I don’t believe it has ever been taken seriously, not least because competition is such a loose concept, that can be expressed, or not, in so many disparate ways.

However, I would point out that less than a century ago law and medicine were considered essentially a man’s domain, and very similar guesses about predisposition were made regarding the sex ratio in both law and medicine. Yep. If you believe the Romans and others they linked genius with the production of semen in young males. When you consider that the great discoveries of maths and science were nearly always made by men in their 20’s this makes some sense. When a field is a “man’s field”, that likely means the cultural landscape of the field is male dominated, with “old boy’s club” mentality. Or most women don’t go out deer hunting, or work on their cars on the weekend. Anyway, history shows many famous – notorious even – examples of ambition and success in women.

Yep. I think this Ox is just a wind-up artist, actually. Y’know, I’m mystified.I would have thought that, given the title of the thread, there’d be females posting in this topic.But so far I haven’t seen one mention of shoes… I have certainly heard the term ‘competition gene’ mentioned on sci-programs. One of my favourites is Eleanor of Aquitaine:Eleanor of Aquitaine – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What a woman! But note that she was lucky enough to be well-educated, a rarity in those days. it’s just a sad commentary, that men exist to this very day, with these sexist, archaic attitudes about women. artistotle, one of the great philosophers, was another sexist. yes, we can say…’they were a product of their time,’ but they were a product of their own thinking. because we see it happening today, in 2013. sexism is sadly alive and well, and it’s the very reason we don’t see more female scientists, etc…throughout history. it isn’t because men are superior, or women were just not ‘as ambitious.’ it’s because women were considered inferior to men, by men. just really sad to me to see this attitude pervasive in today’s modern culture. Quite. I don’t believe it has ever been taken seriously, not least because competition is such a loose concept, that can be expressed, or not, in so many disparate ways.

I have certainly heard the term ‘competition gene’ mentioned on sci-programs. I understand this is an area still being explored. It’s such a stupid point: if you google “competition gene” you get zilch. If you believe the Romans and others they linked genius with the production of semen in young males. Anyway, history shows many famous – notorious even – examples of ambition and success in women. However, the social and cultural landscape has shifted significantly, with the result that applicants to both law and medical schools are majority female at nearly a 60/40 ratio.[/QUOTE]I suspect that both conditions were due largely to cultural shift.

It’s about cultural behavior that most (though not necessarily all) women would find made them feel uncomfortable. When you consider that the great discoveries of maths and science were nearly always made by men in their 20’s this makes some sense. And the studies I have seen are highly questionable, resting as they do on intelligence testing.Do you have some evidence to prove most great discoveries were made by men in their 20’s? Or is that a wild assumption? And what does Schroedingers womanising have to do with anything?I seriously don’t know whether to laugh or cry at your post. A woman would only feel welcome in a place dominated by that kind of culture if she herself shared the interests that are common to others in that culture. Quite.

Helen Keller – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia — This woman was phenomenal in every way…what a remarkable human being! If you believe the Romans and others they linked genius with the production of semen in young males. Originally Posted by exchemist Originally Posted by wegs Originally Posted by ox Originally Posted by Nisslbody Can you tell me more about this “competition gene” that is only found in males? Perhaps link me to a study? I’ve never heard of such a thing.It seems unlikely to me that women are truly less ambitious or competitive by nature, particularly given that they increasingly dominate law and medicine which are well known for being highly ambitious and competitive fields.

I understand this is an area still being explored. Yep. Schroedinger was a possible exception, but then he was a womaniser for most of his life.Women were certainly perceived as being less ambitious than men up until recently. I have certainly heard the term ‘competition gene’ mentioned on sci-programs.

So, I’d like to say sexist attitudes like yours went on since the dawn of time, but I’d be inaccurate to make such a statement. this is one such moment, when a ‘dislike’ button would come in handy on this website. I understand this is an area still being explored. It’s such a stupid point: if you google “competition gene” you get zilch. Possibly they can compete better now with the decline in male fertility and the change to the Y-Chromosone.When there is a surplus of males, or females are more promiscuous, then males become competitive at the molecular level.Research News: Sexual Competition Drives Evolution of a Sex-Related Gene | Howard Hughes Medical Institute buy essay writing online
omg, what a gross, insulting post. :/ women were never ‘not as ambitious,’ as men. men have oppressed women for centuries. why is that? you might find it surprising to know that historians, and the like…have recently pieced together that quite possibly…gender equality for lack of a better phrase, went on during the Paleolithic Era. You will also find that other studies like this stipulate that the effects are so small as to not be found at individual level. Like most women wouldn’t feel overly comfortable in a biker gang.

When you consider that the great discoveries of maths and science were nearly always made by men in their 20’s this makes some sense. Possibly they can compete better now with the decline in male fertility and the change to the Y-Chromosone.When there is a surplus of males, or females are more promiscuous, then males become competitive at the molecular level.Research News: Sexual Competition Drives Evolution of a Sex-Related Gene | Howard Hughes Medical Institute This study is saying that male sperm alters to become a better product when there are too many males or promiscuous females – it most definitely is not saying that men with better sperm are more clever or more ambitious or more competitive in the workplace. If you believe the Romans and others they linked genius with the production of semen in young males. I don’t believe it has ever been taken seriously, not least because competition is such a loose concept, that can be expressed, or not, in so many disparate ways. I think this Ox is just a wind-up artist, actually.

Originally Posted by wegs Originally Posted by ox Originally Posted by Nisslbody Can you tell me more about this “competition gene” that is only found in males? Perhaps link me to a study? I’ve never heard of such a thing.It seems unlikely to me that women are truly less ambitious or competitive by nature, particularly given that they increasingly dominate law and medicine which are well known for being highly ambitious and competitive fields. Originally Posted by ox Originally Posted by Nisslbody Can you tell me more about this “competition gene” that is only found in males?

Perhaps link me to a study? I’ve never heard of such a thing.It seems unlikely to me that women are truly less ambitious or competitive by nature, particularly given that they increasingly dominate law and medicine which are well known for being highly ambitious and competitive fields. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr Y’know, I’m mystified.I would have thought that, given the title of the thread, there’d be females posting in this topic.But so far I haven’t seen one mention of shoes… doh! where’s the dislike button?

Possibly they can compete better now with the decline in male fertility and the change to the Y-Chromosone.When there is a surplus of males, or females are more promiscuous, then males become competitive at the molecular level.Research News: Sexual Competition Drives Evolution of a Sex-Related Gene | Howard Hughes Medical Institute omg, what a gross, insulting post. :/ women were never ‘not as ambitious,’ as men. men have oppressed women for centuries. why is that? you might find it surprising to know that historians, and the like…have recently pieced together that quite possibly…gender equality for lack of a better phrase, went on during the Paleolithic Era. Some do, but most don’t. I have certainly heard the term ‘competition gene’ mentioned on sci-programs. Schroedinger was a possible exception, but then he was a womaniser for most of his life.Women were certainly perceived as being less ambitious than men up until recently. Schroedinger was a possible exception, but then he was a womaniser for most of his life.Women were certainly perceived as being less ambitious than men up until recently.

Possibly they can compete better now with the decline in male fertility and the change to the Y-Chromosone.When there is a surplus of males, or females are more promiscuous, then males become competitive at the molecular level.Research News: Sexual Competition Drives Evolution of a Sex-Related Gene | Howard Hughes Medical Institute omg, what a gross, insulting post. :/ women were never ‘not as ambitious,’ as men. men have oppressed women for centuries. why is that? you might find it surprising to know that historians, and the like…have recently pieced together that quite possibly…gender equality for lack of a better phrase, went on during the Paleolithic Era. It’s just opposition to women in those environments. So, I’d like to say sexist attitudes like yours went on since the dawn of time, but I’d be inaccurate to make such a statement. this is one such moment, when a ‘dislike’ button would come in handy on this website.

If I may, speaking from a social science perspective it is rather meaningless to speculate about the possibility of a sex-linked difference in predisposition toward entering math and science fields at this time, because it is currently impossible to separate the social/cultural factors from any potential biological factors influencing the sex ratio in sciences. One of my favourites is Eleanor of Aquitaine:Eleanor of Aquitaine – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What a woman! But note that she was lucky enough to be well-educated, a rarity in those days. Schroedinger was a possible exception, but then he was a womaniser for most of his life.Women were certainly perceived as being less ambitious than men up until recently. I understand this is an area still being explored. So, I’d like to say sexist attitudes like yours went on since the dawn of time, but I’d be inaccurate to make such a statement. this is one such moment, when a ‘dislike’ button would come in handy on this website.

When you consider that the great discoveries of maths and science were nearly always made by men in their 20’s this makes some sense.