Did you read the article? In order to refute his feminist critics, the researcher wrote the following:
There has to be some female compensating factor, most importantly the ability to process speech sounds, which means women read faster and more accurately and have an advantage in basic writing tasks. And women work harder than men and are more conscientious so they do things technic-ally correctly. Men are often quite original but deficient in what is technically demanded.
Come on, now? The guy says he believes in equality, then follows it up with a little misandry just to please his opponents?
Despite the academic data facing even the researcher, he still feels the need to apologize. Misandry and anti-male sexism lives on.
Right you are John but it will not do him any good. A feminist cannot take any criticism at all. If he said women were better in 99% of ways the feminist would call him a pig and argue the last 1%.
More misandry from feminized culture even with raw data and scientific reasoning.
Though there is a good chance that if the researcher concluded truthfully about the evidence before him, he may be out of work.
It’s doubtful that America will have an academic advantage in the world, with respect to useful social or scientific discovery based upon evidence, when researchers fear feminist rage.
Originally, standardized IQ tests showed the same thing. Then the tests were changed to reflect the belief, obvious to the most casual observer, that, there couldn’t possibly be any difference in male and female IQ. (The sarcasm is dripping all over my keyboard.)
One male-female difference that is very robust is that male variance (i.e., standard deviation) is higher than women’s. This means that there would be more male geniuses but also that there would be more male morons.
This reminds me of a story that was in the news a while ago. Another male academic had discovered through his research that boys are, on average, 5.5 IQ points more intelligent than girls. The guy acted like he was ashamed of his own findings! Ha! Last time I was in a team meeting at work (I’m a multimedia software developer), all twelve people present were men. Kinda makes ya think…
It is a simple matter that was explained in the article that stated women say 20,000 words per day and men 7000. In groups which of these two accomplish more? Maybe there is a new achievement measure of achievement per word spoken. But we are chastized and called apes for not being more emotional and blathering on rather then doing.
It reminds me of a Adam and Eve joke I once heard.
Adam upon waking and seeing Eve for the first time,let out a sigh and a “wow”! After some time had passed Adam was thanking God for Eve coming into his life, and He some questions: He asked; “Lord why did you make her so beautiful. God says; “So that you would love her!”. Adam then asked, “Why did you make her kind of dumb!” And God replied
“So that she would love you!”.
I am sure you have heard variants of this joke.
Be humble gentlemen, and keep on loving women. And just as importantly, keep fixing stuff for them. (work while they talk)
Try to remember your advice when you find yourself or a close male friend in divorce court, just after a fifteen minute discussion before a family judge with her lies that help remove your kid(s), home, 18 years of your income away from you for little or no reason.
I would not mention it but this happens to about 1.2 million men per year from divorce. About 80% of divorces are initiated from a woman. The figure is higher when kids and your money are involved.
I’ve been there! Twice! I’ve paid the child support and got custody! We men are standing by our kids. And men are getting custody too! Its happening more often. What would you expect from half of those 80% of women
motivated by selfish interest. Integrity, loyalty
to their children? Pay the money; get the time with them, and do your best.
Your data is accurate your attitude will kill your
source of strength and hope.
The real story about Adam and Eve had God offering to make a woman for Adam - a Mark 2 human being, new and improved - a woman who was perfect in every way. She could be made if Adam gave up an arm and a leg. Adam was horrified and asked what could be done with a spare rib. “You get what you pay for Adam”, said God. “Pay up now or pay with interest later”. Well we know what Adam chose.
Man, I’m just becoming a digital xerox machine for a dead white male philosopher who spoke truthfully.
But, his work must be done.
The actual dilemma being debated here is not that of female intelligence.
It is the utter absence of female character and integrity.
Both smart and stupid women lack both —
(Dead white male transcript follows —):
“The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice.
This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning:
hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning.
Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one.
To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights.
A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. –
But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.”
Here we have misogyny in its most blatant form. All you guys just make the man-haters feel justified, and the non-dogmatic neutral observer to feel like the feminists were right all along. You give the men’s movement a bad name.
“The actual dilemma being debated here is not that of female intelligence.
It is the utter absence of female character and integrity.
Both smart and stupid women lack both —”
Well, that’s where men supposed to take up the slack. Oh yeah, they gave up moral authority and handed it over feminists years ago.
“You’re are man. In a feminist world or not, men ought to stick together, to show honor to the same.”
Men shouldn’t stick together.
It’s unnatural and against the Holy Order Of Things. Take a look at what happened when men stuck together in more patriarchal times. Let’s see, we have Cain and Able, Jacob and Esau, Abram and Lot, Joseph and his brothers, and on and on. When men stick together, one is bound to kill the other. If they couldn’t hash it in the partiarchy, they sure can’t hash it now.
It’s the same with wild animals. When a male takes over a pack or a herd, isn’t his first action as alpha male to kill all the other male offspring?
So much is being discussed here: Let see if I have essentials here.
1.There is a body of good evidence that men have higher IQ’s than women.
2. This is nothing really new, but half the population doesn’t like this data point, yet cannot empirically support an alternative.
3. In the last 50 years or so, (probably since the first hook up) men have/are being positioned in negative and degenerating social constraints that diminish or destroy the best of what make us men.
4.Our attackers have been a segment of women who essentially hate men and seek to control every facet of a man’s nature because they believe they have a high moral standard and a higher degree of integrity and self-control.
5. That men can not organize or recognize themselves as a brotherhood without eventually turning on themselves.
Every cause divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if man casts out man, he is divided against himself.
Hot Off The Press! In response to Irwing’s findings, NOW is sponsoring legislation to require lobotomys for one-third of all males with an IQ over 120 to close the IQ gap between men and women. “Vee must haff eequalitee! Seig Heil das Mutterland!”
I recall Lawrence Summers, former President of Harvard University, was fired from his job, after repeated apologies, for suggesting at an NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce that many factors outside of socialization could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions.
John Dias said,
Come on, now? The guy says he believes in equality, then follows it up with a little misandry just to please his opponents?
Despite the academic data facing even the researcher, he still feels the need to apologize. Misandry and anti-male sexism lives on.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
November 30, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Scott66 said,
November 30, 2006 at 8:56 pm
amfortas said,
November 30, 2006 at 9:10 pm
John Dias said,
November 30, 2006 at 11:31 pm
mruffolo said,
More misandry from feminized culture even with raw data and scientific reasoning.
Though there is a good chance that if the researcher concluded truthfully about the evidence before him, he may be out of work.
It’s doubtful that America will have an academic advantage in the world, with respect to useful social or scientific discovery based upon evidence, when researchers fear feminist rage.
November 30, 2006 at 11:58 pm
conservativation said,
Aren’t statistics the nervous tremors of communists?
December 1, 2006 at 7:04 am
BobH said,
One male-female difference that is very robust is that male variance (i.e., standard deviation) is higher than women’s. This means that there would be more male geniuses but also that there would be more male morons.
December 1, 2006 at 7:28 am
macklin said,
December 1, 2006 at 7:51 am
NationalVoice said,
I will give women the edge in some mental activities, things like being devious or lying, but I didn’t say that either, right guys?
December 1, 2006 at 8:51 am
conservativation said,
December 1, 2006 at 9:06 am
MacMax9 said,
Adam upon waking and seeing Eve for the first time,let out a sigh and a “wow”! After some time had passed Adam was thanking God for Eve coming into his life, and He some questions: He asked; “Lord why did you make her so beautiful. God says; “So that you would love her!”. Adam then asked, “Why did you make her kind of dumb!” And God replied
“So that she would love you!”.
I am sure you have heard variants of this joke.
Be humble gentlemen, and keep on loving women. And just as importantly, keep fixing stuff for them. (work while they talk)
December 1, 2006 at 9:15 am
mruffolo said,
Try to remember your advice when you find yourself or a close male friend in divorce court, just after a fifteen minute discussion before a family judge with her lies that help remove your kid(s), home, 18 years of your income away from you for little or no reason.
I would not mention it but this happens to about 1.2 million men per year from divorce. About 80% of divorces are initiated from a woman. The figure is higher when kids and your money are involved.
Who’s the more dull of the two sexes?
December 1, 2006 at 11:49 am
MacMax9 said,
I’ve been there! Twice! I’ve paid the child support and got custody! We men are standing by our kids. And men are getting custody too! Its happening more often. What would you expect from half of those 80% of women
motivated by selfish interest. Integrity, loyalty
to their children? Pay the money; get the time with them, and do your best.
Your data is accurate your attitude will kill your
source of strength and hope.
December 1, 2006 at 3:26 pm
mruffolo said,
I’m sensitive to the spread the feminist message - man bad, woman good. I took offense to your above joke.
You’re are man. In a feminist world or not, men ought to stick together, to show honor to the same.
You are right about men demonstrating humility, to cling to one’s wife.
December 1, 2006 at 6:22 pm
amfortas said,
December 1, 2006 at 7:44 pm
DadWithGirls said,
But, his work must be done.
The actual dilemma being debated here is not that of female intelligence.
It is the utter absence of female character and integrity.
Both smart and stupid women lack both —
(Dead white male transcript follows —):
“The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice.
This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning:
hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning.
Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one.
To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights.
A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. –
But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.”
Read about the tragic gender con game at —
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html
December 1, 2006 at 9:08 pm
John Dias said,
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
December 2, 2006 at 2:26 am
luna said,
It is the utter absence of female character and integrity.
Both smart and stupid women lack both —”
Well, that’s where men supposed to take up the slack. Oh yeah, they gave up moral authority and handed it over feminists years ago.
“You’re are man. In a feminist world or not, men ought to stick together, to show honor to the same.”
Men shouldn’t stick together.
It’s unnatural and against the Holy Order Of Things. Take a look at what happened when men stuck together in more patriarchal times. Let’s see, we have Cain and Able, Jacob and Esau, Abram and Lot, Joseph and his brothers, and on and on. When men stick together, one is bound to kill the other. If they couldn’t hash it in the partiarchy, they sure can’t hash it now.
It’s the same with wild animals. When a male takes over a pack or a herd, isn’t his first action as alpha male to kill all the other male offspring?
Please don’t start sticking together.
December 2, 2006 at 3:37 am
MacMax9 said,
1.There is a body of good evidence that men have higher IQ’s than women.
2. This is nothing really new, but half the population doesn’t like this data point, yet cannot empirically support an alternative.
3. In the last 50 years or so, (probably since the first hook up) men have/are being positioned in negative and degenerating social constraints that diminish or destroy the best of what make us men.
4.Our attackers have been a segment of women who essentially hate men and seek to control every facet of a man’s nature because they believe they have a high moral standard and a higher degree of integrity and self-control.
5. That men can not organize or recognize themselves as a brotherhood without eventually turning on themselves.
Is this about it or am I way off here.
December 2, 2006 at 8:38 am
mruffolo said,
December 2, 2006 at 8:41 am
tonysprout said,
December 3, 2006 at 7:35 pm
mruffolo said,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38375-2005Mar15.html
December 3, 2006 at 10:08 pm
christianj said,
“The actual dilemma being debated here is not that of female intelligence.
It is the utter absence of female character and integrity.
Both smart and stupid women lack both —””
SO ?
December 3, 2006 at 10:33 pm