The Intellectual Capacity of Women

[–]ignatiusloyola 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]toblotron 8 points9 points10 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it should be a MensRights issue weather men or women are more "generally intelligent" -

How do you feel about the fact that in a typical democratic system the vote of a typical imbecile has the same value as a vote of a typical, educated and intelligent man?

How do you feel about the fact that there is a significant population of electorate considering themselves a "class", endowed with observable sheep mentality, determined to advance their imaginary "rights" by utilizing the poor democratic system to further their self-interested agenda at the expense of, you know, the other group called men that just happens to be more cognitively enhanced?

This has everything to do with MensRights. This sick system cannot be fixed politically. The whole thing must collapse, and then womyn must remain disenfranchised under the scientific justification such as the topical essay.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 8 points9 points10 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you seriously suggesting that only productive members of society above a certain intelligence level should be allowed to vote?

No; above certain level of productivity. If your existence is based on consuming other people's tax money, and contributing nothing back, or consuming more than you giving, there is absolutely no reason why you should be given the right to decide anything. This encompasses great deal of welfare/CS/alimony-sucking women, as well as all public sector workers.

In other words, you want a meritocracy?

Well, my ideal order of governing would be technocracy, similar to what we have in China today.

So, after all of your argument, you don't want a democracy - where everyone is equal. You have defined certain people as being better than others, and so you want only those people to have rights.

Everybody is equal by their personal rights and liberties. Not everybody should be equal in decision making on where the tax money goes. The stupid and the lazy in particular.

But, the unintelligent are expected to run the government (public sector workers), and provide the backbone to the society to keep the intelligent in their lofty place.

The machines are increasingly replacing majority of the bloated public sector. The real problems are in govt-controlled monopolies such as healthcare and education which are unlikely to easily be privatized because the dumbed-down electorate thinks that it's "bad".

[–]ignatiusloyola 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[M] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

But what does the top percentage have to do with the rest of men, or the rest of women? That there are more male geniuses does not make an men in general smarter than women in general. Women may be "inferiour" for having fewer geniuses, but they're superiour for having fewer idiots. A few men being smarter than everyone does not make "men" smarter than "women".

Society advances because of geniuses, but is maintained by the average. And your average woman is perfectly intelligent, hovering right around average--and average is not stupid. That geniuses have been generally men has no more impact on non-genius men than that some geniuses are women. The tests leaning away from lingual problems, which some tests even proclaim to do, could account for the couple of points IQ difference between the average IQs of men and women, just like women not being aggressive in negotiating wages and raises explains the few cents of a wage gap when comparing equal jobs and equal work.

Also, nowadays women are getting higher degrees and better educations and doing more with themselves. It's unfair to look at history, when women were by and large not allowed to get educations and were ignored by science, and say that because very few women in history managed to do anything means very few women are capable of doing anything. You also have to look at the tests, because if a test focuses mostly on male strength areas like math and spatial reasoning, it'll make men look good, but if it focuses on, say, verbal and linguistic problems, it'll make women look good.

The only reason this would even matter is to strengthen the argument against quotas anywhere. Smart women should have the opportunity to do whatever they want without discrimination, but we should not mandate equality of the genders in genius-level careers because that equality just isn't there. But I'm against mandating percentages of anything, period.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That there are more male geniuses does not make an men in general smarter than women in general.

Averages, or "in general" as you state, are irrelevant. It's the top 10-20% that mke a difference. A population of everybody having an average IQ of 100 would be significantly less advanced than population having the 80% an average IQ, and the rest 20% having IQ equally 30% above the average and below the average. It's variability that is important from the evolutionary perspective. Evolution has for some reason endowed men with much higher variability in all forms of intelligence and creativity. That's why they form intellectual elite in pretty much all domains.

That, of course, creates an imbalance which feminists seek to "address" by means of artificially rigging the system to favor womyn as opposed to men, with womyn "succeeding" with lower levels of skills and knowledge than it is required from men, by imposing reverse-racism mechanisms of quotas and affirmative action.

Women may be "inferiour" for having fewer geniuses, but they're superiour for having fewer idiots.

From the ultimate evolutionary perspective, inferior variability of intelligence is degeneracy. Individuals are irrelevant, it's the collective of the species that matters.

A few men being smarter than everyone does not make "men" smarter than "women".

Not "a few", but a few orders of magnitude.

Society advances because of geniuses, but is maintained by the average.

No; the purpose of averages is to provide genetic diversity in numbers so that more geniuses and above-averages could be born that could enhance the species. More men.

And your average woman is perfectly intelligent, hovering right around average--and average is not stupid.

Sure, but with the advancement of technology there is significantly less opportunity for women to provide benefits to the society. Asimptotically, at some not so distant future, their only function would be a biological maturation chamber for artificially (stem cells) created fetuses. In all the developed Western societies women overwhelmingly pursue careers backed up by the state, usually in public sector, which once it collapses, which it undoubtedly will very soon, will render their utility superfluous. At that point, feminism will dissolve faster than you can say "where is th nearest alpha?".

That geniuses have been generally men has no more impact on non-genius men than that some geniuses are women.

This sentence is logically incoherent.

. The tests leaning away from lingual problems, which some tests even proclaim to do, could account for the couple of points IQ difference between the average IQs of men and women, just like women not being aggressive in negotiating wages and raises explains the few cents of a wage gap when comparing equal jobs and equal work.

IQ tests are generally non-lingual. Even natural language itself can be analyzed as a form of abstract computational structure matching meanings with lexemes into structured meaningful sentences conveying important message. No wonder that all the best writers in the world, in all languages, are men.

Also, nowadays women are getting higher degrees and better educations and doing more with themselves.

That's because traditional college-based education is becoming increasingly useless. Men are more intelligent to observe the trends, and hence focus on honing practical real-world skills, which would get them better wages, increase their survival, or make life more enjoyable. Women, on the other hand, blindly follow their herd getting those worthless degrees in humanities praying to Lord to land in some shitty government-funded state sinecure.

It's unfair to look at history, when women were by and large not allowed to get educations and were ignored by science, and say that because very few women in history managed to do anything means very few women are capable of doing anything.

It's also unfair to look at the evidence of the last half of century of emancipated womyn in the developed countries, and their continuous infinitesimal numbers in cutting-edge science. Perhaps sexism in mathematical community is responsible for no womyn ever getting Fields medal? Right... Occam's razor says: women are either more stupid, or less likely to engage into creative, selfless activities such as science.

...if a test focuses mostly on male strength areas like math and spatial reasoning

Here you're effectually stating that men posses higher mathematical-logical intelligence.

but if it focuses on, say, verbal and linguistic problems, it'll make women look good

That's a common myth. Men have superior verbal skills than women by any measure. All the best writers are men, the best linguists, grammarians, lexicographers, polyglots... The apex of female linguistic skills are junk literary genres such as chic lit and passing gossips to her fellow sheep all day long.

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but with the advancement of technology there is significantly less opportunity for women to provide benefits to the society. Asimptotically, at some not so distant future, their only function would be a biological maturation chamber for artificially (stem cells) created fetuses.

What?

No wonder that all the best writers in the world, in all languages, are men.

Matter of opinion. I think Louisa May Alcott, the Brontes, Mary Shelley, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Alice Walker, Edith Wharton, Virginia Woolf, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Edna St Vincent Millay, Ursula K Leguin, Toni Morrison, JK Rowling, Sylvia Plath, Harper Lee, and Susan Glaspell certainly show something to the contrary, and that's just the English-language writers I could think of off the top of my head, some of them Pulitzer-prize winners.

That's because traditional college-based education is becoming increasingly useless. Men are more intelligent to observe the trends, and hence focus on honing practical real-world skills, which would get them better wages, increase their survival, or make life more enjoyable. Women, on the other hand, blindly follow their herd getting those worthless degrees in humanities praying to Lord to land in some shitty government-funded state sinecure.

...right, okay. We're pretty much done here, you're just a sexist bigot through and through. Not going to bother with any of the rest. Though I will ask:

Men have superior verbal skills than women by any measure.

Source? Considering everything I've ever read, learned, or seen published is to the contrary?

[–]Three_Sides 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And I thought I had issues with women.

FingerofDeath, you might want to fantasize about futures for humankind that don't involve the intellectual elites quashing the moronic masses - your evident lack of rationality puts you squarely in the latter camp.

First you argue that because the quoted essay says that women are dumber then men, they should be disenfranchised. If intelligence is the criteria, why is it not all of the stupid people - male and female - that get put down?

You throw out "facts" like only the top 10% count towards the advancement of our species, when it is obviously a continuum. What exactly is your boundary condition?

You point out (repeatedly) that women have deliberately altered the systems of power to favour themselves over men. How did they do this? They are equal in number, physically weaker, and apparently dumber by your own arguments. Whatever characteristic you choose to rebut with (pure evil?), you would still have to admit that women have something significant to add to humanity's power and abilities.

You claim certain knowledge of our broad future ("The whole thing must collapse", "once it collapses, which it undoubtedly will"), while refusing to enlighten anyone on how you reached such dramatic conclusions.

The generalizations you toss out are so paper thin, a child could pierce them. "Men focus on honing practical real-world skills (yadda, yadda)" - except for those who work dead-end factory jobs, dangerous mining, or no job at all. "Women... getting worthless degrees" - except for female doctors, lawyers, politicians,...

Despite dropping evolution and gender differences into practically every sentence, you are either too lazy or too stupid to even grasp the simple genetic reason why men show higher variability. And this loose grip on basic genetics is what leads you to propose your magnum opus of stupid - that technology will reduce women to mere incubation chambers in the near future.

We can do genetic sequencing and artificial insemination right now; it is the womb we cannot yet duplicate. If we wished, we could isolate the recessive genes causing exceptional ability, give two copies to the more stable XX configuration, and do away with the male gender altogether. Why have useless breeders AND useful thinker/workers, when you can just roll it into a single package? One that lives longer, consumes less of precious resources to feed, and weighs less for the ultimately move into space.

OK, my rant is done; on to my point: what in the name of science does this submission have to do with the stated purpose of this subreddit? It does nothing to illuminate the way men are treated today, or how to fix the many problems they face.

Even in its proper place, this thread is a mediocre essay by a philosopher, lathered up with over-the-top misogynistic fantasies - it proves nothing about female intelligence while casting doubt on the intelligence of at least some men.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What?

This, plus a piece of artificial maturation technology, will obsolete majority of this worthless self-destructive species, women in particular. Once the govts figure out how to churn out perfect state drones, it's game over. Not in Amerika at first, of curse, but your govt will be forced to soon follow suit once they discover that China or India have been effectively solving the population problem by banning biological reproduction and selectively breeding high-IQ genes. Why import 1000 Mexicans for 100 useful ones, when you can create 1000 useful ones?

Louisa May Alcott, the Brontes, Mary Shelley, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Alice Walker, Edith Wharton, Virginia Woolf, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Edna St Vincent Millay, Ursula K Leguin, Toni Morrison, JK Rowling, Sylvia Plath, Harper Lee, and Susan Glaspell certainly show something to the contrary, and that's just the English-language writers I could think of off the top of my head, some of them Pulitzer-prize winners.

Yes, but they're not the best writers in English language. Popularity with vulgus (JK Rowling, ugh) is certainly not the measure of excellence. I'm an ESL speaker, and of those that you mentioned I've heard of (and read) only 3. OTOH I've heard of Shakespeare, Hemingway, Huxley, Joyce or TSE since primary school. The best writers of all literary epochs in all major European literatures (English, German, Russian, French, Italian, Latin) throughout the ages are all men. This can be reflected in their superior vocabulary, syntactical constructs, innovative writing techniques and topics raised to public light.

Source? Considering everything I've ever read, learned, or seen published is to the contrary?

You're prejudiced by your feminized world view. If you mean by "superior verbal skills" the ability to generate endless amount of gossip and other forms of worthless twaddle per day, than I agree with your statement.

[–]janetasiri 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mmmberry 6 points7 points8 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AmazingMaze -5 points-4 points-3 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]AmazingMaze -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mringham 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Inconnu2u 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The Intellectual Capacity of Women
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	30
Date	July 14, 2010 12:29 AM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cp9gs/the_intellectual_capacity_of_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-intellectual-capacity-of-women.1048631 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048631

Comments