← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16734887

27 posts 6 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16734887 >>16734892 >>16734893 >>16734918 >>16734958 >>16735180 >>16735215 >>16735235 >>16735257 >>16737191 >>16739524 >>16742940 >>16742974 >>16742978
Does the scientific community hate women?
Half of the scientific community can’t tell you what a woman is with a straight face. They can’t do it.
Anonymous No.16734891 >>16737210
not my job or problem
ask the dictionary dorks for a definition
Anonymous No.16734892 >>16735101 >>16738571
>>16734887 (OP)
99% of them know perfectly well what a woman is, they're just too cowardly to do so publicly.
Anonymous No.16734893
>>16734887 (OP)
This may be true, but the good thing is that scientifically speaking, all frogposters smell like a YuGiOh tournament.
Anonymous No.16734918
>>16734887 (OP)
I had a female PI. She told me with a straight face that she was a DEI hire (a ‘spousal hire’) and was surprised when I basically ignored her for the rest of my PhD. They’re parasites.
Anonymous No.16734958
>>16734887 (OP)
Well can they say what a man is either?
Anonymous No.16735101 >>16735236
>>16734892
>99% of them know perfectly well what a woman is, they're just too cowardly to do so publicly.
This. Anyone who tries to tell you how objective and non-political and committed to the truth the science community is clearly doesn't want to consider even just this one example of oh-so-many.
Anonymous No.16735180 >>16737222
>>16734887 (OP)
In my country universities hire women as receptionists, I have never seen one on a position of a man. They have their place.
Anonymous No.16735215
>>16734887 (OP)
>Half of the scientific community can’t tell you what a woman is with a straight face. They can’t do it.

They fear defining a woman will then put limits on a woman.
The number one thing women fear/hate is being judged, and you can only be judged if there are rules and limits.
Anonymous No.16735235 >>16735623 >>16735861
>>16734887 (OP)
It's harder to define than you make it seem
Anonymous No.16735236
>>16735101
So they’ve failed Truth. They bow before the Narrative.
Anonymous No.16735257
>>16734887 (OP)
Yes, sexism and sexual assault are rampant. It's one of the primary driving factors for the existence of "women's jobs," spaces where men aren't employed. It's more of a Men problem than a science problem though.
Anonymous No.16735623
>>16735235
>LE BUT WHAT ABOUT MUH INTERSEXERINOS
Anonymous No.16735861 >>16742976
>>16735235
Sperm and eggs. Sperm. And. Eggs. Gametes. GAMETES.
Anonymous No.16737191
>>16734887 (OP)
It’s not limited to the scientific community. The world lets men compete in women’s sports. The world still hates women. I am very much anti-feminazi behaviour but it’s gotten really bad out there for women.
Cult of Passion No.16737210
>>16734891
>ask the dictionary dorks for a definition
https://mededucation.stanford.edu/glossary/woman/
"– noun – A term used to describe someone who self-identifies as a woman or as feminine based on what is important to them as an individual."

Anon...define a dork.
>a contemptible, socially inept person.
Get with the times, DORK. Its 2025, not 1025.
Anonymous No.16737222 >>16738241
>>16735180
What country is this? I want to move there.
Anonymous No.16738241
>>16737222
Third world.
Anonymous No.16738571
>>16734892
hey man give me a real job and I won't have to worry about sucking off my current employer (ZOG)
Anonymous No.16739524
>>16734887 (OP)
dumb frog
Anonymous No.16740877 >>16742807
The scientific community has become one giant woman.
Anonymous No.16742807
>>16740877
We need less pussies and more dicks.
Anonymous No.16742940
>>16734887 (OP)
alot of my profesors were women
Anonymous No.16742941
>women
Anonymous No.16742974
>>16734887 (OP)
Can you define "sandwich" in a way that includes all sandwiches and no non-sandwiches? How about "chair"?
Anonymous No.16742976
>>16735861
And the people who have never produced any gametes?
Anonymous No.16742978
>>16734887 (OP)
Can YOU define "woman"?