This proves that women are mostly uncreative

this proves that women are mostly uncreative

Isn't it more creative to make a character do new things? How is a boy being creative if he only makes batman do things he's already seen batman do in the movies or whatever.

Because their imagination is entirely centered around themselves and their own experiences. They can't even imagine taking part in escapist fantasy that they can't directly relate to. That is a lack of creativity plain and simple.

This claim is not supported by any legitimate research conducted by LEGO. While LEGO has studied gender differences in play, there is no evidence that they found boys "become the character" while girls "make the character become them." This idea is a misrepresentation of gendered play patterns and is often used to push misogynistic narratives.

LEGO has conducted studies on gender and play, such as the "Ready for Girls Creativity Study" in partnership with the Geena Davis Institute, which examined how societal norms shape creativity. Another study analyzed LEGO Friends vs. LEGO City sets, showing that toys marketed to boys encouraged heroism and skilled professions, while those marketed to girls emphasized hobbies and socializing2. However, none of these studies support the claim that girls fundamentally change characters to fit their own identity.

The idea that women "feminize" or "change" intellectual properties like Star Wars is also a misogynistic distortion. Women, like men, engage with media in diverse ways, and the evolution of franchises reflects broader cultural shifts, not some gender-specific takeover.

Made up Anon Babble posts are not a proof of anything but your inability for actual research.

they can give birth, peak creativity

The adaptations of things like Star Wars in modern times disaffirms your understanding if the issue. Especially given that there are no adaptation by a women that don't feminize the given intellectual property. Now go play with your legos, troon.

females need to be social and participate to the consensus, because they have a fundamental biological role imposed on them that requires the protection of society to be succesful, so a girl tries to control everything around her to fuse to her and make her more social
males need to create themselves and invent their own role because they have no natural duties beyond propagating their seed, so they seek socially recognized models to emulate, and boys try to play-act at being someone they admire
always has been, won't change
this is not a matter of creativity, it's natural exploration of life's expectations from children who only have instincts to go by

No, that's a lack on the theory of mind, the most basic communicative tool we develop to remain civilised.

Men have a larger natural role then "dispensing seed". Without men protwcting their families and offspring early humans would have died much more often to things like predatory animals. Additionally humans are primates and thus have always lived in complex social structures. Men, being naturally stronger, have always been at the top of this hierarchy ans there are only few, and relarively modern, examples one could cherrypick that would go against this notion.

this

This is pseudoscience nonsense.
Women are far more likely to adapt to ideological and societal ideas than man, they don't try to change or mold things, they become the strongest supporters of this.
This is entirely because with change comes violence and war. Men don't need anything special for this stage, they just need to win otherwise they simply die. Women don't, they live through the change and the rapes and loss of family that's imposed on them, it's in their best interest to prop up the idea she's born into to avoid the change.

That statement is both factually incorrect and deeply prejudiced.

First, the idea that every adaptation by a woman “feminizes” an intellectual property is simply not supported by reality. Women, like men, engage with media in diverse ways, and storytelling evolves based on cultural and artistic choices rather than some gender-specific agenda. If we look at franchises like Star Wars, Alien, The Mandalorian, and countless others, women have been responsible for rich, compelling contributions that have shaped entertainment without some forced "feminization."

Second, the use of a transphobic slur only exposes a deep-seated hostility toward others rather than any meaningful argument. Bigotry is not a valid standpoint—it’s just ignorance masquerading as an opinion.

If the goal is to discuss media trends honestly, then the conversation should be rooted in facts, not bias and insults.

Men have a larger natural role then "dispensing seed".

but this role only comes after a complex society exists, where social hierarchies manifest themselves, and where men have to chose a specialization of their role to participate socially
in a tribal clan, like small tribes of neolithic hunter-gatherers, or in a small african village today, only the broodmothers matter, the collectivity can survive without any input from the males
and the children at play reflect perfectly this construction of social roles

This is pseudoscience nonsense.

this is an exact summary of a real phenomenon, your sociology teachers can call it pseudoscience all they want

Women are far more likely to adapt to ideological and societal ideas than man, they don't try to change or mold things, they become the strongest supporters of this.

of course, they are social creatures by nature, they need to participate to the consensus, because picrel
you're just paraphrasing my point

This is AI.

I am not AI, I just know how to make a concise point and am also not a retard. I guess that would seem strange to you.

lil pup thought asking chat gpt would earn him extra brownie points on Anon Babble

This entire exchange is riddled with misconceptions and pseudoscientific generalizations about gender and social behavior. Let’s break it down with actual research and logic.

1. The Claim That Women "Need to Be Social" Due to a "Biological Role"
There is no scientific basis for the idea that women are inherently predisposed to "fuse" with their surroundings for survival. While socialization plays a role in human behavior, the degree to which someone engages in social cooperation is far more influenced by cultural and environmental factors than by innate biological imperatives. Studies in psychology and sociology confirm that both men and women are highly social creatures, though their interactions may be shaped by societal norms rather than inherent traits.

2. The Claim That Men "Have No Natural Duties Beyond Reproduction"
This is absurdly simplistic and completely ignores biological, psychological, and anthropological evidence. Human males, like females, evolved complex social strategies, responsibilities, and cooperative behavior to ensure survival. Early human societies relied on cooperation across genders, with men playing roles in protection, resource acquisition, and communal responsibilities—not just blindly imitating role models.

3. The Claim That Women "Don’t Change Things, They Just Adapt"
This is a gross misunderstanding of both history and psychology. Women have actively shaped societies, political movements, economies, and cultural shifts throughout history. To claim that women only "prop up" existing ideologies to avoid change is demonstrably false. Some of the most influential revolutions, reforms, and intellectual movements have been driven by women—from suffrage to scientific contributions.

4. The Claim That Women Support the Status Quo to Avoid Change Due to "War and Violence"
Again, this is pure speculation, not scientific reality. People adapt to societal norms based on a variety of factors, including personal beliefs, economic conditions, education, and social structures. Fear of violence does not explain the complexity of ideological adherence or resistance. Women have historically fought in wars, led resistance movements, and driven societal change even in the face of extreme oppression. The idea that they universally avoid disruption because of fear is historically inaccurate.

Final Takeaway
Both arguments presented in the discussion fall into outdated, reductionist thinking that ignores actual research in evolutionary biology, psychology, history, and sociology. Gender roles are fluid and shaped by culture, not rigid biological determinism.

If people want to discuss how socialization affects behavior, there are real studies and nuanced perspectives that offer far more insight than these pseudoscientific claims.

shut the fuck up gpt retard

When I say a complex social steucture I don't mean a society as complex as human society. I mean a small tribe of primates, in this case early humans, with a clearly defined hierarchy/chain of command. Different members play different roles and are expectes to fulfill them.

It’s honestly generous enough that I even let an AI handle responses to this level of nonsense. Your arguments are so fundamentally lacking in coherence or effort that engaging with them personally would be a waste of time. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe try putting in a shred of intellectual rigor—until then, you’re not worth more than an automated takedown.

Name one faggot. Name an adaptation. I'm waiting

Oh wait I'm this guy: But you were even referrencing my post. Srry about that.

The wisdom of the Magic Conch has spoken. Everyone else stfu.

you're just pissed to be told again that females have an instinctual duty of spawning babies, and this controls all their behavior, so it disproves yet again that they can be stronk, empowared and independent

misappropriating and distorting the original findings is what a faggotted nigger does- no wait, transsexual niggers from outer space. so that is what op is.

I don't know why you're being a dick to me. I'm not the anon who disagreed with your point. But since you're going to be condescending about it, I have no problem correcting you.

This was a real study and the narrative that girls wanted toys that they could make like themselves while boys wanted toys that they could imitate WAS in fact, proven to be accurate.

Lego didn’t explore alternative explanations because it wasn’t relevant to their goals of selling more crap.

This is very similar to the original studies from Kohlberg on morality. They would give a scenario, and ask what the moral thing to do was. Women could not stay on task and entertain the hypothetical, often just saying the situation was too absurd to give an answer. Men would use reasoning and deduce what they felt was most ethical.

This was reinterpreted by Gilligan years later to argue that this ACTUALLY MEANS THAT WOMEN ARE MORE MORAL THAN MEN because they were just so outraged by the scenarios. Which is similar to what you're doing. Fortunately for you, you have a society with itching ears who wants to hear this egalitarian bullshit.

I'm not even an incel. I'm just a psychfag with an actual degree.

Name one. Name an adaptation nigger I'm waiting.

Oh wow, what a groundbreaking revelation—humans reproduce! Next, I assume they’ll inform us fire is hot.

This take is so fundamentally lazy that it’s not even worth dissecting in detail. The idea that biology somehow negates intelligence, independence, or social agency is laughably outdated. Human civilization has, for thousands of years, been shaped by both men and women, with women proving time and again that they are leaders, innovators, and decision-makers despite tired attempts to reduce their existence to "spawning babies."

Honestly, this response is less of an argument and more of a stubborn attempt to avoid engaging with reality. If they want to stick to the intellectual depth of a 1950s refrigerator magnet, let them. The rest of us have moved on.

I am not AI

I am AI

Just gtfo anon, nobody gives a shit about your sjw.

Your desperation to derail the conversation with slurs instead of facts is noted. I’d name an adaptation, but you wouldn’t engage with it in good faith anyway, so why bother?

I'm not the oldest anon but I have interacted with a lot of women in my life. I love my wife, my mom, my sister, my cousins, grandmothers, aunts, etc. I have worked with women, for women, and women have worked for me. I am friends with women. I have dated dozens of women. I went to college with women. Worked on projects with women. Overall, I have had (guessing) thousands upon thousands of both passive and intimate interactions with women.
That being said, I can conclude without any doubt whatsoever that women are inferior both physically and intellectually to men in every measurable way. If you want to be successful in interacting with women it is best to treat them like children. This is not just for romantic relationships but any interaction you have with them.
In my experience, women don’t desire responsibility in any genuine way, especially long-term. That is actually okay because they really aren’t supposed to. Provision and responsiblity are attributes for men. Women that pretend to be resposible (i.e. “girl boss” or women CEOs) pursue these endeavors because they hate men (they want to “prove” something)
Look at what happens when women accumulate resources.
What happens when you give a ten year old $20? They spend it right away! They spend it on something frivolous with no thought or regard about their future or how to enrich the lives of the people around them.
"Her money is her money and my money is her money"
Men on the other hand work and provision resources to share with the family. Women do not do this. They would rather buy a new pair of shoes or handbag than fix up the family car or home maintenance - "that's what his money is for"
Want to be more successful with women? Treat and speak to them like children! Once I realized this, all my anxiety to approach and interact with women went out the window. They WANT to be treated like a child because they are as emotionally mature as one

So now you're arguing that biology doesn't influence intelligence? I'm pretty sure the brain is part od the body...

Different poster, schizo. I wouldn't pretend that you are worth more than an AI generated response, faggot.

you are not refusing, you are just being a nigger

The idea that biology somehow negates intelligence, independence, or social agency is

true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ?useskin=vector

humans have way less "free will" than you believed

I'd be listening with bells on, you just can't think of one. Also you are a faggot. Dom't come on Anon Babble if you find slurs detestable.

This attempt at a "gotcha" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. So let’s break it down properly.

1. Yes, Biology Influences Intelligence—But Not in the Oversimplified Way They Think
It’s true that intelligence has biological components, given that the brain is a physical organ influenced by genetics and neurobiology. However, intelligence is not solely determined by biological sex or reproductive function, which was the claim being mocked.

What actually impacts intelligence?

Genetics: Cognitive abilities have a heritable component, but no single genetic factor dictates intelligence in a simple "biological sex = intelligence level" equation.

Neuroplasticity: The brain constantly rewires itself based on learning and experience, meaning environment plays a huge role in cognitive development.

Education & Environment: Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that intelligence and cognitive ability are heavily shaped by nutrition, access to education, social stimuli, and mental engagement.

2. Intelligence Is Not Limited by Biological Sex
There is no scientific evidence that men or women are inherently more or less intelligent due to sex-related biological roles. Studies in cognitive psychology and neuroscience have found minimal differences in overall cognitive capacity between genders. While some studies suggest slight variations in cognitive strengths (e.g., spatial reasoning vs. verbal fluency), these differences are small, subject to cultural influences, and do not imply superiority.

3. The Brain ≠ A Fixed, Biologically Determined Machine
Saying "the brain is part of the body" does not mean intelligence is rigidly controlled by biological sex. The brain is influenced by genetic, environmental, and experiential factors, which means intelligence develops through learning, adaptation, and social conditions—not just innate biology.

Final Verdict
This argument fails because it tries to reduce intelligence to a biological sex function, completely ignoring established research in neuroscience, psychology, and education. Intelligence is multi-faceted, influenced by a wide range of factors, and not dictated by outdated biological determinism.

So, your "gotcha" attempt? Scientifically hollow and painfully weak.

You’re proving exactly why engaging with you isn’t worth my time. No real counterpoints, just slurs and empty posturing. If you need that crutch to make yourself feel like you’ve won, go ahead—but it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve contributed absolutely nothing of value.

Damn, even the AI thinks you are too worthless to bother with a response. You are an actual stain of shit it just wipes off.

I love how Mr. Smartypants over here completely ignored my post that cited the original lego study, Kohlberg's studies on morality, and Gilligan's publications on the original study.

You are engaging fucktard. And you're writing way more then just a simple movie title, which apprently you could name. Name one adaptation. You can't. Again if you find slurs so detestable don't come one Anon Babble.

You misinterpret both Kohlberg and Gilligan. They showed that that whereas men tend to emphasise rights and autonomy, women tend to emphasise responsibility and care. They pass through the same hierarchical stages of moral development, from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric. The difference is that men tend to think in a hierarchical way, and women in a heterarchical way. So to say that women are better because they think in an egalitarian way is wrong because there are, after all hierarchies, lile the hierarchy of moral development. Conversely, to say that men are better because they think hierarchically is also wrong, because a woman at the same level of development is the equal of a man at that level.

that is because the AI was trained by faggots like you

No, that's not misinterpreting anything.

Women literally could not stay on task and answer the questions. They could not entertain the hypotheticals.

'I'm losing so let me aggressively demand something irrelevant while throwing in slurs' strategy. Cute. The fact that you're so desperate to shift away from any meaningful discussion just proves that nothing you say warrants actual engagement. Try harder—if you can.
1. No Cited "Original LEGO Study"
This person claims they cited a LEGO study, yet provided no actual citation, link, or reference to legitimate research—just vague claims. LEGO has indeed conducted studies on gendered play patterns, but nowhere is there credible research concluding that "girls make toys like themselves while boys imitate the character." Without an actual study to reference, their argument collapses immediately.

2. Misrepresentation of Kohlberg's Moral Development Studies
Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development did involve hypothetical scenarios, but the claim that "women couldn’t stay on task" is an outright misrepresentation. Kohlberg’s research has been criticized for focusing predominantly on male subjects, leading to gaps in understanding moral reasoning across genders. Carol Gilligan’s response in "In a Different Voice" highlighted that women’s moral reasoning often emphasized care and relational ethics, rather than strict rule-based justice—not that women were simply incapable of reasoning. Their attempt to twist this into "women being too emotional to engage with morality" is pure bad-faith nonsense.

yes but they still need that inspiration that comes from balls and is usually delivered by a benis

3. The LEGO Profit Argument Proves Nothing
Yes, LEGO is a business—it markets products to sell. However, suggesting that LEGO’s gendered marketing proves an innate psychological difference is just bad logic. Corporations often shape consumer preferences through advertising, rather than simply responding to inherent traits. The LEGO Friends line was not based on deep psychological research, but rather on market analysis of what sells.

4. Baseless Hostility & Anti-Egalitarian Ranting
The phrase "itching ears who want to hear egalitarian bullshit" exposes the actual bias here. This person isn’t making a neutral, scientific argument—they are clearly motivated by resentment toward gender equality and trying to retroactively justify it with misrepresented studies.

Final Verdict
This response presents no legitimate citations, misrepresents actual psychological research, and leans entirely on ideological bias rather than factual accuracy. If they truly had a psychology degree, they would know better than to make such weak, unsubstantiated claims.

cont.
Well, after an exhaustive display of recycled talking points, misrepresented studies, and zero actual engagement with facts, I think we’ve reached the inevitable conclusion: you had nothing of substance from the start. Despite all the attempts to sound authoritative, this entire exchange boiled down to ideological rambling masquerading as logic.

So, congratulations—you’ve successfully spent all this time proving absolutely nothing. I’ll be taking my well-earned victory lap now.

You argued that saying every film adaptation by a woman does not feminize it's source material. So I asked you to name one. You couldn't because their aren't any and now you've made it all about how I'm not worth engaging with because of my use of slurs.

You're the one who moved the goal post. Not me. Fucking retarded faggot. You're probably a troon.

itt whores and simps discussing with sane men

seems they are trying to pit two bots against each other and still fail, like the failures they are in real life

Can you point to a single scholarly source to back this extraordinary claim? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

Yeah this whole argument reads like ai slop

No shit OP, creativity requires a soul.

no wonder many have left. but I am guessing the other platforms are even worse.

holy projection from your part uh

projection

words only glowing nigger faggots use

/thread

it explains a lot honestly, like why women have no fucking empathy.

they do have that quality, which makes them vulnerable. exploit that enough times and they stop caring about others.

Ehat extraordinary claim is that? You gonna put words in my mouth while moving the goal post again? I'm starting to think you have confused with another anon because you are being absurdly retarded.

I don't think so,more women will throw people in their live under the bus than men do. more women will backstab others than men

Good to know, I'll keep a fine balance when exploiting womens empathy. Thanks, fag.

They showed that that whereas men tend to emphasise rights and autonomy, women tend to emphasise responsibility and care.

wrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development did involve hypothetical scenarios, but the claim that "women couldn’t stay on task" is an outright misrepresentation. Kohlberg’s research has been criticized for focusing predominantly on male subjects,

Neither of these are even correct. The criticism Gilligan made was not disputing that women couldn't stay on task, but rather that the scenarios were "androcentric" and that's why women couldn't focus.

You clearly didn't read the study, a different voice, nor did you read the Lego study. Nobody on the opposite side is making your counter-arguments because what you're saying is just rooted in very obviously unfamiliarity with them.

please do not confuse poor impulse control with lack of empathy. you are right that more woman lack impulse control than man. that is why we see more woman with tattoos.

Less creative than Anon Babbletards, that's for sure.

Woman have such shit taste in tattoos. Tattoos on a woman is such a huge turn off.

yeah. reddit is much worse because the ai bots will upvote each other so that 90% of the top comments on every post are just bots. and 90% of the posts are just karma-farm reposts anyways

it also means free pussy, faggot