Great selectively choosing to use intellect as a point though, yes there's a higher chance of mega IQ men. But there's also a higher chance of sub 75iq men too..
Yes men have invented most things, but that's usually because men are more logical and have more resolve. Which is also why men dominate eSports.
It's tiring reading crap like this, humanity is a partnership. Yes women have 'inferior' traits but amazingly men do too.
The dude who wrote that is probably some incel still living with his parents.
Yes women have 'inferior' traits but amazingly men do too.
My knee-jerk reaction to OP was much the same as yours, but this specific claim got me thinking: exactly what superior traits do women possess?
Emotional IQ? But the greatest poets, musicians, and artists in history are men.
Social aptitude? But the greatest leaders and organisers in history are men.
Cooking? The greatest chefs are men.
Fashion? The greatest designers are (gay) men.
Child rearing? Single mother households are a plague on society.
Peaceful rule? The greatest pacifist activists in history are men.
Seems to me that every space dominated by women has been defaulted to them. When men choose to participate in those spaces, men quickly dominate.
The two things women do better:
Birth children
Use their sexuality to manipulate men
These also happen to be the only two things (I can think of) that men literally cannot do.
I believe that birthing children is so obviously important that it equals (and perhaps even trumps) everything men can do. But when I really sit and think about it, that's the long and short of what "women are best at".
You are completely blinded by your male perspective on this one, and you're also forgetting that men occupy both ends of the bell curve.
One very important thing you have to understand is men are always about "works" because those works are status signifies... to women. It's part of male psychology. Successful males will always generate a status signal.
Where you're wrong:
Emotional IQ: But the greatest poets, musicians, and artists in history are men.
Those have nothing to do with one another. EQ is about managing social-emotional networks by understanding the psychological perceptions of all participants, and fostering an emotionally positive environment by doing so. Women are better than men at it.
Social aptitude? But the greatest leaders and organizers in history are men.
This is a huge one you're misunderstanding. Social aptitude has nothing to do with organizing. The kind of leadership you're thinking of is based on Charisma... which is absolutely a male trait, but that's not what Social Aptitude is. It's about forming, navigating, cultivating, and maintaining social networks. Women are superb at this. Men rarely even recognize the need for one. It's a night and day difference. This is one of the reasons why women remember other people's anniversary dates. They are aware of the socio-emotional impact of these dates and their influence on relationships within the social network that they've woven.
Child rearing? Single mother households are a plague on society.
Single parent households are bad generally. Single mothers are just particularly bad. Single father households might bring the kid up physically to not be a criminal because they won't be fragile, low-time preference, undisciplined nonsense. Instead they will be effectively autistic and not capable of strong socialization skills. They'll get a job. But they won't raise a family, their degeneracy and social collapse will increase with time as they continue to fail to develop any kind of real social safety net.
Put it like this: do you know what happens to an infant without a mother prior to a few centuries ago? It fucking dies because it can't eat. Dad doesn't have mammary glans. Men literally aren't fit to raise infants. They are still needed to raise children into adults, but you need both parents to raise a kid.
Now, here's where you are just missing the point:
Cooking? The greatest chefs are men.
You're misunderstanding the role. Men shouldn't be cooking in the family. The most successful anything are men because of their performance in the bell-curve. Chefs provide income for their families, and the food is a status symbol of their competency. That's the point.
Women are supposed to be cooking so that they can prepare men to use all available nutrients and caloric intake to get the things that the woman needs to continue building the family and community at home. Women help men manage energy supplies through cooking. Cooking also helps feed the children because it gives them vital food that their digestive system might not be able to process yet.
Peaceful rule? The greatest pacifist activists in history are men.
This is just a feminist trope. Women will murder the shit out of each other.
Fashion? The greatest designers are (gay) men.
Again, you're looking at a form a status signaling. The primary purpose of fashion is to convey the value of women to men in a way that men can easily decipher.
I think you're confusing "women often do this thing" with "women are better at this thing". Women seem to be very good at things that men either don't value or don't prioritize. This is not the same thing as superiority in those tasks.
I think you're still missing the point about what women are and how they fit into relationships with men. Men are always going to be at the ends of the bell curve for both absolute best and worst. Women become a kind of moderating force for men. Women do not have to be the best in all of society, that is a strive for status that men have to get women. Women simply have to be the animus of their particular man. They need to complement and supplement what he is capable of.
Social aptitude? But the greatest leaders and organisers in history are men.
The greatest leaders would not have been that if they had empathy, which is what women have more of. And which, unfortunately, makes them easier to manipulate in our day and age.
Child rearing? Single mother households are a plague on society.
But women have raised kids throughout history, and done that quite well.
But when I really sit and think about it, that's the long and short of what "women are best at".
You're looking at 'the best' though. And given the extreme IQ distributions of men, 'the best' of anything will likely be men. But that does not mean that women, on average, cannot be better at something even when 'the best' are still men. And judging people by averages is also bad, because then we would have to conclude that Thomas Sowell is an idiot, because blacks, on average, are less interested in learning.
Regardless, if we're going to argue that there are differences between the sexes, because it is true, you can lace it with a bit of sugar to sweeten the pill, which would otherwise be indigestible. People don't like to hear that they are inferior because of their biology, even if it's true. Which I don't think your argument claims or shows, but it will certainly sound like it to anyone who is on that side of it.
But women have raised kids throughout history, and done that quite well.
You've missed the point.
Yes, women have successfully raised children throughout history, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were "better at it" than men. It might simply mean that women defaulted to domestic labor because they were not as suited for the more dangerous and difficult taaks of hunting, building, fighting, etc.
Here's a modern corollary: in tech industries, women are massively overrepresented in HR and community management. Is this because women are better in these departments? Or is it because tech companies are staring down the barrel of socially and legally enforced gender quotas, and the aforementioned positions are the only places you can stash large numbers of female employees? Are women better at every indoor job with air conditioning and a zero percent chance of death?
Why does everyone mistake empathy with sympathy. I have yet to meet an empathetic woman in my entire life, they cannot perceive emotions they don’t have. Women are sympathetic, this is why they have cry circles in Congress. Pity parties are not empathetic, stoicism is empathetic, learning to understand emotions and control them are empathy.
The difference between empathy and sympathy was one of the first concepts they tried to drill into us during the first week of med school (though admittedly, I still have a hard time putting the concept into words).
I would describe the difference as it's important for a doctor to have empathy for patients - to put be able to put themselves in a patient's shoes to appreciate emotions, motivations, reactions that an average person would experience in a situation, even if you have never experienced it yourself.
But it's still their disease, not yours. And you still have to get shit done. So a doctor should strive to be empathetic (to appreciate and understand) but not sympathetic (to commiserate) because you have shit you have to do and can't go down the rabbit hole with them.
A surgeon has to make incisions and cause their patient pain. A pediatrician has to give childhood vaccines to a screaming infant. A geriatrician has to take the driver's license away from their demented senior. A psychiatrist has to lock up the paranoid schizophrenic.
Well, Women live longer, even if adjust for less risk taking. They are less susceptible to a number of diseases. It possibly has something to do with the importance of grandmothering (it’s much easier to handle children if grandma is still around)
Women are better at putting up with shit and just working. It's really amazing how badly women can be treated and they just keep plugging along.
Look at the middle east. And women defend their servitude. Look at societies throughout history where men would rebel and fight and die, women just tolerate whatever shitty conditions and keep working.
They are really good at just accepting their lot in life and plugging along.
Your paper claims 4 points, not 5 points, and what it actually purports to demonstrate is 1.8 points. But is this actually replicated?
I don't know where you got the bell curve from. As far as I know, that goes against the consensus of intelligence researchers (which is pretty based, acknowledging things like racial differences).
Except it's actually true. You are acting like it doesn't matter.
Well, it's not. But let's assume that it is. What exactly is the upside to going around and degrading 51% of the population as being inferior? I see no gain.
I know this is ironic, but most feminists actually think like this.
I know they do. But that's another way in which this line of argument is feminist.
So my non-ironic reply to that is that women are absolutely free to attempt to build their own civilization, but it has to be completely on their own.
Considering your username, I'm pretty sure you are aware of the bees and the birds, and that it's impossible to build a civilization without either men or women.
No simps that do the heavy lifting for them
As if those bugmen can do heavy lifting. C'mon man.
Men dominate esports because the reaction time of men is on average higher than women as well as having a higher standard deviation. It's the same reason men dominate motorsports.
How stupid of those hunter gatherers, that they gave women free resources all because they could give birth. Me, I'm descended from the ones who were smart and kicked all those women out of their tribe.
No need to kick them out. They're incapable of effective violence, and cannot enforce their will. All men have to do to regain control is stop acting as their enforcers.
It's like some 25-year-old white, incel neckbeard in his mommy's basement saying: "WE WHITES INVENTED EVERYTHING!!!!!!" And the fact that other whites invented stuff definitely makes him smarter than Thomas Sowell.
Needless provocative bile that will lead most people to disregard it as misogynyistic hatred, and worse, actively turn their backs on the ONLY societal structure that ever yields any results other than cultural extinction anywhere on earth.
Be a 'partiarchy' or die. That's the entire history of humanity.
Unnecessary generalizing crap is what I think about it.
I'm not the most intelligent person in the world. Thus there are many people - including women - who are more intelligent than I am. It doesn't matter to me if there are more men than more women falling into that category. I personally don't gain anything from the stat "More men are super intelligent than women".
Some of my doctors are also women and are providing adequate care for me. I don't need the best doctor in the world for my problems. The women who studied & learned medicine are good enough for me.
In general you can say: I am weak, I am stupid, I am emotionally unstable and I am dependent. And people around me (family, friends, ...) doesn't matter their gender help me and provide for me. Just like I provide for them.
It has a core of truth, but it's only one side of the coin. I quite enjoy imagining that some sort of rabid feminist was on the receiving end of this, in which case it would be justified.
Just reads like some women hating crap tbh.
Great selectively choosing to use intellect as a point though, yes there's a higher chance of mega IQ men. But there's also a higher chance of sub 75iq men too..
Yes men have invented most things, but that's usually because men are more logical and have more resolve. Which is also why men dominate eSports.
It's tiring reading crap like this, humanity is a partnership. Yes women have 'inferior' traits but amazingly men do too.
The dude who wrote that is probably some incel still living with his parents.
My knee-jerk reaction to OP was much the same as yours, but this specific claim got me thinking: exactly what superior traits do women possess?
Emotional IQ? But the greatest poets, musicians, and artists in history are men.
Social aptitude? But the greatest leaders and organisers in history are men.
Cooking? The greatest chefs are men.
Fashion? The greatest designers are (gay) men.
Child rearing? Single mother households are a plague on society.
Peaceful rule? The greatest pacifist activists in history are men.
Seems to me that every space dominated by women has been defaulted to them. When men choose to participate in those spaces, men quickly dominate.
The two things women do better:
Birth children
Use their sexuality to manipulate men
These also happen to be the only two things (I can think of) that men literally cannot do.
I believe that birthing children is so obviously important that it equals (and perhaps even trumps) everything men can do. But when I really sit and think about it, that's the long and short of what "women are best at".
You are completely blinded by your male perspective on this one, and you're also forgetting that men occupy both ends of the bell curve.
One very important thing you have to understand is men are always about "works" because those works are status signifies... to women. It's part of male psychology. Successful males will always generate a status signal.
Where you're wrong:
Those have nothing to do with one another. EQ is about managing social-emotional networks by understanding the psychological perceptions of all participants, and fostering an emotionally positive environment by doing so. Women are better than men at it.
This is a huge one you're misunderstanding. Social aptitude has nothing to do with organizing. The kind of leadership you're thinking of is based on Charisma... which is absolutely a male trait, but that's not what Social Aptitude is. It's about forming, navigating, cultivating, and maintaining social networks. Women are superb at this. Men rarely even recognize the need for one. It's a night and day difference. This is one of the reasons why women remember other people's anniversary dates. They are aware of the socio-emotional impact of these dates and their influence on relationships within the social network that they've woven.
Single parent households are bad generally. Single mothers are just particularly bad. Single father households might bring the kid up physically to not be a criminal because they won't be fragile, low-time preference, undisciplined nonsense. Instead they will be effectively autistic and not capable of strong socialization skills. They'll get a job. But they won't raise a family, their degeneracy and social collapse will increase with time as they continue to fail to develop any kind of real social safety net.
Put it like this: do you know what happens to an infant without a mother prior to a few centuries ago? It fucking dies because it can't eat. Dad doesn't have mammary glans. Men literally aren't fit to raise infants. They are still needed to raise children into adults, but you need both parents to raise a kid.
Now, here's where you are just missing the point:
You're misunderstanding the role. Men shouldn't be cooking in the family. The most successful anything are men because of their performance in the bell-curve. Chefs provide income for their families, and the food is a status symbol of their competency. That's the point.
Women are supposed to be cooking so that they can prepare men to use all available nutrients and caloric intake to get the things that the woman needs to continue building the family and community at home. Women help men manage energy supplies through cooking. Cooking also helps feed the children because it gives them vital food that their digestive system might not be able to process yet.
This is just a feminist trope. Women will murder the shit out of each other.
Again, you're looking at a form a status signaling. The primary purpose of fashion is to convey the value of women to men in a way that men can easily decipher.
I think you're confusing "women often do this thing" with "women are better at this thing". Women seem to be very good at things that men either don't value or don't prioritize. This is not the same thing as superiority in those tasks.
I think you're still missing the point about what women are and how they fit into relationships with men. Men are always going to be at the ends of the bell curve for both absolute best and worst. Women become a kind of moderating force for men. Women do not have to be the best in all of society, that is a strive for status that men have to get women. Women simply have to be the animus of their particular man. They need to complement and supplement what he is capable of.
The greatest leaders would not have been that if they had empathy, which is what women have more of. And which, unfortunately, makes them easier to manipulate in our day and age.
But women have raised kids throughout history, and done that quite well.
You're looking at 'the best' though. And given the extreme IQ distributions of men, 'the best' of anything will likely be men. But that does not mean that women, on average, cannot be better at something even when 'the best' are still men. And judging people by averages is also bad, because then we would have to conclude that Thomas Sowell is an idiot, because blacks, on average, are less interested in learning.
Regardless, if we're going to argue that there are differences between the sexes, because it is true, you can lace it with a bit of sugar to sweeten the pill, which would otherwise be indigestible. People don't like to hear that they are inferior because of their biology, even if it's true. Which I don't think your argument claims or shows, but it will certainly sound like it to anyone who is on that side of it.
You've missed the point.
Yes, women have successfully raised children throughout history, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were "better at it" than men. It might simply mean that women defaulted to domestic labor because they were not as suited for the more dangerous and difficult taaks of hunting, building, fighting, etc.
Here's a modern corollary: in tech industries, women are massively overrepresented in HR and community management. Is this because women are better in these departments? Or is it because tech companies are staring down the barrel of socially and legally enforced gender quotas, and the aforementioned positions are the only places you can stash large numbers of female employees? Are women better at every indoor job with air conditioning and a zero percent chance of death?
Why does everyone mistake empathy with sympathy. I have yet to meet an empathetic woman in my entire life, they cannot perceive emotions they don’t have. Women are sympathetic, this is why they have cry circles in Congress. Pity parties are not empathetic, stoicism is empathetic, learning to understand emotions and control them are empathy.
The difference between empathy and sympathy was one of the first concepts they tried to drill into us during the first week of med school (though admittedly, I still have a hard time putting the concept into words).
I would describe the difference as it's important for a doctor to have empathy for patients - to put be able to put themselves in a patient's shoes to appreciate emotions, motivations, reactions that an average person would experience in a situation, even if you have never experienced it yourself.
But it's still their disease, not yours. And you still have to get shit done. So a doctor should strive to be empathetic (to appreciate and understand) but not sympathetic (to commiserate) because you have shit you have to do and can't go down the rabbit hole with them.
A surgeon has to make incisions and cause their patient pain. A pediatrician has to give childhood vaccines to a screaming infant. A geriatrician has to take the driver's license away from their demented senior. A psychiatrist has to lock up the paranoid schizophrenic.
I always thought this scene from Scrubs illustrated the concept
Well, Women live longer, even if adjust for less risk taking. They are less susceptible to a number of diseases. It possibly has something to do with the importance of grandmothering (it’s much easier to handle children if grandma is still around)
That's an interesting one.
With that said, there isn't enough data on single father households, since judges overwhelmingly award children to the mothers.
Women are better at putting up with shit and just working. It's really amazing how badly women can be treated and they just keep plugging along.
Look at the middle east. And women defend their servitude. Look at societies throughout history where men would rebel and fight and die, women just tolerate whatever shitty conditions and keep working.
They are really good at just accepting their lot in life and plugging along.
Your paper claims 4 points, not 5 points, and what it actually purports to demonstrate is 1.8 points. But is this actually replicated?
I don't know where you got the bell curve from. As far as I know, that goes against the consensus of intelligence researchers (which is pretty based, acknowledging things like racial differences).
Yes, which is what this paper is about.
That's why there are fewer, because of greater concentration for females around the average, and a more extreme distribution for men.
But the bell curve that you posted did not take that into account at all. It was just shifted a few points to the right for men.
This shit is just the mirror image of feminism.
Is that what you got from my statement?
You're even able to twist reality like they can, congratulations.
It's almost word-for-word what we hear from feminists.
How dare you compare the last 60 years to the 250,000 years of oppressioning that womankind has faced?
Well, it's not. But let's assume that it is. What exactly is the upside to going around and degrading 51% of the population as being inferior? I see no gain.
I know they do. But that's another way in which this line of argument is feminist.
Considering your username, I'm pretty sure you are aware of the bees and the birds, and that it's impossible to build a civilization without either men or women.
As if those bugmen can do heavy lifting. C'mon man.
You've really jumped the fucking shark.
I haven't changed, nor is holding up a mirror 'jumping the shark'.
Huh, I thought he was agreeing with you. But looks like he amended the quote a bit.
Actually the IQ thing was proven false, men have more geniuses but higher median and average IQ by a few points.
Men dominate esports because the reaction time of men is on average higher than women as well as having a higher standard deviation. It's the same reason men dominate motorsports.
This is sadly written in such an incendiary hateful way that it will likely be dismissed as the mad ravings of an incel by many normies.
However the facts are very clear that men truly excel in pretty much every single domain of study or practice when compared to women.
If you asked me what activities do women in general do much better than men, I would say
How stupid of those hunter gatherers, that they gave women free resources all because they could give birth. Me, I'm descended from the ones who were smart and kicked all those women out of their tribe.
This comment is an idiot's idea of a clever comment.
Have you met Tony?
Sniff... I did my best.
No need to kick them out. They're incapable of effective violence, and cannot enforce their will. All men have to do to regain control is stop acting as their enforcers.
The point is that they receive 'free resources' because that's what they need when they are incapacitated for several months every few years or so.
The problem is that some demand free stuff while not engaging in proper responsibilities, which should be rejected out of hand.
Strawman arguments from a reddit janny.
Imagine my shock.
Username checks out.
How can you hate your granny so bad?
Ill bet the writer never invented anything...
It's like some 25-year-old white, incel neckbeard in his mommy's basement saying: "WE WHITES INVENTED EVERYTHING!!!!!!" And the fact that other whites invented stuff definitely makes him smarter than Thomas Sowell.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity attacks
Comment Approved: I don't see how. This comment isn't attacking white people or anything.
Harsh but accurate.
The truthful points are undercut by a clearly emotional origin. Not wrong, but not Chad either
Garbage.
Needless provocative bile that will lead most people to disregard it as misogynyistic hatred, and worse, actively turn their backs on the ONLY societal structure that ever yields any results other than cultural extinction anywhere on earth.
Be a 'partiarchy' or die. That's the entire history of humanity.
Unnecessary generalizing crap is what I think about it.
I'm not the most intelligent person in the world. Thus there are many people - including women - who are more intelligent than I am. It doesn't matter to me if there are more men than more women falling into that category. I personally don't gain anything from the stat "More men are super intelligent than women".
Some of my doctors are also women and are providing adequate care for me. I don't need the best doctor in the world for my problems. The women who studied & learned medicine are good enough for me.
In general you can say: I am weak, I am stupid, I am emotionally unstable and I am dependent. And people around me (family, friends, ...) doesn't matter their gender help me and provide for me. Just like I provide for them.
Domestic abuse is more common in lesbian couples than any other pairing...
It has a core of truth, but it's only one side of the coin. I quite enjoy imagining that some sort of rabid feminist was on the receiving end of this, in which case it would be justified.
Extremism breed Extremism.
Since women don't feel inclined to clean their house, I don't feel inclined to clean mine either.