<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_1840254</id>
	<title>The Myth of the Mathematics Gender Gap</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243970820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Coryoth writes <i>"The widely held belief that there is disparity in the innate mathematical abilities of men and women has been steadily whittled down in recent years. The gender gap in basic mathematics skills closed some time ago, and recently the gap in high school mathematics has closed up as well, with as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus. Newsweek reports on a new study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that <a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/06/01/sharon-begley-the-math-gender-gap-explained.aspx">begins to lay to rest the remaining argument</a> that it is at the highest levels of mathematics that the innate differences show. Certainly men dominate current academia, with 70\% of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men; however that figure is down from 95\% in the 1950s. Indeed, while there remain gaps in achievement between the genders, the study shows that not only are these gaps closing, but the size of the gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture (as defined by World Economic Forum measures). In all, this amounts to strong evidence that the differences in outcomes in mathematics between the genders is driven by sociocultural factors rather than innate differences in ability."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coryoth writes " The widely held belief that there is disparity in the innate mathematical abilities of men and women has been steadily whittled down in recent years .
The gender gap in basic mathematics skills closed some time ago , and recently the gap in high school mathematics has closed up as well , with as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus .
Newsweek reports on a new study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that begins to lay to rest the remaining argument that it is at the highest levels of mathematics that the innate differences show .
Certainly men dominate current academia , with 70 \ % of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men ; however that figure is down from 95 \ % in the 1950s .
Indeed , while there remain gaps in achievement between the genders , the study shows that not only are these gaps closing , but the size of the gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture ( as defined by World Economic Forum measures ) .
In all , this amounts to strong evidence that the differences in outcomes in mathematics between the genders is driven by sociocultural factors rather than innate differences in ability .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coryoth writes "The widely held belief that there is disparity in the innate mathematical abilities of men and women has been steadily whittled down in recent years.
The gender gap in basic mathematics skills closed some time ago, and recently the gap in high school mathematics has closed up as well, with as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus.
Newsweek reports on a new study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that begins to lay to rest the remaining argument that it is at the highest levels of mathematics that the innate differences show.
Certainly men dominate current academia, with 70\% of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men; however that figure is down from 95\% in the 1950s.
Indeed, while there remain gaps in achievement between the genders, the study shows that not only are these gaps closing, but the size of the gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture (as defined by World Economic Forum measures).
In all, this amounts to strong evidence that the differences in outcomes in mathematics between the genders is driven by sociocultural factors rather than innate differences in ability.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186555</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, after all these years of being taught that 5 inches is really 8, women no longer have any standing in anything math related. It's simply not their fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , after all these years of being taught that 5 inches is really 8 , women no longer have any standing in anything math related .
It 's simply not their fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, after all these years of being taught that 5 inches is really 8, women no longer have any standing in anything math related.
It's simply not their fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190391</id>
	<title>Change from the 1950's?</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1243950780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr><b>...70\% of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men; however that figure is down from 95\% in the 1950s.</b> <br> <br>


Nevermind that 95\% of *all* PhD's went to men in the 1950s. This statistic might be useful about women and education in general, but it's completely misleading and pointless with regard to math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...70 \ % of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men ; however that figure is down from 95 \ % in the 1950s .
Nevermind that 95 \ % of * all * PhD 's went to men in the 1950s .
This statistic might be useful about women and education in general , but it 's completely misleading and pointless with regard to math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...70\% of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men; however that figure is down from 95\% in the 1950s.
Nevermind that 95\% of *all* PhD's went to men in the 1950s.
This statistic might be useful about women and education in general, but it's completely misleading and pointless with regard to math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187869</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Gospodin</author>
	<datestamp>1243937160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention available jobs (in the academy in particular) following graduation. </p><p>When I was an undergrad I knew a married couple both getting their PhDs at the same time. The wife had six job offers. The husband had zero (at the time; he might've had more later, after we lost contact). As far as I could tell they were about equally capable.</p><p>One anecdote does not a theory prove, but I'll bet this happens a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention available jobs ( in the academy in particular ) following graduation .
When I was an undergrad I knew a married couple both getting their PhDs at the same time .
The wife had six job offers .
The husband had zero ( at the time ; he might 've had more later , after we lost contact ) .
As far as I could tell they were about equally capable.One anecdote does not a theory prove , but I 'll bet this happens a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention available jobs (in the academy in particular) following graduation.
When I was an undergrad I knew a married couple both getting their PhDs at the same time.
The wife had six job offers.
The husband had zero (at the time; he might've had more later, after we lost contact).
As far as I could tell they were about equally capable.One anecdote does not a theory prove, but I'll bet this happens a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186663</id>
	<title>bearing on what's politically correct</title>
	<author>2ms</author>
	<datestamp>1243975440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean that it's hereby not only politically correct to say that females have better verbal abilities than males, but now also higher overall aptitude too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean that it 's hereby not only politically correct to say that females have better verbal abilities than males , but now also higher overall aptitude too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean that it's hereby not only politically correct to say that females have better verbal abilities than males, but now also higher overall aptitude too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188247</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1243938840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not true.  Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education.  The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher.  And that's a win for everyone.  Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.</p></div><p>That's not the problem, well it's one of the problems, but not the only one. This is going to get tougher and tougher as time goes on, mainly because misguided attempts to shoehorn women into highly technical fields. Pay is one thing, but it gets tough to do when you can't do quotas and there's a distinct lack of individuals with relevant qualifications. Which is a natural consequence of the toxic environment and tendency to put off a vibe of being anti-man, particularly anti-white man.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not true .
Specifically , I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education .
The motivation for this is that young boys ( and even teenage boys ) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher .
And that 's a win for everyone .
Unfortunately , teachers are not well-payed , so it 's hard to get people into the field , period , let alone men.That 's not the problem , well it 's one of the problems , but not the only one .
This is going to get tougher and tougher as time goes on , mainly because misguided attempts to shoehorn women into highly technical fields .
Pay is one thing , but it gets tough to do when you ca n't do quotas and there 's a distinct lack of individuals with relevant qualifications .
Which is a natural consequence of the toxic environment and tendency to put off a vibe of being anti-man , particularly anti-white man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not true.
Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education.
The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher.
And that's a win for everyone.
Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.That's not the problem, well it's one of the problems, but not the only one.
This is going to get tougher and tougher as time goes on, mainly because misguided attempts to shoehorn women into highly technical fields.
Pay is one thing, but it gets tough to do when you can't do quotas and there's a distinct lack of individuals with relevant qualifications.
Which is a natural consequence of the toxic environment and tendency to put off a vibe of being anti-man, particularly anti-white man.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188099</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1243938180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., where if you're not PC, you're 'flamebait'...</p><p>What if OP had said "how many asian mathematicians are there"? That would probably not be tagged flamebait.<br>Both would be interesting statistics to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , /. , where if you 're not PC , you 're 'flamebait'...What if OP had said " how many asian mathematicians are there " ?
That would probably not be tagged flamebait.Both would be interesting statistics to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, /., where if you're not PC, you're 'flamebait'...What if OP had said "how many asian mathematicians are there"?
That would probably not be tagged flamebait.Both would be interesting statistics to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days, women are intentionally given advantages over men, so it is NOT fair to say that women have proven equality with men.</p><p>For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men). It had free math tutoring for women (not men). It had many programs available only to women to help them academically and financially.</p><p>If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , women are intentionally given advantages over men , so it is NOT fair to say that women have proven equality with men.For example , my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women ( not men ) .
It had free math tutoring for women ( not men ) .
It had many programs available only to women to help them academically and financially.If women want to display equality , they need to compete on equal ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, women are intentionally given advantages over men, so it is NOT fair to say that women have proven equality with men.For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).
It had free math tutoring for women (not men).
It had many programs available only to women to help them academically and financially.If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28195789</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>netstv</author>
	<datestamp>1244043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course,  the study was done by a team of female mathematicians/statisticians,  so we really can't trust the results.

I'm kidding,  don't flame me.</p></div><p>That's REALLY funny!  I just spit coffee all over my screen!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the study was done by a team of female mathematicians/statisticians , so we really ca n't trust the results .
I 'm kidding , do n't flame me.That 's REALLY funny !
I just spit coffee all over my screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course,  the study was done by a team of female mathematicians/statisticians,  so we really can't trust the results.
I'm kidding,  don't flame me.That's REALLY funny!
I just spit coffee all over my screen!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189735</id>
	<title>Remeber Lawrence Summers?</title>
	<author>juggledean</author>
	<datestamp>1243946460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

From the abstract "The gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes." <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/01/0901265106.abstract" title="pnas.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/01/0901265106.abstract</a> [pnas.org]

The president of Harvard was changed for ignoring this equality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the abstract " The gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations ... It correlates with several measures of gender inequality .
Thus , it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors , not immutable , innate biological differences between the sexes .
" http : //www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/01/0901265106.abstract [ pnas.org ] The president of Harvard was changed for ignoring this equality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

From the abstract "The gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations ... It correlates with several measures of gender inequality.
Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes.
" http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/01/0901265106.abstract [pnas.org]

The president of Harvard was changed for ignoring this equality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193707</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244030640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that goes both ways; That is to say that if you looked like "insert handsome-type man name here" the equally hot looking girls would take Calculus to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that goes both ways ; That is to say that if you looked like " insert handsome-type man name here " the equally hot looking girls would take Calculus to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that goes both ways; That is to say that if you looked like "insert handsome-type man name here" the equally hot looking girls would take Calculus to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188605</id>
	<title>Tainted results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the years, teaching approaches have been altered to accommodate what are judged to be inadequacies based on race or gender.  There has been a focus on providing better outcomes for groups that are perceived to be disadvantaged.  I've read several articles in mainstream media about how teaching methods are allowing more girls to flourish and boys are becoming the ones who need more attention and encouragement.</p><p>It's a complex issue, and this study oversimplifies its analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years , teaching approaches have been altered to accommodate what are judged to be inadequacies based on race or gender .
There has been a focus on providing better outcomes for groups that are perceived to be disadvantaged .
I 've read several articles in mainstream media about how teaching methods are allowing more girls to flourish and boys are becoming the ones who need more attention and encouragement.It 's a complex issue , and this study oversimplifies its analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years, teaching approaches have been altered to accommodate what are judged to be inadequacies based on race or gender.
There has been a focus on providing better outcomes for groups that are perceived to be disadvantaged.
I've read several articles in mainstream media about how teaching methods are allowing more girls to flourish and boys are becoming the ones who need more attention and encouragement.It's a complex issue, and this study oversimplifies its analysis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979</id>
	<title>Media propoganda</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1243937580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is media propoganda, through and through.  It's insulting even.</p><p>Women in math?  The "gender gap" between women and men in math, even "basic" math has "closed"?  BULLSHIT!</p><p>First, "calculus" is not "basic math".  It's not needed for most academic majors, nor is it a requirement for entry to so much as a community college.  Perhaps, "General Math" is a "basic" math.  Perhaps, Pre-Algebra is a "basic" math.  But, most certainly, any level of Calculus is NOT a "basic" math.</p><p>Secondly, I have been in five higher education institutions spanning two different countries and have majored in Math in particular along with engineering courses.  I also took Calculus in High-school... when I attended a high school that even HAD the course (not all American high schools offer calculus).</p><p>First, anything past Algebra I and Geometry in highschool and you are officially a nerd or geek, therefore you probably have less options of having a girlfriend.  The girls have no interest in that sort of thing, nor any male that has such aptitude.  If they did, such classes would have a fair number of girls in them, just to be in social alignment with the males fully able of completing the courses.  But, look no further than media entertainment, and frankly, being a nerd or smart isn't "hip".</p><p>Ok, so that's more of a social outlook on the issue, and it is.  Can girls do the calculus?  Maybe, but most don't even if they could, most don't even try or think such a task is even credible to endure.</p><p>As a result, any claims that there are a lot of girls in a high school calculus class, is just that a claim.  I dare any of them to actually, physically, literally walk their ignorant butts into a random high-level math class and count with their index finger the number of girls in that class.  (This will render a far higher count than if we subtracted the ugly girls from any "attractive" girls.)</p><p>Now, walk to college.  This will be easy as randomly roaming the halls of a high school might have the police arresting you.  But you can stand around and most colleges and universities.  The gap is closing?  Bullshit, if anything it's getting wider.</p><p>Of all the years and all the courses of math above Trigonometry I have took, maybe two girls total I might have personally dated .  Including all "females", less than ten total.  Two of them, were the professors.  My Linear Algebra professor was a female, a rather attractive one too.  But, the numbers are there, per raw experience.  And it only got worse in college and at the highest levels of math females are virtually extinct.</p><p>My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.  Instead, if one has a cute ass, they'll just leave Calculus to the nerds and hope her boyfriend becomes a NFL star.  Regardless if she could have passed a calculus course, the fact she didn't makes her dumb all the same and since she's among millions of other girls the end result is well reflected that women can't be counted on when it comes to mathematical abilities.</p><p>They want people to believe there are females in these math classes even if they aren't actually physically present.  For most people never take calculus, and now they face the few that have and might call them sexist if they announce "uh... I only saw a handful of girls in any of my classes when getting a Masters in Mathematics".</p><p>They want more girls in math?  They need to come up with something that actually makes girls consider it as a useful tool in life.  As it is now, 10,000 dollars for a hard and burdensome education or an easy and highly profitable breast augmentation?  You decide, as inherently lazy humans, which many girls might opt for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is media propoganda , through and through .
It 's insulting even.Women in math ?
The " gender gap " between women and men in math , even " basic " math has " closed " ?
BULLSHIT ! First , " calculus " is not " basic math " .
It 's not needed for most academic majors , nor is it a requirement for entry to so much as a community college .
Perhaps , " General Math " is a " basic " math .
Perhaps , Pre-Algebra is a " basic " math .
But , most certainly , any level of Calculus is NOT a " basic " math.Secondly , I have been in five higher education institutions spanning two different countries and have majored in Math in particular along with engineering courses .
I also took Calculus in High-school... when I attended a high school that even HAD the course ( not all American high schools offer calculus ) .First , anything past Algebra I and Geometry in highschool and you are officially a nerd or geek , therefore you probably have less options of having a girlfriend .
The girls have no interest in that sort of thing , nor any male that has such aptitude .
If they did , such classes would have a fair number of girls in them , just to be in social alignment with the males fully able of completing the courses .
But , look no further than media entertainment , and frankly , being a nerd or smart is n't " hip " .Ok , so that 's more of a social outlook on the issue , and it is .
Can girls do the calculus ?
Maybe , but most do n't even if they could , most do n't even try or think such a task is even credible to endure.As a result , any claims that there are a lot of girls in a high school calculus class , is just that a claim .
I dare any of them to actually , physically , literally walk their ignorant butts into a random high-level math class and count with their index finger the number of girls in that class .
( This will render a far higher count than if we subtracted the ugly girls from any " attractive " girls .
) Now , walk to college .
This will be easy as randomly roaming the halls of a high school might have the police arresting you .
But you can stand around and most colleges and universities .
The gap is closing ?
Bullshit , if anything it 's getting wider.Of all the years and all the courses of math above Trigonometry I have took , maybe two girls total I might have personally dated .
Including all " females " , less than ten total .
Two of them , were the professors .
My Linear Algebra professor was a female , a rather attractive one too .
But , the numbers are there , per raw experience .
And it only got worse in college and at the highest levels of math females are virtually extinct.My gripe about all this , is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life .
Instead , if one has a cute ass , they 'll just leave Calculus to the nerds and hope her boyfriend becomes a NFL star .
Regardless if she could have passed a calculus course , the fact she did n't makes her dumb all the same and since she 's among millions of other girls the end result is well reflected that women ca n't be counted on when it comes to mathematical abilities.They want people to believe there are females in these math classes even if they are n't actually physically present .
For most people never take calculus , and now they face the few that have and might call them sexist if they announce " uh... I only saw a handful of girls in any of my classes when getting a Masters in Mathematics " .They want more girls in math ?
They need to come up with something that actually makes girls consider it as a useful tool in life .
As it is now , 10,000 dollars for a hard and burdensome education or an easy and highly profitable breast augmentation ?
You decide , as inherently lazy humans , which many girls might opt for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is media propoganda, through and through.
It's insulting even.Women in math?
The "gender gap" between women and men in math, even "basic" math has "closed"?
BULLSHIT!First, "calculus" is not "basic math".
It's not needed for most academic majors, nor is it a requirement for entry to so much as a community college.
Perhaps, "General Math" is a "basic" math.
Perhaps, Pre-Algebra is a "basic" math.
But, most certainly, any level of Calculus is NOT a "basic" math.Secondly, I have been in five higher education institutions spanning two different countries and have majored in Math in particular along with engineering courses.
I also took Calculus in High-school... when I attended a high school that even HAD the course (not all American high schools offer calculus).First, anything past Algebra I and Geometry in highschool and you are officially a nerd or geek, therefore you probably have less options of having a girlfriend.
The girls have no interest in that sort of thing, nor any male that has such aptitude.
If they did, such classes would have a fair number of girls in them, just to be in social alignment with the males fully able of completing the courses.
But, look no further than media entertainment, and frankly, being a nerd or smart isn't "hip".Ok, so that's more of a social outlook on the issue, and it is.
Can girls do the calculus?
Maybe, but most don't even if they could, most don't even try or think such a task is even credible to endure.As a result, any claims that there are a lot of girls in a high school calculus class, is just that a claim.
I dare any of them to actually, physically, literally walk their ignorant butts into a random high-level math class and count with their index finger the number of girls in that class.
(This will render a far higher count than if we subtracted the ugly girls from any "attractive" girls.
)Now, walk to college.
This will be easy as randomly roaming the halls of a high school might have the police arresting you.
But you can stand around and most colleges and universities.
The gap is closing?
Bullshit, if anything it's getting wider.Of all the years and all the courses of math above Trigonometry I have took, maybe two girls total I might have personally dated .
Including all "females", less than ten total.
Two of them, were the professors.
My Linear Algebra professor was a female, a rather attractive one too.
But, the numbers are there, per raw experience.
And it only got worse in college and at the highest levels of math females are virtually extinct.My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.
Instead, if one has a cute ass, they'll just leave Calculus to the nerds and hope her boyfriend becomes a NFL star.
Regardless if she could have passed a calculus course, the fact she didn't makes her dumb all the same and since she's among millions of other girls the end result is well reflected that women can't be counted on when it comes to mathematical abilities.They want people to believe there are females in these math classes even if they aren't actually physically present.
For most people never take calculus, and now they face the few that have and might call them sexist if they announce "uh... I only saw a handful of girls in any of my classes when getting a Masters in Mathematics".They want more girls in math?
They need to come up with something that actually makes girls consider it as a useful tool in life.
As it is now, 10,000 dollars for a hard and burdensome education or an easy and highly profitable breast augmentation?
You decide, as inherently lazy humans, which many girls might opt for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28194777</id>
	<title>That's obtuse</title>
	<author>bebemochi</author>
	<datestamp>1244039580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're ignoring the fact that women were actively, wilfully, consistently kept out of higher academics and especially from publishing -- even fiction -- until quite recent history. How are there supposed to be women equivalents if women couldn't even study beyond high school, were laughed at if they wanted to publish anything (unless they used a male pseudonym and had a male friend present it) and were being pushed to get married and have babies ASAP? (Keep in mind there was no birth control, so they'd have several, with the attendant responsibilities. Oh and, their husbands weren't expected to help them beyond finances.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ignoring the fact that women were actively , wilfully , consistently kept out of higher academics and especially from publishing -- even fiction -- until quite recent history .
How are there supposed to be women equivalents if women could n't even study beyond high school , were laughed at if they wanted to publish anything ( unless they used a male pseudonym and had a male friend present it ) and were being pushed to get married and have babies ASAP ?
( Keep in mind there was no birth control , so they 'd have several , with the attendant responsibilities .
Oh and , their husbands were n't expected to help them beyond finances .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ignoring the fact that women were actively, wilfully, consistently kept out of higher academics and especially from publishing -- even fiction -- until quite recent history.
How are there supposed to be women equivalents if women couldn't even study beyond high school, were laughed at if they wanted to publish anything (unless they used a male pseudonym and had a male friend present it) and were being pushed to get married and have babies ASAP?
(Keep in mind there was no birth control, so they'd have several, with the attendant responsibilities.
Oh and, their husbands weren't expected to help them beyond finances.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186705</id>
	<title>Another pissing contest . . . ?</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1243975620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.</p></div><p> . . . so which one applies to pissing contests?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In every field which was once exclusively male , but is now no longer , it 's been claimed first , that no woman can perform alongside men ; second , when the first claim is disproven , that hardly any woman can ; and third , when the second claim is disproven , that maybe a few women can , but a majority lack the ability or the inclination .
. .
. so which one applies to pissing contests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.
. .
. so which one applies to pissing contests?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187223</id>
	<title>Math Competitions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_winners\_of\_the\_Mathcounts\_competition</p><p>Every single name on the list is either Male or Asian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _winners \ _of \ _the \ _Mathcounts \ _competitionEvery single name on the list is either Male or Asian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_winners\_of\_the\_Mathcounts\_competitionEvery single name on the list is either Male or Asian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191187</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1243957920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Not letting women opt to choose the very subjects they're interested<br>&gt; in is, uh, the *opposite* of freedom for women.</p><p>Oh you silly silly person.  These things are done in the interest of higher morality than what some woman thinks she wants.  First and foremost is the self esteem of the progressives dictating the politically correct rules.  If they feel better about themselves, for demonstrating their higher moral development and general superiority, then the project is a success.  It is about our betters guiding us inferior creatures into a better world in spite of us being unworthy worms that counts.  We will be told what do do, nay even what to WANT and we will be grateful to bask in the glow of our betters, knowing that they care for us even though we are unworthy, that they will be our shepherd and show us how to be obedient to their will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Not letting women opt to choose the very subjects they 're interested &gt; in is , uh , the * opposite * of freedom for women.Oh you silly silly person .
These things are done in the interest of higher morality than what some woman thinks she wants .
First and foremost is the self esteem of the progressives dictating the politically correct rules .
If they feel better about themselves , for demonstrating their higher moral development and general superiority , then the project is a success .
It is about our betters guiding us inferior creatures into a better world in spite of us being unworthy worms that counts .
We will be told what do do , nay even what to WANT and we will be grateful to bask in the glow of our betters , knowing that they care for us even though we are unworthy , that they will be our shepherd and show us how to be obedient to their will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Not letting women opt to choose the very subjects they're interested&gt; in is, uh, the *opposite* of freedom for women.Oh you silly silly person.
These things are done in the interest of higher morality than what some woman thinks she wants.
First and foremost is the self esteem of the progressives dictating the politically correct rules.
If they feel better about themselves, for demonstrating their higher moral development and general superiority, then the project is a success.
It is about our betters guiding us inferior creatures into a better world in spite of us being unworthy worms that counts.
We will be told what do do, nay even what to WANT and we will be grateful to bask in the glow of our betters, knowing that they care for us even though we are unworthy, that they will be our shepherd and show us how to be obedient to their will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186807</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1243976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class. There are girls, and then there are girls.</p></div><p>I'll bet the girls in your class are saying the same thing about the guys.  No, I'm not trying to be a smart ass:  the fact is that people interested in higher math tend to be geeky because they're more interested in math than say, what Gina wore to the party last night.</p><p>And I say this as a fellow geek.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem is the number of * * attractive * * girls taking my class .
There are girls , and then there are girls.I 'll bet the girls in your class are saying the same thing about the guys .
No , I 'm not trying to be a smart ass : the fact is that people interested in higher math tend to be geeky because they 're more interested in math than say , what Gina wore to the party last night.And I say this as a fellow geek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.
There are girls, and then there are girls.I'll bet the girls in your class are saying the same thing about the guys.
No, I'm not trying to be a smart ass:  the fact is that people interested in higher math tend to be geeky because they're more interested in math than say, what Gina wore to the party last night.And I say this as a fellow geek.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187711</id>
	<title>Is that because</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1243936620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are more girls taking it, or just fewer boys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more girls taking it , or just fewer boys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more girls taking it, or just fewer boys?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192349</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243969980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a woman, I see something that it seems the comments visible on the main page here are missing.</p><p>I have a daughter now 12. I'm always telling her, "You do what is fun for you. So get good at something and then it will be fun and then you will do it more--it works both ways, those things feed each other, and eventually you're REALLY good and it's a great hobby."</p><p>I also tell her, "If you want to learn [x], make up a real-world project for it so you have inspiration to learn to apply it and can make something out of the effort." These are basics of human life from a very early age.</p><p>Thanks to Google and youtube she is better self-educated at every obscure thing than I can imagine. (And many I don't want to, probably.)</p><p>I really like math and in some alternate reality might have pursued that. But here is why I think me and my girl-friends were less inclined to math, than to english or psychology or something.</p><p>When I was growing up, I cleaned the house. A lot. That was my duty. Most my buddies just took out the trash and otherwise had a lot more time to spend hanging on the street with skateboards or bikes than I did. I spent most my extra time reading or writing or singing because they were things I could do alone and in the house. Occasionally when in a context that church was around, singing and social elements came in. That was pretty much all there WAS for me to do.</p><p>(I was an only child off and on through dad's 5 marriages, so I spent a lot of time playing games against myself. I was such a cheater! But I always won.)</p><p>I had male friends who helped their dad rebuild the engine on the truck, or make cabinets for the kitchen. They'd been making model airplanes and stuff since they were little. So they were already working indirectly (or sometimes directly) with math, etc.</p><p>When I was 18 I demanded of my father, who was still suggesting I might cut off something important if allowed to mow the lawn, "Had I been a boy, would you not have had me out there in the garage doing wood work, auto mechanics, etc. probably from the age of about 5?" He admitted, "Well yeah, probably."  (I'm not saying I resent this. I'm simply saying that one cannot ignore 'previous culture' in the role of the present culture.)</p><p>Who was forced to learn \_AND USE\_ math in practical and immediate ways, throughout life, my male friends or me? Who found a good reason for it and 'had fun' doing it?</p><p>So, not shockingly, who already had a lot more experience, skill, and seeming-aptitude, for math even in school?</p><p>In High School I was accidentally placed in metal shop when it began. The class was all guys but me and they were openly begging me to stay. I considered it, particularly for the popularity element (though I'm interested in nearly all forms of construction). I never saw so many guys fawning over [rather-boring] me [well aside from when I was 18 in the CCC in CA and the vast majority of the folks were men and the majority of women were lesbian, but that's another story] -- but alas I only had TWO electives.</p><p>The one they had left me out of was choir. I only had two things in my life -- music and writing and I couldn't drop those. While my guy friends had been learning everything from mechanics and woodwork to firearms earlier in life, I had been learning to read and write poetry and stories and sing. So sadly, I had to leave metal shop. I'd have been forced to learn a little more about even basic math and reading blueprints or whatever else might be involved (I don't know).</p><p>During my high school years, my buddies were in metal shop, and wood shop, and mechanics, and of course various slightly higher math courses in many cases, but they were STILL "using math proactively, actively, on real-world projects, in a way that helped develop their skill and made it fun." With dad, or with buddies, or with neighbors or relatives.</p><p>Even in normal settings, normal activities, for cultural reasons it just often leads men to doing stuff where even indirectly they are forced to learn some</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a woman , I see something that it seems the comments visible on the main page here are missing.I have a daughter now 12 .
I 'm always telling her , " You do what is fun for you .
So get good at something and then it will be fun and then you will do it more--it works both ways , those things feed each other , and eventually you 're REALLY good and it 's a great hobby .
" I also tell her , " If you want to learn [ x ] , make up a real-world project for it so you have inspiration to learn to apply it and can make something out of the effort .
" These are basics of human life from a very early age.Thanks to Google and youtube she is better self-educated at every obscure thing than I can imagine .
( And many I do n't want to , probably .
) I really like math and in some alternate reality might have pursued that .
But here is why I think me and my girl-friends were less inclined to math , than to english or psychology or something.When I was growing up , I cleaned the house .
A lot .
That was my duty .
Most my buddies just took out the trash and otherwise had a lot more time to spend hanging on the street with skateboards or bikes than I did .
I spent most my extra time reading or writing or singing because they were things I could do alone and in the house .
Occasionally when in a context that church was around , singing and social elements came in .
That was pretty much all there WAS for me to do .
( I was an only child off and on through dad 's 5 marriages , so I spent a lot of time playing games against myself .
I was such a cheater !
But I always won .
) I had male friends who helped their dad rebuild the engine on the truck , or make cabinets for the kitchen .
They 'd been making model airplanes and stuff since they were little .
So they were already working indirectly ( or sometimes directly ) with math , etc.When I was 18 I demanded of my father , who was still suggesting I might cut off something important if allowed to mow the lawn , " Had I been a boy , would you not have had me out there in the garage doing wood work , auto mechanics , etc .
probably from the age of about 5 ?
" He admitted , " Well yeah , probably .
" ( I 'm not saying I resent this .
I 'm simply saying that one can not ignore 'previous culture ' in the role of the present culture .
) Who was forced to learn \ _AND USE \ _ math in practical and immediate ways , throughout life , my male friends or me ?
Who found a good reason for it and 'had fun ' doing it ? So , not shockingly , who already had a lot more experience , skill , and seeming-aptitude , for math even in school ? In High School I was accidentally placed in metal shop when it began .
The class was all guys but me and they were openly begging me to stay .
I considered it , particularly for the popularity element ( though I 'm interested in nearly all forms of construction ) .
I never saw so many guys fawning over [ rather-boring ] me [ well aside from when I was 18 in the CCC in CA and the vast majority of the folks were men and the majority of women were lesbian , but that 's another story ] -- but alas I only had TWO electives.The one they had left me out of was choir .
I only had two things in my life -- music and writing and I could n't drop those .
While my guy friends had been learning everything from mechanics and woodwork to firearms earlier in life , I had been learning to read and write poetry and stories and sing .
So sadly , I had to leave metal shop .
I 'd have been forced to learn a little more about even basic math and reading blueprints or whatever else might be involved ( I do n't know ) .During my high school years , my buddies were in metal shop , and wood shop , and mechanics , and of course various slightly higher math courses in many cases , but they were STILL " using math proactively , actively , on real-world projects , in a way that helped develop their skill and made it fun .
" With dad , or with buddies , or with neighbors or relatives.Even in normal settings , normal activities , for cultural reasons it just often leads men to doing stuff where even indirectly they are forced to learn some</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a woman, I see something that it seems the comments visible on the main page here are missing.I have a daughter now 12.
I'm always telling her, "You do what is fun for you.
So get good at something and then it will be fun and then you will do it more--it works both ways, those things feed each other, and eventually you're REALLY good and it's a great hobby.
"I also tell her, "If you want to learn [x], make up a real-world project for it so you have inspiration to learn to apply it and can make something out of the effort.
" These are basics of human life from a very early age.Thanks to Google and youtube she is better self-educated at every obscure thing than I can imagine.
(And many I don't want to, probably.
)I really like math and in some alternate reality might have pursued that.
But here is why I think me and my girl-friends were less inclined to math, than to english or psychology or something.When I was growing up, I cleaned the house.
A lot.
That was my duty.
Most my buddies just took out the trash and otherwise had a lot more time to spend hanging on the street with skateboards or bikes than I did.
I spent most my extra time reading or writing or singing because they were things I could do alone and in the house.
Occasionally when in a context that church was around, singing and social elements came in.
That was pretty much all there WAS for me to do.
(I was an only child off and on through dad's 5 marriages, so I spent a lot of time playing games against myself.
I was such a cheater!
But I always won.
)I had male friends who helped their dad rebuild the engine on the truck, or make cabinets for the kitchen.
They'd been making model airplanes and stuff since they were little.
So they were already working indirectly (or sometimes directly) with math, etc.When I was 18 I demanded of my father, who was still suggesting I might cut off something important if allowed to mow the lawn, "Had I been a boy, would you not have had me out there in the garage doing wood work, auto mechanics, etc.
probably from the age of about 5?
" He admitted, "Well yeah, probably.
"  (I'm not saying I resent this.
I'm simply saying that one cannot ignore 'previous culture' in the role of the present culture.
)Who was forced to learn \_AND USE\_ math in practical and immediate ways, throughout life, my male friends or me?
Who found a good reason for it and 'had fun' doing it?So, not shockingly, who already had a lot more experience, skill, and seeming-aptitude, for math even in school?In High School I was accidentally placed in metal shop when it began.
The class was all guys but me and they were openly begging me to stay.
I considered it, particularly for the popularity element (though I'm interested in nearly all forms of construction).
I never saw so many guys fawning over [rather-boring] me [well aside from when I was 18 in the CCC in CA and the vast majority of the folks were men and the majority of women were lesbian, but that's another story] -- but alas I only had TWO electives.The one they had left me out of was choir.
I only had two things in my life -- music and writing and I couldn't drop those.
While my guy friends had been learning everything from mechanics and woodwork to firearms earlier in life, I had been learning to read and write poetry and stories and sing.
So sadly, I had to leave metal shop.
I'd have been forced to learn a little more about even basic math and reading blueprints or whatever else might be involved (I don't know).During my high school years, my buddies were in metal shop, and wood shop, and mechanics, and of course various slightly higher math courses in many cases, but they were STILL "using math proactively, actively, on real-world projects, in a way that helped develop their skill and made it fun.
" With dad, or with buddies, or with neighbors or relatives.Even in normal settings, normal activities, for cultural reasons it just often leads men to doing stuff where even indirectly they are forced to learn some</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192751</id>
	<title>Re:Windows of opportunity to learn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As societies, we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young. All or almost all "gender-specific" advantages are created by the environment in which we live.</i> <br> <br>Who told you that "fact"? I mean there are so many counter-examples one would have thought you'd have noticed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As societies , we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young .
All or almost all " gender-specific " advantages are created by the environment in which we live .
Who told you that " fact " ?
I mean there are so many counter-examples one would have thought you 'd have noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As societies, we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young.
All or almost all "gender-specific" advantages are created by the environment in which we live.
Who told you that "fact"?
I mean there are so many counter-examples one would have thought you'd have noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192481</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>Whitemage12380</author>
	<datestamp>1243971120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did a report on the very subject last semester. Yeah, the math gap is closing way up, but the CS gap is really depressing. In fact, the CS gap was very small nearer the beginning of its conception, but at least as far as 2007 it's only been growing. We need a serious societal reconsideration of what being a programmer means in order to get that gap down. No more [CS = at computer labs 24/7 hacking, drinking mountain dew, and playing Quake].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a report on the very subject last semester .
Yeah , the math gap is closing way up , but the CS gap is really depressing .
In fact , the CS gap was very small nearer the beginning of its conception , but at least as far as 2007 it 's only been growing .
We need a serious societal reconsideration of what being a programmer means in order to get that gap down .
No more [ CS = at computer labs 24/7 hacking , drinking mountain dew , and playing Quake ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a report on the very subject last semester.
Yeah, the math gap is closing way up, but the CS gap is really depressing.
In fact, the CS gap was very small nearer the beginning of its conception, but at least as far as 2007 it's only been growing.
We need a serious societal reconsideration of what being a programmer means in order to get that gap down.
No more [CS = at computer labs 24/7 hacking, drinking mountain dew, and playing Quake].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188793</id>
	<title>So I Really Am Just a Dimwit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243941180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the reason I washed out of college level math in my third year is because I'm a dimwit not because I'm a girl? The truth hurts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the reason I washed out of college level math in my third year is because I 'm a dimwit not because I 'm a girl ?
The truth hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the reason I washed out of college level math in my third year is because I'm a dimwit not because I'm a girl?
The truth hurts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187893</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>FooRat</author>
	<datestamp>1243937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not letting women opt to choose the very subjects they're interested in is, uh, the *opposite* of freedom for women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not letting women opt to choose the very subjects they 're interested in is , uh , the * opposite * of freedom for women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not letting women opt to choose the very subjects they're interested in is, uh, the *opposite* of freedom for women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193823</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244032500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new math-knowledgeable overpersons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new math-knowledgeable overpersons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new math-knowledgeable overpersons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190397</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1243950840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to teach women to swim, you have to throw them in the lake.</p><p>Then copy Baron Berners who " upon hearing that you could teach a dog to swim by throwing him into water, the young Gerald promptly decided that by throwing his mother's dog out the window, he could teach it to fly."</p><p>And soon we'll be out of parking spaces everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to teach women to swim , you have to throw them in the lake.Then copy Baron Berners who " upon hearing that you could teach a dog to swim by throwing him into water , the young Gerald promptly decided that by throwing his mother 's dog out the window , he could teach it to fly .
" And soon we 'll be out of parking spaces everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to teach women to swim, you have to throw them in the lake.Then copy Baron Berners who " upon hearing that you could teach a dog to swim by throwing him into water, the young Gerald promptly decided that by throwing his mother's dog out the window, he could teach it to fly.
"And soon we'll be out of parking spaces everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187343</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to date a programmer?  Are you nuts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to date a programmer ?
Are you nuts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to date a programmer?
Are you nuts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28194287</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked with several. Most of them good looking (and married).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked with several .
Most of them good looking ( and married ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked with several.
Most of them good looking (and married).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191659</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243962120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He proposed, with appropriate evidence, that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the "glass ceiling", they tend to ignore the "glass floor" in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions.</i> </p><p>Hmmm.  If I recall the purpose of the "glass floor" is so that those men working dangerous, undesirable jobs can look up at women's hoochies.</p><p><b>OH YEAH!  High 5!!!!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He proposed , with appropriate evidence , that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the " glass ceiling " , they tend to ignore the " glass floor " in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions .
Hmmm. If I recall the purpose of the " glass floor " is so that those men working dangerous , undesirable jobs can look up at women 's hoochies.OH YEAH !
High 5 ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He proposed, with appropriate evidence, that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the "glass ceiling", they tend to ignore the "glass floor" in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions.
Hmmm.  If I recall the purpose of the "glass floor" is so that those men working dangerous, undesirable jobs can look up at women's hoochies.OH YEAH!
High 5!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189285</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is the true reason. We need a communist regime so we can pump out only engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is the true reason .
We need a communist regime so we can pump out only engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is the true reason.
We need a communist regime so we can pump out only engineers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187673</id>
	<title>This argument will NEVER die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to prove that women or men are superior at ANYTHING let alone math, you'd have to have a male and female that were completely identical with the exception of their gender, and raise them in exactly the same social environment with absolutely no variation.<br>
<br>
Since this is never going to happen, there will always be stupid people in the world that really think it matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to prove that women or men are superior at ANYTHING let alone math , you 'd have to have a male and female that were completely identical with the exception of their gender , and raise them in exactly the same social environment with absolutely no variation .
Since this is never going to happen , there will always be stupid people in the world that really think it matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to prove that women or men are superior at ANYTHING let alone math, you'd have to have a male and female that were completely identical with the exception of their gender, and raise them in exactly the same social environment with absolutely no variation.
Since this is never going to happen, there will always be stupid people in the world that really think it matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187581</id>
	<title>MRS or PhD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact is, it's hardware for a woman to get her MRS in math than to get her PhD.  Unlike, say, sociology or psychology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , it 's hardware for a woman to get her MRS in math than to get her PhD .
Unlike , say , sociology or psychology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, it's hardware for a woman to get her MRS in math than to get her PhD.
Unlike, say, sociology or psychology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187697</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right,</p><p>by the way, in case you have some spare time, visit <a href="http://foxpl.mybrute.com/" title="mybrute.com" rel="nofollow">mybrute.com</a> [mybrute.com], where you can make your own brute and put it in arena<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) great game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right,by the way , in case you have some spare time , visit mybrute.com [ mybrute.com ] , where you can make your own brute and put it in arena ; - ) great game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right,by the way, in case you have some spare time, visit mybrute.com [mybrute.com], where you can make your own brute and put it in arena ;-) great game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189237</id>
	<title>Show me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me the female equivalents of an Euler, Pascal, Leibnitz, Newton, Laplace, Riemann, Fourier, Gauss, Euclid, Archimedes, Poincare, Lagrange, or this article is only so much Dvorakian handwaving crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me the female equivalents of an Euler , Pascal , Leibnitz , Newton , Laplace , Riemann , Fourier , Gauss , Euclid , Archimedes , Poincare , Lagrange , or this article is only so much Dvorakian handwaving crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me the female equivalents of an Euler, Pascal, Leibnitz, Newton, Laplace, Riemann, Fourier, Gauss, Euclid, Archimedes, Poincare, Lagrange, or this article is only so much Dvorakian handwaving crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239587</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Teriblows</author>
	<datestamp>1244317560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>indeed, warran farrell was a 3 time elected board member of NOW if anyone thinks he's anti woman.

the reality is men man most dangerous disgusting and physically destructive jobs. there can be no rational discussion of parity without this consideration, especially when it comes to the whole "pay gap" nonsense.  interests are different for the genders. theres nothing wrong with that in fact in some professions like medicine women are disproportionately represented, as medical doctors its becoming lopsided with women.  the problem is that  activist groups only focus on trying to force parity based on their own idea of what reality should be rather than allowing people to make their own choices.  we've seen whats happened with forcing women down the road of the tech industry, many left it during the bust and never went back, i'm sure plenty more have left.  female dominated jobs like nursing are well paid these days, and the lack of even handedness in this push for quotas or "help" to force parity shows how corrupt the whole enterprise really is.  its really counterproductive, pushing quota/politically correct hiring only guarantees that the merits of any female math professionals is questioned by default.  i also remember there was another study where accelerated math programs for girls only in some high schools yielded rather poor results as well.  the girls could do math, but almost none choose it as a profession or major once they left for college.</htmltext>
<tokenext>indeed , warran farrell was a 3 time elected board member of NOW if anyone thinks he 's anti woman .
the reality is men man most dangerous disgusting and physically destructive jobs .
there can be no rational discussion of parity without this consideration , especially when it comes to the whole " pay gap " nonsense .
interests are different for the genders .
theres nothing wrong with that in fact in some professions like medicine women are disproportionately represented , as medical doctors its becoming lopsided with women .
the problem is that activist groups only focus on trying to force parity based on their own idea of what reality should be rather than allowing people to make their own choices .
we 've seen whats happened with forcing women down the road of the tech industry , many left it during the bust and never went back , i 'm sure plenty more have left .
female dominated jobs like nursing are well paid these days , and the lack of even handedness in this push for quotas or " help " to force parity shows how corrupt the whole enterprise really is .
its really counterproductive , pushing quota/politically correct hiring only guarantees that the merits of any female math professionals is questioned by default .
i also remember there was another study where accelerated math programs for girls only in some high schools yielded rather poor results as well .
the girls could do math , but almost none choose it as a profession or major once they left for college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>indeed, warran farrell was a 3 time elected board member of NOW if anyone thinks he's anti woman.
the reality is men man most dangerous disgusting and physically destructive jobs.
there can be no rational discussion of parity without this consideration, especially when it comes to the whole "pay gap" nonsense.
interests are different for the genders.
theres nothing wrong with that in fact in some professions like medicine women are disproportionately represented, as medical doctors its becoming lopsided with women.
the problem is that  activist groups only focus on trying to force parity based on their own idea of what reality should be rather than allowing people to make their own choices.
we've seen whats happened with forcing women down the road of the tech industry, many left it during the bust and never went back, i'm sure plenty more have left.
female dominated jobs like nursing are well paid these days, and the lack of even handedness in this push for quotas or "help" to force parity shows how corrupt the whole enterprise really is.
its really counterproductive, pushing quota/politically correct hiring only guarantees that the merits of any female math professionals is questioned by default.
i also remember there was another study where accelerated math programs for girls only in some high schools yielded rather poor results as well.
the girls could do math, but almost none choose it as a profession or major once they left for college.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187299</id>
	<title>Maybe...</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1243935060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's just that men are getting dumber. We have lower enrollments in college. We tend to sit around and watch TV/play video games more than women do. Just a thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just that men are getting dumber .
We have lower enrollments in college .
We tend to sit around and watch TV/play video games more than women do .
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's just that men are getting dumber.
We have lower enrollments in college.
We tend to sit around and watch TV/play video games more than women do.
Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187229</id>
	<title>Way too simple of a model</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1243934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think its too simplistic to put men and women on a continuum and talk about which is 'better' than the other.  In my experience teaching math to men and women, they are approximately equal in skill overall.  However, on the average they excelled in different ways.  Women often organized their thoughts more clearly, while men seemed to get farther kludging their way through things.  And at the very high end of the distribution, its not obvious what the differences would be.</p><p>In any case, there are obviously very intelligent mathematicians of both genders at the high end, so there needn't be any debate about that.</p><p>If fewer women become mathematicians than men, maybe women are just smarter about their career choices.  Its not like there are a ton of non-academic jobs out there for people with math degrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its too simplistic to put men and women on a continuum and talk about which is 'better ' than the other .
In my experience teaching math to men and women , they are approximately equal in skill overall .
However , on the average they excelled in different ways .
Women often organized their thoughts more clearly , while men seemed to get farther kludging their way through things .
And at the very high end of the distribution , its not obvious what the differences would be.In any case , there are obviously very intelligent mathematicians of both genders at the high end , so there need n't be any debate about that.If fewer women become mathematicians than men , maybe women are just smarter about their career choices .
Its not like there are a ton of non-academic jobs out there for people with math degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its too simplistic to put men and women on a continuum and talk about which is 'better' than the other.
In my experience teaching math to men and women, they are approximately equal in skill overall.
However, on the average they excelled in different ways.
Women often organized their thoughts more clearly, while men seemed to get farther kludging their way through things.
And at the very high end of the distribution, its not obvious what the differences would be.In any case, there are obviously very intelligent mathematicians of both genders at the high end, so there needn't be any debate about that.If fewer women become mathematicians than men, maybe women are just smarter about their career choices.
Its not like there are a ton of non-academic jobs out there for people with math degrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189145</id>
	<title>Re:...or maybe</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1243943160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Math is tough" --Barbie the Bimbo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Math is tough " --Barbie the Bimbo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Math is tough" --Barbie the Bimbo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>istefany</author>
	<datestamp>1243976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too few women in Maths/Engineering is "broken." Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is "fine."</p></div><p>That's not true.  Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education.  The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher.  And that's a win for everyone.  Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
<br>
<br>
Also, re:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you look at a Psychology, Social Science, or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them.</p></div><p>Try taking a look at MA/MS/PhD enrollment in those fields.  Much closer to 50/50.  No one really cares about undergraduate degrees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too few women in Maths/Engineering is " broken .
" Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is " fine .
" That 's not true .
Specifically , I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education .
The motivation for this is that young boys ( and even teenage boys ) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher .
And that 's a win for everyone .
Unfortunately , teachers are not well-payed , so it 's hard to get people into the field , period , let alone men .
Also , re : If you look at a Psychology , Social Science , or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them.Try taking a look at MA/MS/PhD enrollment in those fields .
Much closer to 50/50 .
No one really cares about undergraduate degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too few women in Maths/Engineering is "broken.
" Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is "fine.
"That's not true.
Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education.
The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher.
And that's a win for everyone.
Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
Also, re:If you look at a Psychology, Social Science, or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them.Try taking a look at MA/MS/PhD enrollment in those fields.
Much closer to 50/50.
No one really cares about undergraduate degrees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191449</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1243959960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if this example counts, but there are plenty of female cleaners in all societies. You know, people who scrub the toilets, mop the floors, clean up the spills. Not quite the same as garbage collectors, but they do dirty work all the same.</p><p>I don't know what the exact gender stats are for cleaners, but in the last few jobs I've worked I've seen a lot more female cleaners than male.</p><p>Hmm... which is worse, garbage collection or toilet cleaning...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if this example counts , but there are plenty of female cleaners in all societies .
You know , people who scrub the toilets , mop the floors , clean up the spills .
Not quite the same as garbage collectors , but they do dirty work all the same.I do n't know what the exact gender stats are for cleaners , but in the last few jobs I 've worked I 've seen a lot more female cleaners than male.Hmm... which is worse , garbage collection or toilet cleaning.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if this example counts, but there are plenty of female cleaners in all societies.
You know, people who scrub the toilets, mop the floors, clean up the spills.
Not quite the same as garbage collectors, but they do dirty work all the same.I don't know what the exact gender stats are for cleaners, but in the last few jobs I've worked I've seen a lot more female cleaners than male.Hmm... which is worse, garbage collection or toilet cleaning...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187239</id>
	<title>An example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'm ending my first year of a Math degree (in Barcelona, Catalonia), and the ratio of men and women in my class is really near to 1:1.<br>Those who excel are also equally distributed. Perhaps this is an isolated case, but definitely times have changed (or at least seem to be changing) for good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm ending my first year of a Math degree ( in Barcelona , Catalonia ) , and the ratio of men and women in my class is really near to 1 : 1.Those who excel are also equally distributed .
Perhaps this is an isolated case , but definitely times have changed ( or at least seem to be changing ) for good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'm ending my first year of a Math degree (in Barcelona, Catalonia), and the ratio of men and women in my class is really near to 1:1.Those who excel are also equally distributed.
Perhaps this is an isolated case, but definitely times have changed (or at least seem to be changing) for good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188505</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>onkelonkel</author>
	<datestamp>1243939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men."<br> <br>Just arguing for arguments sake here, but haven't you got it backwards. If it was hard to get people into any field, the supply would be low, the demand high and basic economic theory would tell us that the price (salary) should be high? Low salaries for teachers indicates to me an abundant supply and a limited demand. No? Am I missing something obvious?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unfortunately , teachers are not well-payed , so it 's hard to get people into the field , period , let alone men .
" Just arguing for arguments sake here , but have n't you got it backwards .
If it was hard to get people into any field , the supply would be low , the demand high and basic economic theory would tell us that the price ( salary ) should be high ?
Low salaries for teachers indicates to me an abundant supply and a limited demand .
No ? Am I missing something obvious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
" Just arguing for arguments sake here, but haven't you got it backwards.
If it was hard to get people into any field, the supply would be low, the demand high and basic economic theory would tell us that the price (salary) should be high?
Low salaries for teachers indicates to me an abundant supply and a limited demand.
No? Am I missing something obvious?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187325</id>
	<title>The article is confused</title>
	<author>j. andrew rogers</author>
	<datestamp>1243935180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is confused about where most of the real differences are purported to be.</p><p>No one credible claims that females have less ability to learn mathematics or crunch numbers in most cases, which is what this article is contesting. In other words, they built themselves a strawman.  The differences involve application, not learning.</p><p>What *is* credibly claimed, in the sense that there is not insignificant quantities of direct and indirect evidence in literature, is that females are markedly poorer at certain classes of applied mathematical problems, notably applications involving complex, high-dimensionality metric spaces. Females understand the mathematics just fine, they have relative difficulty applying it to real-world problems when system complexity exceeds a certain threshold.  This is largely attributed to male brains having more neurons dedicated to conceptualizing and manipulating spatial relationships.</p><p>There are real differences, but it is mostly in specific areas of the applied side and there is a relatively straightforward causal theory related to brain structure. That people feel it necessary to repeatedly trot out the strawman that women have less ability to learn math while conveniently ignoring supportable arguments for differences in practical ability reeks of a political agenda.  There are other biases in application spaces strongly favoring females that also have straightforward causal links related to differences in brain structure but which say nothing about the ability of males to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is confused about where most of the real differences are purported to be.No one credible claims that females have less ability to learn mathematics or crunch numbers in most cases , which is what this article is contesting .
In other words , they built themselves a strawman .
The differences involve application , not learning.What * is * credibly claimed , in the sense that there is not insignificant quantities of direct and indirect evidence in literature , is that females are markedly poorer at certain classes of applied mathematical problems , notably applications involving complex , high-dimensionality metric spaces .
Females understand the mathematics just fine , they have relative difficulty applying it to real-world problems when system complexity exceeds a certain threshold .
This is largely attributed to male brains having more neurons dedicated to conceptualizing and manipulating spatial relationships.There are real differences , but it is mostly in specific areas of the applied side and there is a relatively straightforward causal theory related to brain structure .
That people feel it necessary to repeatedly trot out the strawman that women have less ability to learn math while conveniently ignoring supportable arguments for differences in practical ability reeks of a political agenda .
There are other biases in application spaces strongly favoring females that also have straightforward causal links related to differences in brain structure but which say nothing about the ability of males to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is confused about where most of the real differences are purported to be.No one credible claims that females have less ability to learn mathematics or crunch numbers in most cases, which is what this article is contesting.
In other words, they built themselves a strawman.
The differences involve application, not learning.What *is* credibly claimed, in the sense that there is not insignificant quantities of direct and indirect evidence in literature, is that females are markedly poorer at certain classes of applied mathematical problems, notably applications involving complex, high-dimensionality metric spaces.
Females understand the mathematics just fine, they have relative difficulty applying it to real-world problems when system complexity exceeds a certain threshold.
This is largely attributed to male brains having more neurons dedicated to conceptualizing and manipulating spatial relationships.There are real differences, but it is mostly in specific areas of the applied side and there is a relatively straightforward causal theory related to brain structure.
That people feel it necessary to repeatedly trot out the strawman that women have less ability to learn math while conveniently ignoring supportable arguments for differences in practical ability reeks of a political agenda.
There are other biases in application spaces strongly favoring females that also have straightforward causal links related to differences in brain structure but which say nothing about the ability of males to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</id>
	<title>Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1243974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.  And every single time, as the residual sexism fades, the third claim is shown to be false as well.  Business, politics, medicine:  it's a familiar pattern.  Now math is next on the list.</p><p>In short, if there's a difference, it's not the sex, it's the sexism.  Anyone who can't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.</p><p>Men and women are different, yadda yadda.  Yes, they are, and they may be even be different in ways that affect performance at certain jobs.  But every time the issue is put to the test, we see that those differences are not nearly as signficant as the bigots desperately believe.  The difference in means between the sexes, or any other groups into which people can conveniently be divided, is far smaller than the variances between individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In every field which was once exclusively male , but is now no longer , it 's been claimed first , that no woman can perform alongside men ; second , when the first claim is disproven , that hardly any woman can ; and third , when the second claim is disproven , that maybe a few women can , but a majority lack the ability or the inclination .
And every single time , as the residual sexism fades , the third claim is shown to be false as well .
Business , politics , medicine : it 's a familiar pattern .
Now math is next on the list.In short , if there 's a difference , it 's not the sex , it 's the sexism .
Anyone who ca n't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.Men and women are different , yadda yadda .
Yes , they are , and they may be even be different in ways that affect performance at certain jobs .
But every time the issue is put to the test , we see that those differences are not nearly as signficant as the bigots desperately believe .
The difference in means between the sexes , or any other groups into which people can conveniently be divided , is far smaller than the variances between individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.
And every single time, as the residual sexism fades, the third claim is shown to be false as well.
Business, politics, medicine:  it's a familiar pattern.
Now math is next on the list.In short, if there's a difference, it's not the sex, it's the sexism.
Anyone who can't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.Men and women are different, yadda yadda.
Yes, they are, and they may be even be different in ways that affect performance at certain jobs.
But every time the issue is put to the test, we see that those differences are not nearly as signficant as the bigots desperately believe.
The difference in means between the sexes, or any other groups into which people can conveniently be divided, is far smaller than the variances between individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188531</id>
	<title>Re:Stop checking genitals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One small objection - women should not be exposed to high levels of radiation, i.e. enough to cause damage to her eggs.  It is a lesser issue for men as we produce semen rather than having all we are ever going to have already.  Granted I should hope that in most cases, such work is done remotely/with lead suits, but I can see a legit case for discriminating against women in nuclear science/engineering for this added safety reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One small objection - women should not be exposed to high levels of radiation , i.e .
enough to cause damage to her eggs .
It is a lesser issue for men as we produce semen rather than having all we are ever going to have already .
Granted I should hope that in most cases , such work is done remotely/with lead suits , but I can see a legit case for discriminating against women in nuclear science/engineering for this added safety reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One small objection - women should not be exposed to high levels of radiation, i.e.
enough to cause damage to her eggs.
It is a lesser issue for men as we produce semen rather than having all we are ever going to have already.
Granted I should hope that in most cases, such work is done remotely/with lead suits, but I can see a legit case for discriminating against women in nuclear science/engineering for this added safety reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190663</id>
	<title>PNAS != open source</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1243953360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The literature on this question is full of politically-motivated BS, so I want to read the original article.
<p>
But when I looked up the article on PNAS <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.abstract" title="pnas.org">http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.abstract</a> [pnas.org] it was subscription only.
</p><p>
When I read the Science magazine article on girls and math, buried in the fine print they admitted that they didn't really have statistically significant data for high-performing girls.
</p><p>
So I won't take this seriously until I can read the original article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The literature on this question is full of politically-motivated BS , so I want to read the original article .
But when I looked up the article on PNAS http : //www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.abstract [ pnas.org ] it was subscription only .
When I read the Science magazine article on girls and math , buried in the fine print they admitted that they did n't really have statistically significant data for high-performing girls .
So I wo n't take this seriously until I can read the original article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The literature on this question is full of politically-motivated BS, so I want to read the original article.
But when I looked up the article on PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.abstract [pnas.org] it was subscription only.
When I read the Science magazine article on girls and math, buried in the fine print they admitted that they didn't really have statistically significant data for high-performing girls.
So I won't take this seriously until I can read the original article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193813</id>
	<title>Innate != workforce distribution</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary seems to confuse innate differences with the gender distribution in the workforce. If the two were directly related, then a change in the workforce would mean a change in innate skills, which are pretty unlikely to have changed that drastically in the past 100 years.

</p><p>If the argument used to be that the low number of women in math wasn't proof that women were poor at math, then the greater number of women in math now is likewise not proof that women are good at math; the number of women in math is much more strongly influenced by other factors besides innate ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary seems to confuse innate differences with the gender distribution in the workforce .
If the two were directly related , then a change in the workforce would mean a change in innate skills , which are pretty unlikely to have changed that drastically in the past 100 years .
If the argument used to be that the low number of women in math was n't proof that women were poor at math , then the greater number of women in math now is likewise not proof that women are good at math ; the number of women in math is much more strongly influenced by other factors besides innate ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary seems to confuse innate differences with the gender distribution in the workforce.
If the two were directly related, then a change in the workforce would mean a change in innate skills, which are pretty unlikely to have changed that drastically in the past 100 years.
If the argument used to be that the low number of women in math wasn't proof that women were poor at math, then the greater number of women in math now is likewise not proof that women are good at math; the number of women in math is much more strongly influenced by other factors besides innate ability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186701</id>
	<title>Of course it's mostly social influence...</title>
	<author>VinylRecords</author>
	<datestamp>1243975620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a sports broadcasting and psychology double major in my undergraduate studies. When I was taking sports broadcasting classes it was a total sausage fest. Thirty guys talking about sports in an academic environment as if it was a locker room. Meanwhile in psychology it was always majority female in classrooms ranging from 60\% to 90\%. It was because sports writing and reporting is a male dominated field, whereas psychology was a necessary field of study for many female students who wanted to teach elementary or middle school, a field traditionally occupied by women. Also my school was 60\% female so a typical class would have 60\% women which really emphasized how incredibly one sided sports broadcasting was a major regarding gender divide.</p><p>While men and women solve problems differently, our brains are made up differently so that is to be expected, most studies conclude that even though we solve problems differently men and women reach the same conclusions eventually but they take different paths. Both genders are equally smart but think differently to solve the same problems.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_and\_intelligence" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_and\_intelligence</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender\_differences" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender\_differences</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a sports broadcasting and psychology double major in my undergraduate studies .
When I was taking sports broadcasting classes it was a total sausage fest .
Thirty guys talking about sports in an academic environment as if it was a locker room .
Meanwhile in psychology it was always majority female in classrooms ranging from 60 \ % to 90 \ % .
It was because sports writing and reporting is a male dominated field , whereas psychology was a necessary field of study for many female students who wanted to teach elementary or middle school , a field traditionally occupied by women .
Also my school was 60 \ % female so a typical class would have 60 \ % women which really emphasized how incredibly one sided sports broadcasting was a major regarding gender divide.While men and women solve problems differently , our brains are made up differently so that is to be expected , most studies conclude that even though we solve problems differently men and women reach the same conclusions eventually but they take different paths .
Both genders are equally smart but think differently to solve the same problems.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex \ _and \ _intelligence [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender \ _differences [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a sports broadcasting and psychology double major in my undergraduate studies.
When I was taking sports broadcasting classes it was a total sausage fest.
Thirty guys talking about sports in an academic environment as if it was a locker room.
Meanwhile in psychology it was always majority female in classrooms ranging from 60\% to 90\%.
It was because sports writing and reporting is a male dominated field, whereas psychology was a necessary field of study for many female students who wanted to teach elementary or middle school, a field traditionally occupied by women.
Also my school was 60\% female so a typical class would have 60\% women which really emphasized how incredibly one sided sports broadcasting was a major regarding gender divide.While men and women solve problems differently, our brains are made up differently so that is to be expected, most studies conclude that even though we solve problems differently men and women reach the same conclusions eventually but they take different paths.
Both genders are equally smart but think differently to solve the same problems.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_and\_intelligence [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender\_differences [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190307</id>
	<title>Reads like a political treatise, not science</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1243950240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the father of two girls. Just wanted to make that very clear. I think one of them is quite brilliant with mathematics, in fact, and she routinely outperforms her male peers. Top of her class.</p><p>Be that as it may, we appear to have one study here, and the rating on "gender equality" by the WEF, to which it is correlated, is a politically derived statistic at best, absolute chauvinist political posturing at worst.</p><p>What this indicates is we need to have many many more studies, until we can see repeatable results or a pattern, based on hard statistics, not political ones, before we start calling some very intelligent people who work in the field, most with an excellent grasp of statistics, perpetuators of "myth" and "stereotype."</p><p>And anecdotal stuff about who gets sent to the Math Olympiad doesn't imply they performed well at the math Olympiad, or that they belonged there. It implies that the countries were more willing to send women. Period.</p><p>Did they do well? That's the real question, the only question which addresses aptitude, and it is not answered.</p><p>I want to believe in gender equality as much as anyone else, perhaps more, but this article is shot through with correlative holes and shoddy thinking. It is bad science and political spin.</p><p>I am fully willing to believe that this is because mainstream journalism cannot competently cover science. Is there a more scientifically minded article covering this paper?</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the father of two girls .
Just wanted to make that very clear .
I think one of them is quite brilliant with mathematics , in fact , and she routinely outperforms her male peers .
Top of her class.Be that as it may , we appear to have one study here , and the rating on " gender equality " by the WEF , to which it is correlated , is a politically derived statistic at best , absolute chauvinist political posturing at worst.What this indicates is we need to have many many more studies , until we can see repeatable results or a pattern , based on hard statistics , not political ones , before we start calling some very intelligent people who work in the field , most with an excellent grasp of statistics , perpetuators of " myth " and " stereotype .
" And anecdotal stuff about who gets sent to the Math Olympiad does n't imply they performed well at the math Olympiad , or that they belonged there .
It implies that the countries were more willing to send women .
Period.Did they do well ?
That 's the real question , the only question which addresses aptitude , and it is not answered.I want to believe in gender equality as much as anyone else , perhaps more , but this article is shot through with correlative holes and shoddy thinking .
It is bad science and political spin.I am fully willing to believe that this is because mainstream journalism can not competently cover science .
Is there a more scientifically minded article covering this paper ? --Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the father of two girls.
Just wanted to make that very clear.
I think one of them is quite brilliant with mathematics, in fact, and she routinely outperforms her male peers.
Top of her class.Be that as it may, we appear to have one study here, and the rating on "gender equality" by the WEF, to which it is correlated, is a politically derived statistic at best, absolute chauvinist political posturing at worst.What this indicates is we need to have many many more studies, until we can see repeatable results or a pattern, based on hard statistics, not political ones, before we start calling some very intelligent people who work in the field, most with an excellent grasp of statistics, perpetuators of "myth" and "stereotype.
"And anecdotal stuff about who gets sent to the Math Olympiad doesn't imply they performed well at the math Olympiad, or that they belonged there.
It implies that the countries were more willing to send women.
Period.Did they do well?
That's the real question, the only question which addresses aptitude, and it is not answered.I want to believe in gender equality as much as anyone else, perhaps more, but this article is shot through with correlative holes and shoddy thinking.
It is bad science and political spin.I am fully willing to believe that this is because mainstream journalism cannot competently cover science.
Is there a more scientifically minded article covering this paper?--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188555</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1243940100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).</i> <br> <br>And I knew a male engineer that won a scholarship from the Society of Women Engineers.<br> <br> <i>If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.</i> <br> <br>True.  First, we need 50\% of all mathmeticians to be women so that society accepts them as equals.  Oh, that's not the case?  Then we'll leave in direct "unfair" incentives because there is an ol' boys network that would otherwise keep them down.<br> <br>I find it hillarious that people like Bush are against Affirmative Action.  Bush Jr. thinks that people shouldn't get a bonus to anything just because of who their parents are.  However, when the C student was too poor of a scholar to get into Yale without Daddy's help, he relied on his lineage to get him what he wanted.  Then acted to counteract that if it's anyone other than rich white males who get to do it with things like nepotisim and "legacy" (affirmative action for rich white people).  Fuck the poor, think of the rich white men of mediocre inteligence and no skills, how are they supposed to scrape by on a few million a year from Daddy unless society props them up?<br> <br>But yes, the real problem is that there is tutoring available for women studying math.  Oh the horror.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women ( not men ) .
And I knew a male engineer that won a scholarship from the Society of Women Engineers .
If women want to display equality , they need to compete on equal ground .
True. First , we need 50 \ % of all mathmeticians to be women so that society accepts them as equals .
Oh , that 's not the case ?
Then we 'll leave in direct " unfair " incentives because there is an ol ' boys network that would otherwise keep them down .
I find it hillarious that people like Bush are against Affirmative Action .
Bush Jr. thinks that people should n't get a bonus to anything just because of who their parents are .
However , when the C student was too poor of a scholar to get into Yale without Daddy 's help , he relied on his lineage to get him what he wanted .
Then acted to counteract that if it 's anyone other than rich white males who get to do it with things like nepotisim and " legacy " ( affirmative action for rich white people ) .
Fuck the poor , think of the rich white men of mediocre inteligence and no skills , how are they supposed to scrape by on a few million a year from Daddy unless society props them up ?
But yes , the real problem is that there is tutoring available for women studying math .
Oh the horror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).
And I knew a male engineer that won a scholarship from the Society of Women Engineers.
If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.
True.  First, we need 50\% of all mathmeticians to be women so that society accepts them as equals.
Oh, that's not the case?
Then we'll leave in direct "unfair" incentives because there is an ol' boys network that would otherwise keep them down.
I find it hillarious that people like Bush are against Affirmative Action.
Bush Jr. thinks that people shouldn't get a bonus to anything just because of who their parents are.
However, when the C student was too poor of a scholar to get into Yale without Daddy's help, he relied on his lineage to get him what he wanted.
Then acted to counteract that if it's anyone other than rich white males who get to do it with things like nepotisim and "legacy" (affirmative action for rich white people).
Fuck the poor, think of the rich white men of mediocre inteligence and no skills, how are they supposed to scrape by on a few million a year from Daddy unless society props them up?
But yes, the real problem is that there is tutoring available for women studying math.
Oh the horror.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186817</id>
	<title>Windows of opportunity to learn</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1243976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the time you are 20, your brain has gone through several "windows of opportunity" which are the best time to learn specific skills.  For example, the window of opportunity for foreign languages for most people is in preschool.</p><p>If a given culture discourages certain members from learning certain skills until after the window closes, these individuals are now stuck with what might as well be an innate disadvantage in that area.</p><p>For these individuals, it's not important whether they could have been good at this or that if only they had taken classes when they were younger, the important thing is that if they do try to learn it, it will be relatively hard for them.</p><p>Plus, there's the whole issue of experience, someone who starts learning a skill at age 5 will have a 15-year head start on someone who starts learning a skill at age 20.</p><p>--<br>As societies, we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young.  All or almost all "gender-specific" advantages are created by the environment in which we live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time you are 20 , your brain has gone through several " windows of opportunity " which are the best time to learn specific skills .
For example , the window of opportunity for foreign languages for most people is in preschool.If a given culture discourages certain members from learning certain skills until after the window closes , these individuals are now stuck with what might as well be an innate disadvantage in that area.For these individuals , it 's not important whether they could have been good at this or that if only they had taken classes when they were younger , the important thing is that if they do try to learn it , it will be relatively hard for them.Plus , there 's the whole issue of experience , someone who starts learning a skill at age 5 will have a 15-year head start on someone who starts learning a skill at age 20.--As societies , we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young .
All or almost all " gender-specific " advantages are created by the environment in which we live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time you are 20, your brain has gone through several "windows of opportunity" which are the best time to learn specific skills.
For example, the window of opportunity for foreign languages for most people is in preschool.If a given culture discourages certain members from learning certain skills until after the window closes, these individuals are now stuck with what might as well be an innate disadvantage in that area.For these individuals, it's not important whether they could have been good at this or that if only they had taken classes when they were younger, the important thing is that if they do try to learn it, it will be relatively hard for them.Plus, there's the whole issue of experience, someone who starts learning a skill at age 5 will have a 15-year head start on someone who starts learning a skill at age 20.--As societies, we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young.
All or almost all "gender-specific" advantages are created by the environment in which we live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188351</id>
	<title>As a female CS major</title>
	<author>Angeliqe</author>
	<datestamp>1243939320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tend to agree with the idea that gender has little to do with ability in math or science. As someone who has had to pull a team of 3 clueless guys through a programming project, I can tell you I have no problem keeping up in class. I do recognize that social pressures and conditioning do influence young girls to do other things. My classes average about 1 female to every 5 males. I once volunteered to help some brownies (younger girl scouts about 6 to 8 years old) through an activity in internet browsing at the computer lab at my college. The general impression I got from doing this was that they were more interested in fashion than computers. There was a lame flash game that let you pick a girl, backdrops and music to make your own music video. They went through the selections and when they got to one that looked very studious and wore glasses, they said she was ugly. It was just a cartoon drawing of a girl, so I did not think it was possible for her to actually look ugly, but the girls I was helping said they would never pick her and picked the "pretty" blond girl instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree with the idea that gender has little to do with ability in math or science .
As someone who has had to pull a team of 3 clueless guys through a programming project , I can tell you I have no problem keeping up in class .
I do recognize that social pressures and conditioning do influence young girls to do other things .
My classes average about 1 female to every 5 males .
I once volunteered to help some brownies ( younger girl scouts about 6 to 8 years old ) through an activity in internet browsing at the computer lab at my college .
The general impression I got from doing this was that they were more interested in fashion than computers .
There was a lame flash game that let you pick a girl , backdrops and music to make your own music video .
They went through the selections and when they got to one that looked very studious and wore glasses , they said she was ugly .
It was just a cartoon drawing of a girl , so I did not think it was possible for her to actually look ugly , but the girls I was helping said they would never pick her and picked the " pretty " blond girl instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree with the idea that gender has little to do with ability in math or science.
As someone who has had to pull a team of 3 clueless guys through a programming project, I can tell you I have no problem keeping up in class.
I do recognize that social pressures and conditioning do influence young girls to do other things.
My classes average about 1 female to every 5 males.
I once volunteered to help some brownies (younger girl scouts about 6 to 8 years old) through an activity in internet browsing at the computer lab at my college.
The general impression I got from doing this was that they were more interested in fashion than computers.
There was a lame flash game that let you pick a girl, backdrops and music to make your own music video.
They went through the selections and when they got to one that looked very studious and wore glasses, they said she was ugly.
It was just a cartoon drawing of a girl, so I did not think it was possible for her to actually look ugly, but the girls I was helping said they would never pick her and picked the "pretty" blond girl instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189127</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>WaywardGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243943040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm kidding, don't flame me.</p></div></blockquote><p>There's no protection on slashdot!  I hereby flame you to a burnt crisp!</p><p>I do not believe there are differences between the sexes in innate ability in mathematics, or advanced algorithms coding.  I do believe there are innate emotional differences.  Many women programmers I've known have gone into management and roles that deal with customers, for example.  Those who prefer the anti-social life of a hard-core mathematician or programmer are more commonly guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kidding , do n't flame me.There 's no protection on slashdot !
I hereby flame you to a burnt crisp ! I do not believe there are differences between the sexes in innate ability in mathematics , or advanced algorithms coding .
I do believe there are innate emotional differences .
Many women programmers I 've known have gone into management and roles that deal with customers , for example .
Those who prefer the anti-social life of a hard-core mathematician or programmer are more commonly guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kidding, don't flame me.There's no protection on slashdot!
I hereby flame you to a burnt crisp!I do not believe there are differences between the sexes in innate ability in mathematics, or advanced algorithms coding.
I do believe there are innate emotional differences.
Many women programmers I've known have gone into management and roles that deal with customers, for example.
Those who prefer the anti-social life of a hard-core mathematician or programmer are more commonly guys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191477</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bigotry never fails to surface when any gender-related topic appears on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bigotry never fails to surface when any gender-related topic appears on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bigotry never fails to surface when any gender-related topic appears on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191463</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>jacqdesign</author>
	<datestamp>1243960020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus</p></div><p>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.  There are girls, and then there are <i>girls</i>.</p></div><p>I am waiting for the girls in your class to post a comment about how they are waiting for some *attractive* guys to start taking your calculus class.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusMy problem is the number of * * attractive * * girls taking my class .
There are girls , and then there are girls.I am waiting for the girls in your class to post a comment about how they are waiting for some * attractive * guys to start taking your calculus class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusMy problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.
There are girls, and then there are girls.I am waiting for the girls in your class to post a comment about how they are waiting for some *attractive* guys to start taking your calculus class.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28195969</id>
	<title>curriculum changes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Britain the tests have changed so that you get more partial credit instead of exact answer only and this favors women and disadvantages men.</p><p>Perhaps the same thing has happened here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Britain the tests have changed so that you get more partial credit instead of exact answer only and this favors women and disadvantages men.Perhaps the same thing has happened here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Britain the tests have changed so that you get more partial credit instead of exact answer only and this favors women and disadvantages men.Perhaps the same thing has happened here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189697</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a chemistry graduate student at UW Madison(where the researchers are working), and one of the researchers gave a talk to our department several months ago about her preliminary work.  She listed 9 collaborators, and all were women.</p><p>Since I'm a coward, I didn't ask her about this during the Q&amp;A portion of her talk, but I did ask about this privately at the reception after wards. She responded without a sense of irony that men just didn't seem interested in her field of research. I didn't have the guts to reply back with, "Sort of like chicks and math, huh?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a chemistry graduate student at UW Madison ( where the researchers are working ) , and one of the researchers gave a talk to our department several months ago about her preliminary work .
She listed 9 collaborators , and all were women.Since I 'm a coward , I did n't ask her about this during the Q&amp;A portion of her talk , but I did ask about this privately at the reception after wards .
She responded without a sense of irony that men just did n't seem interested in her field of research .
I did n't have the guts to reply back with , " Sort of like chicks and math , huh ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a chemistry graduate student at UW Madison(where the researchers are working), and one of the researchers gave a talk to our department several months ago about her preliminary work.
She listed 9 collaborators, and all were women.Since I'm a coward, I didn't ask her about this during the Q&amp;A portion of her talk, but I did ask about this privately at the reception after wards.
She responded without a sense of irony that men just didn't seem interested in her field of research.
I didn't have the guts to reply back with, "Sort of like chicks and math, huh?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188009</id>
	<title>Recently?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>with as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...when I did high school calculus in 1979 the M-F mix was the same as any other class. Math was not a 'guy' subject at all.</p><p>This was in a medium-sized factory city in Ontario. Not a university town or anything special. Big blue-collar suburbia.</p><p>I know from older siblings that girls in sciences were not taken seriously by that school just a few year earlier, but that attitude had vanished by the end of the 70s. What's this business about "recently?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus .
...when I did high school calculus in 1979 the M-F mix was the same as any other class .
Math was not a 'guy ' subject at all.This was in a medium-sized factory city in Ontario .
Not a university town or anything special .
Big blue-collar suburbia.I know from older siblings that girls in sciences were not taken seriously by that school just a few year earlier , but that attitude had vanished by the end of the 70s .
What 's this business about " recently ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus.
...when I did high school calculus in 1979 the M-F mix was the same as any other class.
Math was not a 'guy' subject at all.This was in a medium-sized factory city in Ontario.
Not a university town or anything special.
Big blue-collar suburbia.I know from older siblings that girls in sciences were not taken seriously by that school just a few year earlier, but that attitude had vanished by the end of the 70s.
What's this business about "recently?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186669</id>
	<title>Just a thought</title>
	<author>Xeth</author>
	<datestamp>1243975440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(not meant to necessarily have any correlation with reality)</p><p>People seem to assume that what is happening is that previously, cultural norms dictated gender inequality when there was no biological basis, and now that those norms have changed, biological equality is restored. Couldn't it be the other way around? I.e. that there is a biological inequality, that is being altered by cultural factors to produce equality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( not meant to necessarily have any correlation with reality ) People seem to assume that what is happening is that previously , cultural norms dictated gender inequality when there was no biological basis , and now that those norms have changed , biological equality is restored .
Could n't it be the other way around ?
I.e. that there is a biological inequality , that is being altered by cultural factors to produce equality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(not meant to necessarily have any correlation with reality)People seem to assume that what is happening is that previously, cultural norms dictated gender inequality when there was no biological basis, and now that those norms have changed, biological equality is restored.
Couldn't it be the other way around?
I.e. that there is a biological inequality, that is being altered by cultural factors to produce equality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188893</id>
	<title>There is and always will be differences.</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243941660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether you like to accept it or not, women and men are psychobiologically different. Meaning, there are observable, quantifiable and consistent physical differences in the brain and its chemistry based solely on gender.</p><p>As a result, women consistently perform worse at spatial-based tasks than men. Women consistently perform better at communications-based tasks than men. There are millions of well-conducted experiments and studies that re-prove the existence of these and other gender-based differences over and over again.</p><p>It frustrates the hell out of me that the loony 'Politically Correct' regime is so enforced on us and continues to reduce to denial any innate gender difference even in the face of hard evidence.</p><p>Most 'normal' people now feel they can't even openly raise the possibility, much less the FACT that we actually are mentally differently-abled BECAUSE of gender.</p><p>Society as a whole will not properly develop until we accept the existence of gender-based ability differences, including mental, as a fact and move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you like to accept it or not , women and men are psychobiologically different .
Meaning , there are observable , quantifiable and consistent physical differences in the brain and its chemistry based solely on gender.As a result , women consistently perform worse at spatial-based tasks than men .
Women consistently perform better at communications-based tasks than men .
There are millions of well-conducted experiments and studies that re-prove the existence of these and other gender-based differences over and over again.It frustrates the hell out of me that the loony 'Politically Correct ' regime is so enforced on us and continues to reduce to denial any innate gender difference even in the face of hard evidence.Most 'normal ' people now feel they ca n't even openly raise the possibility , much less the FACT that we actually are mentally differently-abled BECAUSE of gender.Society as a whole will not properly develop until we accept the existence of gender-based ability differences , including mental , as a fact and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you like to accept it or not, women and men are psychobiologically different.
Meaning, there are observable, quantifiable and consistent physical differences in the brain and its chemistry based solely on gender.As a result, women consistently perform worse at spatial-based tasks than men.
Women consistently perform better at communications-based tasks than men.
There are millions of well-conducted experiments and studies that re-prove the existence of these and other gender-based differences over and over again.It frustrates the hell out of me that the loony 'Politically Correct' regime is so enforced on us and continues to reduce to denial any innate gender difference even in the face of hard evidence.Most 'normal' people now feel they can't even openly raise the possibility, much less the FACT that we actually are mentally differently-abled BECAUSE of gender.Society as a whole will not properly develop until we accept the existence of gender-based ability differences, including mental, as a fact and move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188121</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>level\_headed\_midwest</author>
	<datestamp>1243938300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are just as many of not more women entering medicine than men. The classes at my medical school in the past decade ranged between 50-54\% female- my particular class is 52\% female. From what I have seen looking at national statistics, the percentage of male students keeps falling year after year, just like in undergrad (national averages say something near 60\% of undergraduate students are female.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are just as many of not more women entering medicine than men .
The classes at my medical school in the past decade ranged between 50-54 \ % female- my particular class is 52 \ % female .
From what I have seen looking at national statistics , the percentage of male students keeps falling year after year , just like in undergrad ( national averages say something near 60 \ % of undergraduate students are female .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are just as many of not more women entering medicine than men.
The classes at my medical school in the past decade ranged between 50-54\% female- my particular class is 52\% female.
From what I have seen looking at national statistics, the percentage of male students keeps falling year after year, just like in undergrad (national averages say something near 60\% of undergraduate students are female.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239733</id>
	<title>Ok, seems the studies author is dubious......</title>
	<author>Teriblows</author>
	<datestamp>1244406780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seems she was previous debunked, and is back for another swipe with dodgy data.
<a href="http://www.geoffreyfalk.com/blog/June2009.asp#5" title="geoffreyfalk.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.geoffreyfalk.com/blog/June2009.asp#5</a> [geoffreyfalk.com]
<a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm" title="f2s.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm</a> [f2s.com]
<a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm" title="f2s.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm</a> [f2s.com]

the top 1\% of students in general esp at a high school level are not what matters when it comes to mathematical genius anyways. its ridiculous to draw conclusions from that. and if asian/colored women outperform their men then they should continue to do so when it gets to the phd level/awards right?  probably not addressed.

i think what matters with these studies is they are published and get a headline, thats all that really matters, very few of the gender warriors that like your conclusions are going to check your work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>seems she was previous debunked , and is back for another swipe with dodgy data .
http : //www.geoffreyfalk.com/blog/June2009.asp # 5 [ geoffreyfalk.com ] http : //www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm [ f2s.com ] http : //www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm [ f2s.com ] the top 1 \ % of students in general esp at a high school level are not what matters when it comes to mathematical genius anyways .
its ridiculous to draw conclusions from that .
and if asian/colored women outperform their men then they should continue to do so when it gets to the phd level/awards right ?
probably not addressed .
i think what matters with these studies is they are published and get a headline , thats all that really matters , very few of the gender warriors that like your conclusions are going to check your work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems she was previous debunked, and is back for another swipe with dodgy data.
http://www.geoffreyfalk.com/blog/June2009.asp#5 [geoffreyfalk.com]
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm [f2s.com]
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm [f2s.com]

the top 1\% of students in general esp at a high school level are not what matters when it comes to mathematical genius anyways.
its ridiculous to draw conclusions from that.
and if asian/colored women outperform their men then they should continue to do so when it gets to the phd level/awards right?
probably not addressed.
i think what matters with these studies is they are published and get a headline, thats all that really matters, very few of the gender warriors that like your conclusions are going to check your work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191325</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1243958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how it is in other countries, but as a man in the US you'd be barking mad to be a teacher.  The child predator hysteria has reached such an (unwarranted) fever pitch you may as well just check yourself into prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how it is in other countries , but as a man in the US you 'd be barking mad to be a teacher .
The child predator hysteria has reached such an ( unwarranted ) fever pitch you may as well just check yourself into prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how it is in other countries, but as a man in the US you'd be barking mad to be a teacher.
The child predator hysteria has reached such an (unwarranted) fever pitch you may as well just check yourself into prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</id>
	<title>The real question...</title>
	<author>delta419</author>
	<datestamp>1243974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus</p></div><p>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.  There are girls, and then there are <i>girls</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusMy problem is the number of * * attractive * * girls taking my class .
There are girls , and then there are girls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusMy problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.
There are girls, and then there are girls.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187363</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At a previous workplace there was a role in one of our sister IT departments for a new middle manager. There were 8 candidates, but only 2 ever real had a chance, one was male, the other female, the male far more experienced, a much better work ethic and simply much better suited to the job. The female got it however, the interview team consisted of 2 males and 1 female, the female was the existing helpdesk manager. The two males she'd spent day in day out flirting with (in fact, that's pretty much all she did, she was a crap worker). I got on quite well with the helpdesk manager and she said she'd actually voted for the male who deserved it, but was told by one of the other two (who was her superior) that she was to change her mind to the female to support equality in the workplace.</p><p>Realistically, situations like this I do not believe are massively uncommon. Some females argue that using their sex to get further in the workplace is fair game, but I do not see how this can be true when it puts males at a real inherent disadvantage - even if there were more female managers in the workplace for males to flirt with in reverse the reality is that males are far more receptive to flirting than females most the time.</p><p>Females then have to accept that if they truly want to see equality that they must refrain from this kind of view of things, they cannot on one had suggest they are treated unfairly in a bad way, then on the other take advantage of their sex to get treated unfairly but in their favour.</p><p>I'm all for equality, but a lot of what's sold under the equality banner is really just more inequality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a previous workplace there was a role in one of our sister IT departments for a new middle manager .
There were 8 candidates , but only 2 ever real had a chance , one was male , the other female , the male far more experienced , a much better work ethic and simply much better suited to the job .
The female got it however , the interview team consisted of 2 males and 1 female , the female was the existing helpdesk manager .
The two males she 'd spent day in day out flirting with ( in fact , that 's pretty much all she did , she was a crap worker ) .
I got on quite well with the helpdesk manager and she said she 'd actually voted for the male who deserved it , but was told by one of the other two ( who was her superior ) that she was to change her mind to the female to support equality in the workplace.Realistically , situations like this I do not believe are massively uncommon .
Some females argue that using their sex to get further in the workplace is fair game , but I do not see how this can be true when it puts males at a real inherent disadvantage - even if there were more female managers in the workplace for males to flirt with in reverse the reality is that males are far more receptive to flirting than females most the time.Females then have to accept that if they truly want to see equality that they must refrain from this kind of view of things , they can not on one had suggest they are treated unfairly in a bad way , then on the other take advantage of their sex to get treated unfairly but in their favour.I 'm all for equality , but a lot of what 's sold under the equality banner is really just more inequality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a previous workplace there was a role in one of our sister IT departments for a new middle manager.
There were 8 candidates, but only 2 ever real had a chance, one was male, the other female, the male far more experienced, a much better work ethic and simply much better suited to the job.
The female got it however, the interview team consisted of 2 males and 1 female, the female was the existing helpdesk manager.
The two males she'd spent day in day out flirting with (in fact, that's pretty much all she did, she was a crap worker).
I got on quite well with the helpdesk manager and she said she'd actually voted for the male who deserved it, but was told by one of the other two (who was her superior) that she was to change her mind to the female to support equality in the workplace.Realistically, situations like this I do not believe are massively uncommon.
Some females argue that using their sex to get further in the workplace is fair game, but I do not see how this can be true when it puts males at a real inherent disadvantage - even if there were more female managers in the workplace for males to flirt with in reverse the reality is that males are far more receptive to flirting than females most the time.Females then have to accept that if they truly want to see equality that they must refrain from this kind of view of things, they cannot on one had suggest they are treated unfairly in a bad way, then on the other take advantage of their sex to get treated unfairly but in their favour.I'm all for equality, but a lot of what's sold under the equality banner is really just more inequality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Probably much of this is cultural, but that's where the real disparity lies, and you're never going to get parity unless you figure out how to change interest.

On the other hand, changing interest is always tricky, because you run the risk of trying to tell people they ought to be interested in something they really don't seem to be interested in.</p></div><p>
There's the real problem.  Why should we pursue parity for parity's sake?  What's wrong with just having a level playing field and letting people decide what they want to do with themselves.  If more women want to do elementary education, and more men want to do engineering, why are we so antsy to push them into something else?  On the other hand, if both sexes are equally inclined and have equal ability, then with time they will approach numerical equality.  I agree that it doesn't make sense to edge somebody out of a career path because of race or gender or whatever.  If Sally wants to be a mathematician, good for her.  Let her be a mathematician, and let all of her friends who have the inclincation and ability be mathematicians too.  But I don't think it makes any sense to try to force somebody <em>into</em> a field because some social scientist arbitrarily decided that certain career fields need to be 50/50 so that we can have some vague Social Justice.</p><p>And while I'm at it, who's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers?  I don't know if I've ever seen a female garbage collector in my life!  Or do the Great Social Scientists only wring their hands about equality in vocations that they deem, in their boundless wisdom, to be worthy of equality?  Do they have a list of jobs that need to be equal to achieve Social Justice?  Is it on Wikipedia or something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably much of this is cultural , but that 's where the real disparity lies , and you 're never going to get parity unless you figure out how to change interest .
On the other hand , changing interest is always tricky , because you run the risk of trying to tell people they ought to be interested in something they really do n't seem to be interested in .
There 's the real problem .
Why should we pursue parity for parity 's sake ?
What 's wrong with just having a level playing field and letting people decide what they want to do with themselves .
If more women want to do elementary education , and more men want to do engineering , why are we so antsy to push them into something else ?
On the other hand , if both sexes are equally inclined and have equal ability , then with time they will approach numerical equality .
I agree that it does n't make sense to edge somebody out of a career path because of race or gender or whatever .
If Sally wants to be a mathematician , good for her .
Let her be a mathematician , and let all of her friends who have the inclincation and ability be mathematicians too .
But I do n't think it makes any sense to try to force somebody into a field because some social scientist arbitrarily decided that certain career fields need to be 50/50 so that we can have some vague Social Justice.And while I 'm at it , who 's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers ?
I do n't know if I 've ever seen a female garbage collector in my life !
Or do the Great Social Scientists only wring their hands about equality in vocations that they deem , in their boundless wisdom , to be worthy of equality ?
Do they have a list of jobs that need to be equal to achieve Social Justice ?
Is it on Wikipedia or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably much of this is cultural, but that's where the real disparity lies, and you're never going to get parity unless you figure out how to change interest.
On the other hand, changing interest is always tricky, because you run the risk of trying to tell people they ought to be interested in something they really don't seem to be interested in.
There's the real problem.
Why should we pursue parity for parity's sake?
What's wrong with just having a level playing field and letting people decide what they want to do with themselves.
If more women want to do elementary education, and more men want to do engineering, why are we so antsy to push them into something else?
On the other hand, if both sexes are equally inclined and have equal ability, then with time they will approach numerical equality.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to edge somebody out of a career path because of race or gender or whatever.
If Sally wants to be a mathematician, good for her.
Let her be a mathematician, and let all of her friends who have the inclincation and ability be mathematicians too.
But I don't think it makes any sense to try to force somebody into a field because some social scientist arbitrarily decided that certain career fields need to be 50/50 so that we can have some vague Social Justice.And while I'm at it, who's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers?
I don't know if I've ever seen a female garbage collector in my life!
Or do the Great Social Scientists only wring their hands about equality in vocations that they deem, in their boundless wisdom, to be worthy of equality?
Do they have a list of jobs that need to be equal to achieve Social Justice?
Is it on Wikipedia or something?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189711</id>
	<title>The prison gap!</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1243946280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good to hear. Now we can start to address other gender issues.<br>The 10:1 gender ratio in prisons is obviously driven by sociocultural factors rather than innate differences.<br>We need affirmative action to address this imbalance. To get the ball rolling, I propose a 12 month minimum sentence for parking across 2 bays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good to hear .
Now we can start to address other gender issues.The 10 : 1 gender ratio in prisons is obviously driven by sociocultural factors rather than innate differences.We need affirmative action to address this imbalance .
To get the ball rolling , I propose a 12 month minimum sentence for parking across 2 bays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good to hear.
Now we can start to address other gender issues.The 10:1 gender ratio in prisons is obviously driven by sociocultural factors rather than innate differences.We need affirmative action to address this imbalance.
To get the ball rolling, I propose a 12 month minimum sentence for parking across 2 bays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189397</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>Vu1turEMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1243944360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather someone close the age gap in History teachers so I can stop hearing about the Cold War like its still going on.</p><p>I had one 25yr old History teacher at CCAC, and it was the most incredible experience one could ask for. They need more of them badly. Almost as badly as CS teachers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather someone close the age gap in History teachers so I can stop hearing about the Cold War like its still going on.I had one 25yr old History teacher at CCAC , and it was the most incredible experience one could ask for .
They need more of them badly .
Almost as badly as CS teachers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather someone close the age gap in History teachers so I can stop hearing about the Cold War like its still going on.I had one 25yr old History teacher at CCAC, and it was the most incredible experience one could ask for.
They need more of them badly.
Almost as badly as CS teachers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187943</id>
	<title>Draft women?</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1243937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.</p></div><p>That presumes that the ground IS actually equal which I would argue it probably is not equal - not yet anyway, though it is headed in the right direction.  Nevertheless I agree with your sentiment that for true equality to exist the playing field should be level and many old prejudices need to die.  Personally I'll concede that things are equal or nearly so when women in the US have to register for the draft.</p><p>I've always found it ironic that most women who claim to be for equal rights never seem terribly eager for certain dangerous responsibilities that should go with those rights.  For example I see no logical reason why women in the US are not forced like the men to register for the draft.  Women clearly are capable of serving on a voluntary basis, and most of the jobs in the military apparently can be performed admirably by either gender.  Yet I've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service.  Sometimes rights come with ugly responsibilities.  Seems like a double standard to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If women want to display equality , they need to compete on equal ground.That presumes that the ground IS actually equal which I would argue it probably is not equal - not yet anyway , though it is headed in the right direction .
Nevertheless I agree with your sentiment that for true equality to exist the playing field should be level and many old prejudices need to die .
Personally I 'll concede that things are equal or nearly so when women in the US have to register for the draft.I 've always found it ironic that most women who claim to be for equal rights never seem terribly eager for certain dangerous responsibilities that should go with those rights .
For example I see no logical reason why women in the US are not forced like the men to register for the draft .
Women clearly are capable of serving on a voluntary basis , and most of the jobs in the military apparently can be performed admirably by either gender .
Yet I 've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service .
Sometimes rights come with ugly responsibilities .
Seems like a double standard to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.That presumes that the ground IS actually equal which I would argue it probably is not equal - not yet anyway, though it is headed in the right direction.
Nevertheless I agree with your sentiment that for true equality to exist the playing field should be level and many old prejudices need to die.
Personally I'll concede that things are equal or nearly so when women in the US have to register for the draft.I've always found it ironic that most women who claim to be for equal rights never seem terribly eager for certain dangerous responsibilities that should go with those rights.
For example I see no logical reason why women in the US are not forced like the men to register for the draft.
Women clearly are capable of serving on a voluntary basis, and most of the jobs in the military apparently can be performed admirably by either gender.
Yet I've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service.
Sometimes rights come with ugly responsibilities.
Seems like a double standard to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186779</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right,</p><p>by the way, in case you have some spare time, visit <a href="http://foxpl.mybrute.com/" title="mybrute.com" rel="nofollow">mybrute.com</a> [mybrute.com], where you can make your own brute and put it in arena<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) great game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right,by the way , in case you have some spare time , visit mybrute.com [ mybrute.com ] , where you can make your own brute and put it in arena ; - ) great game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right,by the way, in case you have some spare time, visit mybrute.com [mybrute.com], where you can make your own brute and put it in arena ;-) great game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188537</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1243940040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dating in your own field is a lot more work than dating someone who compliments you intellectually and socially.  I would not want to date another engineer unless she had her own place with her own tools and workspace for one, two moving in the same social crowd seems like a good idea till you break up and she usually keeps the friends and last but not least I like dating artists/social scientist types because they do not try to correct my horribly kludged math notation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dating in your own field is a lot more work than dating someone who compliments you intellectually and socially .
I would not want to date another engineer unless she had her own place with her own tools and workspace for one , two moving in the same social crowd seems like a good idea till you break up and she usually keeps the friends and last but not least I like dating artists/social scientist types because they do not try to correct my horribly kludged math notation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dating in your own field is a lot more work than dating someone who compliments you intellectually and socially.
I would not want to date another engineer unless she had her own place with her own tools and workspace for one, two moving in the same social crowd seems like a good idea till you break up and she usually keeps the friends and last but not least I like dating artists/social scientist types because they do not try to correct my horribly kludged math notation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189415</id>
	<title>who cares noone that who</title>
	<author>nibbles2004</author>
	<datestamp>1243944420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sorry who care's this is the most irelevent and pointless article on slashdot to date, no one cares what the OP has to say as it's irelevent</htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry who care 's this is the most irelevent and pointless article on slashdot to date , no one cares what the OP has to say as it 's irelevent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry who care's this is the most irelevent and pointless article on slashdot to date, no one cares what the OP has to say as it's irelevent</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186707</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someone's got to wash the dishes and burp the baby</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone 's got to wash the dishes and burp the baby</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone's got to wash the dishes and burp the baby</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190645</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243953240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Indian and we have a lot of the same thing. Hell there are lots of places where all girls get free education, forgot about special scholorship programmes.<br>However the harsh reality is that if you charge those parents one unit of money for the education of a *girl* they'll put her right back to washing and cleaning up. They already need heavy subsidies to get the boys to school and lots of convincing to even send the girls, any expenses means a lot of girls going without education. Mostly rural areas but jackasses are everywhere, even in cities, to a lesser extent.<br>Sure it may be diffferent in America, no parent is going to keep their kids from school but once they get there your corporate culture has fucked with kids brains quite a lot already feeding them stereotypes up the wazoo. Ultimately it's the kids responsibility to choose the path that's right for them and boycott the industries that tried to get them to be only homemakers but it does affect.<br>Those scholarships would get more *talented* women into fields where they would otherwise might not have gone. It may be unfair to men, it certainly will be some decades down the line when the gap has closed entirely, but for now it really isn't since they are just making up for the cultural handicap that you've given your girls.<br>There is also a very important distinction between your post and the one below, the first is a somewhat slanted approach at trying to achieve equal results though inequal opportunity, the one below is trying to force equality without merit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Indian and we have a lot of the same thing .
Hell there are lots of places where all girls get free education , forgot about special scholorship programmes.However the harsh reality is that if you charge those parents one unit of money for the education of a * girl * they 'll put her right back to washing and cleaning up .
They already need heavy subsidies to get the boys to school and lots of convincing to even send the girls , any expenses means a lot of girls going without education .
Mostly rural areas but jackasses are everywhere , even in cities , to a lesser extent.Sure it may be diffferent in America , no parent is going to keep their kids from school but once they get there your corporate culture has fucked with kids brains quite a lot already feeding them stereotypes up the wazoo .
Ultimately it 's the kids responsibility to choose the path that 's right for them and boycott the industries that tried to get them to be only homemakers but it does affect.Those scholarships would get more * talented * women into fields where they would otherwise might not have gone .
It may be unfair to men , it certainly will be some decades down the line when the gap has closed entirely , but for now it really is n't since they are just making up for the cultural handicap that you 've given your girls.There is also a very important distinction between your post and the one below , the first is a somewhat slanted approach at trying to achieve equal results though inequal opportunity , the one below is trying to force equality without merit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Indian and we have a lot of the same thing.
Hell there are lots of places where all girls get free education, forgot about special scholorship programmes.However the harsh reality is that if you charge those parents one unit of money for the education of a *girl* they'll put her right back to washing and cleaning up.
They already need heavy subsidies to get the boys to school and lots of convincing to even send the girls, any expenses means a lot of girls going without education.
Mostly rural areas but jackasses are everywhere, even in cities, to a lesser extent.Sure it may be diffferent in America, no parent is going to keep their kids from school but once they get there your corporate culture has fucked with kids brains quite a lot already feeding them stereotypes up the wazoo.
Ultimately it's the kids responsibility to choose the path that's right for them and boycott the industries that tried to get them to be only homemakers but it does affect.Those scholarships would get more *talented* women into fields where they would otherwise might not have gone.
It may be unfair to men, it certainly will be some decades down the line when the gap has closed entirely, but for now it really isn't since they are just making up for the cultural handicap that you've given your girls.There is also a very important distinction between your post and the one below, the first is a somewhat slanted approach at trying to achieve equal results though inequal opportunity, the one below is trying to force equality without merit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239597</id>
	<title>Re:There is and always will be differences.</title>
	<author>Teriblows</author>
	<datestamp>1244317800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the irony is that the same women will be rather quick to claim that women are better at xyz, multitasking, social interaction, verbal ability etc etc etc.  so they've really already shot out their foot on the idea that all things are equal.  of course they are never that consistent.

ok lets make a deal.  we'll let women claim they are every bit as good at math as men if they have to accept that women are just as criminally violent as men and so the only reason that women don't make up 50\% of inmates at prisons is discrimination in the justice system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the irony is that the same women will be rather quick to claim that women are better at xyz , multitasking , social interaction , verbal ability etc etc etc .
so they 've really already shot out their foot on the idea that all things are equal .
of course they are never that consistent .
ok lets make a deal .
we 'll let women claim they are every bit as good at math as men if they have to accept that women are just as criminally violent as men and so the only reason that women do n't make up 50 \ % of inmates at prisons is discrimination in the justice system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the irony is that the same women will be rather quick to claim that women are better at xyz, multitasking, social interaction, verbal ability etc etc etc.
so they've really already shot out their foot on the idea that all things are equal.
of course they are never that consistent.
ok lets make a deal.
we'll let women claim they are every bit as good at math as men if they have to accept that women are just as criminally violent as men and so the only reason that women don't make up 50\% of inmates at prisons is discrimination in the justice system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841</id>
	<title>Simply doesn't address the real issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an extremely dishonest story which does not address the most basic issues involved.<br>What Summers said at Harvard is supported by the evidence and remains the best explanation<br>for the "gender gap."  Indeed, he felt confident that he could "get away" with his statements<br>because the evidence is so overwhelming and the facts so obvious.</p><p>Consider any number of physical traits the measurement of which is not controversial<br>(for instance, height, weight, ratio of arm length to leg length, etc.)  A few empirical observations<br>can be readily made:</p><p>(1) the distributions are roughly Gaussian --- this make sense as these traits are controlled<br>by multiple genes and some version of the central limit theorem is operational</p><p>(2) the means vary by gender and ethnicity</p><p>(3) the standard deviations vary by gender and ethnicity</p><p>(4) a pattern quickly emerges: for virtually all traits the STANDARD DEVIATION<br>of the male distributions is somewhat larger than the female distribution --- although<br>not by much.  Again this makes some intuitive sense --- men are biological more expendable<br>then women so more variation in male traits can be tolerated.</p><p>I can hardly be expected to believe that physical traits (the measurement of which is generally<br>not controversial) are unique in having property (4).  Especially when the observable<br>data available for mental traits exhibits a difference in standard deviation.</p><p>This difference in standard deviation predicts what we see in practice --- if we set<br>a high threshold and look at the number of men and women with ability above<br>that threshold we expect the ratio of men to women to be large.  Because this<br>is an effect of differences in standard deviation, it is not observable near the<br>middle of the distribution --- only at the tails.</p><p>There are many many articles which conclude that there is no gender gap<br>in mathematical ability because the mean of the male and female distributions<br>are the same or similar.  I am not familiar with every such article,<br>but every one I have read --- including the two famous Science articles ---<br>presents observational data showing a difference in STANDARD DEVIATION.<br>An issue none of them seem to address.</p><p>Incidentally, any one familiar with the error function can easily<br>see that the variations in the ratio of men to women whose<br>mathematical ability exceeds a given threshold by ethnicity are<br>also predicated by this approach (to startlingly high accuracy --<br>do the math!)  This again follows simply from the fact that<br>the mean and standard deviation of biological characteristics<br>vary by ethnicity</p><p>Everything I have said can be verified to a ridiculously high level of<br>certainty by someone with basic knowledge of Stat 101 and  a copy<br>of Excel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an extremely dishonest story which does not address the most basic issues involved.What Summers said at Harvard is supported by the evidence and remains the best explanationfor the " gender gap .
" Indeed , he felt confident that he could " get away " with his statementsbecause the evidence is so overwhelming and the facts so obvious.Consider any number of physical traits the measurement of which is not controversial ( for instance , height , weight , ratio of arm length to leg length , etc .
) A few empirical observationscan be readily made : ( 1 ) the distributions are roughly Gaussian --- this make sense as these traits are controlledby multiple genes and some version of the central limit theorem is operational ( 2 ) the means vary by gender and ethnicity ( 3 ) the standard deviations vary by gender and ethnicity ( 4 ) a pattern quickly emerges : for virtually all traits the STANDARD DEVIATIONof the male distributions is somewhat larger than the female distribution --- althoughnot by much .
Again this makes some intuitive sense --- men are biological more expendablethen women so more variation in male traits can be tolerated.I can hardly be expected to believe that physical traits ( the measurement of which is generallynot controversial ) are unique in having property ( 4 ) .
Especially when the observabledata available for mental traits exhibits a difference in standard deviation.This difference in standard deviation predicts what we see in practice --- if we seta high threshold and look at the number of men and women with ability abovethat threshold we expect the ratio of men to women to be large .
Because thisis an effect of differences in standard deviation , it is not observable near themiddle of the distribution --- only at the tails.There are many many articles which conclude that there is no gender gapin mathematical ability because the mean of the male and female distributionsare the same or similar .
I am not familiar with every such article,but every one I have read --- including the two famous Science articles ---presents observational data showing a difference in STANDARD DEVIATION.An issue none of them seem to address.Incidentally , any one familiar with the error function can easilysee that the variations in the ratio of men to women whosemathematical ability exceeds a given threshold by ethnicity arealso predicated by this approach ( to startlingly high accuracy --do the math !
) This again follows simply from the fact thatthe mean and standard deviation of biological characteristicsvary by ethnicityEverything I have said can be verified to a ridiculously high level ofcertainty by someone with basic knowledge of Stat 101 and a copyof Excel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an extremely dishonest story which does not address the most basic issues involved.What Summers said at Harvard is supported by the evidence and remains the best explanationfor the "gender gap.
"  Indeed, he felt confident that he could "get away" with his statementsbecause the evidence is so overwhelming and the facts so obvious.Consider any number of physical traits the measurement of which is not controversial(for instance, height, weight, ratio of arm length to leg length, etc.
)  A few empirical observationscan be readily made:(1) the distributions are roughly Gaussian --- this make sense as these traits are controlledby multiple genes and some version of the central limit theorem is operational(2) the means vary by gender and ethnicity(3) the standard deviations vary by gender and ethnicity(4) a pattern quickly emerges: for virtually all traits the STANDARD DEVIATIONof the male distributions is somewhat larger than the female distribution --- althoughnot by much.
Again this makes some intuitive sense --- men are biological more expendablethen women so more variation in male traits can be tolerated.I can hardly be expected to believe that physical traits (the measurement of which is generallynot controversial) are unique in having property (4).
Especially when the observabledata available for mental traits exhibits a difference in standard deviation.This difference in standard deviation predicts what we see in practice --- if we seta high threshold and look at the number of men and women with ability abovethat threshold we expect the ratio of men to women to be large.
Because thisis an effect of differences in standard deviation, it is not observable near themiddle of the distribution --- only at the tails.There are many many articles which conclude that there is no gender gapin mathematical ability because the mean of the male and female distributionsare the same or similar.
I am not familiar with every such article,but every one I have read --- including the two famous Science articles ---presents observational data showing a difference in STANDARD DEVIATION.An issue none of them seem to address.Incidentally, any one familiar with the error function can easilysee that the variations in the ratio of men to women whosemathematical ability exceeds a given threshold by ethnicity arealso predicated by this approach (to startlingly high accuracy --do the math!
)  This again follows simply from the fact thatthe mean and standard deviation of biological characteristicsvary by ethnicityEverything I have said can be verified to a ridiculously high level ofcertainty by someone with basic knowledge of Stat 101 and  a copyof Excel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192903</id>
	<title>taking maths class != being good at maths</title>
	<author>Bromskloss</author>
	<datestamp>1244019660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus</p></div><p>This particular observation doesn't really tell us much about the respective abilities of the groups, does it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusThis particular observation does n't really tell us much about the respective abilities of the groups , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusThis particular observation doesn't really tell us much about the respective abilities of the groups, does it?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190441</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243951260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply because it's a struggle for power.<br>When a woman *discovers* something important in math (like proves Poincar&#195;&#169; conjecture), THEN let us know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply because it 's a struggle for power.When a woman * discovers * something important in math ( like proves Poincar     conjecture ) , THEN let us know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply because it's a struggle for power.When a woman *discovers* something important in math (like proves PoincarÃ© conjecture), THEN let us know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189031</id>
	<title>Not trolling.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a (male) high school student who has taken many advanced math/physics/programming classes, I must say bluntly that not only are the gender ratios very skewed in these classes, but the male students are the brightest. I'll go one step further. The asian students (I'm white) are consistently smarter than the white students. Now I don't know what amount of this is coincidence of my limited sample size, but I have very definitely noticed this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a ( male ) high school student who has taken many advanced math/physics/programming classes , I must say bluntly that not only are the gender ratios very skewed in these classes , but the male students are the brightest .
I 'll go one step further .
The asian students ( I 'm white ) are consistently smarter than the white students .
Now I do n't know what amount of this is coincidence of my limited sample size , but I have very definitely noticed this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a (male) high school student who has taken many advanced math/physics/programming classes, I must say bluntly that not only are the gender ratios very skewed in these classes, but the male students are the brightest.
I'll go one step further.
The asian students (I'm white) are consistently smarter than the white students.
Now I don't know what amount of this is coincidence of my limited sample size, but I have very definitely noticed this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186481</id>
	<title>Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only correlation between math and sex that I can see: I don't get either of them</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only correlation between math and sex that I can see : I do n't get either of them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only correlation between math and sex that I can see: I don't get either of them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188875</id>
	<title>Overheard</title>
	<author>cowtamer</author>
	<datestamp>1243941600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You know why women can't play Chess?  They have small hearts...can't get enough blood to the brain.  That's why Chess is a Young Man's Sport!"</p><p>-- Eccentric Chess Player to a bunch of college freshmen hanging out at the Union.  I was one of the dumbfounded freshmen...</p><p>It's good to know that Math is not in this category<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You know why women ca n't play Chess ?
They have small hearts...ca n't get enough blood to the brain .
That 's why Chess is a Young Man 's Sport !
" -- Eccentric Chess Player to a bunch of college freshmen hanging out at the Union .
I was one of the dumbfounded freshmen...It 's good to know that Math is not in this category : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You know why women can't play Chess?
They have small hearts...can't get enough blood to the brain.
That's why Chess is a Young Man's Sport!
"-- Eccentric Chess Player to a bunch of college freshmen hanging out at the Union.
I was one of the dumbfounded freshmen...It's good to know that Math is not in this category :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186413</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...genders are equal. A real interesting comparison would be percentag of black mathematicians. I mean, how many black mathematicians are there? Probably like two, and they're half white. Just sayin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...genders are equal .
A real interesting comparison would be percentag of black mathematicians .
I mean , how many black mathematicians are there ?
Probably like two , and they 're half white .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...genders are equal.
A real interesting comparison would be percentag of black mathematicians.
I mean, how many black mathematicians are there?
Probably like two, and they're half white.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186737</id>
	<title>If women don't know math..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If women don't know math they might fuck up recipes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If women do n't know math they might fuck up recipes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If women don't know math they might fuck up recipes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28206827</id>
	<title>What about driving?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244109180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, if there is a study on this I wonder if there is a study to compare driving between the genders</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if there is a study on this I wonder if there is a study to compare driving between the genders</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if there is a study on this I wonder if there is a study to compare driving between the genders</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192433</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>univalue</author>
	<datestamp>1243970700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes women need to compete on equal grounds.  The question is are women competing on equal grounds?  Society for the most part has been saying that women can not do as well as men in math.  So I would say we are not on equal footing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes women need to compete on equal grounds .
The question is are women competing on equal grounds ?
Society for the most part has been saying that women can not do as well as men in math .
So I would say we are not on equal footing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes women need to compete on equal grounds.
The question is are women competing on equal grounds?
Society for the most part has been saying that women can not do as well as men in math.
So I would say we are not on equal footing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187449</id>
	<title>Stop checking genitals</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1243935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to mathematical and scientific ability, I really don't care about someone's genitals. Stop checking. If a woman shows ability there should be no additional road blocks compared to a man who shows ability. There should be no affirmative action either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to mathematical and scientific ability , I really do n't care about someone 's genitals .
Stop checking .
If a woman shows ability there should be no additional road blocks compared to a man who shows ability .
There should be no affirmative action either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to mathematical and scientific ability, I really don't care about someone's genitals.
Stop checking.
If a woman shows ability there should be no additional road blocks compared to a man who shows ability.
There should be no affirmative action either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186813</id>
	<title>pshhh!</title>
	<author>ilblissli</author>
	<datestamp>1243976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if women were able to grasp basic mathematical skills my wife would know how to balance a freaking checkbook and understand why she can't buy a 300 dollar pair of shoes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if women were able to grasp basic mathematical skills my wife would know how to balance a freaking checkbook and understand why she ca n't buy a 300 dollar pair of shoes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if women were able to grasp basic mathematical skills my wife would know how to balance a freaking checkbook and understand why she can't buy a 300 dollar pair of shoes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187991</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now when I was in college... in Math the top 3 students were the top 3 best looking girls. They cruised 3rd year Math at a casual 90\% plus level, where the rest of us mere mortals were smashing our heads on the walls to get up to a passing grade.</p><p>Now over in the CS class, the couple of nice girls did fine on theory, but really battled in the lab. They guys generally did Ok on both theory and lab, or were useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now when I was in college... in Math the top 3 students were the top 3 best looking girls .
They cruised 3rd year Math at a casual 90 \ % plus level , where the rest of us mere mortals were smashing our heads on the walls to get up to a passing grade.Now over in the CS class , the couple of nice girls did fine on theory , but really battled in the lab .
They guys generally did Ok on both theory and lab , or were useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now when I was in college... in Math the top 3 students were the top 3 best looking girls.
They cruised 3rd year Math at a casual 90\% plus level, where the rest of us mere mortals were smashing our heads on the walls to get up to a passing grade.Now over in the CS class, the couple of nice girls did fine on theory, but really battled in the lab.
They guys generally did Ok on both theory and lab, or were useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188915</id>
	<title>Re:Windows of opportunity to learn</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1243941840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>By the time you are 20, your brain has gone through several "windows of opportunity" which are the best time to learn specific skills. For example, the window of opportunity for foreign languages for most people is in preschool.</i></p><p>Research is showing that such effects may be much smaller than previously thought.  Language for example.  If a thirty year old is immersed in a new language and spends as much time practicing it as a preschooler, he or she will usually pick it up at a similar rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time you are 20 , your brain has gone through several " windows of opportunity " which are the best time to learn specific skills .
For example , the window of opportunity for foreign languages for most people is in preschool.Research is showing that such effects may be much smaller than previously thought .
Language for example .
If a thirty year old is immersed in a new language and spends as much time practicing it as a preschooler , he or she will usually pick it up at a similar rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time you are 20, your brain has gone through several "windows of opportunity" which are the best time to learn specific skills.
For example, the window of opportunity for foreign languages for most people is in preschool.Research is showing that such effects may be much smaller than previously thought.
Language for example.
If a thirty year old is immersed in a new language and spends as much time practicing it as a preschooler, he or she will usually pick it up at a similar rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189453</id>
	<title>Nope no bias here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243944720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a mathematician] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.  You know what I look for most in a mathematician?  Empathy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [ as a mathematician ] than a white male who has n't lived that life .
You know what I look for most in a mathematician ?
Empathy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a mathematician] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
You know what I look for most in a mathematician?
Empathy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188385</id>
	<title>A myth ?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1243939380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How come a 70/30 ratio makes this gap a myth ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How come a 70/30 ratio makes this gap a myth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come a 70/30 ratio makes this gap a myth ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187521</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1243935900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Women are still generally paid less in business, don't rise as high"</p><p>The problem I notice is a lot of women are still happy to be the ones playing role of parent and so expect to be able to finish early to pick up the kids, drop out of work at the drop of a hat to pick up a sick kid and that sort of thing. The reality is that a lot of families need a parent around and can't afford childcare, and their employers can't provide it and so one of them has to take that role, if females are choosing that role they can't simultaneously expect businesses to treat them equally to the males who aren't playing that parental role and so can concentrate more on the needs of their employer. I have met some women who feel they are entitled to do as well as the men who come in at 7:30am and work until 5:30pm when they role in at 9am having dropped the kids at school and have to leave at 3pm to pick them up, that simply can't be treated as equality as it's really not. That's not to say some businesses can't perhaps allow more flexible working to make the balance fairer of course, so employers still aren't all totally without blame but not every company really can do more.</p><p>"I don't see a lot of Women doctors (esp. if you discount paediatrics and OBGYNs)."</p><p>That's interesting, in the UK I'd say the amount of doctors female and male is quite balanced from personal experience although maybe the stats say differently? Which country's healthcare system are you referring to, the US?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Women are still generally paid less in business , do n't rise as high " The problem I notice is a lot of women are still happy to be the ones playing role of parent and so expect to be able to finish early to pick up the kids , drop out of work at the drop of a hat to pick up a sick kid and that sort of thing .
The reality is that a lot of families need a parent around and ca n't afford childcare , and their employers ca n't provide it and so one of them has to take that role , if females are choosing that role they ca n't simultaneously expect businesses to treat them equally to the males who are n't playing that parental role and so can concentrate more on the needs of their employer .
I have met some women who feel they are entitled to do as well as the men who come in at 7 : 30am and work until 5 : 30pm when they role in at 9am having dropped the kids at school and have to leave at 3pm to pick them up , that simply ca n't be treated as equality as it 's really not .
That 's not to say some businesses ca n't perhaps allow more flexible working to make the balance fairer of course , so employers still are n't all totally without blame but not every company really can do more .
" I do n't see a lot of Women doctors ( esp .
if you discount paediatrics and OBGYNs ) .
" That 's interesting , in the UK I 'd say the amount of doctors female and male is quite balanced from personal experience although maybe the stats say differently ?
Which country 's healthcare system are you referring to , the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Women are still generally paid less in business, don't rise as high"The problem I notice is a lot of women are still happy to be the ones playing role of parent and so expect to be able to finish early to pick up the kids, drop out of work at the drop of a hat to pick up a sick kid and that sort of thing.
The reality is that a lot of families need a parent around and can't afford childcare, and their employers can't provide it and so one of them has to take that role, if females are choosing that role they can't simultaneously expect businesses to treat them equally to the males who aren't playing that parental role and so can concentrate more on the needs of their employer.
I have met some women who feel they are entitled to do as well as the men who come in at 7:30am and work until 5:30pm when they role in at 9am having dropped the kids at school and have to leave at 3pm to pick them up, that simply can't be treated as equality as it's really not.
That's not to say some businesses can't perhaps allow more flexible working to make the balance fairer of course, so employers still aren't all totally without blame but not every company really can do more.
"I don't see a lot of Women doctors (esp.
if you discount paediatrics and OBGYNs).
"That's interesting, in the UK I'd say the amount of doctors female and male is quite balanced from personal experience although maybe the stats say differently?
Which country's healthcare system are you referring to, the US?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192969</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is so True.</p><p>In mi country, Chile, it is stated for government scholarships basis that a woman is selected if competing with a man who has the same total evaluation score.</p><p>Besides, there are also a couple of scholarships only for women. Of course, it would be considered a horrible display of sexism if someone created a men-only scholarship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is so True.In mi country , Chile , it is stated for government scholarships basis that a woman is selected if competing with a man who has the same total evaluation score.Besides , there are also a couple of scholarships only for women .
Of course , it would be considered a horrible display of sexism if someone created a men-only scholarship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is so True.In mi country, Chile, it is stated for government scholarships basis that a woman is selected if competing with a man who has the same total evaluation score.Besides, there are also a couple of scholarships only for women.
Of course, it would be considered a horrible display of sexism if someone created a men-only scholarship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193037</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>BetterThanCaesar</author>
	<datestamp>1244021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously your gender will depend on which math problems you're confronted with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously your gender will depend on which math problems you 're confronted with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously your gender will depend on which math problems you're confronted with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28244917</id>
	<title>bias is against men</title>
	<author>Teriblows</author>
	<datestamp>1244375400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
more proof the bias in education is against men.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/education/8085011.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/education/8085011.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]
Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of UK university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>more proof the bias in education is against men .
http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk \ _news/education/8085011.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of UK university achievement , according to a report from higher education researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
more proof the bias in education is against men.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/education/8085011.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of UK university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187139</id>
	<title>Still amazed at the choices in the US high schools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still amazed that you can CHOOSE to opt out of high school calculus. I live in the US now and I know some youngsters that chose to minimize mathematics in their school schedule and then they wonder why they are stuck at pre-calc in 10th grade. Where I went to school in Europe, the girls or anyone didn't really have the choice. It was 8 hours of mathematics a week portioned between statistics (1h), geometry (1h), calculus (3h) and algebra (2h) and sometimes statistics was interchanged with small episodes of chaos theory or applied mathematics or whatever was necessary for a particular group.</p><p>I believe that the US schooling system needs a complete overhaul in order to create a better knowledge economy. First thing to do is add at least 1h per day to the school day. I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoon even if they have to travel 2 hours because they're in an intercity exchange program. I remember being at school until at least 4pm and then you had to do homework and study for the next day too and if you were going to a specific specialty (eg. art, electronics, sports), traveling could also take 1 or 2 hours. The second thing to do is reduce sports activities during school hours to a maximum of 4 hours per week and fill those voids with science, mathematics and art. And for all those living in rural areas it would be interesting to expand electronic schooling so they only have to go to physical building two or three times a week (hybrid of home schooling and standard schooling). Those times should be devoted to a short overview, lab time and testing to make sure nobody is slacking at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still amazed that you can CHOOSE to opt out of high school calculus .
I live in the US now and I know some youngsters that chose to minimize mathematics in their school schedule and then they wonder why they are stuck at pre-calc in 10th grade .
Where I went to school in Europe , the girls or anyone did n't really have the choice .
It was 8 hours of mathematics a week portioned between statistics ( 1h ) , geometry ( 1h ) , calculus ( 3h ) and algebra ( 2h ) and sometimes statistics was interchanged with small episodes of chaos theory or applied mathematics or whatever was necessary for a particular group.I believe that the US schooling system needs a complete overhaul in order to create a better knowledge economy .
First thing to do is add at least 1h per day to the school day .
I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoon even if they have to travel 2 hours because they 're in an intercity exchange program .
I remember being at school until at least 4pm and then you had to do homework and study for the next day too and if you were going to a specific specialty ( eg .
art , electronics , sports ) , traveling could also take 1 or 2 hours .
The second thing to do is reduce sports activities during school hours to a maximum of 4 hours per week and fill those voids with science , mathematics and art .
And for all those living in rural areas it would be interesting to expand electronic schooling so they only have to go to physical building two or three times a week ( hybrid of home schooling and standard schooling ) .
Those times should be devoted to a short overview , lab time and testing to make sure nobody is slacking at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still amazed that you can CHOOSE to opt out of high school calculus.
I live in the US now and I know some youngsters that chose to minimize mathematics in their school schedule and then they wonder why they are stuck at pre-calc in 10th grade.
Where I went to school in Europe, the girls or anyone didn't really have the choice.
It was 8 hours of mathematics a week portioned between statistics (1h), geometry (1h), calculus (3h) and algebra (2h) and sometimes statistics was interchanged with small episodes of chaos theory or applied mathematics or whatever was necessary for a particular group.I believe that the US schooling system needs a complete overhaul in order to create a better knowledge economy.
First thing to do is add at least 1h per day to the school day.
I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoon even if they have to travel 2 hours because they're in an intercity exchange program.
I remember being at school until at least 4pm and then you had to do homework and study for the next day too and if you were going to a specific specialty (eg.
art, electronics, sports), traveling could also take 1 or 2 hours.
The second thing to do is reduce sports activities during school hours to a maximum of 4 hours per week and fill those voids with science, mathematics and art.
And for all those living in rural areas it would be interesting to expand electronic schooling so they only have to go to physical building two or three times a week (hybrid of home schooling and standard schooling).
Those times should be devoted to a short overview, lab time and testing to make sure nobody is slacking at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191801</id>
	<title>Re:There is and always will be differences.</title>
	<author>jyx</author>
	<datestamp>1243963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair enough, but you should probably include some links to a few of these 'millions' of well conducted experiments. Ill settle for 100.</p><p>To be frank, millions of posts with 'quoted words' and CAPITALS making UN-substantIATED claims ending up being 110\% WRONG have made me cautious of taking such posts seriously at all.</p><p>In my own experiences, men are just a mentally differently-abled to other men as they are to women. There are plenty of gender based differences, but I don't think 'being good at [insert mental discipline here]' is one of them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough , but you should probably include some links to a few of these 'millions ' of well conducted experiments .
Ill settle for 100.To be frank , millions of posts with 'quoted words ' and CAPITALS making UN-substantIATED claims ending up being 110 \ % WRONG have made me cautious of taking such posts seriously at all.In my own experiences , men are just a mentally differently-abled to other men as they are to women .
There are plenty of gender based differences , but I do n't think 'being good at [ insert mental discipline here ] ' is one of them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough, but you should probably include some links to a few of these 'millions' of well conducted experiments.
Ill settle for 100.To be frank, millions of posts with 'quoted words' and CAPITALS making UN-substantIATED claims ending up being 110\% WRONG have made me cautious of taking such posts seriously at all.In my own experiences, men are just a mentally differently-abled to other men as they are to women.
There are plenty of gender based differences, but I don't think 'being good at [insert mental discipline here]' is one of them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28200741</id>
	<title>Why!?!?!</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244021700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? Why would anyone think that the abilities to do math are gender related? <br>
Biology plays this little trick om women, it's called giving birth. The only innate thing, that is 100\%, is the maternal instinct that will definitely leave a woman out of a chance to pursue a degree, in a not so easy field as mathematics.<br>
The last 50 years have brought more possibilities to women to have baby(-ies) and pursue an academic career.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why would anyone think that the abilities to do math are gender related ?
Biology plays this little trick om women , it 's called giving birth .
The only innate thing , that is 100 \ % , is the maternal instinct that will definitely leave a woman out of a chance to pursue a degree , in a not so easy field as mathematics .
The last 50 years have brought more possibilities to women to have baby ( -ies ) and pursue an academic career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why would anyone think that the abilities to do math are gender related?
Biology plays this little trick om women, it's called giving birth.
The only innate thing, that is 100\%, is the maternal instinct that will definitely leave a woman out of a chance to pursue a degree, in a not so easy field as mathematics.
The last 50 years have brought more possibilities to women to have baby(-ies) and pursue an academic career.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190011</id>
	<title>Re:Media propoganda</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1243948140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.</p></div><p>How about we just correct the general anti-intellectualism among both sexes instead?  Guys thinking they can get ahead in football or a musical career is essentially the same thing as girls thinking they can get ahead on "a cute ass": banking on one's personal sex-appeal to make it through life.  The fact that girls express personal sex appeal through physical appearance and men express it through socially-arranged skill performances only belies the central fact of too many people attempting to make a living off their appeal as mates instead of by contributing to society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My gripe about all this , is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.How about we just correct the general anti-intellectualism among both sexes instead ?
Guys thinking they can get ahead in football or a musical career is essentially the same thing as girls thinking they can get ahead on " a cute ass " : banking on one 's personal sex-appeal to make it through life .
The fact that girls express personal sex appeal through physical appearance and men express it through socially-arranged skill performances only belies the central fact of too many people attempting to make a living off their appeal as mates instead of by contributing to society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life.How about we just correct the general anti-intellectualism among both sexes instead?
Guys thinking they can get ahead in football or a musical career is essentially the same thing as girls thinking they can get ahead on "a cute ass": banking on one's personal sex-appeal to make it through life.
The fact that girls express personal sex appeal through physical appearance and men express it through socially-arranged skill performances only belies the central fact of too many people attempting to make a living off their appeal as mates instead of by contributing to society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190357</id>
	<title>Pregnancy Statistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243950600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100\% of pregnancies are going to women, 0\% to men.<br>Scientists confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % of pregnancies are going to women , 0 \ % to men.Scientists confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% of pregnancies are going to women, 0\% to men.Scientists confused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188495</id>
	<title>What about Physics?</title>
	<author>ianto</author>
	<datestamp>1243939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm girls taking maths?  Now lets just extend maths into physics for the moment. In my college there are just 2 girls in my class out of 20 and about 6 girls in the entire year of physics. Strange huh? Surely there's a correlation between maths &amp; physics?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm girls taking maths ?
Now lets just extend maths into physics for the moment .
In my college there are just 2 girls in my class out of 20 and about 6 girls in the entire year of physics .
Strange huh ?
Surely there 's a correlation between maths &amp; physics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm girls taking maths?
Now lets just extend maths into physics for the moment.
In my college there are just 2 girls in my class out of 20 and about 6 girls in the entire year of physics.
Strange huh?
Surely there's a correlation between maths &amp; physics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187627</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243936380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>70\% of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30\% go to women.</i> All this tells us is that having a PhD may help you get laid, but if you have nice tits, then you don't need a PhD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>70 \ % of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30 \ % go to women .
All this tells us is that having a PhD may help you get laid , but if you have nice tits , then you do n't need a PhD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>70\% of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30\% go to women.
All this tells us is that having a PhD may help you get laid, but if you have nice tits, then you don't need a PhD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</id>
	<title>CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we close that gap in CS now.</p><p>Im so lonely<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we close that gap in CS now.Im so lonely : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we close that gap in CS now.Im so lonely :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186751</id>
	<title>sociology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be sociological in nature, but that does not mean that it is due to bigotry of white straight males.. I know, maybe women dont LIKE math as much, statistically speaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be sociological in nature , but that does not mean that it is due to bigotry of white straight males.. I know , maybe women dont LIKE math as much , statistically speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be sociological in nature, but that does not mean that it is due to bigotry of white straight males.. I know, maybe women dont LIKE math as much, statistically speaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188867</id>
	<title>Re:The article is confused</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; No one credible claims that females have less ability to learn mathematics or crunch numbers in most cases</p><p>Whether you like to accept it or not, women and men are psychobiologically different. Meaning, there are observable, quantifiable and consistent physical differences in the brain and its chemistry based solely on gender.</p><p>As a result, women consistently perform worse at spatial-based tasks than men. Women consistently perform better at communications-based tasks than men. There are millions of well-conducted experiments and studies that re-prove the existence of these and other gender-based differences over and over again.</p><p>It frustrates the hell out of me that the loony 'Politically Correct' regime is so enforced on us and continues to deny any innate gender difference even in the face of hard evidence.<br>Most 'normal' people now feel they can't even openly raise the possibility, much less the FACT that we actually are mentally differently-abled BECAUSE of gender.</p><p>Society as a whole will not properly develop until we accept the existence of gender-based ability differences, including mental, as a fact and move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; No one credible claims that females have less ability to learn mathematics or crunch numbers in most casesWhether you like to accept it or not , women and men are psychobiologically different .
Meaning , there are observable , quantifiable and consistent physical differences in the brain and its chemistry based solely on gender.As a result , women consistently perform worse at spatial-based tasks than men .
Women consistently perform better at communications-based tasks than men .
There are millions of well-conducted experiments and studies that re-prove the existence of these and other gender-based differences over and over again.It frustrates the hell out of me that the loony 'Politically Correct ' regime is so enforced on us and continues to deny any innate gender difference even in the face of hard evidence.Most 'normal ' people now feel they ca n't even openly raise the possibility , much less the FACT that we actually are mentally differently-abled BECAUSE of gender.Society as a whole will not properly develop until we accept the existence of gender-based ability differences , including mental , as a fact and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; No one credible claims that females have less ability to learn mathematics or crunch numbers in most casesWhether you like to accept it or not, women and men are psychobiologically different.
Meaning, there are observable, quantifiable and consistent physical differences in the brain and its chemistry based solely on gender.As a result, women consistently perform worse at spatial-based tasks than men.
Women consistently perform better at communications-based tasks than men.
There are millions of well-conducted experiments and studies that re-prove the existence of these and other gender-based differences over and over again.It frustrates the hell out of me that the loony 'Politically Correct' regime is so enforced on us and continues to deny any innate gender difference even in the face of hard evidence.Most 'normal' people now feel they can't even openly raise the possibility, much less the FACT that we actually are mentally differently-abled BECAUSE of gender.Society as a whole will not properly develop until we accept the existence of gender-based ability differences, including mental, as a fact and move on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189657</id>
	<title>Re:Draft women?</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1243945920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet I've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service.</p></div><p>Why would they?  A feminist is someone who strives for the betterment of women and signing up for the draft doesn't appear to fall into that category.  What you search for is the equalicist.  They're terribly few and far between but if you ever see one confront a feminist it's well worth the watch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet I 've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service.Why would they ?
A feminist is someone who strives for the betterment of women and signing up for the draft does n't appear to fall into that category .
What you search for is the equalicist .
They 're terribly few and far between but if you ever see one confront a feminist it 's well worth the watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet I've NEVER heard a single self-described feminist clambering for the right to be drafted into military service.Why would they?
A feminist is someone who strives for the betterment of women and signing up for the draft doesn't appear to fall into that category.
What you search for is the equalicist.
They're terribly few and far between but if you ever see one confront a feminist it's well worth the watch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188775</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243941120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Realistically, situations like this I do not believe are massively uncommon. Some females argue that using their sex to get further in the workplace is fair game, but I do not see how this can be true when it puts males at a real inherent disadvantage - even if there were more female managers in the workplace for males to flirt with in reverse the reality is that males are far more receptive to flirting than females most the time.</p><p>But wouldn't you agree that there are also 'male bonding' activities that women are not usually a part of? Is it an unfair advantage when men can talk about 'manly' things to one another? It can be tricky for women to become 'one of the guys' (if they even want to).</p><p>&gt; Females then have to accept that if they truly want to see equality that they must refrain from this kind of view of things, they cannot on one had suggest they are treated unfairly in a bad way, then on the other take advantage of their sex to get treated unfairly but in their favour.</p><p>Whiiiiine more. It's not like she slept her way to the top or something like that! People are different. Some people are funny/pretty/intelligent/charismatic, those are all 'unfair' advantages too. Besides, I doubt most women would have to actively 'use' their sex to get treated differently.  I guess in a truly 'fair' system we'd have no knowledge of our coworkers age, sex and race, and exchange no personal information at all. Hardly a place most people would want to work tho.</p><p>Still, it's a shame that situations as the one you described happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Realistically , situations like this I do not believe are massively uncommon .
Some females argue that using their sex to get further in the workplace is fair game , but I do not see how this can be true when it puts males at a real inherent disadvantage - even if there were more female managers in the workplace for males to flirt with in reverse the reality is that males are far more receptive to flirting than females most the time.But would n't you agree that there are also 'male bonding ' activities that women are not usually a part of ?
Is it an unfair advantage when men can talk about 'manly ' things to one another ?
It can be tricky for women to become 'one of the guys ' ( if they even want to ) . &gt; Females then have to accept that if they truly want to see equality that they must refrain from this kind of view of things , they can not on one had suggest they are treated unfairly in a bad way , then on the other take advantage of their sex to get treated unfairly but in their favour.Whiiiiine more .
It 's not like she slept her way to the top or something like that !
People are different .
Some people are funny/pretty/intelligent/charismatic , those are all 'unfair ' advantages too .
Besides , I doubt most women would have to actively 'use ' their sex to get treated differently .
I guess in a truly 'fair ' system we 'd have no knowledge of our coworkers age , sex and race , and exchange no personal information at all .
Hardly a place most people would want to work tho.Still , it 's a shame that situations as the one you described happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Realistically, situations like this I do not believe are massively uncommon.
Some females argue that using their sex to get further in the workplace is fair game, but I do not see how this can be true when it puts males at a real inherent disadvantage - even if there were more female managers in the workplace for males to flirt with in reverse the reality is that males are far more receptive to flirting than females most the time.But wouldn't you agree that there are also 'male bonding' activities that women are not usually a part of?
Is it an unfair advantage when men can talk about 'manly' things to one another?
It can be tricky for women to become 'one of the guys' (if they even want to).&gt; Females then have to accept that if they truly want to see equality that they must refrain from this kind of view of things, they cannot on one had suggest they are treated unfairly in a bad way, then on the other take advantage of their sex to get treated unfairly but in their favour.Whiiiiine more.
It's not like she slept her way to the top or something like that!
People are different.
Some people are funny/pretty/intelligent/charismatic, those are all 'unfair' advantages too.
Besides, I doubt most women would have to actively 'use' their sex to get treated differently.
I guess in a truly 'fair' system we'd have no knowledge of our coworkers age, sex and race, and exchange no personal information at all.
Hardly a place most people would want to work tho.Still, it's a shame that situations as the one you described happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190367</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Tacticus.v1</author>
	<datestamp>1243950600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep<br>Most people don't want to pay tax and think that teachers earning SFA are already over paid<br>when someone working a checkout is earning the same as a first year teacher why would you be a teacher?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YepMost people do n't want to pay tax and think that teachers earning SFA are already over paidwhen someone working a checkout is earning the same as a first year teacher why would you be a teacher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YepMost people don't want to pay tax and think that teachers earning SFA are already over paidwhen someone working a checkout is earning the same as a first year teacher why would you be a teacher?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190275</id>
	<title>Re:Media propoganda</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1243950000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends where you are and it looks as if it's entirely cultural and driven by peer pressure.  In Australia now there is a bit of worry about the balance going the other way - maths is seen as "girly" and boys on average are not doing as well as they should.<br>Over the last twenty years there were some very successful efforts to get girls interested in maths which moved the proportion of girls in high school advanced maths classes from around 1 in 15 when I went to school to greater than 50\% now.  I don't know what it was but it certainly wasn't scholarships at a high school level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends where you are and it looks as if it 's entirely cultural and driven by peer pressure .
In Australia now there is a bit of worry about the balance going the other way - maths is seen as " girly " and boys on average are not doing as well as they should.Over the last twenty years there were some very successful efforts to get girls interested in maths which moved the proportion of girls in high school advanced maths classes from around 1 in 15 when I went to school to greater than 50 \ % now .
I do n't know what it was but it certainly was n't scholarships at a high school level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends where you are and it looks as if it's entirely cultural and driven by peer pressure.
In Australia now there is a bit of worry about the balance going the other way - maths is seen as "girly" and boys on average are not doing as well as they should.Over the last twenty years there were some very successful efforts to get girls interested in maths which moved the proportion of girls in high school advanced maths classes from around 1 in 15 when I went to school to greater than 50\% now.
I don't know what it was but it certainly wasn't scholarships at a high school level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187691</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243936560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boys are better at manipulating physical objects, while girls are better at manipulating other people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boys are better at manipulating physical objects , while girls are better at manipulating other people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boys are better at manipulating physical objects, while girls are better at manipulating other people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188547</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"We have a statistic, 70\% of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30\% go to women."
</p><p>
Up to? When 70\% go to men and less than 30\% go to women, who (what?) get the rest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have a statistic , 70 \ % of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30 \ % go to women .
" Up to ?
When 70 \ % go to men and less than 30 \ % go to women , who ( what ?
) get the rest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"We have a statistic, 70\% of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30\% go to women.
"

Up to?
When 70\% go to men and less than 30\% go to women, who (what?
) get the rest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785</id>
	<title>the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In most fields with a gender disparity in <em>either</em> direction, the minority sex is generally, under any reasonable attempt to measure inherent "ability", just as able to do it. The real gaps seem to be in interest: fewer men than women wish to enter psychology as a field, and fewer women than men wish to enter mathematics as a field, to take two examples. Why is <em>that</em>? It's not entirely clear, but it starts pretty early. For example, boys are much more likely than girls to play ad-hoc games that involve numbers and math, even at ages where girls tend to do better in school. Boys are also much more likely to build electronics or program computers as a hobby. Probably much of this is cultural, but that's where the real disparity lies, and you're never going to get parity unless you figure out how to change <em>interest</em>.</p><p>On the other hand, changing interest is always tricky, because you run the risk of trying to tell people they ought to be interested in something they really don't seem to be interested in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most fields with a gender disparity in either direction , the minority sex is generally , under any reasonable attempt to measure inherent " ability " , just as able to do it .
The real gaps seem to be in interest : fewer men than women wish to enter psychology as a field , and fewer women than men wish to enter mathematics as a field , to take two examples .
Why is that ?
It 's not entirely clear , but it starts pretty early .
For example , boys are much more likely than girls to play ad-hoc games that involve numbers and math , even at ages where girls tend to do better in school .
Boys are also much more likely to build electronics or program computers as a hobby .
Probably much of this is cultural , but that 's where the real disparity lies , and you 're never going to get parity unless you figure out how to change interest.On the other hand , changing interest is always tricky , because you run the risk of trying to tell people they ought to be interested in something they really do n't seem to be interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most fields with a gender disparity in either direction, the minority sex is generally, under any reasonable attempt to measure inherent "ability", just as able to do it.
The real gaps seem to be in interest: fewer men than women wish to enter psychology as a field, and fewer women than men wish to enter mathematics as a field, to take two examples.
Why is that?
It's not entirely clear, but it starts pretty early.
For example, boys are much more likely than girls to play ad-hoc games that involve numbers and math, even at ages where girls tend to do better in school.
Boys are also much more likely to build electronics or program computers as a hobby.
Probably much of this is cultural, but that's where the real disparity lies, and you're never going to get parity unless you figure out how to change interest.On the other hand, changing interest is always tricky, because you run the risk of trying to tell people they ought to be interested in something they really don't seem to be interested in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189823</id>
	<title>There's no such thing as innate ability.</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1243947000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People seem to assume that what is happening is that previously, cultural norms dictated gender inequality when there was no biological basis, and now that those norms have changed, biological equality is restored. Couldn't it be the other way around? I.e. that there is a biological inequality, that is being altered by cultural factors to produce equality?</p></div></blockquote><p>But the simple problem here is that <b>everybody grows up in a culture</b>, and that this throws the whole concept of "biological ability" out the window.  There is no way to establish a baseline level of purely biological ability; all you can do is measure relative differences in the end-results of different cultures.

</p><p>If you have Culture A with equal outcome, and Culture B with unequal outcome, there is simply no way of deciding that one of these outcomes is "more natural" than the other without making some value judgement about the cultures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to assume that what is happening is that previously , cultural norms dictated gender inequality when there was no biological basis , and now that those norms have changed , biological equality is restored .
Could n't it be the other way around ?
I.e. that there is a biological inequality , that is being altered by cultural factors to produce equality ? But the simple problem here is that everybody grows up in a culture , and that this throws the whole concept of " biological ability " out the window .
There is no way to establish a baseline level of purely biological ability ; all you can do is measure relative differences in the end-results of different cultures .
If you have Culture A with equal outcome , and Culture B with unequal outcome , there is simply no way of deciding that one of these outcomes is " more natural " than the other without making some value judgement about the cultures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to assume that what is happening is that previously, cultural norms dictated gender inequality when there was no biological basis, and now that those norms have changed, biological equality is restored.
Couldn't it be the other way around?
I.e. that there is a biological inequality, that is being altered by cultural factors to produce equality?But the simple problem here is that everybody grows up in a culture, and that this throws the whole concept of "biological ability" out the window.
There is no way to establish a baseline level of purely biological ability; all you can do is measure relative differences in the end-results of different cultures.
If you have Culture A with equal outcome, and Culture B with unequal outcome, there is simply no way of deciding that one of these outcomes is "more natural" than the other without making some value judgement about the cultures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Nevyn</author>
	<datestamp>1243976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination. And every single time, as the residual sexism fades, the third claim is shown to be false as well. Business, politics, medicine: it's a familiar pattern. Now math is next on the list.</p></div>
</blockquote><p> While I personally agree with your overall point, that the gender divide is mostly a social problem, I don't think the above is proven yet.</p><p> We aren't anywhere close to 50\% women in politics (and when Hilary was running, her gender seemed to be a much bigger issue for "was she qualified" than being non-white was for Obama).
</p><p> Women are still generally paid less in business, don't rise as high and I don't see a lot of Women doctors (esp. if you discount paediatrics and OBGYNs).
</p><p> Also IMO there seem to still be a huge number of women who think having a child is a huge achievement. So in general I think you are being a bit optimistic about the current state of the world<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when the second claim is disproven , that maybe a few women can , but a majority lack the ability or the inclination .
And every single time , as the residual sexism fades , the third claim is shown to be false as well .
Business , politics , medicine : it 's a familiar pattern .
Now math is next on the list .
While I personally agree with your overall point , that the gender divide is mostly a social problem , I do n't think the above is proven yet .
We are n't anywhere close to 50 \ % women in politics ( and when Hilary was running , her gender seemed to be a much bigger issue for " was she qualified " than being non-white was for Obama ) .
Women are still generally paid less in business , do n't rise as high and I do n't see a lot of Women doctors ( esp .
if you discount paediatrics and OBGYNs ) .
Also IMO there seem to still be a huge number of women who think having a child is a huge achievement .
So in general I think you are being a bit optimistic about the current state of the world : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination.
And every single time, as the residual sexism fades, the third claim is shown to be false as well.
Business, politics, medicine: it's a familiar pattern.
Now math is next on the list.
While I personally agree with your overall point, that the gender divide is mostly a social problem, I don't think the above is proven yet.
We aren't anywhere close to 50\% women in politics (and when Hilary was running, her gender seemed to be a much bigger issue for "was she qualified" than being non-white was for Obama).
Women are still generally paid less in business, don't rise as high and I don't see a lot of Women doctors (esp.
if you discount paediatrics and OBGYNs).
Also IMO there seem to still be a huge number of women who think having a child is a huge achievement.
So in general I think you are being a bit optimistic about the current state of the world :).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193801</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244032200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least they speak the same language<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... C, C++, Java, Lisp<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they speak the same language ... C , C + + , Java , Lisp .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they speak the same language ... C, C++, Java, Lisp ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187221</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree,</p><p>At my University, there were a bunch of scholarships/bursaries for Engineering. As a male you needed an 85 average, as a female you only needed a 70, which was pretty much required to stay in Engineering at all.</p><p>I'm all for allowing women to study in whatever field they want, but they should have to meet the same requirements as the rest of us for these sorts of things. If you are exceptional in your knowledge area you get a bonus. If you're a women and you're mediocre at it you still get the bonus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree,At my University , there were a bunch of scholarships/bursaries for Engineering .
As a male you needed an 85 average , as a female you only needed a 70 , which was pretty much required to stay in Engineering at all.I 'm all for allowing women to study in whatever field they want , but they should have to meet the same requirements as the rest of us for these sorts of things .
If you are exceptional in your knowledge area you get a bonus .
If you 're a women and you 're mediocre at it you still get the bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree,At my University, there were a bunch of scholarships/bursaries for Engineering.
As a male you needed an 85 average, as a female you only needed a 70, which was pretty much required to stay in Engineering at all.I'm all for allowing women to study in whatever field they want, but they should have to meet the same requirements as the rest of us for these sorts of things.
If you are exceptional in your knowledge area you get a bonus.
If you're a women and you're mediocre at it you still get the bonus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28204029</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>tez\_h</author>
	<datestamp>1244034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not true.  Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education.  The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher.  And that's a win for everyone.  Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
</p></div><p>
Indeed I suspect there is some outward pressure (socialogically, biologically, what's in the balance?).  But is also there also a greater liability for, at least in terms of the current progression of student vs teacher rights, harassment or sexual assault?
</p><p>
-Tez
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not true .
Specifically , I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education .
The motivation for this is that young boys ( and even teenage boys ) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher .
And that 's a win for everyone .
Unfortunately , teachers are not well-payed , so it 's hard to get people into the field , period , let alone men .
Indeed I suspect there is some outward pressure ( socialogically , biologically , what 's in the balance ? ) .
But is also there also a greater liability for , at least in terms of the current progression of student vs teacher rights , harassment or sexual assault ?
-Tez</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not true.
Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education.
The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher.
And that's a win for everyone.
Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
Indeed I suspect there is some outward pressure (socialogically, biologically, what's in the balance?).
But is also there also a greater liability for, at least in terms of the current progression of student vs teacher rights, harassment or sexual assault?
-Tez

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186713</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But.. but.. correlation is not causation!!! It's impossible to tell if the gender of these researchers had any causal effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But.. but.. correlation is not causation ! ! !
It 's impossible to tell if the gender of these researchers had any causal effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But.. but.. correlation is not causation!!!
It's impossible to tell if the gender of these researchers had any causal effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187231</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1243934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.</p></div></blockquote><p>By which you mean; accept the multitude of barriers and prejudices I and others put against them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If women want to display equality , they need to compete on equal ground.By which you mean ; accept the multitude of barriers and prejudices I and others put against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If women want to display equality, they need to compete on equal ground.By which you mean; accept the multitude of barriers and prejudices I and others put against them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</id>
	<title>Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a statistic, 70\% of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30\% go to women.</p><p>But does this tell us anything about the abilities of both men and women to compete at that level? It might, but it also could be social. Boys are from a very young age encouraged in Maths, Engineering, and Sciences while a lot of girls are encouraged to embrace their social and emotional sides.</p><p>If you look at a Psychology, Social Science, or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them. Just as Maths, and Science often has a disproportionate amount of men.</p><p>PS - Too few women in Maths/Engineering is "broken." Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is "fine."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a statistic , 70 \ % of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30 \ % go to women.But does this tell us anything about the abilities of both men and women to compete at that level ?
It might , but it also could be social .
Boys are from a very young age encouraged in Maths , Engineering , and Sciences while a lot of girls are encouraged to embrace their social and emotional sides.If you look at a Psychology , Social Science , or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them .
Just as Maths , and Science often has a disproportionate amount of men.PS - Too few women in Maths/Engineering is " broken .
" Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is " fine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a statistic, 70\% of PhDs in Mathematics go to men and up to 30\% go to women.But does this tell us anything about the abilities of both men and women to compete at that level?
It might, but it also could be social.
Boys are from a very young age encouraged in Maths, Engineering, and Sciences while a lot of girls are encouraged to embrace their social and emotional sides.If you look at a Psychology, Social Science, or English they have an extremely disproportional amount of women in them.
Just as Maths, and Science often has a disproportionate amount of men.PS - Too few women in Maths/Engineering is "broken.
" Too few men in Social Science/Child Care/Psychology is "fine.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189513</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1243945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).</p></div><p>Let me clarify this with a data point/anecdote.  Here at UMass Amherst, there are a great many scholarships available for Computer Science students.  The small minority that don't <i>require</i> that the applicant have membership in a racial minority or have female sex all explicitly state that they still prefer it.  It's actively frustrating hunting for scholarships as a "white" male, since everyone figures that you must be rich, fat, and happy enough to pay for everything in life all on your lonesome, or at least that you deserve their money much less than someone who happens to speak Spanish natively or lacks a Y-chromosome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women ( not men ) .Let me clarify this with a data point/anecdote .
Here at UMass Amherst , there are a great many scholarships available for Computer Science students .
The small minority that do n't require that the applicant have membership in a racial minority or have female sex all explicitly state that they still prefer it .
It 's actively frustrating hunting for scholarships as a " white " male , since everyone figures that you must be rich , fat , and happy enough to pay for everything in life all on your lonesome , or at least that you deserve their money much less than someone who happens to speak Spanish natively or lacks a Y-chromosome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, my school had all sorts of scholarships available only to women (not men).Let me clarify this with a data point/anecdote.
Here at UMass Amherst, there are a great many scholarships available for Computer Science students.
The small minority that don't require that the applicant have membership in a racial minority or have female sex all explicitly state that they still prefer it.
It's actively frustrating hunting for scholarships as a "white" male, since everyone figures that you must be rich, fat, and happy enough to pay for everything in life all on your lonesome, or at least that you deserve their money much less than someone who happens to speak Spanish natively or lacks a Y-chromosome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437</id>
	<title>And while we're on the subject...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about showcasing the widening gender gap in BA/BS degrees in Western culture?  Women are earning more degrees almost across the board, and yet there is almost no measures being taken to call attention to that disparity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about showcasing the widening gender gap in BA/BS degrees in Western culture ?
Women are earning more degrees almost across the board , and yet there is almost no measures being taken to call attention to that disparity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about showcasing the widening gender gap in BA/BS degrees in Western culture?
Women are earning more degrees almost across the board, and yet there is almost no measures being taken to call attention to that disparity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186539</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>internerdj</author>
	<datestamp>1243974960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is hoping you are a student and not a teacher.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is hoping you are a student and not a teacher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is hoping you are a student and not a teacher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186647</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243975380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not this again.<br>Look, not everyone is sexist and ignorant, it's just that those who aren't don't go around yelling about it; so it seems that way. Sure there are a few assholes who somewhere got the idea that because most females don't get X degree means their not good at X degree, but most reasonably people understand that there's a difference from being good at something and deciding to to get a degree in it.</p><p>The people who try to explain to you that woman and men think differently are not the majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not this again.Look , not everyone is sexist and ignorant , it 's just that those who are n't do n't go around yelling about it ; so it seems that way .
Sure there are a few assholes who somewhere got the idea that because most females do n't get X degree means their not good at X degree , but most reasonably people understand that there 's a difference from being good at something and deciding to to get a degree in it.The people who try to explain to you that woman and men think differently are not the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not this again.Look, not everyone is sexist and ignorant, it's just that those who aren't don't go around yelling about it; so it seems that way.
Sure there are a few assholes who somewhere got the idea that because most females don't get X degree means their not good at X degree, but most reasonably people understand that there's a difference from being good at something and deciding to to get a degree in it.The people who try to explain to you that woman and men think differently are not the majority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187811</id>
	<title>Re:Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course we can't trust them. I've found not one, but two people on the internet that say so. See <a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm/" title="f2s.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm/</a> [f2s.com] and <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/janet-hyde-boys-girls-in-math-not.html/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/janet-hyde-boys-girls-in-math-not.html/</a> [blogspot.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course we ca n't trust them .
I 've found not one , but two people on the internet that say so .
See http : //www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm/ [ f2s.com ] and http : //motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/janet-hyde-boys-girls-in-math-not.html/ [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course we can't trust them.
I've found not one, but two people on the internet that say so.
See http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm/ [f2s.com] and http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/janet-hyde-boys-girls-in-math-not.html/ [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192013</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243965720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience (I worked as regular employee in 4 companies and consulted in many many more), all women who got to the top (think: CIO position, or VP of IT), got there deservedly so. All of them were 'hard-driving', assertive and with keen understanding of both IT and management.</p><p>I also knew quite a few women (my colleagues) who didn't quite "make it" and I could also see why.</p><p>I honestly cannot recall a single situation in which one of them got promoted thanks to some kind of bias. In fact, I would say that to me, it looked as cards were stacked "against them" and their work was usually under more scrutiny.</p><p>And yes, the added disadvantage was that the type behavior that passed as "alpha" and "assertive" with some of my (male) managers, was perceived as "bitchy" with my female colleagues.</p><p>So, don't whine about an unfair treatment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience ( I worked as regular employee in 4 companies and consulted in many many more ) , all women who got to the top ( think : CIO position , or VP of IT ) , got there deservedly so .
All of them were 'hard-driving ' , assertive and with keen understanding of both IT and management.I also knew quite a few women ( my colleagues ) who did n't quite " make it " and I could also see why.I honestly can not recall a single situation in which one of them got promoted thanks to some kind of bias .
In fact , I would say that to me , it looked as cards were stacked " against them " and their work was usually under more scrutiny.And yes , the added disadvantage was that the type behavior that passed as " alpha " and " assertive " with some of my ( male ) managers , was perceived as " bitchy " with my female colleagues.So , do n't whine about an unfair treatment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience (I worked as regular employee in 4 companies and consulted in many many more), all women who got to the top (think: CIO position, or VP of IT), got there deservedly so.
All of them were 'hard-driving', assertive and with keen understanding of both IT and management.I also knew quite a few women (my colleagues) who didn't quite "make it" and I could also see why.I honestly cannot recall a single situation in which one of them got promoted thanks to some kind of bias.
In fact, I would say that to me, it looked as cards were stacked "against them" and their work was usually under more scrutiny.And yes, the added disadvantage was that the type behavior that passed as "alpha" and "assertive" with some of my (male) managers, was perceived as "bitchy" with my female colleagues.So, don't whine about an unfair treatment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187571</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243936140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It had free math tutoring for women (not men).</i> You misunderstand the purpose of this "tutoring"... "Hey, baby, why don't you come over to my place and I'll... <i>tutor</i> you all night long!" You probably think letting ladies into nightclubs for free is an unfair advantage too...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It had free math tutoring for women ( not men ) .
You misunderstand the purpose of this " tutoring " ... " Hey , baby , why do n't you come over to my place and I 'll... tutor you all night long !
" You probably think letting ladies into nightclubs for free is an unfair advantage too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It had free math tutoring for women (not men).
You misunderstand the purpose of this "tutoring"... "Hey, baby, why don't you come over to my place and I'll... tutor you all night long!
" You probably think letting ladies into nightclubs for free is an unfair advantage too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188149</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seriously. have you ever seen a female programmer? usually not a pretty sight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously .
have you ever seen a female programmer ?
usually not a pretty sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously.
have you ever seen a female programmer?
usually not a pretty sight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188041</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1243937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see a lot of Women doctors</p></div><p>You haven't been looking very carefully.  As of two years ago approximately <a href="http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2006/10/02/women\_doctors\_their\_ranks\_growing\_transform\_medicine/" title="boston.com">42\% of internal medicine interns</a> [boston.com] were women.  By next year <a href="http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-03/03-25-03/l02tr026.htm" title="southcoasttoday.com">33\% of doctors are expected to be women</a> [southcoasttoday.com] and that number is rising.  Yes the profession used to be heavily male dominated and still is among older doctors but women overwhelmingly dominate most other areas of medicine and their numbers are rising fast as doctors as well.  My wife happens to be a physician so I see it first hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a lot of Women doctorsYou have n't been looking very carefully .
As of two years ago approximately 42 \ % of internal medicine interns [ boston.com ] were women .
By next year 33 \ % of doctors are expected to be women [ southcoasttoday.com ] and that number is rising .
Yes the profession used to be heavily male dominated and still is among older doctors but women overwhelmingly dominate most other areas of medicine and their numbers are rising fast as doctors as well .
My wife happens to be a physician so I see it first hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a lot of Women doctorsYou haven't been looking very carefully.
As of two years ago approximately 42\% of internal medicine interns [boston.com] were women.
By next year 33\% of doctors are expected to be women [southcoasttoday.com] and that number is rising.
Yes the profession used to be heavily male dominated and still is among older doctors but women overwhelmingly dominate most other areas of medicine and their numbers are rising fast as doctors as well.
My wife happens to be a physician so I see it first hand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239817</id>
	<title>males must be discriminated against in reading/wri</title>
	<author>Teriblows</author>
	<datestamp>1244408280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html" title="uaf.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html</a> [uaf.edu]
it is amusing the language/reading gap that favors women is just accepted, when under the same viewpoint it should mean that boys are horribly discriminated against when it comes to that aspect of education!!  look at the gpas, women outperform men in many areas other than mathematics.  are we to conclude that men are being highly discriminated against as well?  that is the logical conclusion from such thinking.

"Grades: That females receive higher grades in virtually every subject is undisputed. In reviewing the literature on gender differences in cognitive tests, for the flagship journal of the field, American Psychologist, Halpern (1997, p. 1102) points out that "higher grades in school, all or most subjects" is an area of unquestioned female advantage. Another recent, comprehensive review of the research literature on gender differences in school performance comes to the same conclusion:

Data from a wide variety of sources and educational settings show that females in all ethnic groups tend to earn higher grades in school than do males, across different ages and eras, and across different subject matter disciplines. Many researchers in past times and today consider this to be such an obvious fact that they treat it as axiomatic....Modern reviews of the subject are unanimous in their finding of higher grades for females (Dwyer &amp; Johnson, 1997, pp. 128-129)."

"Class Rank and Honors: Since girls receive higher grades in school, they should also surpass boys in class rank. This is exactly what happens. Examining gender differences in high school class rank and honors in a nationally representative sample from the 1970s, Adelman (1991, p. 3) makes this point, "No matter how one slices the high school class of 1972, women's mean class rank exceeded that of men by a minimum of 10 points." Caucasian women attained, on the average, the highest class rank (67th percentile), while African-American men attained, on the average the lowest class rank (44th percentile). African-American women ranked far higher (56th percentile) than African-American men.

The same pattern of female advantage in grades and honors shows up in the 1990s, in a nationally representative longitudinal study of the high school class of 1992 (NELS Second Follow-up, cited in Dwyer &amp; Johnson, 1997, p. 139). In the academic arena, high school girls outdistanced boys in making the honor roll, in getting elected to a class office, and in receiving writing awards and other academic honors. In the academic arena, boys outdistanced women in vocational-technical honors and in awards in science and mathematics competitions.

While males are still ahead in gaining mathematics and science honors, females are making strong gains. From 1995-1998, close to 40 percent of the winners of the most prestigious science competition, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, were female (Science Service, 1998). The Westinghouse Science Talent Search requires high school students to complete a project in science, mathematics, and engineering and submit a report communicating the results. The work goes on over many months, often with the assistance of a parent, teacher, or other researcher. The contest is notable for producing winners who later go on to win a Nobel Prize. Westinghouse finalists from the 1940s through the 1970s were overwhelmingly male. The number of females among the top 40 finalists has increased since the 1980s and is approaching parity (Table 2)."


all this hand wringing over women is clearly missing the real problem eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html [ uaf.edu ] it is amusing the language/reading gap that favors women is just accepted , when under the same viewpoint it should mean that boys are horribly discriminated against when it comes to that aspect of education ! !
look at the gpas , women outperform men in many areas other than mathematics .
are we to conclude that men are being highly discriminated against as well ?
that is the logical conclusion from such thinking .
" Grades : That females receive higher grades in virtually every subject is undisputed .
In reviewing the literature on gender differences in cognitive tests , for the flagship journal of the field , American Psychologist , Halpern ( 1997 , p. 1102 ) points out that " higher grades in school , all or most subjects " is an area of unquestioned female advantage .
Another recent , comprehensive review of the research literature on gender differences in school performance comes to the same conclusion : Data from a wide variety of sources and educational settings show that females in all ethnic groups tend to earn higher grades in school than do males , across different ages and eras , and across different subject matter disciplines .
Many researchers in past times and today consider this to be such an obvious fact that they treat it as axiomatic....Modern reviews of the subject are unanimous in their finding of higher grades for females ( Dwyer &amp; Johnson , 1997 , pp .
128-129 ) . " " Class Rank and Honors : Since girls receive higher grades in school , they should also surpass boys in class rank .
This is exactly what happens .
Examining gender differences in high school class rank and honors in a nationally representative sample from the 1970s , Adelman ( 1991 , p. 3 ) makes this point , " No matter how one slices the high school class of 1972 , women 's mean class rank exceeded that of men by a minimum of 10 points .
" Caucasian women attained , on the average , the highest class rank ( 67th percentile ) , while African-American men attained , on the average the lowest class rank ( 44th percentile ) .
African-American women ranked far higher ( 56th percentile ) than African-American men .
The same pattern of female advantage in grades and honors shows up in the 1990s , in a nationally representative longitudinal study of the high school class of 1992 ( NELS Second Follow-up , cited in Dwyer &amp; Johnson , 1997 , p. 139 ) . In the academic arena , high school girls outdistanced boys in making the honor roll , in getting elected to a class office , and in receiving writing awards and other academic honors .
In the academic arena , boys outdistanced women in vocational-technical honors and in awards in science and mathematics competitions .
While males are still ahead in gaining mathematics and science honors , females are making strong gains .
From 1995-1998 , close to 40 percent of the winners of the most prestigious science competition , the Westinghouse Science Talent Search , were female ( Science Service , 1998 ) .
The Westinghouse Science Talent Search requires high school students to complete a project in science , mathematics , and engineering and submit a report communicating the results .
The work goes on over many months , often with the assistance of a parent , teacher , or other researcher .
The contest is notable for producing winners who later go on to win a Nobel Prize .
Westinghouse finalists from the 1940s through the 1970s were overwhelmingly male .
The number of females among the top 40 finalists has increased since the 1980s and is approaching parity ( Table 2 ) .
" all this hand wringing over women is clearly missing the real problem eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html [uaf.edu]
it is amusing the language/reading gap that favors women is just accepted, when under the same viewpoint it should mean that boys are horribly discriminated against when it comes to that aspect of education!!
look at the gpas, women outperform men in many areas other than mathematics.
are we to conclude that men are being highly discriminated against as well?
that is the logical conclusion from such thinking.
"Grades: That females receive higher grades in virtually every subject is undisputed.
In reviewing the literature on gender differences in cognitive tests, for the flagship journal of the field, American Psychologist, Halpern (1997, p. 1102) points out that "higher grades in school, all or most subjects" is an area of unquestioned female advantage.
Another recent, comprehensive review of the research literature on gender differences in school performance comes to the same conclusion:

Data from a wide variety of sources and educational settings show that females in all ethnic groups tend to earn higher grades in school than do males, across different ages and eras, and across different subject matter disciplines.
Many researchers in past times and today consider this to be such an obvious fact that they treat it as axiomatic....Modern reviews of the subject are unanimous in their finding of higher grades for females (Dwyer &amp; Johnson, 1997, pp.
128-129)."

"Class Rank and Honors: Since girls receive higher grades in school, they should also surpass boys in class rank.
This is exactly what happens.
Examining gender differences in high school class rank and honors in a nationally representative sample from the 1970s, Adelman (1991, p. 3) makes this point, "No matter how one slices the high school class of 1972, women's mean class rank exceeded that of men by a minimum of 10 points.
" Caucasian women attained, on the average, the highest class rank (67th percentile), while African-American men attained, on the average the lowest class rank (44th percentile).
African-American women ranked far higher (56th percentile) than African-American men.
The same pattern of female advantage in grades and honors shows up in the 1990s, in a nationally representative longitudinal study of the high school class of 1992 (NELS Second Follow-up, cited in Dwyer &amp; Johnson, 1997, p. 139). In the academic arena, high school girls outdistanced boys in making the honor roll, in getting elected to a class office, and in receiving writing awards and other academic honors.
In the academic arena, boys outdistanced women in vocational-technical honors and in awards in science and mathematics competitions.
While males are still ahead in gaining mathematics and science honors, females are making strong gains.
From 1995-1998, close to 40 percent of the winners of the most prestigious science competition, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, were female (Science Service, 1998).
The Westinghouse Science Talent Search requires high school students to complete a project in science, mathematics, and engineering and submit a report communicating the results.
The work goes on over many months, often with the assistance of a parent, teacher, or other researcher.
The contest is notable for producing winners who later go on to win a Nobel Prize.
Westinghouse finalists from the 1940s through the 1970s were overwhelmingly male.
The number of females among the top 40 finalists has increased since the 1980s and is approaching parity (Table 2).
"


all this hand wringing over women is clearly missing the real problem eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187743</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1243936740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, great, so we can have a whole mass of girls with hygene issues out there.  I'm glad I already found my wife.

J/K... mostly</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , great , so we can have a whole mass of girls with hygene issues out there .
I 'm glad I already found my wife .
J/K... mostly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, great, so we can have a whole mass of girls with hygene issues out there.
I'm glad I already found my wife.
J/K... mostly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190471</id>
	<title>What This Doesn't Say</title>
	<author>logicnazi</author>
	<datestamp>1243951500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that <b>in those countries girls <i>generally</i> outperform boys in school.</b>  Yes, boys and girls seem to do just as well in math but girls substantially outperform boys on the reading/linguistic tests.  Moreover, the difference between girls math and language scores seems to be fairly similar across all these countries.</p><p>I wouldn't read too much into this but if anything this is evidence <i>for</i> a biological difference in terms of math ability.  Either you think that girls are simply innately better at academics in general or you think some other factor explains the generally superior performance of women in school in these tests.  If so one would want to subtract out that effect (say maybe girls care more about achieving in school than boys) before trying to estimate any innate differences.</p><p>Frankly what nearly everyone says in this debate is stupid for several reasons:</p><ul><li> It's totally irrelevant what the statistical distribution of talent is between the genders.  What matters is whether someone is getting unfairly screwed over.</li><li> Even if one thinks that girls are statistically less good at math one can't infer that being female should cause one to think they are any worse at math.  How conditioning on gender should affect one's beliefs about ability depends on very subtle questions about the shapes of the distributions and one's prior knowledge.  </li><li>The idea that somehow there is this sharp distinction between innate talent and socialization is flat out idiotic.  There are all sorts of complicated effects based on one gender's different preferences (even say in just dating) affecting what kind of things they feel are worth pursuing.  Likely these kinds of effects outweigh any issues with innate ability to rotate objects or the like.</li></ul><p>However, it really pisses me off when I see people try to misrepresent the (still fairly hazy) data as obviously implying a position that they wish were true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that in those countries girls generally outperform boys in school .
Yes , boys and girls seem to do just as well in math but girls substantially outperform boys on the reading/linguistic tests .
Moreover , the difference between girls math and language scores seems to be fairly similar across all these countries.I would n't read too much into this but if anything this is evidence for a biological difference in terms of math ability .
Either you think that girls are simply innately better at academics in general or you think some other factor explains the generally superior performance of women in school in these tests .
If so one would want to subtract out that effect ( say maybe girls care more about achieving in school than boys ) before trying to estimate any innate differences.Frankly what nearly everyone says in this debate is stupid for several reasons : It 's totally irrelevant what the statistical distribution of talent is between the genders .
What matters is whether someone is getting unfairly screwed over .
Even if one thinks that girls are statistically less good at math one ca n't infer that being female should cause one to think they are any worse at math .
How conditioning on gender should affect one 's beliefs about ability depends on very subtle questions about the shapes of the distributions and one 's prior knowledge .
The idea that somehow there is this sharp distinction between innate talent and socialization is flat out idiotic .
There are all sorts of complicated effects based on one gender 's different preferences ( even say in just dating ) affecting what kind of things they feel are worth pursuing .
Likely these kinds of effects outweigh any issues with innate ability to rotate objects or the like.However , it really pisses me off when I see people try to misrepresent the ( still fairly hazy ) data as obviously implying a position that they wish were true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that in those countries girls generally outperform boys in school.
Yes, boys and girls seem to do just as well in math but girls substantially outperform boys on the reading/linguistic tests.
Moreover, the difference between girls math and language scores seems to be fairly similar across all these countries.I wouldn't read too much into this but if anything this is evidence for a biological difference in terms of math ability.
Either you think that girls are simply innately better at academics in general or you think some other factor explains the generally superior performance of women in school in these tests.
If so one would want to subtract out that effect (say maybe girls care more about achieving in school than boys) before trying to estimate any innate differences.Frankly what nearly everyone says in this debate is stupid for several reasons: It's totally irrelevant what the statistical distribution of talent is between the genders.
What matters is whether someone is getting unfairly screwed over.
Even if one thinks that girls are statistically less good at math one can't infer that being female should cause one to think they are any worse at math.
How conditioning on gender should affect one's beliefs about ability depends on very subtle questions about the shapes of the distributions and one's prior knowledge.
The idea that somehow there is this sharp distinction between innate talent and socialization is flat out idiotic.
There are all sorts of complicated effects based on one gender's different preferences (even say in just dating) affecting what kind of things they feel are worth pursuing.
Likely these kinds of effects outweigh any issues with innate ability to rotate objects or the like.However, it really pisses me off when I see people try to misrepresent the (still fairly hazy) data as obviously implying a position that they wish were true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186733</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>TrashGod</author>
	<datestamp>1243975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Men and women are different, yadda yadda."</i>
<br> <br>
Did you just <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Yada\_Yada" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">yada-yada</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual\_dimorphism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">sexual dimorphism</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Men and women are different , yadda yadda .
" Did you just yada-yada [ wikipedia.org ] sexual dimorphism [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Men and women are different, yadda yadda.
"
 
Did you just yada-yada [wikipedia.org] sexual dimorphism [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189967</id>
	<title>Re:Still amazed at the choices in the US high scho</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1243947840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoon</p></div><p>That would be because they got to school at 7 AM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoonThat would be because they got to school at 7 AM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see most kids get home at 2 or 3 in the afternoonThat would be because they got to school at 7 AM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189215</id>
	<title>These studies and articles always ignore issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so ridiculous.  These studies generally tend to ignore so many relevant things including, but not limited to the following:</p><p>1) opposite gender inequalities (men vs. women in nursing or vetrinary)<br>2) years dedicated to a field (far more women than men take time off in their early 30s for family, this impacts average salary over time)<br>3) actual examples of "different" people actually being better at stuff, such as the way many autistic children are very skilled at math compared to their non-special needs counterparts (certainly not all, but includes girls)<br>4) ignores the question of preference vs. abilty<br>5) ignores the necessary butt-kissing involved in many fields and whether more women or men are willing to do it<br>6) ignores very low paying, dangerous, or unpleasant professions<br>7) ignores opportunity differences, especially in examples of areas where the gender gap has been "overcome" (e.g. there are very real differences in scholarships available to poor women vs. poor men)<br>8) slices groups of professionals however it is convenient to reinforce their notions (for example women vs. men MDs are always compared, but compare specializations such as Gastrointerology which typically include longer hours and higher stress and it is still dominated by men)</p><p>And any woman that thinks she has an unequal playing field just because she heard some sexist comment from some guy in school can kiss my butt.  Seriously, we all put up with BS in school and it doesn't end there, it's part of many professions, especially blue collar ones (which is what most IT, programming, and math jobs end up being).</p><p>And if you want proof I'm a sexist, here ya go: I am a big guy, weigh well over 200 pounds, if a firefighter ever has to haul my ass out of a burning building I hope it's a dude, because I'm not sure most women firefighters could do it (yeah they're strong, but I'm really big).</p><p>Btw, I have a daughter, most of the sexism I fight against comes from her female educators, not the excruciatingly few male ones she has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so ridiculous .
These studies generally tend to ignore so many relevant things including , but not limited to the following : 1 ) opposite gender inequalities ( men vs. women in nursing or vetrinary ) 2 ) years dedicated to a field ( far more women than men take time off in their early 30s for family , this impacts average salary over time ) 3 ) actual examples of " different " people actually being better at stuff , such as the way many autistic children are very skilled at math compared to their non-special needs counterparts ( certainly not all , but includes girls ) 4 ) ignores the question of preference vs. abilty5 ) ignores the necessary butt-kissing involved in many fields and whether more women or men are willing to do it6 ) ignores very low paying , dangerous , or unpleasant professions7 ) ignores opportunity differences , especially in examples of areas where the gender gap has been " overcome " ( e.g .
there are very real differences in scholarships available to poor women vs. poor men ) 8 ) slices groups of professionals however it is convenient to reinforce their notions ( for example women vs. men MDs are always compared , but compare specializations such as Gastrointerology which typically include longer hours and higher stress and it is still dominated by men ) And any woman that thinks she has an unequal playing field just because she heard some sexist comment from some guy in school can kiss my butt .
Seriously , we all put up with BS in school and it does n't end there , it 's part of many professions , especially blue collar ones ( which is what most IT , programming , and math jobs end up being ) .And if you want proof I 'm a sexist , here ya go : I am a big guy , weigh well over 200 pounds , if a firefighter ever has to haul my ass out of a burning building I hope it 's a dude , because I 'm not sure most women firefighters could do it ( yeah they 're strong , but I 'm really big ) .Btw , I have a daughter , most of the sexism I fight against comes from her female educators , not the excruciatingly few male ones she has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so ridiculous.
These studies generally tend to ignore so many relevant things including, but not limited to the following:1) opposite gender inequalities (men vs. women in nursing or vetrinary)2) years dedicated to a field (far more women than men take time off in their early 30s for family, this impacts average salary over time)3) actual examples of "different" people actually being better at stuff, such as the way many autistic children are very skilled at math compared to their non-special needs counterparts (certainly not all, but includes girls)4) ignores the question of preference vs. abilty5) ignores the necessary butt-kissing involved in many fields and whether more women or men are willing to do it6) ignores very low paying, dangerous, or unpleasant professions7) ignores opportunity differences, especially in examples of areas where the gender gap has been "overcome" (e.g.
there are very real differences in scholarships available to poor women vs. poor men)8) slices groups of professionals however it is convenient to reinforce their notions (for example women vs. men MDs are always compared, but compare specializations such as Gastrointerology which typically include longer hours and higher stress and it is still dominated by men)And any woman that thinks she has an unequal playing field just because she heard some sexist comment from some guy in school can kiss my butt.
Seriously, we all put up with BS in school and it doesn't end there, it's part of many professions, especially blue collar ones (which is what most IT, programming, and math jobs end up being).And if you want proof I'm a sexist, here ya go: I am a big guy, weigh well over 200 pounds, if a firefighter ever has to haul my ass out of a burning building I hope it's a dude, because I'm not sure most women firefighters could do it (yeah they're strong, but I'm really big).Btw, I have a daughter, most of the sexism I fight against comes from her female educators, not the excruciatingly few male ones she has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187379</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1243935360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story was used in the A-level general studies paper (Edexel, I believe?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story was used in the A-level general studies paper ( Edexel , I believe ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story was used in the A-level general studies paper (Edexel, I believe?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193117</id>
	<title>I don't know which sex is more able</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244022180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know which sex as a whole is better at maths but I do know that there are many people in each group who are promoting the idea that their group is best and highlighting reasons why their own group might not have faired so well, either in recent years or in the past.</p><p>It is impossible to have a sensible discussion on this subject while most of the people involved have an agenda.</p><p>It does seem so unlikely to me that two groups of people with such obvious outward differences overall should possess exactly equal average ability.</p><p>I have heard it said that boys tend to thrive in an environment where there is more discipline and competition, less coursework and less collaboration and so on.</p><p>Unfortunately we are unlikely to be able to conduct an experiment to establish the truth about this once and for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which sex as a whole is better at maths but I do know that there are many people in each group who are promoting the idea that their group is best and highlighting reasons why their own group might not have faired so well , either in recent years or in the past.It is impossible to have a sensible discussion on this subject while most of the people involved have an agenda.It does seem so unlikely to me that two groups of people with such obvious outward differences overall should possess exactly equal average ability.I have heard it said that boys tend to thrive in an environment where there is more discipline and competition , less coursework and less collaboration and so on.Unfortunately we are unlikely to be able to conduct an experiment to establish the truth about this once and for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which sex as a whole is better at maths but I do know that there are many people in each group who are promoting the idea that their group is best and highlighting reasons why their own group might not have faired so well, either in recent years or in the past.It is impossible to have a sensible discussion on this subject while most of the people involved have an agenda.It does seem so unlikely to me that two groups of people with such obvious outward differences overall should possess exactly equal average ability.I have heard it said that boys tend to thrive in an environment where there is more discipline and competition, less coursework and less collaboration and so on.Unfortunately we are unlikely to be able to conduct an experiment to establish the truth about this once and for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28200427</id>
	<title>There is evidence of some differences</title>
	<author>WeirdJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1244020560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been an ongoing debate in education for years.  The only area where there does seem to be a real significant gender difference is in the ability to visualise 3D spatial relationships, and there is a reasonable explanation from evolutionary biology, in that this skill does seem to assist in hunting large mammals, and a better hunter would have been a more desirable mate.  The effect (if it does exist) is not huge though. There seem to be as many studies showing the effect does not exist as that say it does, so the source isn't breaking any new ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been an ongoing debate in education for years .
The only area where there does seem to be a real significant gender difference is in the ability to visualise 3D spatial relationships , and there is a reasonable explanation from evolutionary biology , in that this skill does seem to assist in hunting large mammals , and a better hunter would have been a more desirable mate .
The effect ( if it does exist ) is not huge though .
There seem to be as many studies showing the effect does not exist as that say it does , so the source is n't breaking any new ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been an ongoing debate in education for years.
The only area where there does seem to be a real significant gender difference is in the ability to visualise 3D spatial relationships, and there is a reasonable explanation from evolutionary biology, in that this skill does seem to assist in hunting large mammals, and a better hunter would have been a more desirable mate.
The effect (if it does exist) is not huge though.
There seem to be as many studies showing the effect does not exist as that say it does, so the source isn't breaking any new ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188949</id>
	<title>Help help!  Men are being repressed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You (and all the morons who predictably moderated you up) only see the gender studies you WANT to see and ignore anything that doesn't fit into your pre-determined opinion.  It's called confirmation bias and the interwebs is frankly powered by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ( and all the morons who predictably moderated you up ) only see the gender studies you WANT to see and ignore anything that does n't fit into your pre-determined opinion .
It 's called confirmation bias and the interwebs is frankly powered by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You (and all the morons who predictably moderated you up) only see the gender studies you WANT to see and ignore anything that doesn't fit into your pre-determined opinion.
It's called confirmation bias and the interwebs is frankly powered by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191509</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1243960500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are also heaps of working-class jobs in factories which are dominated by women. For example, toy making, textiles, electronics and electrical goods -- basically industries with lots of monotonous assembly-line type work. Just look at your typical TIME magazine photos in articles about industries in China, and almost all the workers are female. I find it quite curious actually since I can't see any particular reason why so many more women than men are working in these fields, but there you go.</p><p>Here in Australia, my mother works on an assembly line putting together meals and cutlery for airlines, and most of her colleagues are female. Of course, there are also lots of men at the company, but they tend to work in other areas such as driving forklifts or delivery trucks.</p><p>I agree that men dominate the dangerous and physically challenging working-class professions, and I guess that's a natural consequence of an innate difference between men and women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also heaps of working-class jobs in factories which are dominated by women .
For example , toy making , textiles , electronics and electrical goods -- basically industries with lots of monotonous assembly-line type work .
Just look at your typical TIME magazine photos in articles about industries in China , and almost all the workers are female .
I find it quite curious actually since I ca n't see any particular reason why so many more women than men are working in these fields , but there you go.Here in Australia , my mother works on an assembly line putting together meals and cutlery for airlines , and most of her colleagues are female .
Of course , there are also lots of men at the company , but they tend to work in other areas such as driving forklifts or delivery trucks.I agree that men dominate the dangerous and physically challenging working-class professions , and I guess that 's a natural consequence of an innate difference between men and women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also heaps of working-class jobs in factories which are dominated by women.
For example, toy making, textiles, electronics and electrical goods -- basically industries with lots of monotonous assembly-line type work.
Just look at your typical TIME magazine photos in articles about industries in China, and almost all the workers are female.
I find it quite curious actually since I can't see any particular reason why so many more women than men are working in these fields, but there you go.Here in Australia, my mother works on an assembly line putting together meals and cutlery for airlines, and most of her colleagues are female.
Of course, there are also lots of men at the company, but they tend to work in other areas such as driving forklifts or delivery trucks.I agree that men dominate the dangerous and physically challenging working-class professions, and I guess that's a natural consequence of an innate difference between men and women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188833</id>
	<title>it's babies</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1243941420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the answer my friends is BABIES. dispite what popular culture has tried to tell you, you can't have a high powered career AND children successfully. There just aren't enough hours in the day so you can neglect your kids (which people do do but it comes back on them eventually) or you can drop hours at work which is going to affect your career, and probably limit your upward movement.<p>
and all you 20 somethings, wait till you hit 30 and you realise you've only got 5 years left in you to have kids. my partner was never that interested in kids and she's about to have her 30th and it's nothing but talk about babies all of a sudden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the answer my friends is BABIES .
dispite what popular culture has tried to tell you , you ca n't have a high powered career AND children successfully .
There just are n't enough hours in the day so you can neglect your kids ( which people do do but it comes back on them eventually ) or you can drop hours at work which is going to affect your career , and probably limit your upward movement .
and all you 20 somethings , wait till you hit 30 and you realise you 've only got 5 years left in you to have kids .
my partner was never that interested in kids and she 's about to have her 30th and it 's nothing but talk about babies all of a sudden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the answer my friends is BABIES.
dispite what popular culture has tried to tell you, you can't have a high powered career AND children successfully.
There just aren't enough hours in the day so you can neglect your kids (which people do do but it comes back on them eventually) or you can drop hours at work which is going to affect your career, and probably limit your upward movement.
and all you 20 somethings, wait till you hit 30 and you realise you've only got 5 years left in you to have kids.
my partner was never that interested in kids and she's about to have her 30th and it's nothing but talk about babies all of a sudden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190343</id>
	<title>Higher Education &amp; Gov'ts Are!</title>
	<author>ancarett</author>
	<datestamp>1243950540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some colleges and universities are preferentially offering more admission spots to male candidates than otherwise they would. Why? In order to redress the gender imbalance that's seeing fewer men than women enroll. (See <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/16/backtoschool/main3174150.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">this article from 2007 in US News &amp; World Report</a> [cbsnews.com].)
<br> <br>
Last month also saw the <a href="http://www.naspa.org/programs/collegemen/default.cfm" title="naspa.org">2nd Conference on College Men</a> [naspa.org] which also dealt with some of these concerns.
<br> <br>
As an academic and someone who advocates wide access to all sorts of education, I want to see everyone have a chance to study for what they want to and can manage, men and women.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some colleges and universities are preferentially offering more admission spots to male candidates than otherwise they would .
Why ? In order to redress the gender imbalance that 's seeing fewer men than women enroll .
( See this article from 2007 in US News &amp; World Report [ cbsnews.com ] .
) Last month also saw the 2nd Conference on College Men [ naspa.org ] which also dealt with some of these concerns .
As an academic and someone who advocates wide access to all sorts of education , I want to see everyone have a chance to study for what they want to and can manage , men and women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some colleges and universities are preferentially offering more admission spots to male candidates than otherwise they would.
Why? In order to redress the gender imbalance that's seeing fewer men than women enroll.
(See this article from 2007 in US News &amp; World Report [cbsnews.com].
)
 
Last month also saw the 2nd Conference on College Men [naspa.org] which also dealt with some of these concerns.
As an academic and someone who advocates wide access to all sorts of education, I want to see everyone have a chance to study for what they want to and can manage, men and women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192329</id>
	<title>it's about lifestyles not brain-styles</title>
	<author>beth\_tk</author>
	<datestamp>1243969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an ex-mathematician, I can say there's a lot more to having a successful mathematics career than simply how your brain is wired.


It is far more of a lifestyle choice than simply a job.  If you want to solve the hardest problems your best hope is to have long stretches of peace and quiet where you can do nothing but devote yourself to the problem.


Also there is the long hours culture, the regular conferences without available childcare, the amount of collaborative work done in the pub, the way everything has moved on completely if you have a few years out, having to move anywhere in the world to get the next job...


None of that fits with family responsibilities.  Some still manage to raise a family and make it as a mathematician but those are the exceptional ones who've made it through despite the handicap.  Most women either don't go into it in the first place or else quit after their PhD's to settle down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ex-mathematician , I can say there 's a lot more to having a successful mathematics career than simply how your brain is wired .
It is far more of a lifestyle choice than simply a job .
If you want to solve the hardest problems your best hope is to have long stretches of peace and quiet where you can do nothing but devote yourself to the problem .
Also there is the long hours culture , the regular conferences without available childcare , the amount of collaborative work done in the pub , the way everything has moved on completely if you have a few years out , having to move anywhere in the world to get the next job.. . None of that fits with family responsibilities .
Some still manage to raise a family and make it as a mathematician but those are the exceptional ones who 've made it through despite the handicap .
Most women either do n't go into it in the first place or else quit after their PhD 's to settle down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an ex-mathematician, I can say there's a lot more to having a successful mathematics career than simply how your brain is wired.
It is far more of a lifestyle choice than simply a job.
If you want to solve the hardest problems your best hope is to have long stretches of peace and quiet where you can do nothing but devote yourself to the problem.
Also there is the long hours culture, the regular conferences without available childcare, the amount of collaborative work done in the pub, the way everything has moved on completely if you have a few years out, having to move anywhere in the world to get the next job...


None of that fits with family responsibilities.
Some still manage to raise a family and make it as a mathematician but those are the exceptional ones who've made it through despite the handicap.
Most women either don't go into it in the first place or else quit after their PhD's to settle down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187035</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243933980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Women are still generally paid less in business, don't rise as high...</p></div></blockquote><p>I am tired of this crap. No one has handed me any promotions, and I have worked my ass off for the money I have made. I doubled my annual salary in seven years on my current job, and my dick had nothing to with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Women are still generally paid less in business , do n't rise as high...I am tired of this crap .
No one has handed me any promotions , and I have worked my ass off for the money I have made .
I doubled my annual salary in seven years on my current job , and my dick had nothing to with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women are still generally paid less in business, don't rise as high...I am tired of this crap.
No one has handed me any promotions, and I have worked my ass off for the money I have made.
I doubled my annual salary in seven years on my current job, and my dick had nothing to with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190091</id>
	<title>Re:Media propoganda</title>
	<author>schrodingers\_rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1243948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The girls have no interest in that sort of thing, nor any male that has such aptitude.  </p></div><p>My all-girls high school requires Calculus. Most students go on to AP and Differntial Calculus before graduating. I am personally very focused on math, science, and technology. Your point?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The girls have no interest in that sort of thing , nor any male that has such aptitude .
My all-girls high school requires Calculus .
Most students go on to AP and Differntial Calculus before graduating .
I am personally very focused on math , science , and technology .
Your point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The girls have no interest in that sort of thing, nor any male that has such aptitude.
My all-girls high school requires Calculus.
Most students go on to AP and Differntial Calculus before graduating.
I am personally very focused on math, science, and technology.
Your point?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187237</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Near where I live a gym was sued because it had seperate weight rooms for men and woman.  Now they have to share yet there is a healthclub chain that explicitly caters to woman and no one says a peep.  Gotta love reverse sexism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Near where I live a gym was sued because it had seperate weight rooms for men and woman .
Now they have to share yet there is a healthclub chain that explicitly caters to woman and no one says a peep .
Got ta love reverse sexism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Near where I live a gym was sued because it had seperate weight rooms for men and woman.
Now they have to share yet there is a healthclub chain that explicitly caters to woman and no one says a peep.
Gotta love reverse sexism!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188719</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Click and drag</author>
	<datestamp>1243940880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a student at a science and mathematics focused high school, as well as a recent graduate of the standard public primary education system, I can say that the theory that boys express or are guided to more interest in math/science is at the very least anecdotally patently false. As a mere student, I have no quantifiable or rigorous evidence (a little help TJHSST teachers? I know you're out there), but as I say, all anecdotal evidence points to girls being equally as interested and equally or more successful in the math and science areas than boys. Of course, being guided is something else all together; there are three (3) at my school organizations devoted to encouraging/assisting/whatevering girls in the math/science areas. Guess how many there are for boys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a student at a science and mathematics focused high school , as well as a recent graduate of the standard public primary education system , I can say that the theory that boys express or are guided to more interest in math/science is at the very least anecdotally patently false .
As a mere student , I have no quantifiable or rigorous evidence ( a little help TJHSST teachers ?
I know you 're out there ) , but as I say , all anecdotal evidence points to girls being equally as interested and equally or more successful in the math and science areas than boys .
Of course , being guided is something else all together ; there are three ( 3 ) at my school organizations devoted to encouraging/assisting/whatevering girls in the math/science areas .
Guess how many there are for boys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a student at a science and mathematics focused high school, as well as a recent graduate of the standard public primary education system, I can say that the theory that boys express or are guided to more interest in math/science is at the very least anecdotally patently false.
As a mere student, I have no quantifiable or rigorous evidence (a little help TJHSST teachers?
I know you're out there), but as I say, all anecdotal evidence points to girls being equally as interested and equally or more successful in the math and science areas than boys.
Of course, being guided is something else all together; there are three (3) at my school organizations devoted to encouraging/assisting/whatevering girls in the math/science areas.
Guess how many there are for boys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190551</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1243952280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do tend to agree with you that in most cases we shouldn't be pushing anybody to take up any particular field of work just to make our numbers balance out with the general population numbers.  However, in the interest of trying to see things from both perspectives let me throw out a handful of possibilities and questions:

</p><p>1. Why do specific genders avoid specific jobs?  I don't think anybody wants John to be a nurse just to get the nursing splits up, but it would be considerably more disconcerting if John didn't want to be a nurse because "that's a woman's job" versus "I'm not interested in nursing."  In fact, nursing would be an interesting example: There are plenty of men who want to be doctors, so it doesn't seem as though there's anything about genders specifically that make men less willing to care for sick people, but there are considerably less men who would consider being a nurse than would consider being a doctor.

</p><p>2. What would a different gender bring to a field?  Some fields probably just don't matter.  At the same time, we know without a doubt that men and women's minds work differently.  What perspective are we missing in some fields dominated by one or the other?  Could we solve issues or make significant progress just by bringing in people with different ways of looking at things?

</p><p>Aaand I let this sit too long and lost motivation, heh.  So I'll just leave it there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do tend to agree with you that in most cases we should n't be pushing anybody to take up any particular field of work just to make our numbers balance out with the general population numbers .
However , in the interest of trying to see things from both perspectives let me throw out a handful of possibilities and questions : 1 .
Why do specific genders avoid specific jobs ?
I do n't think anybody wants John to be a nurse just to get the nursing splits up , but it would be considerably more disconcerting if John did n't want to be a nurse because " that 's a woman 's job " versus " I 'm not interested in nursing .
" In fact , nursing would be an interesting example : There are plenty of men who want to be doctors , so it does n't seem as though there 's anything about genders specifically that make men less willing to care for sick people , but there are considerably less men who would consider being a nurse than would consider being a doctor .
2. What would a different gender bring to a field ?
Some fields probably just do n't matter .
At the same time , we know without a doubt that men and women 's minds work differently .
What perspective are we missing in some fields dominated by one or the other ?
Could we solve issues or make significant progress just by bringing in people with different ways of looking at things ?
Aaand I let this sit too long and lost motivation , heh .
So I 'll just leave it there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do tend to agree with you that in most cases we shouldn't be pushing anybody to take up any particular field of work just to make our numbers balance out with the general population numbers.
However, in the interest of trying to see things from both perspectives let me throw out a handful of possibilities and questions:

1.
Why do specific genders avoid specific jobs?
I don't think anybody wants John to be a nurse just to get the nursing splits up, but it would be considerably more disconcerting if John didn't want to be a nurse because "that's a woman's job" versus "I'm not interested in nursing.
"  In fact, nursing would be an interesting example: There are plenty of men who want to be doctors, so it doesn't seem as though there's anything about genders specifically that make men less willing to care for sick people, but there are considerably less men who would consider being a nurse than would consider being a doctor.
2. What would a different gender bring to a field?
Some fields probably just don't matter.
At the same time, we know without a doubt that men and women's minds work differently.
What perspective are we missing in some fields dominated by one or the other?
Could we solve issues or make significant progress just by bringing in people with different ways of looking at things?
Aaand I let this sit too long and lost motivation, heh.
So I'll just leave it there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188491</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe you about the tutoring, but normally students who need full blown tutoring are lost causes.</p><p>It's just basic biology, males are the "disposable" gender who might have zero children or might have massive armies of kids, while women are biologically constrained in heir reproductive output, and so their genes benefit more from playing safe.  In particular, women have an innate advantage that "they do what society tells them" while men try to buck the system.  It's hardly surprising that women do math well if you tell them to do math well, while men fuck it up just to stick it to ya.  Society will eventually favor women for this one reason.  </p><p>Another important fact is that males have higher variance across most species and most traits.  So you expect the smarted 1\% are mostly males, which might have been all the scientists &amp; engineers 200 years ago, but we need way more than 1\% doing science &amp; engineering today.  I mean, visualize two normal distributions with the same mean and different variances, the high variance dominates the uber high end, but the low variance dominates eventually.  But females are actually buying a slightly higher mean then males with that low variance, as biology can fuck up easily.  So they very quickly dominate the intelligence disciplines once you need large numbers of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe you about the tutoring , but normally students who need full blown tutoring are lost causes.It 's just basic biology , males are the " disposable " gender who might have zero children or might have massive armies of kids , while women are biologically constrained in heir reproductive output , and so their genes benefit more from playing safe .
In particular , women have an innate advantage that " they do what society tells them " while men try to buck the system .
It 's hardly surprising that women do math well if you tell them to do math well , while men fuck it up just to stick it to ya .
Society will eventually favor women for this one reason .
Another important fact is that males have higher variance across most species and most traits .
So you expect the smarted 1 \ % are mostly males , which might have been all the scientists &amp; engineers 200 years ago , but we need way more than 1 \ % doing science &amp; engineering today .
I mean , visualize two normal distributions with the same mean and different variances , the high variance dominates the uber high end , but the low variance dominates eventually .
But females are actually buying a slightly higher mean then males with that low variance , as biology can fuck up easily .
So they very quickly dominate the intelligence disciplines once you need large numbers of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe you about the tutoring, but normally students who need full blown tutoring are lost causes.It's just basic biology, males are the "disposable" gender who might have zero children or might have massive armies of kids, while women are biologically constrained in heir reproductive output, and so their genes benefit more from playing safe.
In particular, women have an innate advantage that "they do what society tells them" while men try to buck the system.
It's hardly surprising that women do math well if you tell them to do math well, while men fuck it up just to stick it to ya.
Society will eventually favor women for this one reason.
Another important fact is that males have higher variance across most species and most traits.
So you expect the smarted 1\% are mostly males, which might have been all the scientists &amp; engineers 200 years ago, but we need way more than 1\% doing science &amp; engineering today.
I mean, visualize two normal distributions with the same mean and different variances, the high variance dominates the uber high end, but the low variance dominates eventually.
But females are actually buying a slightly higher mean then males with that low variance, as biology can fuck up easily.
So they very quickly dominate the intelligence disciplines once you need large numbers of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186429</id>
	<title>...or maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we've just beaten men down so much that we've lowered the bar on everything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 've just beaten men down so much that we 've lowered the bar on everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we've just beaten men down so much that we've lowered the bar on everything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187883</id>
	<title>Re:Simply doesn't address the real issue</title>
	<author>ehack</author>
	<datestamp>1243937220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the fact that an explanation is mathematically correct doesn't make it "right".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>The above was for fun. However, what you are are referring to is a model of the existing distributions. It is not obvious that the variances could not also be trimmed by varyng educational constraints, if an effort were made to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the fact that an explanation is mathematically correct does n't make it " right " .
: ) The above was for fun .
However , what you are are referring to is a model of the existing distributions .
It is not obvious that the variances could not also be trimmed by varyng educational constraints , if an effort were made to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the fact that an explanation is mathematically correct doesn't make it "right".
:)The above was for fun.
However, what you are are referring to is a model of the existing distributions.
It is not obvious that the variances could not also be trimmed by varyng educational constraints, if an effort were made to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192071</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1243966500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a variety of reasons, <a href="http://www.wm.edu/" title="wm.edu">my school</a> [wm.edu] tries to shoot for a 55/45 female-to-male split.</p><p>However, the applicant pool is split 65/35 (F/M)</p><p>In other words, admission for females is considerably more competitive than it is for males.</p><p>In my experiences as a student (I recently graduated), I witnessed virtually no anti-female sexism, but plenty of anti-male remarks, many of which were praised and even <i>applauded</i>.  (I find it very difficult to take Women's Studies seriously as a field of study, particularly at the undergraduate level.  Studying <i>gender</i> would be much more appropriate, and less prone to bias)</p><p>Don't get me started on the processes that take place if a male is accused of sexual assault.  The male student is given virtually no opportunity to defend himself, even in light of a complete lack of physical evidence (the Duke lacrosse incident is a good example of this).  We also received some of the most offensive "sexual assault prevention training" that I could possibly imagine.</p><p>At one point, we were asked to respond to a multiple-choice survey asking us if we'd sexually assaulted a woman A) 0-5 times, B)6-10 times, C)10-15 times, or D)15+ times.  (Also, according to the survey and training program, rape apparently only occurs within the heteronormative ideal)</p><p>But, yes.  In Mathematics and Physics (my field), you do have fewer females than males.  Although there isolated incidents of legitimate sexism, I believe that the reasons are largely historical, and will disappear with time.  As more females trickle into the field, the field becomes increasingly attractive to other females.</p><p>I believe much of the gender disparity in these fields stems from the fact that up until the past decade, Physics and Mathematics were dominated by the huge influx of professors who graduated immediately following WWII.  Given that there were comparatively few hires in these departments until that generation began to retire, it's no surprise that that generation's cultural standards lingered around for much longer in those departments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a variety of reasons , my school [ wm.edu ] tries to shoot for a 55/45 female-to-male split.However , the applicant pool is split 65/35 ( F/M ) In other words , admission for females is considerably more competitive than it is for males.In my experiences as a student ( I recently graduated ) , I witnessed virtually no anti-female sexism , but plenty of anti-male remarks , many of which were praised and even applauded .
( I find it very difficult to take Women 's Studies seriously as a field of study , particularly at the undergraduate level .
Studying gender would be much more appropriate , and less prone to bias ) Do n't get me started on the processes that take place if a male is accused of sexual assault .
The male student is given virtually no opportunity to defend himself , even in light of a complete lack of physical evidence ( the Duke lacrosse incident is a good example of this ) .
We also received some of the most offensive " sexual assault prevention training " that I could possibly imagine.At one point , we were asked to respond to a multiple-choice survey asking us if we 'd sexually assaulted a woman A ) 0-5 times , B ) 6-10 times , C ) 10-15 times , or D ) 15 + times .
( Also , according to the survey and training program , rape apparently only occurs within the heteronormative ideal ) But , yes .
In Mathematics and Physics ( my field ) , you do have fewer females than males .
Although there isolated incidents of legitimate sexism , I believe that the reasons are largely historical , and will disappear with time .
As more females trickle into the field , the field becomes increasingly attractive to other females.I believe much of the gender disparity in these fields stems from the fact that up until the past decade , Physics and Mathematics were dominated by the huge influx of professors who graduated immediately following WWII .
Given that there were comparatively few hires in these departments until that generation began to retire , it 's no surprise that that generation 's cultural standards lingered around for much longer in those departments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a variety of reasons, my school [wm.edu] tries to shoot for a 55/45 female-to-male split.However, the applicant pool is split 65/35 (F/M)In other words, admission for females is considerably more competitive than it is for males.In my experiences as a student (I recently graduated), I witnessed virtually no anti-female sexism, but plenty of anti-male remarks, many of which were praised and even applauded.
(I find it very difficult to take Women's Studies seriously as a field of study, particularly at the undergraduate level.
Studying gender would be much more appropriate, and less prone to bias)Don't get me started on the processes that take place if a male is accused of sexual assault.
The male student is given virtually no opportunity to defend himself, even in light of a complete lack of physical evidence (the Duke lacrosse incident is a good example of this).
We also received some of the most offensive "sexual assault prevention training" that I could possibly imagine.At one point, we were asked to respond to a multiple-choice survey asking us if we'd sexually assaulted a woman A) 0-5 times, B)6-10 times, C)10-15 times, or D)15+ times.
(Also, according to the survey and training program, rape apparently only occurs within the heteronormative ideal)But, yes.
In Mathematics and Physics (my field), you do have fewer females than males.
Although there isolated incidents of legitimate sexism, I believe that the reasons are largely historical, and will disappear with time.
As more females trickle into the field, the field becomes increasingly attractive to other females.I believe much of the gender disparity in these fields stems from the fact that up until the past decade, Physics and Mathematics were dominated by the huge influx of professors who graduated immediately following WWII.
Given that there were comparatively few hires in these departments until that generation began to retire, it's no surprise that that generation's cultural standards lingered around for much longer in those departments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411</id>
	<title>Ok I can't resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Certainly men dominate current academia, with 70\% of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men; however that figure is down from 95\% in the 1950s.  Indeed, while there remain gaps in achievement between the genders, the study shows that not only are these gaps closing, but the size of the gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture (as defined by World Economic Forum measures).</p></div><p>Of course,  the study was done by a team of female mathematicians/statisticians,  so we really can't trust the results.<br> <br>I'm kidding,  don't flame me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly men dominate current academia , with 70 \ % of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men ; however that figure is down from 95 \ % in the 1950s .
Indeed , while there remain gaps in achievement between the genders , the study shows that not only are these gaps closing , but the size of the gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture ( as defined by World Economic Forum measures ) .Of course , the study was done by a team of female mathematicians/statisticians , so we really ca n't trust the results .
I 'm kidding , do n't flame me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly men dominate current academia, with 70\% of mathematics Ph.D.s going to men; however that figure is down from 95\% in the 1950s.
Indeed, while there remain gaps in achievement between the genders, the study shows that not only are these gaps closing, but the size of the gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture (as defined by World Economic Forum measures).Of course,  the study was done by a team of female mathematicians/statisticians,  so we really can't trust the results.
I'm kidding,  don't flame me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186781</id>
	<title>Re:And while we're on the subject...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243976040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all intentional.</p><p>Schools have been geared toward girls.<br>Everything from the environment, discipline, actual instruction, and expected performance has been bastardized to make females perform better than males, without any actual focus on understanding the material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all intentional.Schools have been geared toward girls.Everything from the environment , discipline , actual instruction , and expected performance has been bastardized to make females perform better than males , without any actual focus on understanding the material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all intentional.Schools have been geared toward girls.Everything from the environment, discipline, actual instruction, and expected performance has been bastardized to make females perform better than males, without any actual focus on understanding the material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188963</id>
	<title>Lawrence Summers was right</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1243942140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Males<br><br>Frequency&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *<br>*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *<br>mathematical ability --------&gt;<br><br>Females<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*<br>mathematical ability ---------&gt;<br><br>less variation in females, at both ends</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>MalesFrequency                   *                   *                 *         *                                   * *                                                   * mathematical ability -------- &gt; Females                           *                     *           *                 *                     *           *                                 * mathematical ability --------- &gt; less variation in females , at both ends</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MalesFrequency                 *                  *               *       *                                  **                                                  *mathematical ability --------&gt;Females                          *                    *          *               *                   *         *                               *mathematical ability ---------&gt;less variation in females, at both ends</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192595</id>
	<title>Re:Windows of opportunity to learn</title>
	<author>i\_b\_don</author>
	<datestamp>1243972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no emperical data but I totally agree with you.  Children are immersed much more than adults and adults talk differently to children who are learning the language than to other adults.</p><p>I'm American currently living in Japan with two small kids.  How other people treat me learning Japanese vs how they treat my 2.5 yr old is totally different.  they'll correct him, use simpler words, speak slowly, teach him, and praise him when right.  If you're an adult, other adults will try to speak to you on their level.  It is incredibility hard to pick up a language with other people speaking at full speed using more advanced language.</p><p>IMHO this and the level of Immersion kids face are the two huge advantages kids have when learning a new language IMHO.  I no longer believe all that BS about "kids being intrinsically better at picking up languages" and crap.  (Although the accent comment may be spot on...)</p><p>d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no emperical data but I totally agree with you .
Children are immersed much more than adults and adults talk differently to children who are learning the language than to other adults.I 'm American currently living in Japan with two small kids .
How other people treat me learning Japanese vs how they treat my 2.5 yr old is totally different .
they 'll correct him , use simpler words , speak slowly , teach him , and praise him when right .
If you 're an adult , other adults will try to speak to you on their level .
It is incredibility hard to pick up a language with other people speaking at full speed using more advanced language.IMHO this and the level of Immersion kids face are the two huge advantages kids have when learning a new language IMHO .
I no longer believe all that BS about " kids being intrinsically better at picking up languages " and crap .
( Although the accent comment may be spot on... ) d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no emperical data but I totally agree with you.
Children are immersed much more than adults and adults talk differently to children who are learning the language than to other adults.I'm American currently living in Japan with two small kids.
How other people treat me learning Japanese vs how they treat my 2.5 yr old is totally different.
they'll correct him, use simpler words, speak slowly, teach him, and praise him when right.
If you're an adult, other adults will try to speak to you on their level.
It is incredibility hard to pick up a language with other people speaking at full speed using more advanced language.IMHO this and the level of Immersion kids face are the two huge advantages kids have when learning a new language IMHO.
I no longer believe all that BS about "kids being intrinsically better at picking up languages" and crap.
(Although the accent comment may be spot on...)d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186907</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1243933380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the "little" distinction of women getting pregnant. Which is something that men simply cannot do.</p><p>Not to put it bluntly but numbers may be down because some women choose (or oops) to have children early in life. Attending later on is more difficult and thus numbers would be down.</p><p>Many of these would not attend university. Some do. Some guys don't attend due to the responsibility also. Some don't</p><p>Statistically if that is what we are speaking, I would bet this effects negatively women than men (and by that I just mean that less actually may go because of that determining factor). Yes some single mothers also go. The difficulty curve just goes up and likely the numbers go down again.</p><p>In any event this natural biological function will account for some statistical variation, and likely that variation will tend to favor males.</p><p>You can make the same arguments for simple statistical arguments for workplace equality.</p><p>That is not to say that is the only factor, only that is a significant one that is ignored usually in the name of equality.</p><p>Granted I didn't RTFA, so I have no idea how they came up with their numbers nor how they did their statistics. If it was based on a ratio or per/capita it wouldn't be too bad a description other than that is all it is. Trend is simply over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the " little " distinction of women getting pregnant .
Which is something that men simply can not do.Not to put it bluntly but numbers may be down because some women choose ( or oops ) to have children early in life .
Attending later on is more difficult and thus numbers would be down.Many of these would not attend university .
Some do .
Some guys do n't attend due to the responsibility also .
Some don'tStatistically if that is what we are speaking , I would bet this effects negatively women than men ( and by that I just mean that less actually may go because of that determining factor ) .
Yes some single mothers also go .
The difficulty curve just goes up and likely the numbers go down again.In any event this natural biological function will account for some statistical variation , and likely that variation will tend to favor males.You can make the same arguments for simple statistical arguments for workplace equality.That is not to say that is the only factor , only that is a significant one that is ignored usually in the name of equality.Granted I did n't RTFA , so I have no idea how they came up with their numbers nor how they did their statistics .
If it was based on a ratio or per/capita it would n't be too bad a description other than that is all it is .
Trend is simply over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the "little" distinction of women getting pregnant.
Which is something that men simply cannot do.Not to put it bluntly but numbers may be down because some women choose (or oops) to have children early in life.
Attending later on is more difficult and thus numbers would be down.Many of these would not attend university.
Some do.
Some guys don't attend due to the responsibility also.
Some don'tStatistically if that is what we are speaking, I would bet this effects negatively women than men (and by that I just mean that less actually may go because of that determining factor).
Yes some single mothers also go.
The difficulty curve just goes up and likely the numbers go down again.In any event this natural biological function will account for some statistical variation, and likely that variation will tend to favor males.You can make the same arguments for simple statistical arguments for workplace equality.That is not to say that is the only factor, only that is a significant one that is ignored usually in the name of equality.Granted I didn't RTFA, so I have no idea how they came up with their numbers nor how they did their statistics.
If it was based on a ratio or per/capita it wouldn't be too bad a description other than that is all it is.
Trend is simply over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187051</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1243934040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But does this tell us anything about the abilities of both men and women to compete at that level? It might, but it also could be social. Boys are from a very young age encouraged in Maths, Engineering, and Sciences while a lot of girls are encouraged to embrace their social and emotional sides.</i></p><p>Wrong, at least for the US.</p><p>Here in the USA, boys aren't encouraged in math, engineering, or especially science.  Instead, they're encouraged to go into sports or singing (American Idol).  Boys who don't do well in these are encouraged to become real estate agents or mortgage brokers.</p><p>Maybe things are different for you in the UK (as you called it "maths"), but kids, boy or girl, are NOT encouraged to go into science, math, or engineering fields here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But does this tell us anything about the abilities of both men and women to compete at that level ?
It might , but it also could be social .
Boys are from a very young age encouraged in Maths , Engineering , and Sciences while a lot of girls are encouraged to embrace their social and emotional sides.Wrong , at least for the US.Here in the USA , boys are n't encouraged in math , engineering , or especially science .
Instead , they 're encouraged to go into sports or singing ( American Idol ) .
Boys who do n't do well in these are encouraged to become real estate agents or mortgage brokers.Maybe things are different for you in the UK ( as you called it " maths " ) , but kids , boy or girl , are NOT encouraged to go into science , math , or engineering fields here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does this tell us anything about the abilities of both men and women to compete at that level?
It might, but it also could be social.
Boys are from a very young age encouraged in Maths, Engineering, and Sciences while a lot of girls are encouraged to embrace their social and emotional sides.Wrong, at least for the US.Here in the USA, boys aren't encouraged in math, engineering, or especially science.
Instead, they're encouraged to go into sports or singing (American Idol).
Boys who don't do well in these are encouraged to become real estate agents or mortgage brokers.Maybe things are different for you in the UK (as you called it "maths"), but kids, boy or girl, are NOT encouraged to go into science, math, or engineering fields here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28201175</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Lost Race</author>
	<datestamp>1244023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class. There are girls, and then there are girls.</p></div></blockquote><p>How is that a problem? Back when I was a math major in college, there were **attractive** female math majors, but my girlfriend was an **attractive** female bio/chem major.</p><p>Thinking back further<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... some of the girls in my high school math classes were reasonably pretty and pretty brainy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which in my book is **attractive**. Of course, at that age I considered almost all girls **attractive**, so I have a hard time imagining what you're complaining about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem is the number of * * attractive * * girls taking my class .
There are girls , and then there are girls.How is that a problem ?
Back when I was a math major in college , there were * * attractive * * female math majors , but my girlfriend was an * * attractive * * female bio/chem major.Thinking back further ... some of the girls in my high school math classes were reasonably pretty and pretty brainy ... which in my book is * * attractive * * .
Of course , at that age I considered almost all girls * * attractive * * , so I have a hard time imagining what you 're complaining about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.
There are girls, and then there are girls.How is that a problem?
Back when I was a math major in college, there were **attractive** female math majors, but my girlfriend was an **attractive** female bio/chem major.Thinking back further ... some of the girls in my high school math classes were reasonably pretty and pretty brainy ... which in my book is **attractive**.
Of course, at that age I considered almost all girls **attractive**, so I have a hard time imagining what you're complaining about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189843</id>
	<title>Lawrence Summers?  Remember Sonia Sotomayor.</title>
	<author>TomTuttle</author>
	<datestamp>1243947120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a mathematician] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."  You know what is the best quality of a mathematician?  Empathy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [ as a mathematician ] than a white male who has n't lived that life .
" You know what is the best quality of a mathematician ?
Empathy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a mathematician] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
"  You know what is the best quality of a mathematician?
Empathy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186723</id>
	<title>Re:Another one bites the dust</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1243975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about peeing contests, driving (if only cars didn't have mirrors), and sports.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about peeing contests , driving ( if only cars did n't have mirrors ) , and sports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about peeing contests, driving (if only cars didn't have mirrors), and sports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190133</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>billius</author>
	<datestamp>1243948920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's true!  At my school (University of Arizona) CS consistently either has the lowest or second lowest female enrollment of any major (we're in a competition with Optical Engineering it seems).  My roommate is a Math major and he actually *met* his current girlfriend through a student teaching position (they were both TAs).  Women are doing better in Math specifically, but in other "mathy" fields (CS, Engineering, etc) they are still really underrepresented.  Not that it's the job of the University to find me a date who will listen to me prattle on about the editor wars or anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true !
At my school ( University of Arizona ) CS consistently either has the lowest or second lowest female enrollment of any major ( we 're in a competition with Optical Engineering it seems ) .
My roommate is a Math major and he actually * met * his current girlfriend through a student teaching position ( they were both TAs ) .
Women are doing better in Math specifically , but in other " mathy " fields ( CS , Engineering , etc ) they are still really underrepresented .
Not that it 's the job of the University to find me a date who will listen to me prattle on about the editor wars or anything : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true!
At my school (University of Arizona) CS consistently either has the lowest or second lowest female enrollment of any major (we're in a competition with Optical Engineering it seems).
My roommate is a Math major and he actually *met* his current girlfriend through a student teaching position (they were both TAs).
Women are doing better in Math specifically, but in other "mathy" fields (CS, Engineering, etc) they are still really underrepresented.
Not that it's the job of the University to find me a date who will listen to me prattle on about the editor wars or anything :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186633</id>
	<title>Re:And while we're on the subject...</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1243975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, we only study gender and race when it fits a pattern of traditional bias.  Biases against the traditional more powerful groups are welcomed and encouraged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , we only study gender and race when it fits a pattern of traditional bias .
Biases against the traditional more powerful groups are welcomed and encouraged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, we only study gender and race when it fits a pattern of traditional bias.
Biases against the traditional more powerful groups are welcomed and encouraged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188747</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>ViennaSt</author>
	<datestamp>1243941000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculus</p></div><p>My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.  There are girls, and then there are <i>girls</i>.</p></div><p>No, the problem is whether or not it is **American** girls in these classes and in <b>this study</b>.  Look at the swarms of Chinese and Indian females that take up these majors in the American universities.  You'll find that these cultures don't have this "gender gap" or separation with these subjects.  This may be due to these cultures not having the option of taking the social sciences.  I would like a breakdown of what race/culture make up these woman that are obtaining these Ph.D.  If it is mostly foreign born, then we are looking at a socialized root of the mathematic gender gap problem--not an anatomical/physiological difference that develops in male and female brains that causing the difference in mathematic performance.</p><p>Also, Winny from the Wonder Years got a Ph.D. degree in math.  She's hot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusMy problem is the number of * * attractive * * girls taking my class .
There are girls , and then there are girls.No , the problem is whether or not it is * * American * * girls in these classes and in this study .
Look at the swarms of Chinese and Indian females that take up these majors in the American universities .
You 'll find that these cultures do n't have this " gender gap " or separation with these subjects .
This may be due to these cultures not having the option of taking the social sciences .
I would like a breakdown of what race/culture make up these woman that are obtaining these Ph.D. If it is mostly foreign born , then we are looking at a socialized root of the mathematic gender gap problem--not an anatomical/physiological difference that develops in male and female brains that causing the difference in mathematic performance.Also , Winny from the Wonder Years got a Ph.D. degree in math .
She 's hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as many girls as boys now taking high school calculusMy problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class.
There are girls, and then there are girls.No, the problem is whether or not it is **American** girls in these classes and in this study.
Look at the swarms of Chinese and Indian females that take up these majors in the American universities.
You'll find that these cultures don't have this "gender gap" or separation with these subjects.
This may be due to these cultures not having the option of taking the social sciences.
I would like a breakdown of what race/culture make up these woman that are obtaining these Ph.D.  If it is mostly foreign born, then we are looking at a socialized root of the mathematic gender gap problem--not an anatomical/physiological difference that develops in male and female brains that causing the difference in mathematic performance.Also, Winny from the Wonder Years got a Ph.D. degree in math.
She's hot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921</id>
	<title>Re:the biggest gaps seem to be in interest</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1243937400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And while I'm at it, who's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers?</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren\_Farrell" title="wikipedia.org">Warren Farrell</a> [wikipedia.org] is a somewhat controversial author on men's issues who has actually spent quite a bit of time exploring this exact question. He proposed, with appropriate evidence, that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the "glass ceiling", they tend to ignore the "glass floor" in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions. Examples of these sorts of male-dominated professions include sanitation workers, miners, construction workers, oil rig roughnecks, sailors, farm laborers, police officers, firefighters, and lumberjacks. The reason he proposes for this is really quite simple: the women most involved in feminism tend to be fairly wealthy, and that means that the millions of working-class men in those undesirable professions are essentially invisible to them, whereas the men who are at the top of the food chain are very visible to them, creating a perception that all men are doing better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And while I 'm at it , who 's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers ?
Warren Farrell [ wikipedia.org ] is a somewhat controversial author on men 's issues who has actually spent quite a bit of time exploring this exact question .
He proposed , with appropriate evidence , that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the " glass ceiling " , they tend to ignore the " glass floor " in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions .
Examples of these sorts of male-dominated professions include sanitation workers , miners , construction workers , oil rig roughnecks , sailors , farm laborers , police officers , firefighters , and lumberjacks .
The reason he proposes for this is really quite simple : the women most involved in feminism tend to be fairly wealthy , and that means that the millions of working-class men in those undesirable professions are essentially invisible to them , whereas the men who are at the top of the food chain are very visible to them , creating a perception that all men are doing better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And while I'm at it, who's working to close the gender gap in sanitation workers?
Warren Farrell [wikipedia.org] is a somewhat controversial author on men's issues who has actually spent quite a bit of time exploring this exact question.
He proposed, with appropriate evidence, that while women have made great strides in reducing the effects of the "glass ceiling", they tend to ignore the "glass floor" in which men tend to occupy undesirable and often dangerous professions.
Examples of these sorts of male-dominated professions include sanitation workers, miners, construction workers, oil rig roughnecks, sailors, farm laborers, police officers, firefighters, and lumberjacks.
The reason he proposes for this is really quite simple: the women most involved in feminism tend to be fairly wealthy, and that means that the millions of working-class men in those undesirable professions are essentially invisible to them, whereas the men who are at the top of the food chain are very visible to them, creating a perception that all men are doing better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189953</id>
	<title>Two things being conflated</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243947720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a couple of things being conflated in this type of research, which to me muddies the water.  One question has to do with performance of people not too far from the median.  For this question, I believe it's reasonable to look at how achievement test scores vary with factors like gender, race, culture, nationality, socioeconomics, and so forth.  The original research cited here involves data of this type.  And the conclusion isn't so surprising:  Female performance relative to males is very situationally-dependent.  Anecdotally one only needs to look at the gender gap (if one exists) in east Asian students vs. the gender gap in white students.  *Maybe* white women are at some genetic disadvantage relative to asian women -- again relative to their respective male counterparts -- but it seems unlikely relative to a cultural factor.</p><p>What these lines of research don't really show -- because there isn't enough comparative data available -- is what are the external factors that most correlate with the gender gap within different groups.  Is it culture that drives the variation?  (Asians have higher expectations on daughters?  Asians don't propagate the "geek stigma" as much for girls?)  Is it economics?  (Poorer people cannot educate all their kids, so preferentially educate the boys?)  Or something else?  Who knows.</p><p>The second question being conflated is performance at the far, far, end of the performance spectrum.  Fields medal winners represent the 99.999+ percentile.  Who knows what defines people out there?  There aren't enough of them to really study as a statistical emsemble.  It's fair to say that at the high end of any performance curve, a lot of things have to come together simultaneously:  Raw talent, motivation, opportunity, persistence, environment, dedication.  It could be for example that men have no more innate ability than women, but are just more single-minded in their approach to life.  I.e., more men than women are willing to do what Andrew Wiles did, namely hole up in an attic for 10 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (with a low probability of success).</p><p>Finally, I think with regard to this sort of research it's important to maintain a dispassionate attitude.  When I get the feeling the authors are trying to *advocate* for a particular conclusion, that makes me a bit queasy.  There seems to be this unstated assumption that an unequal outcome is indicative of unequal opportunity.  Would anyone argue that the relative lack of white men in the NBA is indicative of low opportunity or discrimination?  Probably not.  Perhaps white women don't pursue math at the highest levels because they simply don't want to, compared with other uses for their time.  Is this a bad outcome?  Within the scientific enterprise it's a very slippery slope to start asserting value judgments about these things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a couple of things being conflated in this type of research , which to me muddies the water .
One question has to do with performance of people not too far from the median .
For this question , I believe it 's reasonable to look at how achievement test scores vary with factors like gender , race , culture , nationality , socioeconomics , and so forth .
The original research cited here involves data of this type .
And the conclusion is n't so surprising : Female performance relative to males is very situationally-dependent .
Anecdotally one only needs to look at the gender gap ( if one exists ) in east Asian students vs. the gender gap in white students .
* Maybe * white women are at some genetic disadvantage relative to asian women -- again relative to their respective male counterparts -- but it seems unlikely relative to a cultural factor.What these lines of research do n't really show -- because there is n't enough comparative data available -- is what are the external factors that most correlate with the gender gap within different groups .
Is it culture that drives the variation ?
( Asians have higher expectations on daughters ?
Asians do n't propagate the " geek stigma " as much for girls ?
) Is it economics ?
( Poorer people can not educate all their kids , so preferentially educate the boys ?
) Or something else ?
Who knows.The second question being conflated is performance at the far , far , end of the performance spectrum .
Fields medal winners represent the 99.999 + percentile .
Who knows what defines people out there ?
There are n't enough of them to really study as a statistical emsemble .
It 's fair to say that at the high end of any performance curve , a lot of things have to come together simultaneously : Raw talent , motivation , opportunity , persistence , environment , dedication .
It could be for example that men have no more innate ability than women , but are just more single-minded in their approach to life .
I.e. , more men than women are willing to do what Andrew Wiles did , namely hole up in an attic for 10 years to prove Fermat 's Last Theorem ( with a low probability of success ) .Finally , I think with regard to this sort of research it 's important to maintain a dispassionate attitude .
When I get the feeling the authors are trying to * advocate * for a particular conclusion , that makes me a bit queasy .
There seems to be this unstated assumption that an unequal outcome is indicative of unequal opportunity .
Would anyone argue that the relative lack of white men in the NBA is indicative of low opportunity or discrimination ?
Probably not .
Perhaps white women do n't pursue math at the highest levels because they simply do n't want to , compared with other uses for their time .
Is this a bad outcome ?
Within the scientific enterprise it 's a very slippery slope to start asserting value judgments about these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a couple of things being conflated in this type of research, which to me muddies the water.
One question has to do with performance of people not too far from the median.
For this question, I believe it's reasonable to look at how achievement test scores vary with factors like gender, race, culture, nationality, socioeconomics, and so forth.
The original research cited here involves data of this type.
And the conclusion isn't so surprising:  Female performance relative to males is very situationally-dependent.
Anecdotally one only needs to look at the gender gap (if one exists) in east Asian students vs. the gender gap in white students.
*Maybe* white women are at some genetic disadvantage relative to asian women -- again relative to their respective male counterparts -- but it seems unlikely relative to a cultural factor.What these lines of research don't really show -- because there isn't enough comparative data available -- is what are the external factors that most correlate with the gender gap within different groups.
Is it culture that drives the variation?
(Asians have higher expectations on daughters?
Asians don't propagate the "geek stigma" as much for girls?
)  Is it economics?
(Poorer people cannot educate all their kids, so preferentially educate the boys?
)  Or something else?
Who knows.The second question being conflated is performance at the far, far, end of the performance spectrum.
Fields medal winners represent the 99.999+ percentile.
Who knows what defines people out there?
There aren't enough of them to really study as a statistical emsemble.
It's fair to say that at the high end of any performance curve, a lot of things have to come together simultaneously:  Raw talent, motivation, opportunity, persistence, environment, dedication.
It could be for example that men have no more innate ability than women, but are just more single-minded in their approach to life.
I.e., more men than women are willing to do what Andrew Wiles did, namely hole up in an attic for 10 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (with a low probability of success).Finally, I think with regard to this sort of research it's important to maintain a dispassionate attitude.
When I get the feeling the authors are trying to *advocate* for a particular conclusion, that makes me a bit queasy.
There seems to be this unstated assumption that an unequal outcome is indicative of unequal opportunity.
Would anyone argue that the relative lack of white men in the NBA is indicative of low opportunity or discrimination?
Probably not.
Perhaps white women don't pursue math at the highest levels because they simply don't want to, compared with other uses for their time.
Is this a bad outcome?
Within the scientific enterprise it's a very slippery slope to start asserting value judgments about these things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190027</id>
	<title>TFA Refutes Your Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243948260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And someone who took stats to a graduate level and read TFA will respond with this quotation from TFA:
<br> <br>
<em>Mertz and Hyde looked for evidence of this imbalance - more boys than girls at the extremes of math ability - in international data, too. Again, they found that in some countries as many girls as boys score above the 99th percentile, and in others more girls than boys are extreme math dunces or math geniuses. In both cases, countries with as many or more girls at the upper extreme tend to be those with the greatest gender equality, such as Germany and the Netherlands.</em>
<br> <br>
Furthermore, in T(Actual)FA about which TFA reports, I read the following:<br> <br>
<em>Notable is the fact that numerous countries had a normalized SD difference that was insignificantly different from zero, with 3 even having a negative value, that is, greater female variability.</em> (Hyde and Mertz, <strong>PNAS</strong> June 2, 2009 vol. 106 no. 22, 8803)
<br> <br>
In other words, statistical measurement shows that what you're seeing in the performance differences between men and women in mathematics are not innate differences but culturally-mediated differences. Same goes for the ability in language, verbal expression or other acquired skills, I would argue. Women aren't innately better communicators or writers. We're just kind of herded that way, as a group. Young women are, from very early on, acculturated to those skill sets seen as appropriately feminine. Young men are supported to learn and behave in ways that are considered appropriately manly. This socialization begins very early and extends quite a ways into the life-cycle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And someone who took stats to a graduate level and read TFA will respond with this quotation from TFA : Mertz and Hyde looked for evidence of this imbalance - more boys than girls at the extremes of math ability - in international data , too .
Again , they found that in some countries as many girls as boys score above the 99th percentile , and in others more girls than boys are extreme math dunces or math geniuses .
In both cases , countries with as many or more girls at the upper extreme tend to be those with the greatest gender equality , such as Germany and the Netherlands .
Furthermore , in T ( Actual ) FA about which TFA reports , I read the following : Notable is the fact that numerous countries had a normalized SD difference that was insignificantly different from zero , with 3 even having a negative value , that is , greater female variability .
( Hyde and Mertz , PNAS June 2 , 2009 vol .
106 no .
22 , 8803 ) In other words , statistical measurement shows that what you 're seeing in the performance differences between men and women in mathematics are not innate differences but culturally-mediated differences .
Same goes for the ability in language , verbal expression or other acquired skills , I would argue .
Women are n't innately better communicators or writers .
We 're just kind of herded that way , as a group .
Young women are , from very early on , acculturated to those skill sets seen as appropriately feminine .
Young men are supported to learn and behave in ways that are considered appropriately manly .
This socialization begins very early and extends quite a ways into the life-cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And someone who took stats to a graduate level and read TFA will respond with this quotation from TFA:
 
Mertz and Hyde looked for evidence of this imbalance - more boys than girls at the extremes of math ability - in international data, too.
Again, they found that in some countries as many girls as boys score above the 99th percentile, and in others more girls than boys are extreme math dunces or math geniuses.
In both cases, countries with as many or more girls at the upper extreme tend to be those with the greatest gender equality, such as Germany and the Netherlands.
Furthermore, in T(Actual)FA about which TFA reports, I read the following: 
Notable is the fact that numerous countries had a normalized SD difference that was insignificantly different from zero, with 3 even having a negative value, that is, greater female variability.
(Hyde and Mertz, PNAS June 2, 2009 vol.
106 no.
22, 8803)
 
In other words, statistical measurement shows that what you're seeing in the performance differences between men and women in mathematics are not innate differences but culturally-mediated differences.
Same goes for the ability in language, verbal expression or other acquired skills, I would argue.
Women aren't innately better communicators or writers.
We're just kind of herded that way, as a group.
Young women are, from very early on, acculturated to those skill sets seen as appropriately feminine.
Young men are supported to learn and behave in ways that are considered appropriately manly.
This socialization begins very early and extends quite a ways into the life-cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28200959</id>
	<title>Re:Social or Biological?</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1244022480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was "fine" until people realized there was a problem.  In fact, it was encouraged for women to go into teaching for many years because most people believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were better teachers.  Considering that now any adult male who even glances at a child the wrong way is likely to be accused of being a pervert/molester/statutory rapist, have fun getting men into teaching.  I wouldn't consider it even if they quadrupled the salary.  The funny part of this is that female teachers are having sex with students all over the country but nobody ever questions whether women are evil perverts or whether they should be trusted.  Double standards for everyone I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was " fine " until people realized there was a problem .
In fact , it was encouraged for women to go into teaching for many years because most people believed ( rightly or wrongly ) that they were better teachers .
Considering that now any adult male who even glances at a child the wrong way is likely to be accused of being a pervert/molester/statutory rapist , have fun getting men into teaching .
I would n't consider it even if they quadrupled the salary .
The funny part of this is that female teachers are having sex with students all over the country but nobody ever questions whether women are evil perverts or whether they should be trusted .
Double standards for everyone I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was "fine" until people realized there was a problem.
In fact, it was encouraged for women to go into teaching for many years because most people believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were better teachers.
Considering that now any adult male who even glances at a child the wrong way is likely to be accused of being a pervert/molester/statutory rapist, have fun getting men into teaching.
I wouldn't consider it even if they quadrupled the salary.
The funny part of this is that female teachers are having sex with students all over the country but nobody ever questions whether women are evil perverts or whether they should be trusted.
Double standards for everyone I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188849</id>
	<title>Brain specialization</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1243941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is missing an important point.</p><p>Males have greater brain specialization.  (In particular, right handed males have the most.)  This is why savants are more likely to be male.  Head injuries to males (and especially right-handed males) are more likely to cause the complete and utter loss of some function.</p><p>So you can have female savants, you can have female geniuses, you can have just as many females doing just fine in math, but the overall likelihood is that at the very top of the field, where the people are often badly broken people who specialize in math and seem oddly incapable of anything else, the ratio of males to females will be higher.</p><p>Is this a societal phenomenon rather than a genetic one?  While it might be a mix of factors, you absolutely cannot argue that male brains are just like female ones.  You need only look at the prevalence of autism in males vs. females to see this.  (Unless you're going to argue that autism is all about rearing technique -- in which case we ought to be dressing all our children uniformly in pink.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is missing an important point.Males have greater brain specialization .
( In particular , right handed males have the most .
) This is why savants are more likely to be male .
Head injuries to males ( and especially right-handed males ) are more likely to cause the complete and utter loss of some function.So you can have female savants , you can have female geniuses , you can have just as many females doing just fine in math , but the overall likelihood is that at the very top of the field , where the people are often badly broken people who specialize in math and seem oddly incapable of anything else , the ratio of males to females will be higher.Is this a societal phenomenon rather than a genetic one ?
While it might be a mix of factors , you absolutely can not argue that male brains are just like female ones .
You need only look at the prevalence of autism in males vs. females to see this .
( Unless you 're going to argue that autism is all about rearing technique -- in which case we ought to be dressing all our children uniformly in pink .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is missing an important point.Males have greater brain specialization.
(In particular, right handed males have the most.
)  This is why savants are more likely to be male.
Head injuries to males (and especially right-handed males) are more likely to cause the complete and utter loss of some function.So you can have female savants, you can have female geniuses, you can have just as many females doing just fine in math, but the overall likelihood is that at the very top of the field, where the people are often badly broken people who specialize in math and seem oddly incapable of anything else, the ratio of males to females will be higher.Is this a societal phenomenon rather than a genetic one?
While it might be a mix of factors, you absolutely cannot argue that male brains are just like female ones.
You need only look at the prevalence of autism in males vs. females to see this.
(Unless you're going to argue that autism is all about rearing technique -- in which case we ought to be dressing all our children uniformly in pink.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28204029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28195789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28194287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28195969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28200959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28201175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28194777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1840254_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188149
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28194287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28195969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187921
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239587
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28201175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28194777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187943
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187363
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192013
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28195789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28193037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28189285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28239597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28191325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28200959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28204029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28192349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28186907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28188547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28190011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1840254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1840254.28187711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
