Are Girls better than Boys?

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Thoran: Oh yea... this thread, no matter how inflammatorily (is that even a word, or did I just invent it? ) started, brings me around to a question I've been pondering for quite a while now (besides pondering how I'm going to get the chicken to wear the nylons, or whether there really IS life on Gandymede). It's true that girls mature faster than boys, they also respond positively to different teaching methods than boys do and perform at their peak in a more cooperative environment than boys tend to prefer. Should boys and girls be educated seperately? Perhaps an educational system tuned to girls would be highly cooperative, less confrontational and competitive, and conclude a year earlier than the guys. Perhaps an educational system tuned to boys would be highly tactile/experiential, more competitive, more regimented, and take an extra year to accomidate the slower development of boys. Seems like an ideal solution... except for the fact that every special interest group would be screaming bias and throwing law suits around like confetti every time something happened that they didn't like.

Yes, actually in my post where I quoted that part of your post I was actually going to mention this in passing - however the answer is I don't know. The science really does seem to suggest that, all else being equal, girls should be doing better in school than boys. They're about a year or so ahead, and plus there are the associated issues of teaching style and what both genders find most facilitative for learning. I do support coeducation, however it does seem that if we really are committed to the best education for all then maybe changes should be made. I think more research would need to be done to support the less/more cooperative, competitive etc aspect that you've suggested, since I'm not sure whether there are actually gender differences for those.

[Kaltia]

Originally posted by Avatar: Take my mother for example. Let's pray that she doesn't read this. She spends most of her time thinking about what she has to cook tonight, whether she looks okay in the mirror and various other things unrelated to work. Girls are just girls... [img]smile.gif[/img] Ofcourse we get girls who care less about these things, and concentrate more on work. But the majority don't. And compared to men, girls are more vain. Which I think is great, because I really don't like girls who don't know how to take care of their image.

...

That has to be the stupidest thing you've said so far.

I'd love to say more, but Mel and Aelia have said it without resorting to giving you the finger, so I shall attempt to emulate their examples.

Do Not Base Your Entire Conceptions Of The Female Race On One Person!

And *definately* don't put such personal feelings into a serious disucssion thread! Tempers usually get strained enough as it is without you making such remarks! What would you say if I made an assumption based on a stereotype about anybody else? Said that, for example, I knew one miserly Jew, so they must all be like that, or one gangsta Negro, so they must all be criminals?

You'd tell me not to judge anybody by stereotype, wouldn't you...or considering your topic past, I'd *hope* you would.

I'm not one of these vain girls of whom you talk about. I can't be bothered to apply seventeen tonnes of wax to stop frizz from my hair, or apply enough make-up that I look like a fake goth training to be a clown.

So, if you saw me in the street, you'd think less of me because I wasn't dressed up (or down, in this case) like a stripper on her way to a bachelor's party?

If you're really so cheap as to judge a girl's worth by how vain she is, then you must not be very successful in the girlfriend department [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Firestormalpha]

Kaltia, I hate to nitpick, but male and female are not two different races. Two different genders of the same race, yes, but not two different races. Human or Homo Sapiens is the race, or more acurately referred to as the species.

Hmmm. Interesting topic question. IMO the question is based on "what have men done more of than women academic-wise". Well that's how I read the topic question. So really it's not about which gender is better. There are many ways EACH INDIVIDUAL contributes to society. It can be on a large scale where their actions are witnessed by the public OR it can be a very private almost unknown and unseen event. I truly believe that some of the wisest and most significant contributions to mankind are done without anyone knowing. The best human beings that have ever graced this earth lived a life not wanting of fame or expected rewards for their good deeds. They simply did things out of love and compassion.

[ 09-23-2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: GForce ]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Avatar: Take my mother for example. Let's pray that she doesn't read this. She spends most of her time thinking about what she has to cook tonight, whether she looks okay in the mirror and various other things unrelated to work. Girls are just girls... [img]smile.gif[/img] Ofcourse we get girls who care less about these things, and concentrate more on work. But the majority don't. And compared to men, girls are more vain. Which I think is great, because I really don't like girls who don't know how to take care of their image.

...

I wonder... how do you know this is all she thinks about? Has she actually told you that her thoughts rarely stray from cooking, primping, and other vapid 'female' issues? Or is it just that she usually looks presentable and serves nice meals and you assume that based on her obviously limited brain power she must have to spend a lot of time thinking about those issues or they wouldn't get done? Seems to me that you've made a pretty huge (and insulting)leap based on very little actual evidence.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: I also love the way you've used one example, your mother, and from that based opinions on one entire gender. I can see at least one guy who won't be making any scientific breakthroughs

As I was reading through the thread I saw Mel's response on page one [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] and my first thought was "Aelia's reply will be on page 2 and I bet it is good [img]smile.gif[/img] ".

As well as the line I quoted though, both Aelia and Melusine make very many good points.

It is pointless to make judgements on "breakthrough achievements" over history because opportunities have only started to properly equalise over the past decade or so, and how do you separate and evaluate the feminine aspect and impact of child bearing and rearing. In many respects you could consider the simple aspect of starting a family as socially driving many men to achieve at higher levels as providers. For the woman however it tends to be very disruptive to the career. The disruptions are not things that cannot be overcome, but the birth of a child is a big thing, and many people find that their priorities may change in the short to medium term.

[True_Moose]

Most of what I think can be summed up in Kaltia's, Mel's and Harley's posts.

While it is perhaps true, Firestorm, that females/males' differences are not as purely aesthetic as that between races (as you imply,) and there is definitely some different things happening within the body (testosterone, estrogen, all that stuff), it's yet to be proven that that has anything to do with sheer intelligence levels. I personally think that the intellectual differences between the two are minimal, when compared at equal levels. Sure, Joe Trailertrash is going to look bad when compared to Marie Curie, but likewise is someone like Britney Spears going to look equally deplorable as compared to, say, Abraham Lincoln. The vast majority of the differences IMHO are aesthetical, and really, until it is proven otherwise, male and female are identical to me intellectually.

As to whether a woman should stay home: someone sure as heck should. I know of both male and female teachers at my school who are on parental leave, and I agree with that. I think that forcing women to stay home is wrong, as is doing the same to men. However, someone must stay home, if purely for the child. The reason that this tends to fall towards the woman is threefold: women usually take at least substantial amounts of time off of work while pregnant (ultrasounds, checkups, all that) so their employers have already compensated, women have usually been stereotyped into the role, but also, they do (deny it as much as you want, it's true) have natural maternal urges. I don't think they should be forced to, and it's not wrong for the father to stay home (and would help in a lot of cases.) So I guess what I'm saying is: mother or father, who cares, as long as one of them home. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Avatar: Academically. only. [img]smile.gif[/img] Highier exam results.. that's conclusive isn't it? Then why is it that most important breakthroughs in Science are done by blokes? If we compile the list, the girls have about 3 and the guys have about 40,000. Is it because we peak later? Are we very sexiest? Are we sexy? sorry wrong question. Are exams not reflecting true interlectual independent potential? Do they reflect more on memory, discipline and self-motivation? What do you think?

We were just talking about this at university (we were studying feminism). Some figures showed that women in the Political Science Department had on average higher grades then men, and there was about the same number of women as men. But then all of a sudden the number of women fell drastically (at the MA and Phd level). If you look at the age of these women, you will see that this is the age when women have children. The problem with today's academic world is that is it still man oriented. I don't really see many things being done to make returning to school after you have a child easier. And something should be done about it. I don't think it has anything to do with memory or discipline or anything like that...

Now, I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry about that, but I don't know who said it, it might've been you, that women have been in high level academics for the past 10 years. But 10 years is nothing. Who is doing the big breakthroughs? Most of them are people over 40, or at least 30... which would mean ten years wouldn't be enough time. [img]tongue.gif[/img] And you also have to think about that some people still have the "woman should be at home taking care of the children, and man should provide" mentality, which doesn't really help. And not to mention that some people (I heard if from my teacher listening to other teachers talking about students) still see men with good grades as intelligent and women as hard-working... So I think it's a mix of all that...

Hmmm, my post seems really confusing right now... I've been working on an essay all day so I need some sleep. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Not that i ascribe to this chain of thought this thread just reminded me of this quote i read once:

"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack The Ripper."
-- Camille Paglia

[Thoran]

Originally posted by GForce: Hmmm. Interesting topic question. IMO the question is based on "what have men done more of than women academic-wise". Well that's how I read the topic question. So really it's not about which gender is better. There are many ways EACH INDIVIDUAL contributes to society. It can be on a large scale where their actions are witnessed by the public OR it can be a very private almost unknown and unseen event. I truly believe that some of the wisest and most significant contributions to mankind are done without anyone knowing. The best human beings that have ever graced this earth lived a life not wanting of fame or expected rewards for their good deeds. They simply did things out of love and compassion.

Great insight GForce.