Conclusive proof at last...

[Colin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4202199.stm

See, women can't drive.

[Smith]

ahh, that was good and refreshing to read...

[hr]
I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[Rilla]

I've never denied that some women are rubbish at driving (myself included). I was always rubbish at those spatial tests.
Now at least I have an excuse!



[hr]
“Stepwise methods abusers frequently would rather not think about their data, for reasons that are funny to describe over a second Guinness”

[warrengato]

This is the most pointless, idiotic test ever conducted. Not only does it serve no purpose other than to claim that women are genetically incapable to park cars, but it's misogynistic and also reminiscent of urban legend. "...in men a long ring finger and symmetrical hands are an indication of fertility..." In other words, "big hand, big dick." Or "…finger length ratio could also be linked to sexual orientation, with lesbian women having a greater difference in length between their ring finger and index finger than straight women do." Which would translate into "lesbians have man hands." Does this test mean that men with the same sized index and ring fingers are pussies? And don't forget, at one point "science" claimed to tell a person's intelligence based on his race. Just because someone puts some information on a piece of paper, don’t necessarily believe it.

[Smith]

Oh whatever, stop being such a feminist.

Do you really think people are going to take this seriously?
It's like those polls that come out that say, "research suggests that people that go to pubs more often consume more beer than people who don't" and other rubbish like that.

You really shouldn't take everything so seriously, although I'm not surprised that someone has had a shout about this.
[hr]
I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[Rob Hearn]

I believe it wholeheartedly. There has never been any doubt in my mind that women are more often than men incompetent. They hardly ever give the little wave to acknowledge a kindness, they often fail to indicate, they park on the 'Keep clear' bit of the roundabout at the south street end of bell street and look flustered when I glare at them, and, yes, it takes them on average about 12 times longer than men to execute a parallel parking manoeuvre, and during the process they have approximately the same air of panic that I had during my driving test.

Does this mean that if you are female you can't become a master driver? No. Nobody is constrained in such matters by their genes, or at least not significantly. I'm quite sure that every female driver I know is capable of being a better driver than me. However, in reality, they are all much shitter, and the males I know are about the same as me.

Men are indisputably worse drivers in the grander scheme. Men do most of the killing, and write off the most cars. We know that men and women, on average, drive differently. That's why they have different insurance levels, and it's why 'female owner' is significant in a car ad. If I could choose one sex to be the designated driver, it would be female. However, when somebody infuriates me on the road by being absent-minded or inconsiderate, it's usually a female - and when it's not, it's an old person.

Of *extreme* significance in the above post are qualifiers like 'usually'. I state for the record that my girlfriend is an exemplary driver. And to any girls (or boys) who are about to get insensed all over my face: so are you, I was talking about someone else.

[warrengato]

If these tests are meaningless, then why do them at all? Someone must be taking them seriously. In fact, I'm sure someone's got a heafty grant to conduct the research. I would think that the scientists are taking it seriously, so why wouldn't other mindless drones (or car insurance companies) take it seriously and use it as fact to treat woman any differently?

[Haunted]

Because women are different?
Besides scientists are hardly mindless drones

[Smith]

[s]warrengato wrote on 22:07, 24th Jan 2005:
If these tests are meaningless, then why do them at all? Someone must be taking them seriously. In fact, I'm sure someone's got a heafty grant to conduct the research. I would think that the scientists are taking it seriously, so why wouldn't other mindless drones (or car insurance companies) take it seriously and use it as fact to treat woman any differently?


Just so some pHD students can get a doctorate really.

[hr]
I tried thinking of an innovative witty remark, but could only come up with this...

[Prophet Tenebrae]

We should spend the money on tits.

[Your Mom]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 03:53, 25th Jan 2005:
We should spend the money on tits.


I concur

[hr]
Never be haughty to the humble. Never be humble to the haughty.
-Jefferson Davis

[johness]

Did any of you see 'the best of top gear' the other night? Granted the woman knew the track really well but she tanned Jeremy Clarkson bigh time. If women are such bad drivers, how come they have fewer accidents than men?

[Haunted]

Because women are more cautious, they dont have the (over)confidence that men have behind the wheel. That doesnt make them better drivers, it just makes them safer drivers.