Gender war, better cooks....male or female?

It makes no difference, but factually more males are better cooks, at least in the first world.

>>7440135
Anyone who doesn't say females is problematic and potentially a rapist.

>>7440149
cant someone overload this person with female facebook chefs. false equivalence be damned

men
forget about the fact that the industry is dominated by men

consider the home, the only reason cooking is the womans job is because the man has something more important to be doing. But you know how it goes, when dad cooks its a special occasion. Mom makes those utility meals that keep you alive, but dad is the one that grills on the weekends and has special recipes

>>7440172

Women back in the day. Now that women insisted on leaving the kitchen, men are now the superior cooks.

>>7440135
nonbinary genderfluid individuals are the best cooks

>>7440212
Imaginary friends can't cook, silly anon.

>>7440215
haha its funny because its cissexist

>>7440241
Stop calling people funny names.

On average, if you took two random people off the street the female would probably be better. For those who take time to learn, men are better dedicated learners period.

>>7440193

women are literally making themselves obsolete.

>>7440250
>Men make better food
>Men work harder
>Men look better
>Men fuck better

Women are you even trying?

>>7440249
no, you're retarded and wrong

>>7440294
I'm intelligent and right. If you can't understand why, then you are the retarded one.

>>7440302
but you argue like a 13 year old?

Uhhh...

This is a hard one. I hate women but a lot of them cook well, but they can't cook meat for shit

Fuck

>>7440135

Like bitches today can cook...

>>7440135
My girl makes amazing Okonomiyaki. I normally don't care for cabbage, but she makes it just right.

>>7440135
for literally everything in the world that both sexes can do, there will always be a man that does it better than the best woman. fucking everything. sports, science, art, literature, cooking.. take your pick. men > women. no homo.

>>7440193
women back in the day were pantry whores. [insert aunt Myrna's cheese salad] they were Jack before Jack.

step one: open all your cans and jars
step 2: combine in a big bowl and stir
step C: bake at 500 degrees for 7 minutes
step iv: serve cholera

>>7440135
If say men based on modern trends and personal experiance. Most owmne get overwhelmed and can't cook worth a fuck

my gf is pretty great at baking but can barely fry an egg. whereas I do most of the cooking but can't bake for shit. it's weird because I work in a lab and my job requires me to be constantly measuring shit but I can't bake well to save my life. I prefer standing over something live and working it into what I want, not combining things and crossing my fingers until it's done. baking is a science, cooking is an art. either way I'd guess men do both better.

Periods fuck up taste buds every week

>>7440480
is she hot desu

>>7440492
>assuming there's an objective quality to art, literature, or cooking that either gender can be quantifiably better with

>>7440492
Women have better eyesight in terms of colour perception and although it's extremaly rare there are cases of females who are functional tetrachromates.

File: chihiro.png (893KB, 460x893px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 460x893px

>>7440510
To me she is.

>>7440135
The only point of women is to give birth to new offspring. They are pretty much shit at everything else.

>>7440517
the masses would disagree

>>7440518
i guess that counts technically although I'd argue that since men don't have those genes/receptors both sexes can't do it. I'd like to retract my statement though and say that they orgasm better. women just seem to genuinely enjoy sex way more.

>>7440521
she looks cute anon

>>7440540
Well, what do you mean by that? That "objective" quality is assigned by popularity or that the masses recognize that there's some "objective" quality that could be assigned by critical/academic consensus, even if they're not personally a fan?

And from assuming that critical or academic favor is what's important to the masses, how do you rank something like literature according to quality? How do you compare critically acclaimed works and say one that's objectively better? And, if we're speaking historically, how do you account for the clear gap in opportunity to publish between the genders against what works have had time to become classic, academic darlings?

It all just seems so flimsy.

>>7440566
>boohoo women didn't get many chances back when people died from TB.
>I don't understand how people rank things

just because one autistic mongrel shits on a piece of paper and calls it art doesn't mean it's any good. let alone art. the whole, "you can't tell me what art is or isn't and there is no objectively good art" argument was made by people who suck at art. Oscar Wilde please go. no one is impressed with you jerking off into your own mouth to make a statement.

Women are better cooks. Men are better at self-promotion.

>>7440142

more males are better at everything. dudes even suck dick better.

or so i'm told...

>>7440572
Tell me the objective best painter, or the objective best writer, then tell me who determined them and by what metrics. Which lines pushed the best book out ahead of all others? Was the best painting the most realistic, or the most exquisitely stylistic? Was it the most immediately influential or the most underappreciated? With a written history of thousands of years, women gradually gaining respect in society and academia over the last couple hundred years is supposed to have immediately made the libraries of works by women and works by men equal in breadth and acclaim?

The "there's an objective quality to art and I'm the one who gets to decide what qualifies" argument was made by boring academics with limited worldviews who wanted works by them and the people that they like to be the shining standard by which everything else was measured.

>>7440592
not even that guy but theres no best in each category although there is definitely elite groups of painters, composers, writers or whatever who are objectively better than others doing what they do. it's why Mozart, DaVinci, and Tolsty are considered geniuses for what they've done. You are being a retard.

>>7440592
you really don't know shit about actual talented artwork.
>"boring academics"
aka people who were taught to notice what makes art good or trash

you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a perspective line and a fishing line

>>7440683
>personal attacks

Giving up so soon?

>>7440642
There are definitely groups of artists who get a ton of historic focus and are household names because of how academics have pored over their work and pushed it as the standard of quality for hundreds of years, yes. Have you never seen a work by an artist you've never heard of that absolutely resonated with you and has been around as long as any classic but doesn't get nearly the same acclaim or fame? Have you never seen or read a classic work that just fell flat, even if you get the "objective" appeal behind it? Do you know how much of a circle-jerk fine art is? Works become more famous simply by already being famous. The Mona Lisa's name transcends the work itself. You can look at it as a piece that's important to history but that doesn't make the piece "objectively" greater than others.

You have to define by what measures they excelled in their particular fields to add any sort of objectivity, and even then it's an argument of "they stuck to the formula for quality the very best" or "they experimented and their straying from the formula for quality turned out very well for them", so measurements are absolutely useless there.

Honestly, the very best argument you could make for objective quality is staying power and influence, which is a race women could barely get a horse in up until history so recent that we're talking about our grandmothers' grandmothers.

>>7440683
Nice, tell me who taught them and what gave that teacher divinely-assigned mastery over the field of good art.

A work can have well-rendered perspective but still be trite. It can perfectly capture a subject in life-like realism but still come across as bland if the subject is bland. Is knowledge over perspective important to creating any given work? Even a Rothko or Mondrian?

The fundamentals are a great springboard, but from there, where do you go to be objectively great? Is an abstract work garbage despite critical acclaim if it doesn't reflect those fundamentals?

Gordon Ramsay

>>7440711
I've been a professional sculpter for 8 years, masters degree and everything, and I can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't care enough to type out some long ass response like you because you clearly care way too much about your own opinion, but anyone who has been through an actual program and learned art history extensively will tell you that not everything is art and there is certainly good and bad art. you're right to say historical figures works are overvalued by their own fame but they are still very much a staple for excellent fine art. nothing grinds my gears harder than shithead "artists" who actually have a talent spoiling it on contrived try hard projects aimed at exactly what you are trying to say rather than honing their skills and producing something really memorable. not just the flavor of the week. according to you, the shit my kids scribble on the wall is just as good and bad as the shit I sweat over after spending 8 months going through fucking millimeters at a time. I fucking hate people like you. it's opinions like yours that are ruining fine art.

>>7440135
From experience, I have to say males.

>>7440750
That was pretty long given the disclaimer that you don't care. It's okay to care. We're all just having fun getting mad on the internet.

You make good points, but frankly, if the work resonates with someone, its inherent quality comes from that. Effort doesn't always equal appeal, or else fundamentals won't always beat intuition.

Not to make light of an example that clearly gets your blood boiling, but maybe someone finds your kid's scribbles charmingly primitive or heart-warming or imaginative, and that's just their subjectively positive response to them, and finds your sculpture trite, again, very subjectively, in spite of how well you've honed your technique. I'll agree that it sure as hell helps when an artist knows their anatomy, perspective, proportions, values, etc., but the appeal of a given subject and/or where any given artist departs from the common fundamentals is absolutely subjective.

Basically, is knowledge of fundamentals a fantastic tool for an artist? Of course it is. I love the fundamentals and admire artists who've clearly studied and practiced them. If one wants to make fine art, by all means, they can study fine art and practice it nose-to-the-grindstone. However, is greatness determined by how well you adhere to the specific fundamentals of fine art? Depends on who you ask, which is my entire point. "Other artists" is such a limited audience to determine quality en masse. Sorry that your art college taught you that the kind of fine art they teach is the only true expression of art, but I can't see any logic to that other than self-aggrandizing.

I personally value response over technique, and the two aren't always paired neatly.

>>7440521
Kawaii as fuck, you lucky man.

>>7440750
I love how you use a master in... sculpting? Art history? - Anyway, an art master to argument from authority about a subject that is pretty much in the domain of philosophy.
People say philosophy has no place in modern education, but it would save a lot of uninformed shitposting if people would at least think about shit before posting.

In my personal experience (hue hue confirmation bias) I have met more men with exceptional coming skills than women. However the worst cook I know is make and he's fucking awful, the kind of failure that could ruin a bowl of cereal.

>>7440691
Ad hominem is not an attack of someone's understanding or education in a specific field.

"You're a fucking retard" >personal attack as it assumes you are incapable of being educated
"You know fuck all about this topic" >statement if observation relational to your ability to display and adequate understanding of the topic.

I'm not whoever you're having a handbag duel with, but I am autistic enough to point out incorrectly used bait in an internet argument

>>7440330
What he's trying to articulate is that women have a lower skill floor, and they more commonly than men are able to learn basic cooking skills; but comparing male to female cooks, men have the higher skill ceiling and can become true artists in the craft.