Men are the weaker sex

I am losing no battle, unless like George Bush you are also illiterate you will have understood my post was merely a joke, but because you and a few members feel threatened you've taken it the wrong way. Also you have a habit of copying other people's replies? Why?

Since the 'supression' of women has stopped there has been more than 1 generation yet there still arent many women winning the nobel prize.

I am losing no battle, unless like George Bush you are also illiterate you will have understood my post was merely a joke, but because you and a few members feel threatened you've taken it the wrong way. Also you have a habit of copying other people's replies? Why?

jst quit while you're ahead.

I think you'll find it's simply better to not reply to his half witted comments. But it's interesting that women won't need men to procreate.

{ingnik']if you're going to argue, why dont you actualy argue?

Can we just ignore the fool? I should have known his 'i'm nice really' behaviour wouldn't last. I don't want this thread turning into another battle. Thanks. There are currently no mods <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=online&v=55">online</a>, otherwise I would call for this thread to be locked. I would like to retain my green gems

And you're going to repeat that like a broken record while I state what is wrong with that argument right?
I'll repeat it again, since you clearly did not read my post, and before you decide to reply I suggets you do read it, otherwise there is not point in you making a post.

One generation or one and a half if you want to be picky, allows very little time for women to have as many, or even make a dent in the number of nobels men have one. Back in the 50s it was still kind of weird to be at university anyway for a woman....the first generation who get in aren't suddenly going to jump to the top anyway are they? Plus even now, there are women in some countries who still don't have the same rights as many and so there will probably be less of them in academia, so this first generation isn't even a full generation, it's a portion of the world. The men on the other hand, have always had the opportunities, the favouritism, and have never had to compete against women to get nobels until women began entering academia. Before it was always a man who got the nobel because only men were allowed into academia anyway, now men and women go into it and that's why over the next 20 years you will see more women winning nobels.

Basically, when the bar is lifted from something, eveybody does not neccessarily flock to do it, at that time it was against the norm, now it isn't though and so....watch out for those women winning nobels soon!

Its been more like 3-4 generations - which is why your original arguement was wrong. Is there not less female mathematicians/physicists working in academia now than there ever has been? How is there going to be MORE nobel prize winners in the next 20 years if thats the case?

Its been more like 3-4 generations - which is why your original arguement was wrong. Is there not less female mathematicians/physicists working in academia now than there ever has been? How is there going to be MORE nobel prize winners in the next 20 years if thats the case?