males would dominate this with ease.
For FUCK's sake.
Your grasp of how history is to be understood is laughable, at best.
Also, what you're saying is something along the lines of "So the women were really really good warriors and fighters, but then men decided "no! we don't like the women fighters!" so the women stopped fighting and started being housewives, because men said so. I guess they weren't that good at fighting after all...
>Also, what you're saying..
No Mr. Strawman, that's not what I just said..
It's not that Women stopped because men said so, it's rather that Women typically don't have a problem with successfull men, but men usually don't like the thought of string indipendent women and get real nasty to enforce their will. Since ancient times Women had been mocked if they "don't behave like women" (read: good for fucking and raising the kids). The reason why men succeded with this in so many cultures is complex.. But as an indicator, look at what happend to Iran in the 70s, how easy a pretty decent country can be turned into into a stupid shithole where women have no rights. >pic related.
It's like saying: Wow, democracy is really inferior to having a religios leader, because for centuries the religious leaders told us what to do..
Samefags gonna samefag..
>RIP /asp/, you used to be a somewhat interesting board.
I don't even know what your problem is.
I thoght this was about martial arts, instead you somehow turned this into a political discussion by making stupid claims like "Lol, women can't do nothing right! Amiright, guys?"
After I tried to show you a historical development and argued that women where very capable fighters and leader in history you're moving the goalposts like 10 miles by saying "lol, if we have no women leadership today this only proves that women are inferior, trololol.."
And then you start crying about people having a differnt opinion.
Maybe you should just reconsider your stereotypes. Nobody says that women and men are totally the same, and nobody says that men don't have some advantages when it comes to many competitve fields, starting with the fact that men are usually more interested in competing anyway.
But your hate towards women is pitiful. I truly hope that someday you'll find a charming and gentle mma girl who kicks your ass, breaks your bones and melts your frozen heart..
Thank God the Roman's never greatly embellished any story. I'm sure the Gauls were the first and only people in history to have women be almost as tall as men and that the Roman's didn't just make it flamboyant to sell it.
>Queen Septima Zenobia of Palmyra (Syria) led her armies against the Roman armies of Emperors Claudius and Aurelian.
No her armies were led by General Zabdas. She also did what Cassius Longinus told her. Note, both men.
>According to Dio Cassius Women competed in gymnastic events with men - nevertheless this stopped somehow and probably not because women weren't suitable for this.
"There took place also during those days a gymnastic contest, at which so great a multitude of athletes assembled, under compulsion, that we wondered how the course could contain them all. And in this contest women took part, vying with one another most fiercely, with the result that jokes were made about other very distinguished women as well. Therefore it was henceforth forbidden for any woman, no matter what her origin, to fight in single combat."
>According to the writings of Suetonius, Martial and Cassius Dio, women were also Gladiators.
Women are also in the WWE? What is your point. Gladiators didn't fight in the thunderdome it wasn't two man enter 1 man leave.
>Now why do you think women where once magnificent warriors
They weren't. Now fuck outta here you pleb tier feminist.
Iran the 1960's wasn't a pretty decent country. But then again if you judge your entire view of a country of women's rights you're a fucking retard.
>Wow, democracy is really inferior to having a religios leader, because for centuries the religious leaders told us what to do..
No it's like saying, "Wow, democracy is really inferior because another democracy over threw our elected leaders and gave soul power to a Shah who ruined our nation!"
>After I tried to show you a historical development and argued that women where very capable fighters and leader in history you're moving the goalposts like 10 miles by saying "lol, if we have no women leadership today this only proves that women are inferior, trololol..
In the thousands of years of human history it took me 2 minutes to disprove your examples. That is how week your base argument is.
>But your hate towards women is pitiful.
I don't hate women, I hate faggots like you that try to sound intellectual and enlightened on the internet. No one going to sleep with you here. Well maybe Fats.
>I truly hope that someday you'll find a charming and gentle mma girl who kicks your ass, breaks your bones and melts your frozen heart..
I doubt that. I've trained with a lot of women. In striking they never stand a chance the same way with takedowns. On the ground a black belt world champion female I train with can beat me. But then again so can brown belt males of the same weight and they don't have to try as hard.
>You're completely missing the point. It's not about "Men vs. Women", because there's such a enourmous range about "Men" as well as "Women" - mind that you compare billions of people here.
and yet even the elite women can compete with the elite men in non-strength/size based competition, like chess. yes there is an enormous range, but for every point on that range, there will be more men being better than women.
>Yes, when it comes to physical activities, men have serveral natural advantages.
chess is a physical activity? that was the point the OP was trying to make.
>So we have more garbagewomen than garbageman? And construction workers are all women, because men usually "excell"..?
yes, because they are the best at what they do. and women are not garbage men or construction workers because they have been bred for "as much social and physical comfort - and with as little effort or risk of death - as possible". you're just proving my point by using an example that deomnstrates how disposable men are and how obliviously non-empathetic women are.
>Matter of fact the amount of female managers is increase steadily (see pic) and there's an interesting correlation between the stage of development of a country and the females in higher positions.
there's also an interesting correlation between the number of women in higher positions and the eventual decline and extinction of a society/empire.
>Because most guys aren't lazy fucks?
>Because msot countries weren't rebuild by women after their men died in war?
yes, and yes. eg., see: garbage collectors and construction workers. even when 'their men' died in wars, the remaining men rebuilt the infrastructure.
>So all women are "baby breeders" who need strong men to save them..
strawman and weak reading comprehension.
Men have faster reaction times then women in every age group.
I may be wrong though, I got that off of a Game Theory video on youtube.
Also, strength and size are very important in bjj. they're still an advantage.
>Men have faster reaction times then women in every age group.
Yes, physical stregth is probably the biggest difference. But don't forget about variance! Just because the mean value is higher, doesn't mean "every individual from group 1 scores higher than every individual from group 2". Big difference. Again, we are talking about billions of people here.
Back to /b/ you go.
Funny, I thought I already posted literally dozens of examples (over many centuries, in many differnt cultures) which indicated of how capable fighter women were:
I think I somehow missed the part where you dispoved those. But I'd love to see you trying..
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can totally PROVE (not CLAIM) that Queen Septima Zenobia wasn't the unchallenged ruler of her country who invaded Egypt and Anatolia, that Artemisia of Caria wasn't a persian Naval commander, that Trieu Thi Trinh didn't build up a rebel force against china, that Boudicca didn't slaughtered about 80,000 people in ancient London, that Grace O'Malley wans't a fearsome female pirate, that Nakano Takeko didn't die on the battlefield with a Naginata in her hand, that Tomoe Gozen didn'T led men into battle on a regular basis, that Lozen didn't fought side by side with Geronimo..
Do I really need to continue or could you please stop being silly?
"I'd like to ride storms, kill sharks in the open sea, drive out the aggressors, reconquer the country, undo the ties of serfdom, and never bend my back to be the concubine of whatever man."
(Trieu Thi Trinh)
Are you retarded?
I mean are you literally retarded?
> this has nothing to do with men being better, it's the skill pool.
It has EVERYTHING to do with men being better, because they are.
Did you not grow up in public school with mixed genders? Boys were better at everything starting from the time they were in kindergarten.
there's a big gymnastics event called the olympics even today. go search out the record results of sports. you'll notice a difference in men and womens results, in favour of the men.
sometimes there's a big uproar about a female athlete, who may be a transvestite, giving her an unfair male advantage over real females. that probably never happens in the male division
Man, no one questioned women being able to lead armies. The pages you linked mostly tell about women who were rulers and strateges, not actual warriors.
This, on the other hand, is interesting in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons
First link, Queens, Queens more Queens all with male generals.
Second link, Queens, nurses and priestesses. Whenever it says the woman personally led the army next to it is, ""
I can't tell if you're an excellent troll or a fucking idiot.
>Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can totally PROVE (not CLAIM) that Queen Septima Zenobia wasn't the unchallenged ruler of her country who invaded Egypt and Anatolia,
She was a ruler, with generals. Generals who waged those wars for her as per my point.
>that Artemisia of Caria wasn't a persian Naval commander
Commanding a ship and fighting on land are very different. Women are allowed to be stationed on Naval Vessels even in the US Navy.
"Tell the King to spare his ships and not do a naval battle because our enemies are much stronger than us in the sea, as men are to women"
Stop moving goal posts. Women can not compete with men on a physical level. That has been shown time and time again. One or two exceptions don't change that. A WNBA player is a better basketball player than me. But most male college level or higher basketball players are better than the WNBA.
Women just can not compete with men. Citing all the woman who led men in the world won't change that.
It is a pretty crappy analogy since men's gymnastics is much more difficult and strenuous than women's gymnastics, a better comparison comes from track and field events where men and women compete in similar events with men consistently doing better
the whole "bjj doesn't require strength" thing is only true up to a certain level. It's really just a sales gimmick.
Do you even know what "strawman" means? It's not something you just say when the other person is wrong.
Anon you're linking to never mentioned extinct amazon races, YOU ARE THE ONE STANDING UP THE STRAWMAN.
>Acording to your logic slavery is allright because the slaves let it happen. And warcrimes are allright because the civilians let it happen.
>Implying enslaving a human being isn't an impressive show of power.
>Also implying winning wars and battles demonstrates 0 skills.
Hmmmmmm. Maybe you should learn that life isn't a fairy tale world where everyone is equal you idiot, people with more power and the ability to network enough for connections do better than people who are parasites and have nothing to offer.
Because they were raised differently dumbass.
Well where I live people laugh at your type.
>So it's either people live their own lives or they don't, there's non in between with that one.
The point is that peoples outcomes are affected by the conditions they grew up in, so if you want to change/help/fix people you change the way they grow up.
Or do you love crime and illiterate bimbos holding our country back?
i should have written "gymnastics". Its not a shitty analogy. I mean we have sports that require strength and explosiveness etc like olympic weightlifting, track, and lots more where men and women compete. If you would would cancel the distinction of men and women sports you wouldn't see the women anymore. Thats pretty much what the numbers of the results say.
The women soccer team of sweden is ranked fifth in the world of female soccer. They were beaten by the 16 year old boys team of stockholm 3:0
At the beginning of the game the boys were asked to take one player out of the game to make it more even. I think in terms of tactics and strategy they certainly play better, but simply lost because of the physical disatvantage.
When I started material engineering there was 175 of us and probably 40 were girls. 3 girls made it through statics. Two made it through the 300 level courses. Want to know the worst part? Because they were women and engineering majors they got all the internships making 20+ an hour in the area. One girl got an internship making 22 an hour at a papermill, literally weeks after the semester after she failed out of being an engineering student. She is an English major now.
There are still roughly 50 men. So men dropped out at a rate of 63%. Women dropped out at a rate of 95%.
I had a based as fuck Iranian professor who told me he could never understand two things in life, why Arabs are assholes and why so many women try to be engineers.
>in Statics 2 years ago, girl infront of me failed the fuck outta the test
>Tries to argue for full credit on one question because she did the right method just did it incorrectly
>he's polite at first explaining if that had been the real world her math might've just killed someone
>she keeps arguing
>he tells her, "if you don't want the answer to matter go have a useless major like philosophy"
>she dropped the class
She was a cunt to, insane ass though. She used to always try to brag about doing better in Calculus 3 than me, she had the tests. I was working 40 hours a week and not cheating.
Don't get me wrong the 2 girls going into the 400 level courses are great students. But the amount of effort they put in is drastically higher than the effort of men. I'd be studying all out for another test (usually calc 3 since they weren't in my class), take it spend the 2 hour gap studying for the engineering course, walk in blasting the deftones loud as fuck and still get a low B. Meanwhile they are spending hours a day every day studying to get a higher B. It is biological not social.
If you are that good in statistics you definately know what a sample of 200 people says about a basic population of half of the mankind?
Not talking about serveral issues with biases like age, country and study path here..
Your anecdotal evidence is dismissed.
> why Arabs are assholes and why so many women try to be engineers.
Psychology has at least 80-90 % women and they do a pretty tough statistic, i.e. my ex gf was a teacher for multivariate data analysis.
>If you are that good in statistics you definately know what a sample of 200 people says about a basic population of half of the mankind?
If you actually knew shit about anything you'd know a sample size of 200 is considered very reliable.
>Not talking about serveral issues with biases like age, country and study path here
It is the USA they would essentially all fall within 18-25, the peak years for learning.
>Psychology has at least 80-90 % women and they do a pretty tough statistic, i.e. my ex gf was a teacher for multivariate data analysis.
No they don't its a fucking joke for anyone who actually does math. I used to have to help psychology and nursing majors pass their statistics classes.
>So it's either people live their own lives or they don't, there's non in between with that one.
You are not a product of your own will, nor did you "pull yourself up by your boot straps" to get where you are today.
You are a product of the sum of your conditions, your parents conditions and actions, and their parents conditions and actions.
You did not spontaneously appear in a middle class home in the U.S. with an income to match.
Neither is the poor kid in the trailer park spontaneously appearing in a low income neighborhood with only his actions to blame for the increasing difficulty of upward mobility.
Tl;Dr: everything you've been told is wrong, your life is a lie, thank your parents for where you are now.
>Not hiim, but how does being the sum of your conditions change your value to society?
Who do you think is going to have more opportunity to succeed:
The poor kid born into a low income family in a public school system designed to continuously de-fund his schools.
Or the Chad McTrustfund born into an upper middle class or higher family to college educated parents who have the alumni connections to get him accepted to a decent to ivy league school and into an entry level position with no unpaid internship/unpaid internship during which they can afford to cover living expenses.
Then tell me who society finds more valuable.
And then explain the attitude in the U.S. that being not wealthy is a moral failing as anything other than a judgement of value stemming from the sum of your conditions.
Okay? So poor people have to act like niggers and choose to not Perdue higher learning and getting the drive to get out of the shit hole they're in?
I grew up in a poor household, worked my ass off in school alongside my parents and now they're upper middle because of the time they put in for a better life. Stop being a faggot faggot.
>Okay? So poor people have to act like niggers and choose to not Perdue higher learning and getting the drive to get out of the shit hole they're in?
1/10, too stereotypical.
>I grew up in a poor household, worked my ass off in school alongside my parents and now they're upper middle because of the time they put in for a better life. Stop being a faggot faggot.
Sure you did champ.
>male soccer team loses to boys
>"oh how nice, they let them win"
>female soccer team loses to boys
>"oh look, they couldn't even beat those brats, hahaha.."
>I grew up in a poor household, worked my ass off in school
It's called "resilience" at it's pretty rare.
Just like the namefag said, when your mother has a drinking problem and your father is a violent fuck you have severe disadvantages to someone born into a family who has a financial background and emotional ressources to help you in school (loving paretns vs. emotional abusive partens who don't give a fuck). Also the peer groups will be different..
>i had to look someone in the eye AND give them a firm handshake to be handed a huge McMansion and all the boomer faggit perks
>i refuse to acknowledge privilege
where have i heard this story before
I don't think you've ever played badminton competitively. Explosive strength is highly important.
Besides, in amateur competition it's cadio. But elite players have almost constantly >170 bpm heart rate during the game, indicating it's anaerobic.
oh fuck off, your entire argument is one big fucking strawman. read the OP and then tell me what the bullshit you're busy spouting has to do with it. at least my points were relevant to the discussion and not some lame ass attempt to deflect the question like (you think) you're doing a good job at.
It is very rare if not impossible to see that happen outside of the high school level
It's also not uncommon to see well known female athletes get dominated by nobodies like the Williams sisters losing to the same guy the same day
and you're clearly a moron if you can't see that I was being facetious by mentioning 'amazon races' in order to point out how fucking irrelevant and off-topic their attempts at seeming wiki-smart were while completely dodging the question at hand.
keep the dunce hat, it fits you pretty well after all the time you spend wearing it.
english isn't your first language, is it. I did understand his post. you're the moron here for not seeing that in my response. and you're a bigger moron for not seeing how constructing an argument framed around irrelevant wiki articles and then fencing against a different issue altogether is a strawman attempt.
but the biggest point of all is that you were unable to counter any other arguments that were brought up with any intelligence without devolving into personal insults and diversions. if you actually think that your argument had any validity, it just means you're too stupid to see how irrelevant it is to the question being asked.
no you fucking mouthbreather. I wasn't attacking 'amazon women' specifically. I was clearly attacking their inability to stay on topic.
since you're such a simpleton, replace 'amazon women' with [insert their irrelevant wiki links] and it's still the same argument. nothing they said even remotely addressed OP or any of the points that were laid out earlier. even then, a different anon took the time to dismantle their other silly suppositions.
Why did you delete your comment and reposted it?
No, this picture is the simple attempt to show you what this "discussion" has turned into.
Again, this is not me, but if you speak in terms of "irrelevant Wikipedia links" there's no point in arguing with you.
Let's go back:
This whole discussion started with you claiming that women are "the most selfishly sociopathic people when it comes to communication and empathy" and "women have been bred to conceive and nourish offspring".
I answered that it's not about Men vs. Women, because you compare billions of people here and that you views are not only oversimplified and filled with hatred, but also outdated scientifically.
I backed up my first argument (that it's wrong to compare half of the mankind) with the simple remark that there have always been female warrioirs in history, where I gave a lot of historical sources, too. And even though you claimed to be a history student (a nice "appeal to authority", by the way), you tried only cheap moves like:
1) Claiming women have always only be "Nurses and Queens"
2) Cherry picking some examples and downplaying the role of the women in those examples
3) Discredit my sources in general
4) Claiming I was leading the discussion in a wrong direction
5) Calling me "troll", "fucking idiot" and "worse than hitler"
Are those the methods of contemporary historians? I utterly hope not.
I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore. You've made up your mind about women and I think your opinion is just plain sad.
I just got here, but man, I just don't like that it's always from the perspective of privilege. It like you're trying to downplay the positives that happened to people, instead of not being a PC fag and admitting that some people are just shit out of luck. It's always about
>NO, YOURE PRIVILEGED, SO FUCK OFF, NOTHING YOU DID WAS HARD
instead of talking to the other side and going
>well you were shit out of luck, sorry bout that but I'm gonna at least try to help you even it out
All it ever is is talking about the "privileged" people instead of trying to even things out. It's dumb, and I don't get the point, other than to be outraged. I'm stupid though, so whatever.
lmao you're so full of bullshit. that picture is a good reflection of what you've turned any meaningful discussion into.
>I answered that it's not about Men vs. Women, because you compare billions of people here
it's called a generalization for a reason. and if it fits the majority of its constituents through history, it's more likely to be an accurate evaluation that not.
>you views are not only oversimplified and filled with hatred, but also outdated scientifically.
any hatred you detect is your own projection. I'm merely stating the facts, not judging whether it should be this way or not. and if your attempts at proving anything 'scientifically' involve posting ridiculously stupid and 80s era comparisons of male and female minds, you've failed.
>I backed up my first argument (that it's wrong to compare half of the mankind) with the simple remark that there have always been female warrioirs in history, where I gave a lot of historical sources, too.
exceptions to the rule don't mean anything. in fact, they actually support my assertion, not yours since you can't even come up with one matriarchal civilization or society that didn't crumble or never made it into the modern era.
>And even though you claimed to be a history student
that was someone else, I didn't bother to counter your lame strawman because it was irrelevant in my opinion, and a waste of time.
>(a nice "appeal to authority", by the way)
says the imbecile why starts posting wiki links in order to steer the discussion into irrelevancy. priceless.
>1) Claiming women have always only be "Nurses and Queens"
again, I skipped over any arguments you had with that other anon so I don't know what you're dribbling about.
>2) Cherry picking some examples and downplaying the role of the women in those examples
no, I did the exact opposite according to you, remember? I was overgeneralizing and now I'm cherrypicking, hilarious. if anyone was cherrypicking, it was you.
>3) Discredit my sources in general
I didn't give a shit about your sources or your arguments because they were moot. maybe you're confusing me with another anon again.
>4) Claiming I was leading the discussion in a wrong direction
you still are.
>5) Calling me "troll", "fucking idiot" and "worse than hitler"
lol again, must have been someone else. I haven't once said 'troll' or 'hitler'. I did call your argument weak and your attempts to defend it as diversions. maybe I called you a moron if you were one of the voices trying to twist this all into some sort of strawman definition argument.
>Are those the methods of contemporary historians? I utterly hope not.
again, that was some other anon, not me. I'm glad he was here to because I was not about to waste time countering your ridiculous assertions.
>I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore. You've made up your mind about women and I think your opinion is just plain sad.
you never had an argument to stand on.
your position is more fantasy than reality.
the points I made were a closer reflection of the truth than you'd like to admit, and that's fine. whether you (or I, or anyone) thinks it's sad or not is immaterial. it's reality, deal with it.
Great. Well that was disheartening. I can't believe I read the whole thread. I won't be coming back to this board because I'm clearly not welcome. Nice to be constantly reminded how many people think the only thing women are good at is being baby making machines. I just wanted to say I think the "selfishly sociopathic" comment was uncalled for.
>If you actually knew shit about anything you'd know a sample size of 200 is considered very reliable.
Especially when one stops to consider the women involved WANTED to be engineers and not just chicks off the street who readily admit to being bad at math.
>I just wanted to say I think the "selfishly sociopathic" comment was uncalled for.
it's not uncalled for if it's accurate. you'll never see women fighting against any of the millions of examples in life where women are given (or expect, or demand) preferential treatment simply for having a vagina and for no other reason. the best example I can think of that makes such sociopathy absolutely obvious is the need to promote the wage gap myth. in order to do so, you have to do the exact opposite of bearing any shred of empathy - you have to actively dismiss the fact that other people work longer hours, possibly at tougher and more deplorable but necessary jobs that, if not outright deadly, significantly reduce their life expectancy or future quality of life. you're basically saying, 'I don't acknowledge their lives, their morbidity/mortality rates, or their contribution to my comfortable life and the smooth functioning of society in general at the expense of their health. I demand to be paid as much as they are, while putting in fewer hours a week at a cozy desk job and taking more time off more frequently than my male counterparts.'
women put their needs above all else if given the chance by society at large. men are expected to put others' needs ahead of their own, even if it means certain death, with nary a whisper against this inequality or even an acknowledgement of its existence. selfish.
women shamelessly use, and often even acknowledge that they use, their ability to manipulate the emotions of people around them to have their needs and wants met, often to the financial, social or psychological detriment of the people they are manipulating. sociopathic.
as mentioned previously, people unfortunately confuse effusive emotionality or parental instincts with empathy, when, in general, women are anything but (mother theresa and martyred outliers notwithstanding.)
>you'll never see women fighting against any of the millions of examples in life where women are given (or expect, or demand) preferential treatment simply for having a vagina and for no other reason.
Yeah, like getting married against her will? Getting to wear a Burka all day? Not beeing allowed to drive a car without her husband?
Yeah, those are shitty countries, but try to find out how long women can vote or buy stuff without her husband's agreement in your country? Those equality is the result of the sexual revolution, and all problems with women aside, this was a big and important for mankind.
> the wage gap myth.
What myth? Women get paid less, and that's in every country in the world. Do some research, as soon as we are talking about non-shitty job women don't get as much money.
> 'I don't acknowledge their lives, their morbidity/mortality rates, or their contribution to my comfortable life and the smooth functioning of society in general at the expense of their health. I demand to be paid as much as they are, while putting in fewer hours a week at a cozy desk job and taking more time off more frequently than my male counterparts.'
What is this nonsesne? The morbidity/mortality rate has to do with guys going to war (mind you: because of MALE generals and politicians) and other stuff.
Also, do you have any clue how many single mothers are out there? Do you have any idea how much a baby costs?
>women shamelessly use, and often even acknowledge that they use, their ability to manipulate the emotions of people
Unlike men, who don't smooth talk women?
Unlike politicians who are always honest?
Hell, whole work life is about manipulating the emotions of people.
You are neckbeard wearing basement dweller and have no clue about women. Maybe if you weren't bitching about those "mean mean women" you wouldn't be forever alone.
>women get paid less
Of course some dumb whore waiting on tables is going to get paid less than a banker, but when you look at women with the same education and experience working the same jobs as men they make as much or more, women are just incapable of making the responsible decision that gr8 them to the positions that make that money, on average
Men make up 90% of workplace deaths because men are the only ones with enough balls to work dangerous jobs, often to support their woman and children
That also doesn't factor in a battlefield as a workplace
>blah blah blah muh sexual revolution blah blah
yeah, a 'sexual revolution' that just enforces how sociopathic women can be. but of course the only other option is GASP - BOGEY BURKAS!
>doesn't even know the wage gap bullshit is fabricated
fucking lmao you're so ignorant and you're telling people who actually make points based on fact to do research
>What is this nonsesne?
your inability to observe all the disposable men who make your comfortable life a possibility I guess. you're probably the kind of person who throws their hands up in exasperation if the garbage doesn't magically disappear on time or if a power outage isn't fixed THIS INSTANT!
>The morbidity/mortality rate has to do with guys going to war
either reeeally fucking stupid or too sociopathically selfish to know the difference, hard to tell. just goes to prove how obliviously unsympathetic some people are
>Also, do you have any clue how many single mothers are out there?
as many women as there are who can't keep their fucking legs together, don't know how to use the dozen types of prophylaxis or are too prudish to use abortion but not prudish enough to whore around. or maybe you're also including the 80% of women who initiate all divorces, unlike the men who tend to tough out an unhappy marriage?
>Do you have any idea how much a baby costs?
yeah I pay taxes every year to supplement their baby daddy's child support :^) but of course it's a woman's selfish right to have a baby against all sensibility so long as the obligation to pay for it falls on everyone else. never mind the surprising proportion of men who are unwittingly caring for kids that aren't even their own (according to medical geneticists who cannot legally divulge this info)
>a bloo bloo I can't make any intelligent points so I'll just insult them to make me feel good about having a retardedly ignorant position
wooooow, so unexpected. should have thrown some fedoras in there to really solidify your bulletproof argument lol
>What myth? Women get paid less
i don't want to be a douchbag here, but with all due respect, can you post some studies to back that claim? because right now that's a polemical statement
> can you post some studies to back that claim?
Dude, how about google?
Enough or should I ass some more?
I can't believe I reply to your troll comment, but for heaven's sake..
>but of course the only other option is GASP - BOGEY BURKAS!
Decent "black-or-white" fallacy, 1 point for you.
>and you're telling people who actually make points based on fact to do research
"Tu quoque" fallacy, 1 more point.
>your inability to observe all the disposable men who make your comfortable life a possibility I guess
Lol, I'm a dude. Sorry, that "ad hominem" is only 0.5 points.
>as many women as there are who can't keep their fucking legs together, don't know how to use the dozen types of prophylaxis (...)
Very nice. 1 point for "composition/division" fallacy and 1 for a "false cause" fallacy.
>maybe you're also including the 80% of women who initiate all divorces, unlike the men who tend to tough out an unhappy marriage?
OK, I'll give you the 1 point for that "appeal to emotion" fallacy and 1 for the "loaded question".
>yeah I pay taxes every year to supplement their baby daddy's child support
This is below average, only 0.5 points for an "anecdotal" fallacy, and 0.5 for "appeal to emotion".
>but of course it's a woman's selfish right to have a baby against all sensibility so long as the obligation to pay for it falls on everyone else.
There we go! Nothing beats a good old "stawman" fallacy. 1 point.
>YOUR SCORE: 8.5 points
>THANKS FOR PLAYING!
>PLEASE INSERT COIN.
Where in my post did I mention a wage gap?
Interesting that you have met every woman in the world and can shamelessly judge them so harshly. You also seem to be expecting others to take your claims that all women lack compassion seriously, whilst using less than compassionate language yourself. I wonder who hurt you, Anon?
half of the links are broken, and the others are proven wrong a long time ago
in most countries a woman and a man gets the same money for the same job
men have a tendenci to get better jobs, so as a whole men "have" more money, that's the gender gap, but saying women get paid less is just a lie
The amount of excuse-making in this thread is worrying. Where did all these beta whiteknights come from?
It's not an exaggeration to say that men are simply better athletes. It's barely even "offensive."
Why the fuck is everyone skirting around it?
holy fuck this thread is almost a month old
/asp/ is slow
>pointing out fallacies disprove their point and I have no argument to counter theirs.
looks I don't agree with some of them but your whole pose is a fallacy fallacy where you don't even make a counter argument to prove whatever point you were trying to prove. You don't go out to a debate and tell people which fallacy they've done and declare you won you try and counter their arguments with facts.
Chess player here, while Judit Polgar is amazing you have to consider the fact that she trained very intensively from very young age, earlier and more than world champions she faced and yet peaked behind many, many males. She's also a fluke, she and Hou Yifan (71st in the world) are the best women ever in chess but aren't even comparable to top men. Carlsen is 200 points higher, which is huge at that level.
This graph was published in "Highlights of Women's Earnings 2007" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2008). This report presents earnings data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It displays median earnings of men, median earnings of women, and their ratio, annually from 1979 through 2007. The graph indicates that the raw gender wage gap has narrowed substantially over the past 29 years. Over that period, the ratio of the median earnings of women and the median earnings of men has risen from 62.3 percent in 1979 to 80.2 percent in 2007, and has been as high as 81.0 percent in 2005. Nevertheless, the raw gender wage gap in 2007 still constitutes 19.8 percent of the median male earnings.
Yeah, you got me. Your overwhelming arguments were just too powerfull. Or maybe I just find it annoying to argument with uneducated guys..
>ALL DOGS ARE EVIL!
>Wha.. OK, here look at this chart.
>HAHA, THIS HAS BEEN DISPORVED A LONG TIME AGO! YOU FILTHY DOG LOVER.
>Waht do you.. oh, forget it. I don't even care about dogs, but do you have any problem with dogs?
>NO, THEY ARE JUST EVIL! YOU CAN'T DISPROVE ME! ASSHAT!
>But how can you talk about every dog? How many dogs do you even know? The whole science says you're wrong..
>NO, DOGS ARE EVIL; LOL OMG LOOK AT THIS WHITE KNIGHT FAGGOT ASSHAT IDIOT
>But there are a lot of nice dogs..
>What? OK, forget it.
First of all there's the popularity, there's plenty of male players and not many female, which leads to a vicious circle: more male players, more interest in seeing male players, more money for male players, greater incentive for male players.. and so on. So naturally the odds to find a good female player are smaller.
But even if both groups were the same size, men would probably be better because men are ususally better at every activity that requires muscle power.
Funny enough, in aviation women and men are pretty equal. There were many women among the best pilots in WW2.
Interesting claim. Can you back it up somehow and give arguments or do you just wanted to give a random opinion here?
The raw gender gap means everything. I means the money on the bank, it means if you can pay your bills and buy a car or if you can't. And even if you play "lying with statistics 101" by taking factors into account that actually don't belong there, the gap is getting smaller but it's still there.
Did you read one of those Meta-Analysis here?
Do you even know what a Meta-Analysis is?
It's the most powerful tool statistics can offer.
And just for the lulz is the last of those about the correlation between economical growth and gender wage gap.
The reason the gap is getting smaller is because women are slowly making the choices that lead to better paying jobs
A CEO gets paid more than a fry cook, that's not sexism or wrong in any other way, it's just how it is, your ignoring the fact that different jobs inherently pay differently, nothing to do with gender, everything to do with not being socialist
If you actually bothered to read the sources I posted here (instead of talking out of your ass), you would have known that the gap gets bigger with more payment and better positions and age.
In other words:
Two managers have a much bigger gender gap in payment than two people with shitty jobs.
The days of /pol/ are almost over.
you keep onposting raw gender wage gap, those are a terrible way to adress gender inequality
this just show that in this worl the true discrimination is against the poor not the women
women get a lousy deal in this society, but the division of labor has a lot more to do with power and class than gender
i respect your defense on women but you, like many feminist schoolars, are going the wrong way with this issue,
Wow, this is maybe the first answer in this thread I can actually take seriously..
Maybe you have a false impression. I'm not a feminist. I actually hate feminists. I was just pissed off by those bumper-sticker wisdom wannabe smart ass meatheads in this thread. Society has develloped greatly for women during the last few decades, at least in first world countries. Still, empowering women is still important because they do things differnently - not always better, but different. For example, a friend of mine trains a women class in martial arts and he says training women is much harder than training men and he has learnt a big deal by doing so.
For what it's worth, I'm 100% sure men and women are supposed to learn from each other. It's no big deal: either you look down on the other gender (as femnazis and machos do) or you don't.
A great women (and martial artist) once told me that she tries to see the human before she sees the gender. Sounds a littel bit gay, but I try to live up to that.
I can tell you it's pretty hard to do, not only because the hormones but also because we have those images in our heads. But whenever I manage to do so, to break the images I suddenly get a much sharper image of people, their motives and so on.
Inequality has to do with fear. But fear is only the door, either we walk though it and get to the next room or we stay dumb.
This. Girls enter puberty before boys so in high school men are still not fully developed while many girls will already be, biologically speaking, full-grown women are almost full-grown. Three or four years later, though, everything changes.
>in fact it's rare to see a guys winning
Are you really claiming it's rare to see a guy winning a wrestling match?
Or do you just not realize that no one is going to post a highlight real of them beating female wrestlers in high school?
Girls do great at the bottom two weight classes against 13-14 year old boys.
When they are 15-17 year old girls.
And then the boys go through puberty over a summer wrestling camp and come back to stomp a mud hole in them.
So not only is it rare outside of the high school level to see this, it's still rare at the high school level to see a girl beat a boy (and if she does it's because she's wrestling against 103 or 112 lb boys who haven't hit puberty yet).
Why do you think people post it on YouTube?
>who haven't hit puberty yet
the times changed, now almost every year a girl win a state championship
Wait wait wait, if I recall right chess leagues are not male exclusive, but allow women (but hilariously enough female leagues don't do this vice versa).
Best woman is like on rank 50 last time I checked, which is not horrible considering the prodigys you meat on a global scale.
Did you even read the article you posted?
She was wrestling 103 (106 with late season pound allowances).
Which is a weight class where it's extremely rare to see a male wrestler that is a Junior or Senior.
Like the guy has to be a literal manlet or have growth hormone deficiencies (I've seen both, but in the single digits) to make weight at 103 at 17 or 18.
So while a girl wrestler winning her state tournament at 103 is still an accomplishment, you have to realize she's facing boy wrestlers that are still very likely prepubescent and are wrestling for the first time.
I'm not saying to put an asterisk next to her name but for your own perspective you should realize that it's a girl with two or more years of wrestling (and in the case of some of the best female college wrestlers even more than that because they grew up in wrestling families) usually wrestling boys who are wrestling for the first time.
It's like putting a BJJ blue belt on his/her way to purple in a white belt category at a tournament and then asking why the white belts aren't winning.
>Just ask Judit Polgar, one of the greatest chess players of all time, who has found herself more than once on the wrong end of Carlsen’s merciless technique. “When I played him, it felt like I was drowning,” she told the FT.
>Making fun of a Chess Grand Master who reached an ELO rating of 2735
>everyone, including females
this is the awful truth no one is taking into consideration
in intergender matches there's so little sportmanship
i remember this cute, blonde folk wrestler girl saying she prefer to wrestle with boys because it was "more funny to beat them"
and there's tons of stories like that, even women have that hard fendom boner in sports, a lot of them go crazy if they know they're stronger than you, they will tease you to no end, like female engineers students, if some of them get's a better grade than you, you will not hear the end to it
of course there's a lot of great girls, but when you are against a bitch you better kick her ass
>Grandmaster with ELO of 2735
Please tell me you're just trolling.
You don't have any clue about chess, do you?
And you have the guts to tell me I'm "whiteknighting" for exposing your stupidness.
i'm not that guy but explain me please, i don't know anything about chess
also i think she was the youngest chess master in the world and in fact now it's other girl the youngest grandmaster
Basically, Judith Polgar is the only women to ever be in the top 10, in like 1992, but she's retired. Hou Yifan, the strongest active female player, is ranked 67. Humpy Koneru, the 3rd strongest female player, isn't even amongst the top 300 players. So it might be that women are just bad at chess, but we are not sure, since Polgar was such a badass, and Hou Yifan isn't that bad. Also, there are not that many female players, and they have female only events, so they can get away with never playing men. Polgar never played in female events, which is why she was never the Women World Champion, and maybe why she got to be so good.
I think that when you see players like Polgar and Yifan play it should be quite obvious that women are not intellectually inferior to men.
The fact that many uninformed people think that women are going to be significantly worse than men at chess is precisely the reason why there are few female chess players at the top. A person who think women are dumb is not going to teach his daughter how to play chess. Also, an environment in which women are thought to be inferior will obviously be hostile for women to succeed in.
If this were not the case, women would not be able to reach 2600 ratings.
It's about percentages though, one or two women do pretty well, not that close to the best but still not bad
But then you have the fact that women have their own league that only allows women to play because otherwise none of them would finish near the top, and yet men still let women challenge them
So two exceptions don't disprove the rule
>even women have that hard fendom boner in sports
where do sign up?
I understand that men have more muscle mass, but I think in competitions that don't require physical strength, it has a lot to do with this:
Not that anon, but he's right.
Guys will shit talk each other all the time, but it's 99% of the time entirely in jest.
Women lord shit over you. It's like there is no switch between playful banter/shit talking and maliciously bad mouthing someone for them. I'm not even talking just my personal experience as the recipient of it, but mostly as a witness to women doing it to other people in front of or to me about other people.
It's not 100% true all the time of course.
aside from the standard excuses like interest women typically have a slower average reaction time.
Doesn't mean they can't compete though. They have. Loads.
It's probably not common for infrastructural reasons in mobas. In chess I think it's more of a trend. You have to realize that in chess the Super GMs are pretty damn close to untouchable. I have to say that the Polgar sisters are beasts though. They kick so much ass it's not even funny. Spice has created so man GMs. Judit has broken some nice records and could probably go up against the super GMs in all honesty.
Women EARN less than men. Male kindergarten teachers earn less than male oil rig petroleum engineers the same as female kindergarten workers do.
Male kindergarten teachers just have to bear the burden of that sneaking suspicion he may be a pedophile :^)
> can't handle intermediate level womens banter
> failing the shit test
>could probably go up against the super GMs
10 years ago she was top ten in the world - an elite among the "super" GMs - and a genuine contender for the men's World Championship. Then she dropped out of chess to have kids; apparently half your brain drops out with each placenta (according to my sister, and she should know, she's had 6). Still took until last year for Yifan Hou to surpass her rating, and that's not accounting for rating inflation.
He's right though, most women have absolutely no ability to banter or the sense of humor enough to handle it, for them it's basically a direct insult with no jesting and when you joke with them they get buttblasted instantly
>> can't handle intermediate level womens banter
>Implying I can't.
>> failing the shit test
>Implying saying anything back other than escalation and amusement, or ignoring completely is passing the shit test.
Sure anon, sure.
You know how I know you haven't been around women very long?
Because you don't realize they viciously shit talk each other, other people, you, their mothers etc. when the person they're talking about isn't listening.
There is a difference between that and the banter that men do with each other.
It's not an issue of "not being able to handle it", it's an issue of them being categorically different because girls don't grow up being socially conditioned to act like that with their friends. They grow up being socially conditioned to be "besties" with their friends to their face and then shit talk them when they get out of ear shot. So they aren't very good at it when it comes to actually jokingly shit talking people to their face.
They complete with each other but they can't compete with men, which is why they don't compete in really official stuff
>inb4 there was this one that was kinda good
One does not disprove the rule
The 3 relevant paragraphs:
"Psychologists at the University of Berlin falsely told participants they had been selected to participate in a series of tests “to measure the ability to put oneself in someone else’s position” - to avoid confounding factors in the real study on gender identity priming. They prepared a text describing a “stereotypical woman”. They also prepared a text outlining the activities of a "stereotypical man" Subjects were randomly given one of the two texts, and then asked: “If you were the person described in the text, which adjectives would you use to describe yourself?”
Soon after participants described themselves with either the male- or female-associated traits, they were asked to take a mental rotation test presented as independent of the first part of the study, supposedly to measure their personal spatial aptitude. On this mental rotation test, women who were “primed” with the female identity scored an average of 3.86 on the exercise, compared to the female-primed males’ average of 5.14. Okay, expected. But then when primed with the male text, women scored an average of 5.49, while men scored 5.53… wait a second, what?
As it turns out, there is zero statistically significant gender difference in mental rotation ability after test-takers are asked to imagine themselves as stereotypical men for a few minutes. None. An entire standard deviation of female underperformance is negated on this condition, just as a man’s performance is slightly hindered if he instead imagines himself as a woman. Although this study is of course not an answer to all things “nature versus nurture,” it does add a tremendous asset to the growing mountain of evidence that “natural” ability differences are confounded by identity and subconscious self-stereotyping. Demographic expectations may be subtle or overt, but they are omnipresent, and they are likely much more powerful than most of us have ever considered.
Did you pick up on the bit where they wouldn't have to (and wouldn't know they had the option to) if they didn't hear, read and absorb constant messages telling them they are shit and men are just better?
>they wouldn't have to (and wouldn't know they had the option to) if they didn't hear, read and absorb constant messages telling them they are shit and men are just better?
yeah, that's just bullshit and you should know it , there's no way a single study can make that kind of statement, also it's higly unethical to blame society for every single problem in your life
Other studies were mentioned but they were about race not gender so I left them out.
Pic related is what happens when a test is perceived to be “diagnostic” of a negatively stereotyped person’s intelligence.
These studies don't blame society for every single problem in anyone's life they just uncover the fact that social stereotyping has more power than most people realise.
Oh wait, they did go into another one about gender:
Pic related is the result graph of a study finding a girl’s math performance is empirically shown to decrease in proportion to the number of male test-takers around her, or that conscious reminders of gender differences will significantly decrease females’ math test scores.
So, according to that study and other studies akin, men and women are almost equal regarding intelligence, having men a slight, albeit negligible, edge in logic and spacial tests.
Given that men are vastly superior to women physically, this again makes men come on top on the issue which is the better sex.
They do actually compete in really official stuff.
It's just that the super GMs are unreasonably strong right now. Magnus Carlson basically gets one point ahead of his opponent by winning a game more than they have and then he just plays for draw. When you get the highest level there isn't a ton of room for random chess upstarts.
I've noticed that men who say this tend to be pretty weak themselves and the only thing they really have going for them is that they were born with a penis. Because of this they need to constantly "remind" women that females collectively are the "weaker" sex.
These men have no strength or accomplishments in their own right so they try to take strength from the accomplishments of other men and take comfort in the "superiority" of the male sex as a whole.
It's a coping mechanism for weak men really. Deeming all women inferior simply due to them being women is really just their way of trying to make themselves as individuals feel superior due to them being men.
>even in competitions that don't rely on attributes that are traditionally male
And which ones would that be? Because the whole list in the OP relies on male attributes like speed, endurance and being a nerd.
>being this hypnotized by jewish media
swallow your own teeth faggot
Who made this shitty table? There are grains of truth to it, but people are complex individuals and can express any of those traits regardless of gender.
I hope the table was meant to represent obvious stereotypes.
It causes conflict. When women see that after merging only 1 or 2 women are good enough to still compete but never win they'll get butthurt. Then every once in a while there will be woman that wins for a time and uppity bitches will act like women are superior despite statistics and history and that will make men butthurt.
>How come in games like chess, ping-pong, bowling, pool, badminton, bjj women and men don't compete in the same groups?
Sexism and patriarchy. Pic related, gf (2p) playing at a korean prelim.