haha, normally it's wiser to steer clear of this kind of hot thread. but aiyah, got drawn in by the smell of satay being grilled... mmmmmmmmmmm...
a) let's say we generalise and say men are generally more willing than women to dive into the technical aspects of photography. does it necessarily make them better photographers? it might, but it could also make them better equipment wankers, better forum talkkokkers, better camera shop customers
you only become a good photographer because you want to take really good pictures. photography isn't that complicated. if someone wants it badly enough, they'll learn about f-stops and whatever. most women may not be gearheads, but they're not stupid.
b) i think it's a bit unfortunate to say women make better subjects because they look prettier/curvier and they like the attention. there are lots and lots of examples of interesting male subjects in the history of art and photography, from david's michaelangelo to hcb's taxi drivers etc. i don't think the case has been proven at all that women make better subjects.
and just because there are a lot of men (on forums, or in business or whatever) who like looking at women doesn't make women better subjects.
c) what makes a good photographer? when we talk about "the eye", aren't we talking about human sensitivity (to form, aesthetics, relationships, other human beings)?
what makes a good photographic subject? does it have to be beautiful (curvy, sexy, pretty, frilly)? isn't it also interesting to see other sorts of angles, shapes, textures, expressions, moods?
don't male and female human beings have an equal chance at being either, or both?