That's a ratio of 100 to 1.

Now go look at the leaders in philosophy, business, politics,and basically every major field ever.

There will be the few women chestnuts but the ratio will be the same.

But go look in homeless shelters. Also mostly men.

Women have resource aquisition built into their bodies so they're never at the bottom but they also don't have that drive to ascend to the top.

> they also don't have that drive to ascend to the top

Do you have any idea of what kind of barriers were in the way of those female prize winners and other academics like Marie Curie and Emmy Noether? They not only had to be world class in their fields, but had to do all their work in the face of constant sexist resistance. Look at what Curie and Noether had to put up with. They only got recognized for their achievements when a lot of their colleagues petitioned for their recognition. Noether had to lecture under an assumed name, for instance. If it hadn't been for the pressure exerted by some of their sympathetic peers, we might not know about their achievements as being THEIR achievements. Look at Rosalind Franklin, unrecognized for a long time and still mostly unrecognized. Do you think that they are the only ones, that there were not other women whose achievements were basically usurped by male colleagues, something possible due to the sexist environment they had to contend with?

You are maintaining that if women were as capable as men, they'd be equally represented, and are completely denying the remarkable barriers that they have to simultaneously overcome, and when we point to some women who managed to be world class in the face of these recognized barriers you claim that they are just outliers. First you say everything of importance has been done by men, and when counterexamples are pointed out you dismiss them as irrelevant. You are clearly a fanatic, nothing we can say will convince you otherwise.

I am not actually responding in order to convince you of anything, just to refute your claims for anyone who might read this in the future.

HAD to contend with....

In modern times women outnumber men in college.

Still 1:100 ratio of women majoring in Math and Science. Still a ratio of 1:100 Nobel prizes to women.

It's kind of hard to blame the 'sexist environment' of the past half century where women are free to do any thing they want yet nothing has changed....

So where does that leave your argument?

Maybe women just are wired differently than men.

Is that idea allowed into the 'women are victims' circle jerk?

That was your original statement. It has been refuted pretty well. Now you are changing your assertion without admitting it.

Actually, we still have a pretty sexist environment, and women aren't really free to do any thing they want. There's a pretence that they can do anything, but it isn't really true in many ways.

My argument is still perfectly sound. You are just ignoring the bits of it you don't like.

For all your talk about "facts" you seem to be particularly blind to the ones that have been offered to counter your vague arguments, both here and elsewhere in this thread: verifiable matters of historical record.

And you have completely failed to make the case for this.

> Can't argue with that.

You realize that I said that there's a pretence that they have the FREEDOM to do anything, not that they are intrinsically incapable it, don't you?