File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Danica Patrick finally won a race. It only took her 50 tries. GOOD GIRL!
>> Anonymous
So easy, even a woman can do it.

Golf is more of a sport than racing.
>> Anonymous
/r/ing Danica Patrick swimsuit pics
>> Anonymous
IRL = Easy-bake Oven.
>> Anonymous
>>68712

Retard.

>>68745

Second.
>> Anonymous
>>68783

Even in chess and golf, there is a huge skill gap between men and women. It sounds sexist to say it, but men are better than women. I'm not sure why evolution made us this way, but it's true.

The fact that a female can compete with the males in racing PROVES that racing is not a sport.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I LOVE DAN PAT!!!
>> anonymous
She only won because all the men wouldn't stop and ask for directions
>> Anonymous
>>69072
Men are better at golf primarily because of upper body musculature.

Men are better at intense intellectual competition like chess because they are pushed to specialize and compete by society and their peers. The evolutionary psychology view is that it is maladaptive for women to "want" to compete and specialize, when that time would be better spent choosing mates and raising young.

That of course is just a general prescription, it doesn't rule out remarkable cases like Patrick from succeeding in competitions where body muscularture doesn't come into play as much.

Another way to look at it: women should theoretically make better surgeons then men, as their decreased upper-body muscle mass cuts down on muscle spasms and tremors; yet far more men than women are specialized surgeons, while greater proportions of women become lab assistants, nurses and lab researchers. Because men, on average, are wired to "want" and obsess over achievement.

tl;dr: Men are care fags. Being a trucker or nurse instead of a race car driver or surgeon makes them feel personally devalued.
>> Anonymous
>>69130
>they are pushed to specialize and compete by society
>men, on average, are wired to "want"

So which is it, science fag?
>> Anonymous
>>69134
>>69134

Not the writer, but is it not both?

Men want to achieve, so they strive.

Others see this, and it all perpetuates.
>> ALL WOMEN ARE WORTHLESS CUNTS !FiaZs69zzQ
Nice going you IRL faggots, good going on letting this over hyped cunt win.
>> Anonymous
>>69134
Uh, both? It's not an either/or. Most neural development in humans and other mammals occurs after birth. Babies are born knowing how to breathe, suckle, and shit. Everything else develops afterwards.

Most of a human's psychological growth happens after exposure to family/society. Boys are girls develop certain gender traits, both those are also primarily selected by "society." Predation hasn't been a big factor in human evolution for a while.
>> Anonymous
>>69144
Ugh.

>Boys AND girls develop certain gender traits, BUT those are also primarily selected by "society."
>> Anonymous
>>69130

You believe women can't compete with men because society discourages them from competing? Did you learn this from Oprah or something? Because that's not true.

Women can't keep up with the men because they're dumber and weaker. That's a fact. They've been able to measure this in laboratories.

>"There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman."

I know a lot of American women believe they're the superior sex because American television like to portray the woman as the smart one (ie. Lisa Simpson), while the man is usually portrayed as a bumbling oaf (ie. Homer Simpson). But in real life, this is not true. Men are smarter and stronger than women.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm not trying to say that women are retarded or anything. They just have a biological glass ceiling that prevents them from competing with the smartest or strongest men.
>> Anonymous
Where's my dinner, bitch?
>> Anonymous
>>69195

Girls are discouraged from participating in activities that are considered masculine from a young age.

Young boys are encouraged to play more with lego/mecano/tools wheras girls are usually talked to more and given dolls to play with. Its obvious where this ends up.

There was research done in the 70s where they took the exact same baby, only a few months old (impossible to tell for sure which sex the baby was) and asked people to comment on it. When the baby was dressed in blue, the comments were things like smart, astute, etc. Wheras when the same baby was dressed in pink, the majority of the comments were, pretty, beautiful, etc.

The attitudes are most likely from early man. When the males were the ones to go out an hunt for food, they were the ones to use tools such as spears/knives/etc, ands its slowly evolved up towards today where although the differences between genders are less important, people still view women solely as mothers.
>> Anonymous
i thought there was a board for automobiles or something. this is the sports board.
>> Anonymous
>>69429
>Girls are discouraged from participating in activities that are considered masculine from a young age.
This excuse might've been valid in the 60's, but society has changed. Modern girls are taught to compete just as hard as boys. Girls are encouraged to take the same standardized tests and compete for the same scholarships with boys.

Many girls grow up playing school sports like soccer, basketball, and hockey. And female athletes get a lot of attention in the media, so the girls know there's a future for them in sports.

>Young boys are encouraged to play more with lego/mecano/tools wheras girls are usually talked to more and given dolls to play with. Its obvious where this ends up.
Are you trying to say that dolls make children stupider and weaker?

>There was research done in the 70s where they took the exact same baby, only a few months old (impossible to tell for sure which sex the baby was) and asked people to comment on it. when the same baby was dressed in pink, the majority of the comments were, pretty, beautiful, etc.
Are you trying to say that calling a kid "pretty" is going to make her stupid?

>The attitudes are most likely from early man. When the males were the ones to go out an hunt for food, they were the ones to use tools such as spears/knives/etc, ands its slowly evolved up towards today where although the differences between genders are less important, people still view women solely as mothers.
Or maybe over millions of years of evolution, the man has become stronger than the woman because he is the one responsible for the family's protection and sustenance.

Math, science, athletics, poker, chess... men are better at everything.
>> Anonymous
>>69195
>>69232

I'm the evolutionary psychology fag you quoted from earlier. You are out of your element, Donnie. You are quite clearly misusing SAT tests as an intelligence based test; it is a knowledge test. IQ tests, while slightly more applicable, can't in good faith be used because (a) the category is variable, you need to specify what test was used and (b) in general, those tests suffer from categorical and sexual biases, which is perhaps best illustrated in that IQ scores have been rocketing up all over the scale in the past 50 or so years, while prediction of success for high IQ scorers in say, a specific field, has not improved. That is, IQ tests are just as worthless as they've ever been, but we're doing a lot better at them when we take them; probably because the "way" of thinking these tests measure has become more pervassive as society has become more connected. There been lots of research with IQ tests in non-modern societies where basically everybody fails - but the people tested are not actually "dumber" than people from say, Japan.

Women can and do keep up with men in most educational metrics. The difference is, in the upper echolons of career fields they "leak" out of the pipeline a lot faster, and they tend to congregate in the middle of the stat plot, not on the edges. The factors are related; talented men are driven to be exceptional, while unexceptional men are not allowed to quit. It has little to do with intelligence or ability and everything to do with socially-instilled drive and ambition.
>> Anonymous
>>69572
The factors you cite are not persusaive enough to be influencial, or are irrelevent. As previously discussed and allowed for, there IS an obvious difference in muscle mass between men and women that will forever seperate the talent of male and female athletes in most sports; in order to make room for reproductive machinery, nature has had to get of muscle mass in the torso. Until nursing replaces the benchpress and hip-carrying replaces the deadlift, women will be thought of as physically weaker. No argument there, but its not what we (and you) are discussing.

The idea that women can or should be the intellectual (or in rare cases like driving, athletic) equals of men is only given lip-service, it is not taken as truth, as evidenced by your condescening and impatient arguments regarding their lack of success. Next time you're in a group of men and women, see who tells the majority of the jokes and/or tends to talk over themselves the most. Typically its the men; men can get away with a lot more showmanship and rudeness in a social conversation because it is taken for granted they will be trying to "impress" others. A girl need only interrupt another girl or boy with a few jokes before the conversation sputters and she is considered atypical, because the tolerance is much lower there. If a boy sat through these kinds of joking conversations the way women are expected to, they would termed "quiet" or "shy."
>> Anonymous
cont.

It's been very interesting breaking up the normal flow of conversation in collegiate and recreational settings. I'll do things like directly set up a joke for a girl, or otherwise draw girls into active participation, and it really fucks it all up. Girls stop laughing at every joke a boy tells, the other boys have to slow down and listen instead of leapfrogging over each other to say the next clever thing, and then they lose interest because none of the girls are automatically laughing anymore, which is the primary point of the conversation for them.

tl;dr: Society conditions sexual attidudes and intelligence perceptions in far more mediums then just TV and Oprah.

Male care fag is done caring about this for now.
>> Anonymous
>>69608
>>69606
>>69594

So the feminists are still blaming society for women's failures, eh?
>> Anonymous
Too manly for me.
>> Anonymous
>>69232

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2208547.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/138405.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2209025.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3517171.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/882926.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3166295.stm

What now faggot?
>> Anonymous
>>69622
What else could it be? Young girls even tend to outachieve boys in most educational metrics, they're not dumber.
>> Anonymous
>>69664
>>69665

Most of those bitches won't do shit in the real world. Men are superior fags, just face it. I bet all the top slots turn out to be male.
>> Anonymous
>>69572
>Modern girls are taught to compete just as hard as boys

The mounds of research suggests otherwise, but what do they know? You've got anecdotal experience.

>Are you trying to say that dolls make children stupider and weaker?
No, I'm trying to say that playin with different types of toys encourages different types of behaviour. From the earliest ages boys are being fashioned into the tool users, the technical gender, wheras girls are being forced into the role of mother/nurturer.

>Are you trying to say that calling a kid "pretty" is going to make her stupid?
No, it simply proves that even though there was no ACTUAL difference in the baby they used, peoples preconceptions about its gender had a huge effect on what their opinion of the baby was. A baby boy is thought of as smarter than a baby girl, even though the boy could be retarded for all anyone knows.
>> CapitalistBastard !!f/pELCnjRD0
>>69673

>The mounds of research suggests otherwise, but what do they know? You've got anecdotal experience.

I find it hilarious how you are criticizing that anon about using anecdotal evidence yet the entire justification of your argument about gender roles is based on an anecdotal incident with a single baby.
>> Anonymous
>>69681
Zzzzzzzzzzzz troll harder fagget. This was properly conducted research which was subject to peer review.
>> Anonymous
People talk about this subject as if the Indy Racing League was a popular and influential organization. I expect Indy Racing to fade into complete obscurity again by next week.
>> Anonymous
>>69673

smart 4channer is smart. didnt know there were any of you out there.