ROFL Males are rational more than women?? That is funny. Its rational to make super weapons that can kill the world?? Its rational to even conceive the idea?? Oh sure we need more of that in science… cripes!
‘rational’ by definition:
– based on or in accordance to reason or logic – (Oxford dictionary)
what else than rational is it to construct weapons?
– based on sensible practical reasons instead of emotions– (Thessaurus)
Kris, set the case that you would have the ability to construct a ‘super-weapon’. Then imagine that somebody would offer to you lots of money, carefree future and protection for your family, whereas refusing to sell your knowledge could be extremely dangerous for you and your family. What would you do? Would you give up your ideals and be as corrupt as everybody would be?
And to get back to the topic: What would happen if you mix rational thoughts with emotions? Total confusion, which does’nt help anybody.
Oh yes, maybe some women are made for science; I wish them good luck to get a job. But ‘female skills’ are not relevant for science, I even see them as a contradiction to it. It’s just not the point, claiming that science needs more women.
D’accord!
It is indeed, do go on!
Isn’t there just something strange about it? I would comment, but, I have to tread carefully on that subject.
Mithus, rational thinking would make me deny making such even at such an expense. Knowledge must include responsible use of it. It would be irresponsible to jeopardize the world to protect my family and down right stupid. Cold knowledge without emotive forsight and insight has done as much damage as good. Logic gives facts but, not wether facts are good or bad, emotion uncovers that.
Women today that are capable of being in the sciences are not like the women fifty years ago emotionally. Hell, most young educated women do not want a mate or kids, they want a career and maybe sexual fun.
Science is not about gender capability its about brains.
No, emotions do not cover that. If emotions did cover that, there would be no conscious mind to be talking about.
The female, due to evolution, is less capable of holding to logic, “being rational”. But don’t confuse being rational with being wise. Wisdom is a different issue entirely. It was wise of the female to be less rational than the male, else there would be no homosapian species. And as they redesign the species such as to make the female to be more rational than the male, they quite knowingly destroy the species. That is the design intent.
Morals and ethics are just as much about emotions as they are about logic.
Example: Murder being wrong is directed by emotion not logic.
…not to logical men.
…just ask Mr Spock. 
Spock cried more than once.
…not as often as Data. 
[size=85](who would design such a whiny android)[/size]
A truly rational man only kills when he can find no rational way to avoid it. The female kills by inspiration of hysteria and gets the male to do it for her so as to protect her sensibilities and conspicuous guilt. One at least attempts to guide his life by need. The other guides her life by fear and fondness.
Both male and female have their strengths and weaknesses, their opportunities and threats. Both are constantly tricked, but by different means (perhaps revisit The Avengers TV episode “How to Succeed at Murder”). But what does all of that have to do with what the child called Science’s needs?
The rational person is fathered by Reality and mothered by Compassion, and knows it. Neither male nor female do it particularly well, and especially not when they are being artificially redesigned by the whims of a child being guided by a serpent.
The female is far more susceptible to the serpents whispers than the male, whether for good or for bad. By what should Science be guided; Reality and Compassion or Serpents of fear and fondness?
Your views on female behaviors sound heavily influenced by Hollywood and storytellers, same with maleness.
A thought:
For the average undereducated person, how gullible are they to behavior influence in stories?
Perhaps 1 or 2 of each, male and female, that I have met in my 50 yrs fit your descriptions. I do not associate with those. The majority do not fit. They may have one part of it but, no not even near. This includes young and old. But, then again I may have a limited taste in humans.
I have met, even recently, a great many and most somewhat intimately but also professionally. I have yet to find a single female that doesn’t behave just as I would expect. Males a little more of a mystery to me. I obviously expect too much from them. But I don’t claim that either is better than the other, merely better in differing ways.
…and ALL of them are influenced by “stories” and TV, even those who don’t watch TV. They are clueless as to how much TV gets into their lives even when they try to ignore it.
…and I find your personal thoughts to be largely TV oriented, but certainly not strictly so.
Realize that I used to “reprogram people” somewhat from scratch. But doing so doesn’t do much good as long as the greater influence in society is a dis-compassionate mechanism that destroys anything that it isn’t directly controlling itself.
I have never once found women to be any different than what I expect (well, since the 80’s anyway). And I have found that from my perspective, “it isn’t them”. The problems that young men complain about so much, and somewhat rightfully, isn’t actually stemming from the women, but rather from certain men “on top” manipulating insidiously, and beyond the vision of the women they control. It is really all about serpents these days. Women are merely used, far worse than before. They aspire to be free of the males they meet, only to be enslaved by the males they never see or know anything about… not a wise move.
Putting Science in the hands of women means putting it in the hands of serpents, insidious liars and power mongers. That is why it is promoted so much, just like putting women in charge of everything else; politics, education, YouNameIt. It is merely a socialist scheme with which I am far too familiar.
But I don’t blame the women. I know how it works. What the world needs, regardless of, but especially because of, Science, is actual MEN, not merely weakened, corrupted males, lost and unable to grow up.
Why? What happened during the last 50 years and didn’t happen during the previous 400.000? Women didn’t change physically, so why should they have changed emotionally?
Not the best premise to attain the next 400.000
Is it the education which makes women not to want a man and children? But why do I hardly now any educated man who doesn’t want a family?
Who or what made women want to decide against evolution?
Women don’t hold on to logic, that does not mean that they cannot think logically. But they often think they have the ‘right’ to be illogical and they know how to work with it. When a woman runs out of arguments and breaks out in tears, logic reasons don’t count anymore. This is and has always been a means of persuasion. Thats why men don’t understand women (how can they). But that’s alright, that’s how it works,but it is
dangerous and absolutely unnecessary in science!.
A real man doesn’t allow himself to be illogical by intention. So let’s leave science to them!
And honestly, is it really so desirable to be the Nr. 1 in the hierarchy?
lol
James , Mithus,
Science education is rigorous, it teaches control, logical thinking and questioning in an orderly way. Any person going into the studies will have a leaning towards these and will get them enhanced when they succeed. Male or female will have a superior control. And uum, , lies , control, oh come on. Men have been doing that in science for ever. Manipulating outcomes to suit theories, etc… Sure there will be a few corrupt women just as there are a few corrupt men. Short of only having robotic brains in the fields, it will happen. Women are discouraged, turned down because they are viewed as
baby factories. The fear is they will quit or go on extended leave to reproduce. So employers and educators turn away. That is why women that want to have a career in any field feel they must deny family. They want to be seen as a person not an incubator. It won’t affect the population Mithus, there are more than enough females wanting families.
Well no, it actually doesn’t. It trains people to dogmatically follow formulas without question and feel certain and superior because they have such formulas. Most especially medical people do that same thing concerning “procedures” while being conditioned to totally ignore the uneducated naive patient. It teaches religiosity. And that is evidenced every time I propose anything on the Science form that appears the slightest bit contrary to the holy gospel of Scientism. (also known as “drones”)
And so you want to add more to it??? “They always just lie, thus so will I”.
Yeah, Science really needs a lot more of that.
Now you are getting to WHY THEY want more women in Science. Note that such has nothing at all to do with what Science needs.
And note that your reasoning is specifically feminine; “women want to do it thus it needs women”, “rationalization”. That is what is used to create female drones. The same tactic is used to entice children into doing things that they don’t naturally want to do; “convince them that it is their desire to do it against the wishes of the evil overlord”. Also called “passion induction”.
I doubt that,Kris. Have a look at the demographic development.
You wrote: “most educated women do not want a mate or kids”. It follows that mainly uneducated women get children.
What could this possibly mean for a society? Producing more slaves?
I’m only asking questions. I never sighned up to any ‘isms’ or ‘anti-isms’.
But I believe that all this “we need more women here, there and everywhere, no matter if they are especially good for that work or not, but there must be more women” is constructed and serves the purposes of people who have other interests than doing women any good. And I never understood why women don’t take THIS as an insult.
It is and it is not an insult. Women have a similar objective, so while another’s purpose may not be the same objective it does serve a purpose. Educated women, most, will have family later in life after they gain tenure in their career. It is the ones that are at the beginning that have no interest in family but, are still not believed.
Uneducated does not mean people are stupid naturally. Children from these parents have just as much potential as those that can financially afford education. Finances are a large reason for lack of education. Not the only reason of course.
Kris, are you Karla Marx? 
I think we all are part of what we read and learn wether we agree with it or not. The world we learn builds us. No I am not a Marxist or any party. Darn near every belief system has some good. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?