More Superficial: Men or Women?

midlandsmissus

liah wrote: »

No, mostly by their backwards-thinking, old-fashioned families and schools.

Women are still pushed to be homemakers and childbearers from an early age by their own families and communities, and are often berated if they don't aspire to have children and look after a family (there's been a thread in PI about this recently, actually). Men are pushed towards careers, and nobody really cares or notices if they don't want to have kids.

A lot of schools will focus subjects like arts and languages on girls and maths and sciences on lads. There is still a noticeable difference that will take a lot more time to overcome.

Women still get paid less in the same fields and positions as men, thus encouraging them to seek out "women's jobs" to feel less inferior.

But there are and have been some brilliant female scientists in the past-- look at Marie Curie! Female authors and poets-- a lot of the classics were written by females, Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, Virginia Woolf.

They were all when the odds were completely against them.

Last but not least, don't forget, a lot of men have taken an awful lot of credit for the work of their wives in the past. Don't discount it.

Exactly they wouldnt even let Marie Curie get the acclaim that she deserved. They were so offended that a woman could have discovered what she did, they lumped her in with her husband.

Darkbloom

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Exactly they wouldnt even let Marie Curie get the acclaim that she deserved. They were so offended that a woman could have discovered what she did, they lumped her in with her husband.

Rosalind Franklin's achievements only came to light after her death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

johnathan woss

From wikipedia;

Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis. She used a clever technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had invented the electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Using the Curie electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity.[16] Her first result, using this technique, was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present. She had shown that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction between molecules but must come from the atom itself. In scientific terms, this was the most important single piece of work that she carried out.[17]

So; using technology her husband created she recognised the dependence of activity on the amount of uranium under investigation....

Seems to me she was riding in her husband's slipstream.

Davidius

I personally believe that [insert your choice here] are much more more superficial.

[Your reasoning here]


[Please place your +1 in the box]

cherryghost

some men and some women are more superficial than others. its a simple fact really. just in some places you tend to see more of the 'more superficial' people about.

am i right or am i talking absolute rubbish? :rolleyes:

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

From wikipedia;

Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis. She used a clever technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had invented the electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Using the Curie electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity.[16] Her first result, using this technique, was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present. She had shown that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction between molecules but must come from the atom itself. In scientific terms, this was the most important single piece of work that she carried out.[17]

So; using technology her husband created she recognised the dependence of activity on the amount of uranium under investigation....

Seems to me she was riding in her husband's slipstream.

Amazing how you missed some of the first sentences in that article:

She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the first person honored with two Nobel Prizes,[1] and the first female professor at the University of Paris.

Her achievements include the creation of a theory of radioactivity (a term coined by her[2]), techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two new elements, polonium and radium. It was also under her personal direction that the world's first studies were conducted into the treatment of neoplasms ("cancers"), using radioactive isotopes.

midlandsmissus

johnathan woss wrote: »

From wikipedia;

Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis. She used a clever technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had invented the electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Using the Curie electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity.[16] Her first result, using this technique, was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present. She had shown that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction between molecules but must come from the atom itself. In scientific terms, this was the most important single piece of work that she carried out.[17]Seems to me she was riding in her husband's slipstream.

You have superficial selection

From wikipedia: Marie Curie coined the term 'radioactivity', she singlehandedly developed techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and she discovered two new scientific elements: polonium and radium.

More than her husband ever did.

Disease Ridden

Eh, why are you's getting caught up in a debate over women and their achievments? It has nothing to do with which sex is more superficial!

I think all human beings ultimately strive to get the best mate possible, hence most lads being attracted to a much smaller cohort of women. And those nerds that say they arnt concerned about looks are just trying to get into your knickers ladies; your best bet is to avoid them and go for the straight out bastards like myself

johnathan woss

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

liah

Since 1966, the number of women receiving bachelor's degrees in science and engineering in the U.S. has increased almost every year, reaching 202,583 in 2001, approximately half of the total.[13] The number awarded to men has not increased significantly since 1976. The proportion of women graduate students in science and engineering has risen since 1991, reaching 41% in 2001. Substantial differences between subjects are seen, however, with women accounting for almost three-quarters of those enrolled in psychology in 2001, but only 30% in computer science and 20% in engineering.[13] Both the number and the proportion of doctoral degrees in science and engineering awarded to women have increased steadily since 1966, from 8% in 1966 to 37% in 2001. The number of doctoral degrees awarded to men peaked in 1996 and has since fallen.

In the UK, women occupied over half the places in science-related higher education courses (science, medicine, maths, computer science and engineering) in 2004/5.[15] However, gender differences by individual subject were large: women substantially outnumbered men in biology and medicine, especially nursing, while men predominated in maths, physical sciences, computer science and engineering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Cavendish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3%A2telet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Potter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Pockels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Kovalevskaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

Good thing we have you here to clear up the mistakes of the Nobel committee and scientific community!

midlandsmissus

Disease Ridden wrote: »

Eh, why are you's getting caught up in a debate over women and their achievments? It has nothing to do with which sex is more superficial!

I think all human beings ultimately strive to get the best mate possible, hence most lads being attracted to a much smaller cohort of women. And those nerds that say they arnt concerned about looks are just trying to get into your knickers ladies; your best bet is to avoid them and go for the straight out bastards like myself

I have to say this is true.

I much prefer the straight out b*stards, to the ones who pretend to love helping old grannys and say theyre saving themselves for marriage, and then you find out theyre d biggest player in town!

liah

johnathan woss wrote: »

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

That is probably (miraculously) the single stupidest thing you've said yet, and affirms you definitely are trolling.

Since when does using a tool discount the discovery made with it? That's like saying because you use a petri dish or a beaker to discover something new, your discovery mustn't be valid solely because you did not create the petri dish or beaker.

Wtf?

cherryghost

johnathan woss wrote: »

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

why are you doing this?

marie curie
mary anne cary
isadora duncan
caterina dei vigri
mother theresa
cleopatra :pac:

to name a few off the top of my head

johnathan woss

cherryghost wrote: »

why are you doing this?

marie curie
mary anne cary
isadora duncan
caterina dei vigri
mother theresa
cleopatra :pac:

to name a few off the top of my head

How could you forget Beyonce :pac:

cherryghost

johnathan woss wrote: »

How could you forget Beyonce :pac:

she done nothing notable

dvpower

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Men are definitely more superficial.

I had this fella follow me round all last saturday night. I was talking to him for a while, (cue he then thought I wanted to sleep with him but thats another discussion about men!!!!!)

I says 'I have a boyfriend!!', and he goes 'I cant leave you alone you're a pretty one. you're so pretty thats all I want in a girl' etc etc.

Looks are important to women too, but not to the same extent as to men.

This all goes back to my theory that men are obsessed with sex because they cant get it all the time, whereas women can get it anytime they want, and therefore aren't as bothered about it.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

From wikipedia: Marie Curie coined the term 'radioactivity', she singlehandedly developed techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and she discovered two new scientific elements: polonium and radium.

More than her husband ever did.

Well. That's my mind made up.

coffee_cake

liah wrote: »

Probably because recent history is not so easily forgotten, mate. There's still societal pressures for women to get "girl jobs" and men to get "man jobs."

Though there's a lot more female musicians out there than you seem to notice.

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

liah

bluewolf wrote: »

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

Wow.

...Wow.


:eek:

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

savage!! :pac:

Melange

bluewolf wrote: »

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

From a 1970s children's book? 1970s??

It seems hard to believe that attitudes were so utterly regressive as little as 30+ years ago.

K-9

Melange wrote: »

From a 1970s children's book? 1970s??

It seems hard to believe that attitudes were so utterly regressive as little as 30+ years ago.

Love the boys can eat one.

hussey

Hazys wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Jigsaw

Melange wrote: »

From a 1970s children's book? 1970s??

It seems hard to believe that attitudes were so utterly regressive as little as 30+ years ago.

It is kinda still true. There have been plenty of times that a girl has asked me to drill holes in her wall so as to put up a picture, to carry stuff for her etc. Also if the readership of Now and Hello magazine was surveyed who would be the majority readership? Yes, it would be women. I have the greatest respect for women and agree with the principle for equal pay for equal work etc but I like a woman to be a woman. There is no shame in being a woman fulfilling a traditional role. There is a lot theoretical sh1te gets talked a lot of the time. Bottom line, say I got out of a house fire and a relative was still inside would I feel more confident seeing a male or female fire person enter the building attempting rescue? Answer, a male one. Because males are generally stronger and more daring etc. Of course this thread exists by virtue of stereotypes but not all of them are wrong. Women and men are not equal, they are different and each have different merits and neither is more valuable than the other in the great scheme of things.

Melange

Jigsaw wrote: »

It is kinda still true. There have been plenty of times that a girl has asked me to drill holes in her wall so as to put up a picture, to carry stuff for her etc. Also if the readership of Now and Hello magazine was surveyed who would be the majority readership? Yes, it would be women. I have the greatest respect for women and agree with the principle for equal pay for equal work etc but I like a woman to be a woman. There is no shame in being a woman fulfilling a traditional role. There is a lot theoretical sh1te gets talked a lot of the time. Bottom line, say I got out of a house fire and a relative was still inside would I feel more confident seeing a male or female fire person enter the building attempting rescue? Answer, a male one. Because males are generally stronger and more daring etc. Of course this thread exists by virtue of stereotypes but not all of them are wrong. Women and men are not equal, they are different and each have different merits and neither is more valuable than the other in the great scheme of things.

I wouldn't disagree with you in that traditional gender roles are still willingly played out by many, but what shocked me about that pic from the children's book was that it seemed to suggest that the inferior job was all that girls could possibly hope to aspire to. "Look girls, here's the manly pilot doing his important job! You know, you shouldn't dream of doing such a thing, you're just a girl! Serving food with a pretty smile would be far more suitable for you." Really, the gender-stereotypical order of things on display suggests a huge wasteage of female talent - women who were mechanically, intellectually or scientifically oriented (and by god they DEFINITELY exist) were not to hope to make use of their talents/interests.

Jigsaw

Melange wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with you in that traditional gender roles are still willingly played out by many, but what shocked me about that pic from the children's book was that it seemed to suggest that the inferior job was all that girls could possibly hope to aspire to. "Look girls, here's the manly pilot doing his important job! You know, you shouldn't dream of doing such a thing, you're just a girl! Serving food with a pretty smile would be far more suitable for you." Really, the gender-stereotypical order of things on display suggests a huge wasteage of female talent - women who were mechanically, intellectually or scientifically oriented (and by god they DEFINITELY exist) were not to hope to make use of their talents/interests.

Aye I know that women these days can do plenty jobs they didn't do before, but I kinda like the residual male/female thing, like if there's a spider in the bath I would have to remove it or carry the heavy stuff etc. I'm such a man!! Grrrrr!!

K-9

Melange wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with you in that traditional gender roles are still willingly played out by many, but what shocked me about that pic from the children's book was that it seemed to suggest that the inferior job was all that girls could possibly hope to aspire to. "Look girls, here's the manly pilot doing his important job! You know, you shouldn't dream of doing such a thing, you're just a girl! Serving food with a pretty smile would be far more suitable for you." Really, the gender-stereotypical order of things on display suggests a huge wasteage of female talent - women who were mechanically, intellectually or scientifically oriented (and by god they DEFINITELY exist) were not to hope to make use of their talents/interests.

Actually, I suppose it depends on what you think inferior jobs are?

The gender-stereotypical order of things would be a wasteage of male talent too.

Melange

Jigsaw wrote: »

Aye I know that women these days can do plenty jobs they didn't do before, but I kinda like the residual male/female thing, like if there's a spider in the bath I would have to remove it or carry the heavy stuff etc. I'm such a man!! Grrrrr!!

Fair enough, whatever floats your boat! Personally I can't stand the girly-girl "Oooh, a nasty spider!" kind of crap, but each to their own I guess.

Melange

K-9 wrote: »

Actually, I suppose it depends on what you think inferior jobs are?

Well, in every single male/female job comparison in the pic the male had the job that commanded a higher wage and that carried greater social prestige. I guess that's what I'm judging it by.

The gender-stereotypical order of things would be a wasteage of male talent too.

Couldn't agree more.

K-9

Melange wrote: »

Well, in every single male/female job comparison in the pic the male had the job that commanded a higher wage and that carried greater social prestige. I guess that's what I'm judging it by.

It's interesting that the higher wage and greater social prestige thing still carries on to this day. Often now, it's more on a socio economic basis or just pure snobbery.