Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For a source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/26/national/main20057608.shtml

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all

In 2003, there were 1.35 females for every male who graduated from a four-year college and 1.3 females for every male undergraduate. That contrasts with 1960, when there were 1.6 males for every female graduating from a U.S. four-year college and 1.55 males for every female undergraduate.

This is reflected across almost all rich nations.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:There's a lot of generalizing going on here. I dunno about you guys, but the average woman I meet nowadays is more successful than the average guy I meet.

Yeah, Mrs. Albatross is more successful and better-educated than me. That said, that could be down to the difference between our socio-economic backgrounds. She's posh, I'm scum.

However, in my circle of friends the trend is repeated - the women are generally more successful and better educated than the men. Once again though, the girls tend to be fairly posh, and the lads tend to be scum!

I will say this, there are far more men than women in my University school (music). Like, to a ridiculous extent. I wonder why that is?

rockerbikie wrote:

dogma wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I refuse to take any medication for mental disorders because it would not be me, it would be a mask talking instead.

Well, it would still be you, it would just be you on drugs.

Not really. The meds which I'm suppose to take makes me zombie like, full of fatigue, lack of emotions. I feel nothing. When I'm not on them, I am an extremely passionate person. I have BPD by the way.

Talk to your pdoc, you can get the medication changed. My first one did something similar but the one I'm on now are significantly better and don't impede me much emotionally. Granted I have a different set of issues entirely so there is that. I guess its perspective, for me it isn't a mask talking, its actually the me that's been buried for years that the medication has helped finally resurface.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm not going to blame the culture, I'm blaming biology. Even the most sane girl you've ever met has had crazy moments. You just have to go with it.

I think were all guilty (man or woman) of doing stupid things once in awhile.

Chowderhead wrote:Well, yeah. It's generally understood that bitches be crazy.

Also of note: one in four American women live in towns full of guys like this:

CT GAMER wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Well, yeah. It's generally understood that bitches be crazy.

Also of note: one in four American women live in towns full of guys like this:

I'm sure if I make car sound effects in that ride I be able to make it go.

Cheesecat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Well, yeah. It's generally understood that bitches be crazy.

Also of note: one in four American women live in towns full of guys like this:

I'm sure if I make car sound effects in that ride I be able to make it go.

I think you just might.

Melissia wrote:For a source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/26/national/main20057608.shtml

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all

In 2003, there were 1.35 females for every male who graduated from a four-year college and 1.3 females for every male undergraduate. That contrasts with 1960, when there were 1.6 males for every female graduating from a U.S. four-year college and 1.55 males for every female undergraduate.

This is reflected across almost all rich nations.

Yes, however women typically will get degrees like psychology, sociology, women's studies, and other fields that will not help them out as much in life. Compare that to men who are more likely to get degrees in business, engineering, and science.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr364.pdf

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Melissia wrote:For a source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/26/national/main20057608.shtml

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all

In 2003, there were 1.35 females for every male who graduated from a four-year college and 1.3 females for every male undergraduate. That contrasts with 1960, when there were 1.6 males for every female graduating from a U.S. four-year college and 1.55 males for every female undergraduate.

This is reflected across almost all rich nations.

Yes, however women typically will get degrees like psychology, sociology, women's studies, and other fields that will not help them out as much in life. Compare that to men who are more likely to get degrees in business, engineering, and science.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr364.pdf

Go to your college and university, and take a hard look aroudn at who actually is populating the classes in those fields. You will be startlingly surprised. More than half of my classess, which are in the sciences, are filled by women. If you don't see this to be the case, add the spectrum of hard worker, and most of the male population in these fields can be crossed out outright.

On a tangent, it took me a while to realize this, but the man's world is in manual labor, the women's is behind the "desk" (as opposed to the kitchen.... just give me a minute to get there), and classically has been so for a long time. Some ill--concived notions in the past few hundred years resulted in misconceptions of the man's world of being in the public and in business, and women chained over the stove and reproducing as fast as they can, but the fact is women are retaking the positions they used to hold. Let me explain this first by pointing out that the shape of society has radically changed such that it is no longer the family unit that generates business, but an independent employer. Survival is no longer dependant on a family hauling together, everyone goes out and earns their income independently, trade is in money, no longer in goods. This shift means that while men had a quick and easy re-definition of their labor from manual in the field to manual in the factories, women were excluded in this shift. Instead of an adjustment in women's roles, there was a re-definition, whence we have the woman chained to the stove. I know my notion is very bizarre, but when you consider that in many societies women were either in charge, with the line of authority descending through them, or the fact that they were the ones who kept the books in order, made sure there was enough in the larder to get through the winter, it's hard to maintain that women were classicaly tame kitchen creatures. No, If they screwed up, the reprocussions were serious, because they made the big decisions (of course, as I'm stressing, this dissapeared during the industrial revolutuion). If the man screwed up, dang, no food for the day, better luck tomorrow. I'm not just talking aboriginese tribes here, I'm talking peasant europe from end to end. Hence, I don't see women as barging their way into the classical notion of the man's world, but rather retaking it from men.

Albatross wrote:
However, in my circle of friends the trend is repeated - the women are generally more successful and better educated than the men. Once again though, the girls tend to be fairly posh, and the lads tend to be scum!

Interestingly, and this is just my experience talking, the further you get "up the ladder" so to speak, the more men seem to prevail in terms of numbers. For example, there's only ~20 women in my department of ~100 grad students.

Of course, there are doubtlessly statistics that contradict what I'm saying here, but I'm too lazy to look for them right now.

Albatross wrote:
I will say this, there are far more men than women in my University school (music). Like, to a ridiculous extent. I wonder why that is?

Your education is weak and feminine?

Where I'm going we have many more women than men, maybe that is also just a part of the course i'm doing (Physics and Applied Sciences)

it seems to be especially where I am that the women actually drop out of school at the end of year 11 and go to TAFE (technical and further education) and end up working as hairdressers and checkout chicks, although I live in a pretty scummy part of Australia

Sounds like sydney :/