Update

woman.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The symbol for woman is a circle with cross at its bottom ([Unicode](unicode.md)
 
 [Fun](fun.md) fact: in [Czechia](czechia.md) it is literally a folk tradition to beat women on Easter, for which the woman must give the man who beat her a treat, it's called Pomlazka, or Easter whip in [English](english.md), look it up :D
 
-Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as [chess](chess.md). Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to [Elo](elo.md) rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports (watch them before they're censored lol), e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the [football](football.md) match between the US national women team (probably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. LMAO there is even a video of 1 skinny boy beating 9 women in boxing. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. There may be a small part of truth to this but in the end it's most definitely just an excuse to cover up the fact that women don't play chess (and aren't encouraged to do so) simply because they're not naturally good at it. Do chimpanzees lack the ability to read because we "oppress" them by not installing bookshelves into their zoo exhibits? Take a look at [Jews](jew.md): they are a minority, one that's been under extremely heavy oppression, even that of genocide, and they still managed to grab the highest ranks in society and basically win the capitalist game. Nowadays, in [21st century](21st_century.md), women are no longer oppressed, on the contrary they now get social privileges, encouragement, all the handholding and support -- where are the female chess geniuses then? Where are the female Einsteins? Not even with all the support in the world can they get to the level of men (note that [eventually](future.md), out of necessity, feminism WILL resort to crippling men and forging data to make it look like females beat men, but that will indeed be just pure lies). And still, no matter the cause, the fact simply stands that women are generally worse than men at mental activities -- a randomly picked man will most likely be better at chess than a randomly picked woman, and that's what matters in the end. Also if women are displaced from chess by culture, then what is the area they are displaced to? If women are as capable as men, then for any area dominated by men there should be an area equally dominated by women, however we see that anywhere men face women men win big time, even in the woman activities such as cooking and fashion design. Feminists will say that men simply oppress women everywhere, but this just means that women are dominated by men everywhere, which means they are more skilled and capable at everything, there is no way out -- yes, antelope are oppressed by lions, but it's because lions are stronger than antelopes. Here we simply argue that women are weaker than men, not that oppressing women is okay -- it isn't. "It's cultural" is the absolute top argument of feminists, they say women are just as smart and capable as men and that men, since we lived in caves, somehow plotted to oppress women and keep it a secret from them that they're so smart -- if it's "cultural", then also ask why is the culture like this? Culture is shaped by needs, necessities, by reality; if we know one thing about evolution then it's that it OPTIMIZES everything to maximum -- if women give birth to children and then feed them, they won't go hunting with men, and if they don't go hunting, it's unnecessary to give them big brains capable of quick, precise decisions which require more nutrition, just as it's inefficient to give them big, strong bodies that need more food -- this is evolution, that's the reality and that's what formed the culture. Furthermore if women were weaker but not by that much, we should statistically see at least occasional dominance by a woman, but we practically don't, it's really almost impossible to find a single such case in history, which indicates women are VERY SIGNIFICANTLY weaker, i.e. not something negligible we could just ignore. Being a woman correlates to losing to a man almost perfectly, it is a great predictor, basically as strong as can appear in science.
+Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as [chess](chess.md). Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to [Elo](elo.md) rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports (watch them before they're censored lol), e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the [football](football.md) match between the US national women team (presumably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. LMAO there is even a video of 1 skinny boy beating 9 women in boxing. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. There may be a small part of truth to this but in the end it's most definitely just an excuse to cover up the fact that women don't play chess (and aren't encouraged to do so) simply because they're not naturally good at it. Do chimpanzees lack the ability to read because we "oppress" them by not installing bookshelves into their zoo exhibits? Take a look at [Jews](jew.md): they are a minority, one that's been under extremely heavy oppression, even that of genocide, and they still managed to grab the highest ranks in society and basically win the capitalist game. Nowadays, in [21st century](21st_century.md), women are no longer oppressed, on the contrary they now get social privileges, encouragement, all the handholding and support -- where are the female chess geniuses then? Where are the female Einsteins? Not even with all the support in the world can they get to the level of men (note that [eventually](future.md), out of necessity, feminism WILL resort to crippling men and forging data to make it look like females beat men, but that will indeed be just pure lies). And still, no matter the cause, the fact simply stands that women are generally worse than men at mental activities -- a randomly picked man will most likely be better at chess than a randomly picked woman, and that's what matters in the end. Also if women are displaced from chess by culture, then what is the area they are displaced to? If women are as capable as men, then for any area dominated by men there should be an area equally dominated by women, however we see that anywhere men face women men win big time, even in the woman activities such as cooking and fashion design. Feminists will say that men simply oppress women everywhere, but this just means that women are dominated by men everywhere, which means they are more skilled and capable at everything, there is no way out -- yes, antelope are oppressed by lions, but it's because lions are stronger than antelopes. Here we simply argue that women are weaker than men, not that oppressing women is okay -- it isn't. "It's cultural" is the absolute top argument of feminists, they say women are just as smart and capable as men and that men, since we lived in caves, somehow plotted to oppress women and keep it a secret from them that they're so smart -- if it's "cultural", then also ask why is the culture like this? Culture is shaped by needs, necessities, by reality; if we know one thing about evolution then it's that it OPTIMIZES everything to maximum -- if women give birth to children and then feed them, they won't go hunting with men, and if they don't go hunting, it's unnecessary to give them big brains capable of quick, precise decisions which require more nutrition, just as it's inefficient to give them big, strong bodies that need more food -- this is evolution, that's the reality and that's what formed the culture. Furthermore if women were weaker but not by that much, we should statistically see at least occasional dominance by a woman, but we practically don't, it's really almost impossible to find a single such case in history, which indicates women are VERY SIGNIFICANTLY weaker, i.e. not something negligible we could just ignore. Being a woman correlates to losing to a man almost perfectly, it is a great predictor, basically as strong as can appear in science.
 
 { I actually enjoy women football, mostly for its comedic value. ~drummyfish }