Sexual Dimorphism | MensRights

RogerPM27 · 2016-05-19T16:16:59+00:00

So we all accept sexual dimorphism is a thing. I think most people would except possibly some feminists. Men naturally have a lot more upper body strength and...

[–]Krissam 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ha true I just think itd be pretty obvious that mental dimorphism occurs for the same reason physical dimorphism did. Like if we take it back to cavemen and evolution the male body needed to be faster and stronger for hunting while the female body needed to be adapted to baby making and gathering and having larger fat stores so can deal with starvation better etc. now we can all probably think of some mental things that would develop also to aid in these tasks. Men probably developed better co-ordination and spacial awareness for hunting and I can guess we would probably also develop the whole aggressiveness and competitiveness for the same reason also that men need to compete for mates still while females didnt as much as one man can impregnate multiple women while a woman can only be impregnated by one man every 9 months. Women would probably develop things which make them more cautious as to protect themselves for baby making and also more social abilities as lots of there time would be spent sat with other women caring for young and all that.

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]revengeofthedirty47 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No that isnt what dimorphism is there are some women which are much bigger than me, more muscular and faster etc. however in general this is normally males. the same is true for brains while some women might have male traits and some men might have female traits these traits tend to show up more frequently in males and females. Its like im sure serena williams has amazing spacial awareness and co-ordination certainly much better than me but she might not have all the other traits which tend to show up in guys and will have a higher percentage of ones which show up in females. Your argument doesnt even make sense as you literally say 'traits commonly found in female brains' you literally say that some traits are more common to females and vice versa ? you literally proved nothing other than that there are always statistical outliers

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

no, that is very specifically what dimorphisim is. you can use dimorphic traits to define a creature via observation. you literally cannot look at a brain and go "thats a mans brain" for any certainty. you can GUESS at it based on the 0-2% size difference that occurs across the median of male/female brain weight/volumes, but even then there is no distinct part that you can use to identify their sex.

if i stand an average male next to an average female- our dimorphic traits are

Adams apple
Facial Hair
Breasts
Upper body mass
Hip placement
Pelvic projection
Genitalia

If i cut you open, we have a few things we can use to identify your sex

Testes/Ovaries
Uterus/Cervix/Penile canal
mammary glands

you however cannot tell if a person is male or female simply by observing/disecting their brains.

Your argument doesnt even make sense as you literally say 'traits commonly found in female brains' you literally say that some traits are more common to females and vice versa ? you literally proved nothing other than that there are always statistical outliers

oh i should clarifiy, Female brains, would be brains that were taken from female bodies.

[–]existee 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nissa-Nissa -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

I think there are cognitive/mental differences, for sure, but I don’t think they should be overstated e.g.

... women notoriously have poor spatial awareness and co-ordination

What is this based on? What about dancing? I don’t mean all women are natural born ballet dancers and nor do I mean that men can’t dance either as they certainly can - but there are enough ‘average’ women with enough dancing ability to suggest that they can’t be that poor at either spatial awareness or co-ordination.

So in short, I agree that there likely are some cognitive/mental differences, but how that can be distinguished from the influence of other variables I just don’t know.

At the end of the day, I’d say what differences there are produce more noticeable effects when you look at large populations, but in the everyday lives of most people’s social networks - which it’s been suggested run up to about 150 or so - the differences between genders become indistinguishable from the differences between individuals.

So in effect, in terms of intelligence for sure I think men and woman are the same on balance.

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Actually it is, but that's not an insult to women.

Thanks for your response - I don’t claim to be an expert, but I still have a few issues with this idea that are based on far more than just a misguided and stubborn insistence that things must be equal because that’s the ideal (if you look up thread, I’ve already acknowledged that there are cognitive differences between men and women, I just disagree with the extent of the impact and some of the conclusions people draw based on that).

So if you have an idle moment …

STEM requires greater than average intelligence in order to be successful. Would you not agree?

Yes, absolutely - I’ve never suggested just anyone can do it, but I’m objecting to the suggestion that fewer women take up STEM because there fewer are women with high enough IQs

Well were you aware that in the group of people with IQs of 120+, there are two men for every one woman?

I am aware that the distribution of IQ is different between men and women so that men predominate at either end of the range i.e. they are represented in disproportionate numbers at both the lowest and highest IQ ranges - which I guess would account for the 2:1 ration you’re describing.

However, I still have an issue with this. Why? Here are some snippets:

A

To be more practical, an IQ of about 100 is needed to gain GCSE grades A or B, 110 to obtain A-levels and 120 to enter university: medical students have an average IQ of 125. Arguably an IQ of 70-75 is sufficient for independent existence in a technological society. (Source McManus (1992) Psychology in Medicine)

B

Since IQ in the UK has an average of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, the top 10 percent of the UK population have an IQ of about 120 plus […] My definition of the cognitive elite derives from the work of IQ scholars such as Linda Gottfredson or Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray (authors of The Bell Curve). They note that US data suggest that relatively few ‘high-IQ’ professions have an average entry standard of 120 plus and absorb about half the cognitive elite.

These professions include accountants, architects, scientists, computer scientists, social scientists, university teachers, mathematicians, engineers, lawyers, dentists and physicians. Leading Chief Executives and senior managers make up the other main high-IQ group.

If US data on the Ivy League are taken as a guide, a university such as Oxford or Cambridge will probably have students with an average IQ more like 145; which is three standard deviations above average – or roughly the top 0.1 percent of IQ, or roughly the top thousandth of the UK population. (Source Professor Bruce G. Charlton)

C

Long gone are the days of [Oxford and Cambridge University] as a male-only institution. In 2011, the male:female ratio of accepted students at Cambridge was 54:46. (Source The Cambridge Student)

D

The number of women joining UK medical schools continues to outnumber men – our figures show that in 2012, 55% of medical students were female […] The overall increase in women joining the profession means that in just a few years, there will be more female than male doctors on the medical register. (Source General Medical Council )

So in short, if women outnumber men at university nationally in the UK - and to be sure, they do: In 2010-11, there were more female (55%) than male fulltime undergraduates (45%) enrolled at university) - and if the average university student has an IQ of 120 or an IQ of 145 at elite institutions then the claim that there are fewer women taking STEM subjects at university because of a lack of intellectual capacity is pretty much blown completely out of the water.

The fact that they make up 55% of all medical students pretty much underscores the point that if they wanted to go into a STEM field there is literally nothing to stop them from doing so.

When it comes to university - and especially elite universities - every student is (or at least should be) in the top 10% of IQs for the nation so whether it is true or not that men are disproportionately more likely to be both dumb as a bag of rocks or a genius becomes irrelevant to the question of female participation in STEM subjects.

That same report on the gender ratios of students from The Cambridge Student shows the following breakdown:

Arts degrees (overall) = 55.6% F : 44.4% M
Science degrees (overall) : 46.3% F 53.7% M

They also note that "English and History of Art boast a particularly high female presence”, but "Economics, Music and Philosophy are the exceptions, attracting a higher male presence of 66.9%, 64.4% and 64.6% respectively.”. They also say that in "Computer Science ... the percentage of female acceptances was only 2.9% in 2011."

All of this argues that women are choosing to go into Arts subjects for personal, subjective or cultural reasons - they are not being systematically discriminated against on the grounds of their gender and neither is it because they are too dumb to take those STEM subjects.

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The fact that they make up 55% of all medical students pretty much underscores the point that if they wanted to go into a STEM field there is literally nothing to stop them from doing so.

Medicine is a subject that demands different skills as compared to maths, for example. For medicine, you mostly need hard work and memorization. Also, being a conformist helps a lot – so much of it is based on authority. In this sense, it's more like art than science. (BTW, I consider modern corporate medicine as extremely corrupt and basically fascist. I'm into natural medicine 100%.)

I understand your general argument, but I think you put too much stress on the current stats of University admissions. Don't you understand that this is primarily politics? PC politics and social engineering gone mad.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Don't you understand that this is primarily politics? PC politics and social engineering gone mad.

Don’t you understand that these are at least two entirely separate issues and you’re not separating them out?

This was your statement:

Women's weakness in STEM is just one example [of the fact that men and women have different cognitive abilities]

And you also agreed with u/Demonspawn that:

in the group of people with IQs of 120+, there are two men for every one woman

These are two separate issues. STEM subjects are by definition only open to university graduates and as I’ve demonstrated, the average IQ of a university graduate - male or female - is between 120 and 145.

If 55% of all undergraduates are women then 55% of those women have an IQ of 120 and 145 - therefore you cannot argue that it is because of a lack of IQ that women do not go into STEM fields in equal numbers to men as they clearly have the required IQ to do those courses.

Where is the Political Correctness in that? It’s nowhere.

It would be politically correct if I were to argue that women should be in precisely equal numbers to men in all subjects and especially in e.g. Computer Science. But I am not arguing that and in fact I am very strongly against any arguments for quotas based on gender full stop because I think it’s total bullshit.

But none of this supports your claim that women are intellectually incapable of taking on STEM subjects.

The 2:1 ratio of men to women with IQs of 120+ only relates to the whole population and not the population going onto university degrees where - as I’ve pointed out - the average of everyone is 120. So those differences in the general population disappear.

I'm into natural medicine 100%

Why doesn’t that surprise me?

Enjoy this

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

but I’m objecting to the suggestion that fewer women take up STEM because there fewer are women with high enough IQs

If It takes greater than average IQ, there simply are more men than women in that group. If we draw the line at 120, there are twice as many men than women in that group. That means there are twice as many men capable of considering STEM as a career than there are women.

So in short, if women outnumber men at university nationally in the UK

I'm going to stop your argument here. The problem is, you're assuming a meritocracy where the smartest and best get into college. The truth is, there's so much assistance for women getting in to college that there is anything but.

And that's why we see a massive over-abundance of women in the easier university fields. Because the lower end of women got into university due to all of the preferential treatment for women and then they have to find something they are capable of studying.

The fact that they make up 55% of all medical students pretty much underscores the point that if they wanted to go into a STEM field there is literally nothing to stop them from doing so.

Men have been moving away from the medical field in droves. First it was veterinary medicine and lately it's been human medicine. The gender ratio in applicants has been growing more and more female as men seek other fields for their careers.

so whether it is true or not that men are disproportionately more likely to be both dumb as a bag of rocks or a genius becomes irrelevant to the question of female participation in STEM subjects.

You're looking at the whole scale. The issue is we are supposed to be looking at "those with IQs high enough to do STEM". In that group there are twice as many men as women. I'm not saying "women are incapable". I'm saying "of those capable, there are far more men than women."

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If It takes greater than average IQ, there simply are more men than women in that group.

As I’ve pointed out, the university admissions numbers tell a different story - if we narrow it down to only include elite schools such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge etc. then we’re talking an average IQ of 145 in a population of approximately 55% women and 45% men.

For your point to be true, you would need to show evidence that (a) the average IQ of students taking, say, English Literature is actually in fact lower on average than the average IQ of students taking Physics, and (b) whether or not IQ is as appropriate a test for measuring the full range of applications of human intelligence or whether the test itself is going to betray a bias towards people who study subjects that involve pattern recognition of the type IQ tests specialise in.

The second point is not an idle one either - IQ tests may be the most popular intelligence test, but they are by no means the only one or even the most effective for that matter.

… The truth is, there's so much assistance for women getting in to college …

That’s not quite the case though, is it?

Women do not receive any kind of additional assistance or special consideration for entry into degrees in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences where they tend to predominate.

They are only receiving assistance - including financial awards, grants and other dispensations - for enrolling onto certain STEM field programmes where there numbers have been historically low. So when you say:

women got into university due to all of the preferential treatment for women

I’m afraid you just flat wrong - because this whole issue of women in STEM surrounds the fact that the numbers of women even applying to go in for those courses is rather low - about 20-30% of each cohort - even in spite of every financial incentive being thrown at them to give up that course in English Literature or French and Italian to study Astrophysics or Civil Engineering.

What is clear to me from this - at least without further proof to the contrary - is that women are in STEM subjects in smaller numbers than men because they just don’t want to fucking do those courses.

It is not because they lack intelligence or ability and it certainly isn’t because of gender discrimination and institutional sexism as the fuckwits of Feminism insist must be the case.

Approximately 20-30% of men go into English Literature or French and Italian - they’re not effeminate, or lacking in intelligence - it’s just these are the significant minority who go into the Arts and Humanities instead of STEM.

Men have been moving away from the medical field in droves. First it was veterinary medicine and lately it's been human medicine.

Yes, I know, but what’s your point?

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

As I’ve pointed out, the university admissions numbers tell a different story

Then it's obvious that the university numbers are based on something other than IQ.

(a) the average IQ of students taking, say, English Literature is actually in fact lower on average than the average IQ of students taking Physics

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

(b) whether or not IQ is as appropriate a test for measuring the full range of applications of human intelligence or whether the test itself is going to betray a bias towards people who study subjects that involve pattern recognition of the type IQ tests specialise in.

IQ tests measure reasoning and problem solving skills. No, that's not the "full range" of applications, but it is the set of applications that are most fundimental to STEM.

Women do not receive any kind of additional assistance or special consideration for entry into degrees in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences where they tend to predominate.

Go look up scholarships for women vs scholarships for men and get back to me with that assertion. They are receiving FAR more general college admission help well beyond just STEM.

because this whole issue of women in STEM surrounds the fact that the numbers of women even applying to go in for those courses is rather low - about 20-30% of each cohort - even in spite of every financial incentive being thrown at them to give up that course in English Literature or French and Italian to study Astrophysics or Civil Engineering.

Because far more men have the brains for that than women!

is that women are in STEM subjects in smaller numbers than men because they just don’t want to fucking do those courses.

That is also a compounding issue, but it's not the only reason why there's a lack of women in STEM.

Yes, I know, but what’s your point?

That even if "of those qualified to be doctors/vets, there are more men than women"... if men are avoiding the field then women will make up the majority of those in it.

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

IQ tests measure reasoning and problem solving skills. No, that's not the "full range" of applications, …

OK then. So the initial statement I made that set this exchange off was:

[I]n short, I agree that there likely are some cognitive/mental differences, but how that can be distinguished from the influence of other variables I just don’t know […] in effect, in terms of intelligence for sure I think men and woman are the same on balance.

If you accept that IQ only tests a restricted range of skills, then it doesn’t mean that men are on balance ‘more’ intelligent than [women] because it’s not the only measure of intelligence.

… but it is the set of applications that are most fundimental to STEM.

Well, of course yes, but doesn’t this make your whole point rather circular?

A Physics student is someone who spent a great deal of time at high school focussing on exactly the kind of problem-solving tasks that appear in IQ tests.

So in other words, to what extent is the relatively high IQ scores that such students get at least as much to do with familiarity and repeated practice of that type of problem-solving as it is anything to do with genetic inheritance?

Some people argue that this argument (about familiarity) doesn’t hold water because there are e.g. non-verbal forms of IQ test that have supposedly been designed to avoid such possibly problems … except the problem with that is that maths includes e.g. trigonometry and the like which argues that if you are good at that you are also likely to do well on a test focussed on visual patterns.

FWIW right at the beginning of this exchange, I said:

I am aware that the distribution of IQ is different between men and women so that men predominate at either end of the range i.e. they are represented in disproportionate numbers at both the lowest and highest IQ ranges - which I guess would account for the 2:1 ration you’re describing.

But that’s over the general population, not the subset of the population at university and especially not in the top tier universities. Within the universities themselves, I maintain that the IQ averages 120-145 and as a general indicator of intelligence (criticisms above aside) I see no reason to believe that women are less likely to go into STEM fields "Because far more men have the brains for that than women!"

PS

Go look up scholarships for women vs scholarships for men and get back to me with that assertion.

No, you go look them up!

[edit]

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, of course yes, but doesn’t this make your whole point rather circular?

Nope. My argument is that the variation in IQ is what is leading to less women in STEM. You asked what kind of skills IQ measures. The types of skills IQ measures are those that are very important to STEM fields.

That's not circular, that's applying the right data to the question.

to what extent is the relatively high IQ scores that such students get at least as much to do with familiarity and repeated practice of that type of problem-solving as it is anything to do with genetic inheritance?

IQ is around 80% inheritable (separated twin studies), that means the most "practice" could account for is 20%. My guess is that it's much lower than that.

But that’s over the general population, not the subset of the population at university and especially not in the top tier universities.

The general applies to the subset unless we are specifically removing high IQ males from the subset.

I see no reason to believe that women are less likely to go into STEM fields "Because far more men have the brains for that than women!"

Then your assertion is that college students don't come from the general population.

No, you go look them up!

I have. You made the claim that there was no "special help" for women in general admission. You are the one who has to support that claim.

I understand that you can't prove a negative, so I provided a counterpoint to your claim: the large number of female-only scholarships compared to the virtually non-existent male-only scholarships.

Now it is on you to demonstrate that somehow all these female-only scholarships don't count as "special help for general admission"

[–]KrisK_lvin1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My argument is that …

I’m well aware of what your argument is and as far as it goes I agree with it - as I have pointed out more than once already.

The main points of contention are that:

I am arguing that most women don’t go into STEM fields because they choose not to do so
You are arguing that the reason why most women’s participation rates is consistently low in those subjects because they simply don’t have the IQ they would need to participate
I am also arguing that it is an unfair mischaracterisation to describe Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences subjects as “easier” than STEM subjects;
You are arguing that they are easier on the grounds that - apparently - the students who do those subjects have on average a lower IQ

For the record, there are no male only scholarships, not even for the armed forces anymore.

There are many, many female only scholarships - it was me who brought these up. But the point of them is to get more women into areas where they are considered to be under-represented as a consequence of prejudice.

They are not there to support women into degrees in e.g. English Literature where they are already making up the significant majority of students.

That was my point regarding scholarships and it is true.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am arguing that most women don’t go into STEM fields because they choose not to do so

There's two points:

1: Of those qualified for STEM, there's more men than women

2: Of women qualified for STEM, a smaller percentage of them go for it than men qualified for stem.

You are arguing that the reason why most women’s participation rates is consistently low in those subjects because they simply don’t have the IQ they would need to participate

A big reason, but not the only reason.

I am also arguing that it is an unfair mischaracterisation to describe Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences subjects as “easier” than STEM subjects;

But they very much are. STEM is very demanding compared to Arts and Humanities.

There are many, many female only scholarships - it was me who brought these up. But the point of them is to get more women into areas where they are considered to be under-represented as a consequence of prejudice.

But there are also a large number of female-only scholarships that apply to general college admission as well rather than specific majors where they are less than demographically represented, which would weaken your point.

[–]KrisK_lvin0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I appreciate the time you’re taking for this back and forth, by the way, frustrating as you might be finding it.

1: Of those qualified for STEM, there's more men than women

It’s tiresome to repeat this (for me as well as you), but if the sources I cited much earlier are correct, and that the average IQ of all university students is ranges from 120-145, then this statement only applies to the whole population not the population at university.

I take you to be rejecting the claims made in this sources - if I understand you, your main point is that the average IQ may well be 120 overall, but that c. 66% of women students IQs will fall below that average (say falling into the 105-119 range) and that this is why they predominate in Arts and Humanities subjects.

That leaves a pool of c. 33% of women with IQs 120 + and it’s only these women that are eligible for STEM programmes and they’s why there are fewer women.

But [AHSS subjects] very much are [easier]. STEM is very demanding compared to Arts and Humanities.

I just don’t understand what you are basing such a sweeping statement on - how can you justify that?

The only answer I can come up with is that there are joke degrees in AHSS, e.g. Gender Studies, but no equivalents for that in STEM.

But again, to tar the whole of AHSS with the same brush solely on the basis that some courses have been poisoned with a toxic ideologically-based political activism is really more than just a little bit unfair - and arguably wrong if only IQ is being considered as a measure.

You know in the UK for hundreds of years, the best and the brightest went into Languages (specifically Greek and Latin) and it was the second tier that tended to go into what we would now call STEM. Languages were seen as an essential knowledge base for administration and diplomacy in the Empire and with the Foreign Office.

David Attenborough tells the story of how when he was at school, he was not considered clever enough to go into Languages and that’s how he ended up specialising in the natural sciences.

That is anecdotal, obviously, but it would seem to make it hard to argue that STEM are harder and AHSS easier because the skills they require are quite different.

female-only scholarships that apply to general college admission

OK, I’ve managed to find one so presumably there must be others so I’ll concede this point - I’d rather wish I didn’t have to - not from an ego point of view, but from a rage bait one:

How is such blatant gender discrimination even legal?

Especially in the UK where "White working-class boys are the worst performing ethnic group at school” and yet nobody "speaks up for poor white boys when it comes to their education”.

It’s a fucking disgrace that middle class white women can apply for funds only available for them with that going on in the background.

FfWG - Funds for Women Graduates

FfWG is an educational charity whose objective is to promote ‘the advancement of education and promotion of higher education and wider learning of women graduates’ by providing grants specifically for living expenses to Women during their UK based postgraduate studies, with the aim of positively impacting their future career and our society as a whole.

The criteria for awarding Grants are the proven needs of the applicant and her academic calibre. ...

Foundation Grants (Terms on which Grants are given)

• Women graduates from UK and overseas are eligible to apply. • They must be studying in Great Britain and in their final fee paying or writing up year of PhD or DPhil. • Any subject or field of study will be considered. • There is no upper age limit. ...

Emergency Grants (Terms on which Grants are given)

• Women Graduates from Great Britain and overseas are eligible to apply. • There is no upper age limit. • Evidence of ability to pay fees is required. • An Emergency grant is not a ‘top up’ award; most students are short of money. > • These are one-off payments to assist with completion of an academic year’s work.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It’s tiresome to repeat this (for me as well as you), but if the sources I cited much earlier are correct, and that the average IQ of all university students is ranges from 120-145, then this statement only applies to the whole population not the population at university.

Does the university come from the whole population? Yes.

Do IQ's change just by entering college? No.

Therefore, the people in university still follow the IQ ratios.

I just don’t understand what you are basing such a sweeping statement on - how can you justify that?

You're trying to state that all university degrees are "equally hard". I simply just don't think so.

You know in the UK for hundreds of years, the best and the brightest went into Languages (specifically Greek and Latin) and it was the second tier that tended to go into what we would now call STEM. Languages were seen as an essential knowledge base for administration and diplomacy in the Empire and with the Foreign Office.

That's because of an selection not based on the difficulty of the subject but rather on the people they want in the subject.

How is such blatant gender discrimination even legal?

Because women control 56% of the vote, and government has learned it can buy women's votes by taking taxes from men and giving that money to women.

[–]KrisK_lvin1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Does the university come from the whole population? ~~Yes.~~ No!

I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp - the average IQ for the whole population in the UK is 100 with deviation between 85 and 115.

If you accept - and fair enough if you don’t, but I do - that university students are at least of above average intelligence as according to the sources I quoted early on, then the university student population are only those with an average of 120+.

So we’re only talking about that top tier - the cream if you like - and not the rest of the bottle of milk.

Your claim is that roughly 66% of men and 33% of women have IQs of 120+.

In the normal run of things, you would therefore expect university students to follow the same lines i.e. 2:1 men:women. But that isn’t the case - the actual figures are, overall, 55% women to 45% men.

So one question is - where are all the men with IQs high enough to get into university going? into business? into unemployment? Where are they? Or are they still there, but do there numbers now seem much smaller since the overall student population has expanded rapidly over the last few decades?

Another question is - if women predominate in ‘soft’ subjects, then it must mean that they are gravitating towards degree courses that don’t require a high IQ and so the average IQ of people on those courses is lower than 120.

You're trying to state that all university degrees are "equally hard". I simply just don't think so.

Well, not quite - my point is more that I just don’t know how it is that you are supposed to find a meaningful measure between the two fields as they are so different. Is an apple better than an orange?

It’s clear that the written composition skills of people in AHSS are generally very high, some of them exceptionally so - but people with those skills would not necessarily score very high on an IQ test.

Similarly, some people with high IQs may lack empathy or charisma and have poor communication skills - in which case their IQ becomes as much of a burden as a benefit to them.

Besides, I wouldn’t underestimate the extent to which AHSS subjects draw on quantitative data and employ quantitative methods. Maths may not be at the core of those degrees, but that is not the same as saying that it has no place there at all.

Historians may do all kinds of number-crunching and data analyses, for instance.

That's because of an selection not based on the difficulty of the subject …

If you have ever tried to master a foreign language much less be conversant in translating from one to the other and back again, you would know that this is simply untrue.

Because women control 56% of the vote, and government has learned it can buy women's votes by taking taxes from men and giving that money to women.

You may have a point there.

The principle I was describing - that grants for women are designed to push women into areas in which they are supposedly under-represented - is the correct one.

I was horrified to learn that it extends outward beyond STEM to any occupation a woman might choose to go into - simply for the sake of getting a woman on the board, the, the faculty, the lab, government - wherever.

Which is F-ing ridiculous.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you accept - and fair enough if you don’t, but I do - that university students are at least of above average intelligence as according to the sources I quoted early on, then the university student population are only those with an average of 120+.

Ok, let's try this again.

Do humans have a gender ratio of 2:1 at an IQ of 120+? Yes.

Are University students human? Yes.

So we would expect university students to also have a gender ratio of 2:1 at 120+, unless you can postulate that there is some selection that is removing a lot of high IQ men from entering university.

In the normal run of things, you would therefore expect university students to follow the same lines i.e. 2:1 men:women. But that isn’t the case - the actual figures are, overall, 55% women to 45% men.

Or the hard line at 120/145 that you are suggesting isn't really all that hard of a line.

Besides, I wouldn’t underestimate the extent to which AHSS subjects draw on quantitative data and employ quantitative methods. Maths may not be at the core of those degrees

If you are employing quantitative methods, then maths has to be part of the core. If you are dealing with quantitative, you are dealing with math.

If you have ever tried to master a foreign language much less be conversant in translating from one to the other and back again, you would know that this is simply untrue.

Never tried to master any, but I have learned how to speak "needs" in several (food, water, bathroom, shelter, take cover, yes, no, please, thank you).

Which is F-ing ridiculous.

Not at all, it's actually very practical. Politicians stay in power by taking from men to give to women. It gets them (re)elected. And it will continue to do so until men say "enough" and take the system down.

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HugoBorden 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrisK_lvin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerPM27 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Sexual Dimorphism
Author	RogerPM27
Upvotes	10
Comments	59
Date	May 19, 2016 4:16 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4k38s8/sexual_dimorphism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/sexual-dimorphism.949248 https://theredarchive.com/post/949248

Comments