i think it comes down to the fact that men have the mentality of going outside the norm and taking risks, whereas women seem to prefer to play things safe.

Yeah, some research I've read has shown that generally men and women do have different temperaments...

"Our findings that women score higher than men on both aspects are consistent with previous research showing women are more trusting and compliant than men (Costa et al., 2001).

Gender differences in Agreeableness may be related to gender differences in self-construal. Men tend to have an independent self-construal, or a sense of self that is separate from cognitive representations of others. Women have a more interdependent self-construal, in which their sense of self includes others (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). This gender difference is associated with motivational and behavioral differences, such as women having more interconnected and affiliative social groups (Cross and Madson, 1997). Women, therefore, may be more motivated than men to maintain social and emotional bonds by enacting more agreeable traits."

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...011.00178/full

Most studies measuring people’s Dark Triad personality traits have found significant gender differences (Grijalvaet al., 2014; Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009),with men typically scoring higher in Machiavellian-ism (d=0.27), Narcissism (d=0.16), and psychopathy(d=0.67; see Schmitt et al., 2016). In a study of 58 nations (Schmitt et al., 2016), measures of men’s and women’s Dark Triad traits were collected and the pat-tern of gender differences observed across cultures strongly disconfirmed social role theory. For instance, larger gender differences in Machiavellianism were found in relatively high gender egalitarian cultures of Iceland (d=0.61), New Zealand (d=0.60), Denmark(d=0.55) and the Netherlands (d=0.53). Smaller gender differences in Machiavellianism were found in less gender egalitarian cultures such as Malaysia (d=−0.10),Ethiopia (d=−0.09), South Korea (d=−0.07) and Tanzania (d=−0.01).

"Gender differences in personal values have been documented showing women report higher levels of benevolence (d=−0.36) and universalism (d=−0.25) values,whereas men report higher levels of power (d=0.29),achievement (d=0.24) and hedonism (d=0.11) values (Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009). Schwartz andRubel-Lifschitz (2009) reported both men and womenvalue benevolence more in nations with more gender egalitarianism. "

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...002/ijop.12265

Note... The misc will disagree (or may not even the following) but women are shown to value benevolence more than men. I personally try to value benevolence over everything else.

Yeah let’s ask the delusional 28 year old virgins on the misc why women aren’t creative and not worth their time

willing to bet not a single one of you guys posting about how men are more creative don't have a creative bone in your body. just lmao at trying to lump yourself in with the creations of successful men because you share the same gender.

truth: 99.9% of people aren't creative, men or women. also, before like 50 years ago women weren't allowed to do anything creative except interior decorate the house, srs.

hey i'm actually 24!!!11!

im still a virgin because women dont appreciate my nice personality and instead go for jerks like you


watchout your comments bro











































Spoiler!

cause guys are trying to bang chicks. our creativity is us trying to get their attention.

do you know how much poosay Michelangelo got for painting the Sistine chapel??

tons

From Roy Baumeister's talk entitled "is there anything good about men":

70% percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers.
72% of juvenile murderers and 60% of rapists come from single-mother homes.
70% of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers.

Women act and reason using their emotions. Raise a young boy to act on their emotions without constraint like this and this is what you get.

I think this is more of a poverty thing than a “single mother thing.” It just so happens that stable domestic situations are more common among the upper-middle and upper classes. Being raised by a baby-mama doesn’t make phuck you up as much as being poor, which most baby-mamas are.

Some examples:

Rosalind Franklin: DNA double helix

One of the most important scientific revelations of the twentieth century has also long been a subject of disputed credit. Famously, Cambridge University scientists James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick are credited with uncovering the double helix formation that would catapult forward our understanding of human DNA. In fact though, British chemist and X-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin had been engaged in the study of DNA over at Kings’s College in London in 1951 when she produced a groundbreaking image. A colleague showed this image to Watson and Crick without permission. This was the turning point in their research, though when they published their earth-shattering findings in 1953, they gave only passing reference to Franklin’s contributions. In perpetuity, it is the Cambridge pair that is associated with the double helix. So says the Nobel Prize they received in 1958, four years after Franklin died of ovarian cancer.

Lise Meitner: Nuclear Fission

As long as we’re on the subject of scientific genius, there’s the story of Lise Meitner. It’s hard to say whether Meitner is better or worse off for having been slighted by a greedy man. Meitner was a student under the legendary physicist Max Plank, and the first German woman to hold a professorship at a German University. As the Nazis rose to power, the young Jewish scientist was forced to flee her home country. She continued to correspond with her research partner, Otto Hahn, from her new location in Scandinavia. In 1938, Hahn and Meitner joined forces to outline the concept of nuclear fission. This was the groundbreaking moment that would, in just five years, give rise to the awesome destructive capacity of the atomic bomb. Anybody looking to send angry letters to those responsible would find only Hahn’s name on the landmark paper revealing the discovery. Hahn chose to omit his partner’s name and was thus the sole recipient of the 1944 prize in chemistry from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Hedy Lamarr: Radio Guidance System

Meitner wasn’t the only woman working to build military might during World War II. She is joined by Austrian-born, American actress Hedy Lamarr, who in addition to becoming a star of the Silver Screen during the Golden Age of Hollywood, collaborated with composer George Antheil to create a radio guidance system for Allied tor****es. The Navy pretended it wasn’t interested in the technology, but of course it was. They stole Lamarr and Antheil’s idea, classified the patent and, by the 1960s, had begun to incorporate the technology into a host of new weapons systems. Perhaps even more importantly, Lamarr and Antheil’s work would be nothing less than the basis for the omnipresent Wi-Fi, CDMA, and Bluetooth wireless technologies.

Candace Pert: Neuroscience Findings

While still a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, Candace Pert discovered the receptor that allows opiates to lock into the brain. This game-changing neuroscience revelation was so important that it led to an award—for her professor. Dr. Solomon Snyder was recognized for his student’s achievement. When Pert wrote a letter of protest to the award committee underscoring her determinant contributions, Dr. Snyder in response, “That’s how the game is played.”

Ada Lovelace: Computer Programming

Lord Byron’s daughter, Ada Lovelace, was one of the world’s first computer geniuses, though her role is often minimized by male historians. In 1843, the mathematically erudite Lovelace collaborated with inventor Charles Babbage at the University of London. Babbage was working on something called an Analytical Engine, an early prototype of the computer. Lovelace contributed detailed and extensive notes to Babbage’s work, particularly by articulating the way Babbage’s machine could be fed data to complete complicated math problems, or even compose complex music. These ideas may mark the earliest recorded proposition for what would eventually become computer programming and algorithms. Today, Lovelace’s contributions are obscured by debate, and most often by the dismissive and unmistakably misogynistic characterizations of her role.

LOL @ this copypasta from a feminista website.

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2015/04...rdly-think-so/
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2013/10...dern-computer/

they’re less likely to participate in risky/deviant behavior, which creativity often coincides with.

Thousands of years of exclusion from higher education/guilds/etc. None of these places allowed women to be a part of them. Even recently you find out more and more women were responsible for some pretty amazing discoveries and inventions but then their boss or someone would take the credit and exclude them from the publishing credits.

Facts are facts, whether you believe them or not

I think this applies to something as simple as general conversation.

Think about times you've asked a girl to improvise on the spot or come up with an idea. They are absolutely unable to, most of the time.

They freeze up and stutter and crumble under the pressure of a simple question or request.

I think this has to do with the fact that women are always approached, and never approaching. They do not have to come up with concepts or ideas as they are not typical leaders in society. Their creativity muscle is severely underdeveloped and unless they're ugly or grew up ugly, they rarely have creativity. Even less so these days with every Tomasina, Dickless and Harriette getting approached through social media and dating apps by every Tom, Dick and Harry.

This isn't all of them of course, but a lot of them.