Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ThePatriarch

Main / Re: Question for the Women
Jun 13, 2007, 03:13 PM

I decided to compute the probability of a woman having children as a function of her age (If she didn't have children yet)

I used the general society survey to find the necessary variables. If there is a request for the exact method used, I will elaborate.

A 12 years old girl without children has a 77 % chance of having children.
A 16 years old girl : 72 %
A 17 years old girl : 68 %
A 18 years old girl: 61 %
A 19 years old girl: 54 %
A 20 years old girl: 46 %
A 21 years old girl: 38 %
A 22 years old girl: 33 %
A 23 years old girl: 28 %
A 24 years old girl: 24 %
A 25 years old girl: 20 %
A 26 years old woman: 16 % (That's right, you are no longer a girl!)
A 27 years old woman: 13 %
A 28 years old woman: 10 %
A 29 years old woman: 8 %
A 30 years old woman: 6 %
A 35 years old woman: 1,3 %
A 40 years old woman: 0,1 %

Slight errors are possible.  But they don't change much.

The clock is there!
Main / Re: "Thinking Girl" Wonders....
Jun 12, 2007, 07:43 PM
I've looked at her blog and her about section and...

She doesn't want any contrarian view!
That's right, you have to think like her or get banned!

Of course, it is her blog and she can do what she wants, but her attitude might lead to intense group conformity.

This is the case in many feminist blogs.

And here, we are still waiting for a feminist interested in an open debate.

She studies philosophy and women's studies.  I am sure there is lots of jobs in this domain. I am glad she lives in a society where she isn't too oppressed and allowed to study fields that are utterly worthless, and where she can complain about being paid 75 cents for every dollar a man makes.
Main / Re: Misandry in science.
Jun 10, 2007, 09:19 PM

The blog from the feminist is part of a network called ScienceBlogs.
I sometimes check the other blogs.  (So that's how I came into contact with this hate site).

About the economic issue:

I agree completely.

I decided to look at arguments for and against minimum wages, and also some data. Wikipedia helped me:

Look at the graphs.

It turns out that classical economic theory is correct on this particular item.

Asking the government to control the wages (and increase them) would have similar consequences to setting a higher minimum wage.
Main / Misandry in science.
Jun 10, 2007, 03:12 PM

This is the blog of a feminist, and the content might shock you:

Here is what piss me off:

If we have to believe feminists there is lots of hidden sexism against women in science.

However, it might be much easier to look at signs of sexism that aren't hidden:

Prizes in science that exclude males.
Giving priority to females in science.
Lots of talk of equality in the mainstream, but each time we learn that some animals are more equals than others.
People like Lawrence summers who are being fired for trying to bring any scientific debate using data instead of angry denial regarding to the issue of sex and science.

I suppose physicists will have to face anti-male bashing all their lives because this is a field where a 50/50 ratio isn't possible without a great cost of efficiency.  So they will have to apologize over and over again for not being able to reach some quotas that would satisfy the narrow-minded resentment of some angry feminists, who write a lot about women and science, but who as women don't write about science!

That's all,  I guess I just need to vent.  Everywhere I go, I see prizes, money, scholarships reserved for women.

What happened to meritocracy? Are all universities into denial? Will I have to put my head in the sand too to avoid the angry mob? The cost of being an iconoclast is great.
Main / Re: How to Stand Up to a Bully's Mom
May 16, 2007, 09:06 AM

This is true.

I once had a bully, while in high school.
The bullying stopped the day I showed I was willing to fight back.

Sadly, bullies don't know anything but force.  Reason or an appeal to their empathy doesn't work.

We are living in a world that doesn't recognize the value of fighting back.

No doubts about it. The solution is simple: Be pretty!
It is more than one standard for man and one standard for woman.

It is also one standard for ugly women and one standard for pretty women.

(There was an analysis of whether a woman will get a ticket after the police car pulled her over)

It seems that the impartial judgment of police officer is tied to how pretty the woman is.

Looking from her pic, it seems her face is a get out of jail card.
Main / Re: The future is female' BT predicts
Apr 24, 2007, 06:01 AM

"More recently intellectual jobs have been done by software."

Consequently, traditional male jobs have been vanishing by the millions over the decades.

Yes, the emergence of computers certainly reduced the need of males in computer science.

I predict softwares will just happen by themselves, with no one to create them.  (Because we will create software that create softwares)

You see science jobs are the one that currently pay the less, compare them to jobs in psychology or literature.  It is obvious that engineers are no longer needed.

It is obvious too that the technological revolution of our century reduced the need for science jobs.  Before the technological revolution most people were scientists (contrarily to the popular notions that they were working in food production).

Can I be a futurologist too?

I predict the future won't be very different from the present.  Some of our tools will change, but human intelligence and creativity will always be needed, and perhaps more so.
Main / Re: The 51% Minority
Feb 28, 2007, 05:27 AM
First, Thomas, you are right! It is 37 % more.

And someone who make errors as obvious cannot be trusted to understand simple economics.

For the first time in our nation's history, we have a woman speaker of the house and a woman with a serious chance at becoming the next president of the United States. For the first time in its 371-year history, Harvard has appointed a female president; and of course, we have Oprah -- one of the most powerful and beloved entrepreneurs in the world today.

None of this is good news:

Since the woman who has a serious of chance of becoming president is Hillary Clinton.  And the female president of Harvard was put in power after Lawrence Summers gave a quite reasonable speech on a taboo topic and later got fired.  And finally, Oprah, is she really doing any constructive work?
Either I am too dumb to understand a post-modern text, or they are bullshit.
Who knows, perhaps they will teach feminist chemistry.

I think the courses might look like that:

FCH 1000 Equality of women in chemistry: (3 credits) Mandatory course

This course will be about the great females in chemistry, and why women are just as good (if not better) than males in chemistry.  Through discussion about  her personal experience, the student will learn to boost her self-esteem when thinking about chemistry.

FCH 1100 Sexism in chemistry (3 credits) Mandatory

The language of chemistry has lots of bias, for example, analytical chemistry is very phallic oriented, and all laboratory apparatus were created with rape in mind. (Bunsen burners, Pipettes)

FCH 1200 Toward a new scientific method in chemistry (4 credits) Mandatory

Instead of doing actual experiences, the student will discuss about her feelings and write lengthy texts using complicated mumbo-jumbo somewhat reminding people of chemistry.

Eg.: The patriarchal orbitals of electrons is a neo-capitalistic attempts at gendrification of feminism.

FCH 1312 Herstory of Chemistry. (3 credits) Mandatory

All male chemists were evil. Lawrence Summers is the son of the devil. He enjoys eating babies.

CHM Organic Chemistry (3 credits) Not offered this year

Actual course of chemistry, was offered by a male, now no longer offered.

I wonder if there will be this course.

LIT The myth of Dr. Faust in popular culture.

Once upon a time, there was a Dr. Faust who studied every science!

I saw this at Andrew Sullivan website.

Two points of the article: Compulsive schooling at 4? Seems like the new father is the state.

Second points, stuff in the name of respecting minorities is usually bullshit. (It replaces human rights with special privilege and remove much freedom)