Fair enough. While your statement is sweeping and quite inconclusive, I shall, for the duration of this post, accept it as true that men are leading in number and effectiveness in all toplists. Having considered this, we look at your next statement: If this statement were true, you would have seen only men in all the lists and it would only be after even the least men in that particular field were listed that a woman might be included. Clearly, it is not so hence this alone proves that your statement is incorrect. Now that we've taken care of your argument, let's go back to your initial statement. You say that men are capable of handling everything and are better at all things. You cite leaders in various fields/events around the globe as evidence. However, your comparison is void simply because the first thing we always need to ensure is that no external factors affect the thing that we are observing or the conditions need to be exactly the same. Are the conditions the same for girls and boys? I think even you'd agree that they are not. Hence, regardless of whom the conditions favour, the comparison cannot be made. Also, considering that the conditions are largely in favour of men, the fact that a woman beats so many of them and makes it to any list is probably as much of an achievement as for a man to make it to the top. Also, the tip (the top in this case) is just the tip and you should also know that the composition of the tip is different from the rest and cannot be taken as sample space. If in your statement, you'd said that the leading people in a field tend to men, there still might have been some element of truth somewhere. For example, in West Bengal, the topper for a particular year tends to be male but the pass percentage is significantly higher for girls than for boys. Statistics and examples can be bent, you know. I really don't know what you can say to this since you really don't have a defense but I'm hoping that you're not going to try. I miss these threads.
^Now this is what I'm talking about. I'm glad bjr you're rational unlike the lot earlier. NO. It does not prove it incorrect. I may not have been put it in the best way. I agree I would have seen only men but the very fact I also mentioned that exceptions are always there. Some women are really smart and different and that is because every individual has some percentage of the other *** in them. Something like 70% masculine 30% feminine characteristics. Again I donno if that best describes the situation. Those women who make it to the top are usually the highly ambitious ones and the ones who sharpen themselves enough to be there and have the least "girly" traits. Good point. The conditions might be governed by the social surroundings etc. but as alpha1 said earlier: Most Girls will just give up playing guitars because of their nails but a guy will pursue it even if he's ridiculed. Girls make the situations for themselves. Girls are naturally this way. Now even if naturally girls are this way, they might go against the nature and prove themselves amongst the cream of people up there along with men but a very limited number. Same like Children can be produced unnaturally by bone marrow of females. EDIT: I know you were talking bout family pressure n etc but you'll see that girls who're not staying with family and totally independent also won't make it that far as compared to a guy. Again not necessarily though but the odds favor the guy. I agree statistics can be bent. I agree totally on that so I wouldn't argue on that point. You're not good at chess are you?
it is not about the reasoning traits. it is about the fact that instead of encouraging women, ur trying to show ur supremacy. how do u know that?and how do u know that they have "least" girly traits? iam curious.give me an example.
Well looking at it biologically oestrogen is supposed to make girls more docile, and gives them a maternal instinct. But power today is defined no different from back in the day (haha). It all depends on who's willing to dip the lowest and be the most cut-throat. That's something maybe girls shy away from doing, but ever so often there's a matriarch with a hand of steel, who is completely capable of neglecting all emotion, with the added advantage that she doesn't have to deal with the ego and need to show every other competitor, something that testosterone brings about. So yeah, in a way girls may not generally want to do what men do to be "at the top in significant fields" but it's a far cry from saying that women are incapable. If you ever cross paths with a woman who knows how to put aside all the emotion that comes with the monthly cycle you know you're dealing with someone very dangerous. After all even the presidents were bitch-slapped by their mothers.
See, nor the conversation is tilting.. this is what im talking about.. its not that we're not capable.. its more so the fact that because of our "responsibilities" and the upbringing that we have been given.. we are discouraged from focusing on such hobbies and interests.. woman are powerful in their own.. but that doesnt justify ANYONE to sit there and compare the capabilities of men and women and who needs who and who is bigger and better than whom woman are less aggressive.. tend to be. However, just as there are some that come on top..there are many who refuse to settle for less and rise to the top. But my question, is why are women not as encouraged to strive for the best.. regardless of what kind of people they are. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter who is better who is passive.. why arent woman held higher than they are at this point? Why arent those opportunities available to us as well.. Question: being in that monthly cycle has nothing to do it. Why was that even brought up?
@elf: men without the urge for ***? I've never met such men. Give up, sucker. You're cornered. Another word and I won't be surprised if someone from here pops out of your monitor and scrambles your balls.
Well its not worth disscussing who is better than who, coz all men and women are not same and those who get the fame in their respetive field got similar kind of qualities which leads to their success. i completly agree on this point, condition are not same for both, we cant do abt physical structure so leave it, And inspite of not same conditions for man &womens, u see that from past 200yrs to till now 2008 who actually proved better, whose liberation or upliftment is better in the worlds society, if condition is bad for man then they were worst for women. Definetly womens, and each year they are improving in each n every field, and now u will not find a single field in which u can say this male specific .Definetly credit shud be given to female, they proved wrong this Idiotic mentality " women are for *** and giving birth". And far as guitar playing definetly less female in india and this is not coz of nail thing it bcoz of the mentality of our society And also bcoz guitar is not our traditional instrument . In west u will find more female guitarist and good guitarist.
it might be taken as a denial of equal opportunities,and if so, there shd be a change in the social mindset.
If ladies can go to space, they can of course play guitar! Social restrictions are there, but, the intensity of the restrictions has decreased a lot. So, it's up to the ladies to break the chains now. EDITED: nd yesss.... there are lotz of guys who left playing guitar after 5-6 months of learning. So, it's not only the girls who do this...
@eightytwo. I don't think you got my point there. I didn't mean that Guys without ***ual urge exist. Take some time read again and then comment. @thehundredthone .. Good point again. But it's hardly ever the case that a woman is not affected by monthly periods. Oh boy let's not get into that one. @Guys .. Girls "Choosing" not to go up is silly if you ask me. They can't get on top in most fields even if they want to. They're biologically not capable. Even if the conditions and opportunities are equal without any social pressure, you'll see that guys will progress faster and much more than girls. See the top International Chess Grandmasters for example.. I could just remember Judith Polgar, just one female, who has masculine characteristics. OK I think I know why this rage has come up. I am not saying that "WOMEN ARE INFERIOR, MEN ARE SUPERIOR" I just said men are better at doing things. Hasn't anyone read about a man's spatial orientation/accuracy compared to females? Or is just everyone interested in flaming?
and this is why I was scared that you're going to try and defend. You're really just clutching at straws and making more sweeping, illogical statements. No, they just don't like stooping to your level. There is a difference. Says the theory of survival of the idiots? 70 - 30 huh? Where on earth do you get these statistics? Even so, going along with what you say....just the fact that women are capable of adapting to this situation makes them more proficient than males since they can do what they, according to you, were meant for and can even outdo a lot of their males at what they are, again according to you, supposed to be good at. Once again. Sweeping statement which clutches at straws. I suppose society has no role in girls being more conscious about their looks and appearance than men? Since a large part of society led by you percieves that the chief role for a woman is to get married, might it not perhaps affect them and make them want to do what is suitable to get married rather than what they want to? If you take the same example with men, India is manufacturing Engineers and Software professionals at an alarming pace. Is it because they are all really interested in what they do or is it that they want to earn money since that is the role society percieves for them? Wouldn't a man be ridiculed if he became a nurse? It is the same thing reversed. Now if you say that a man cannot be a nurse, you're saying what you are for women in general. Once again you generalize. Can't you see it? The fact that even one woman makes it further than a guy automatically proves your theory incorrect. Then why on earth do you concoct insane statistics and put them into your argument? Your entire argument is based on them and yet you argue further even though agree with me. You have me there. In my defense, I never tried.
And also, you still seem hell bent on comparing the tip (the top) rather than the bulk. It's convenient but bad chemistry.
Everyone doesn't agree to me so I'm at a lower level? Wow you're smart. We could go on arguing about every point we make but that will lead us nowhere. Anyway Not just the top, but even if you see the bulk it won't be hard for you to learn that Men head faster. You can't just keep blaming the society for your incapabilities. It's 21st century. When I say Biologically incapable, It's true. Maybe you guys should read some stuff like this. And why is Being incapable so hard to digest? Ego? You can't change things laid down by nature. Get real guys.
actually which incapability are u talking about: capability of doing things better:think: U provided the statistic also 70% 30 %. See dude if this gives u confidence of doing things better than its gud. And wen talk about incapability their r womens out their who are capable of doing things better than u in every field. than ur biologycal thing comes into play. But u shudn't feel superemacy of this . U only said "You can't change things laid down by nature." there is not point of ego is jst that the mentality u have of mens being better than womens bcoz of some book u have read, as i say earlier if this gives u confidence of doing thing better then it gud, but that doest make u better than all the womens out there.
