are men superior to women ?

Doesn’t this belong in IMHO? Is the point of the OP even debatable? Havel.2002 has specified only one criterion for “superiority,” new discoveries, mostly scientific.

I see no way to objectively measure “superiority” in general. Was Pavarotti a better tenor than Callas was a soprano? Doesn’t even make sense does it?

So what’s to debate with any chance of coming to a conclusion?

Doing a quick google search on gender and intelligence everything I found basically said that, on average, gender makes no significant difference to intelligence - even if the study wasn’t specifically looking at gender. A couple of quick links:

http://clearinghouse.mwsc.edu/manuscripts/335.asp (see results section)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye990602.html (First two paragraphs)

As for the difference in nobel prizes and new inventions, I think that ** Jack Batty** hit the nail on the head. Until recently women have not had the same educational advantages as men, in some places in the world, they still don’t. The same goes for employment - in many engineering fields, women are still under represented. I am a software engineer, and I remember being told at university (sorry, no cite) that in Australia female software engineers account for only 3% of all software engineers. How can you expect that 3% to produce 50% of the new innovations? Now the proportion is increasing slowly - in my year about 10% of SE graduates were female. There are reasons why women don’t get into technical and scientific fields, and that’s another debate, but it has nothing to do with ability.

I would also suggest you look at other female dominated professions, for example teaching. Now teachers for the most part don’t invent new things and don’t win nobel prizes. That’s not their job. But they do an excellent job of shaping young minds, and maybe some of them will win those prizes or cure cancer. Are we to say that a techer is less significant than the scientist they help produce? Without the teacher, the future scientist will not learn the things that he or she requires as a foundation to the new invention.

I guess what I’m saying is that there are some professions that invent things - and these are the professions that tend also to recieve awards such as nobel prizes. At this time in most of these professions (engineering, science, mathematics etc) women are not represented in equal numbers to men. It then follows that the inventions coming out of these professions, will more likely than not be invented by a man (if there are only 10% women - you would expect 10% of such discoveries to be by women - any more and your argument really falls flat). There are many other professions (most I would argue) that for the most part don’t invent and discover new things. (Teaching, police, politics, emergency services, healthcare, HR, construction, finance, insurance and many more) Both men and women work in these fields and are highly competent. Their contribution to society is no less because they use existing technology rather than create it. To measure the value of a person, gender or profession by the number of nobel prizes, patents or new inventions is to demean millions of highly skilled, highly professional individuals without whose contribution life as we know it would be vastly different. The basis of your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Try here for a list of women scientists, and here’s a small list of women inventors. Since the last quarter of the 19th century there have also been a substantial number of women architects in the United States.

Try here for a list of women scientists, and here’s a small list of women inventors. Since the last quarter of the 19th century there have also been a substantial number of women architects in the United States.

I think that I must remind Dopers that the ‘Location:’ field on the sign-up page is totally voluntary and unverified.

Personally, my best guess is that Havel.2002 is an ex-Taliban trooper in Afghanistan who has somehow found access to the Internet–does Kabul now have cyber-cafes?–and is attempting to make sense of the upheavals in his world…but is far out of his depth on this Board.

Perhaps not Afghanistan itself…but I’m willing to bet money, could it be proved or disproved, that he is in reality a member of a very conservative branch of Islam in a nation dominated by such.

Obviously, I don’t have a citation for my opinions… :wink:

I’m going to do something very risky here.

I’m actually going to argue in favor of something Havel.2002 said, as repugnant as most of his posts in this thread have been.

Ah! But consider this:

What’s the number one statistic cited to support the notion that there are more broken families in recent decades? Why, the divorce rate, of course. Why has the divorce rate gotten so high in recent decades? Because of no-fault divorce laws, right?

Well … who has benefitted the most, financially, because of no-fault divorce laws? According to this (rather biased) article – No-fault Divorce Laws and Anti-male Bias – women have come out the big time winners thanks to the passage of no-fault divorce laws.

Is it then too much of a leap of conspiracy-theory-style suspicion to suspect that women knew, before these no-fault divorce laws were passed, that they’d be the benefactors?

Therefore … women intentionally pushed for no-fault divorce laws, even knowing that such laws would result in more single-parent families, because women knew ahead of time that they’d score a big win in their pocketbooks if such laws were passed.

There! If that’s not enough of a controversial position to take in an argument, I don’t know what is. :wink:

Yes, things like men banning women’s football in Great Britain because it was more popular than men’s football clearly prove that men are superior to women. :rolleyes:

Well, what do you expect from a country that calls soccer “football” to begin with? :wink:

The accomplishments or women are often ignored. Ever see the pictures of ENIAC with a bunch of young women standing beside it? Although my highschool text book had that picture, it did not state that those women were the programmers. It mentioned various men associated with the project, but not a single woman.

Ever hear of Grace Hopper? She created the idea of a library of computer code. She created the first compiler. She is responsible for many of the ideas that made modern computing possible. Sometimes I have seen her accomplishments mentioned without mentioning her! These sources attribute the accomplishments to a committee or team and don’t make mention of her or the other women involved.

Often women go uncited and ignored even when their accomplishments found a disipline.

The accomplishments or women are often ignored. Ever see the pictures of ENIAC with a bunch of young women standing beside it? Although my highschool text book had that picture, it did not state that those women were the programmers. It mentioned various men associated with the project, but not a single woman.

Ever hear of Grace Hopper? She created the idea of a library of computer code. She created the first compiler. She is responsible for many of the ideas that made modern computing possible. Sometimes I have seen her accomplishments mentioned without mentioning her! These sources attribute the accomplishments to a committee or team and don’t make mention of her or the other women involved.

Often women go uncited and ignored even when their accomplishments found a disipline.

Ever wonder why there were no women generals in World War II? Here’s a hint: Congress wouldn’t let women become generals. That law wasn’t changed until 1967.

How can we ever know whether women are equal to men when women have never been – and still aren’t – given the chance?

BTW, the current Air Force “top gun” is a woman.

I’m far from an expert in the sociology of families. Just the same I have a pretty good BS detector. Whenever I see a complex subject like divorce and disfunctional families ascribed to a single cause my nose starts to wrinkle because I’m pretty sure a big bull has left a deposit nearby.

Yes, but she was also largely responsible for COBOL. And laying that big of a curse on the face of humanity kinda offsets her other accomplishments. :wink:

But if I don’t get to ascribe all the ills of the world to a single root cause, it won’t make for a good conspiracy theory! Work with me here, people!

“In my life I build a thousand bridges, but do they call me Luigi the bridgebuilder? No …”

OK, so you were being ironic and I missed it. Happens from time to time.

First off, I do believe women are equal to men. I’ve known a few really great ones.

One question I always wonder about is, why if women are equal in intelligence, have they been “put down” by men for so many years? Why are 99.9% of the great known inventors, leaders, explorers, etc… men? How did the world come to be ruled by men instead of women?

The answers I have received to this are physical strength and the woman’s role in reproduction… I don’t buy either. Humans are much weaker than most mammals on earth, yet we have conquered them. Strength is not an issue. The child birth role? I doubt it. If anything that should be an advantage. Many female animals use it to dominate males.

Hey Havel, how many Nobel prizes have you won in the sciences? If the answer is none does that mean you are inferior to the women who have won? Why don’t we start a list of great female scientists: Grace Hopper has been mentioned, so I will add Ada Byron, Carolyn Porco, Jocelyn Bell, Rosalind Franklin.

YES! Women are inferior to men

Definitely.

In various places and points in history (and some current)
People of one ethnic origin people have been inferior people of another ethnic origin.
Adherents of one religion have been inferior to adherents of another religion.
People of one sexual orientation have been inferior to people of another sexual orientation.
And people of one gender have been inferior to people of another gender.

Now as to whether there’s any inherent superiority/inferiority, we may never know because there are other factors involved and it’s difficult to get a clean sample. Any group that finds itself in a superior position tends to effect changes that benefit it’s own interests and maintain or strengthen their position of superiority; the inferior group are discouraged from pursuing anything that might advance them.

So yes, women are inferior to men at the moment; thankfully (where I live) this is nowhere near as extreme as once it was, but an imbalance remains; is this imbalance the result of some fundamental inbuilt inequality?
I don’t think so.

It all depends on how you measure inferiority of course, as others have said. The Nobel prize winners thing is a complete red herring and cannot be considered an objective measure of ability unless you are prepared to make huge adjustments to take into consideration that the female winners had the male establishment actively dragging them down all the time.

Oops; I forgot to attribute that quote.

http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/mariecurie.html