Why Men are More Intelligent Than Women

Are men more intelligent than women?

Well, the evidence seems to suggest that this is so.

On Start the Week, on Radio 4, tonight, Jeremy Paxman asked Professor Susan Greenfield, well-known neuroscientist (and Director of the Royal Institution) “You claim, don’t you, that the more emotion you have, the less mind you have?”

That’s right,” she answered.

Indeed, it is one of the main propositions in her new book, The Private Life of the Brain.

She went on to say,”[For example] One might say that, in meditation, one is developing a very deep consciousness, where you are accessing your inner states, and ignoring the outside world. This could be an example of where you are NOT experiencing an emotion, as such. The opposite would be, [perhaps] a baby, or someone with road rage, or a bungee jumper, awash with emotions and who is not [therefore] ‘accessing’ [with the mind] the past, or the future, or anything ‘inside’.”

Thus, Prof Greenfield is saying that the more ‘emotion’ you experience, the less ‘mind’ you have.

Now, which of the two possible genders, statistically speaking, experiences more emotion – and would claim to?

Hmm. The female gender, one would suspect.

And it would follow from Professor Greenfield’s beliefs, therefore, that, statistically speaking, this gender has less ‘mind’. It is less in ‘contact’ with it.

Putting this another way: Relatively speaking, compared to men, the conclusion must be that women are less often ‘accessing the past, or the future, or anything ‘inside’ ‘ – statistically, that is.

Well, that’s what follows from Professor Greenfield’s observations.

All in all, therefore, women seem to function less ‘mindfully’ than men, or, putting it less euphemistically, less ‘intelligently’.

Statistically speaking.

In addition, it cannot have escaped even the most ardent feminist’s notice that it is men who are the focused, the possessed, and the obsessed. It is men who push forward the boundaries of science, music, technology and art. It is men who build great cities and great religions.

It is men who tinker well into the night, studying and prising apart the boundaries of even the most obscure and intractable.

I knew one man who spent six years studying locust legs.

Not locusts.

Locust LEGS!

FOR SIX YEARS!

And he is probably still at it.

I knew another man who was a mathematician and who struggled daily, FOR YEARS, with some obscure problem in which only one other person in the entire world seemed to have any interest – and it wasn’t me.

Just look at any science program on TV and notice the ‘workers’ laboring in the various scientific fields. The ‘experts’. The ones who sneak into their laboratories even on Christmas Day to skulk around engines, chemicals, computers or insects. The ones who spend hour upon hour, year upon year, squashed into their little rooms to study the contents of test-tubes or tissues. The ones who wander into the most hostile and desolate parts of the planet to scrub around for clues, artifacts and ideas.

They’re nearly all men.

It is men who lead, explore, push forward and calculate.

The intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women,

And, to the extent that intelligence is based on factors in the environment, as opposed to genetics, or based upon learning and studying, as opposed to ‘emotionalising’ (and, so, losing ‘mind’) then the intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women, throughout their lives – because, statistically speaking, they choose to take on more of the intelligent-provoking ‘environment’, and they interact with it in much more of an objective and emotionless way (i.e. with more ‘mind’).

When it comes to intelligence, men have got what it takes. They drive in straight lines, they focus their attention, they do not multitask, they obsess, and they do not spend so much time emotionalizing.

And they actually increase their intelligence by doing such things.

And the whole species benefits from their pursuits.

Statistically speaking, men are taller than women. Not much, but significantly so. The picture below is of some men and women. Some of the women, quite a few of them, are actually taller than quite a few of the men.

But now look at the next picture.


The very same men and women have fallen in love, and they have partnered each other. They are so happy. But, notice that EVERY SINGLE man is TALLER than EVERY SINGLE woman.

And the same thing happens with intelligence. Just as it is that women, statistically speaking, prefer men who are taller than them, and richer than them, and socially higher up the ladder than them, so it is that they prefer men who are more intelligent than them.

Not only do women admit to this last aspect, recent research also shows that most women believe that their partners are more intelligent than them.

And they are!

The situation is exactly the same as for Picture B. Simply think of intelligence instead of height. All the women in this picture have chosen partners who are ‘more intelligent’ than them, even though it is true that, statistically speaking, across the whole population, there are millions of women who are more intelligent than millions of men.

And until such time as women CHOOSE partners who are less than, or equal to, themselves in terms of intelligence, the statement that ‘men are more intelligent than women’ will remain true even when looking at the issue as it relates to partnerships between men and women.

Men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.

Putting this another way: When it comes to looking at men and women as they function within their relationships, men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.

But, of course, we all know this instinctively.

We just cannot say so.

But it is clear that both men and women CHOOSE things to be this way – statistically speaking.

As Germaine Greer puts it, “Women are not valued for their intelligence.”

Well, Yes, they are. But they are not loved for it, nor are they found attractive as a result of it – statistically speaking.

In her book, Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia said that, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still all be living in grass huts.”

She has a point, because if women had, indeed, been the dominant gender, then they would have used their influence to promote further emotionalizing. And the result would have been less achievement with regard to developing other things.

Like wheels.

And this, of course, partly explains why the educational systems in the west are currently failing so miserably to produce high standards in their pupils. There is too much emotionalizing going on, and not enough thinking; i.e. not enough mind.

And, in the past, those little societies that spent their time emotionalizing, instead of creating, inventing and progressing, had no chance in evolutionary terms. They lost the battle long ago. The men were killed and the women were carried away. And they no longer exist. They have been statistically washed away.

Paglia also said that, “Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials.

But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper.

Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures.

I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant.

.Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species.”

Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole. They work at it. They strive for it. They value it. They are loved for it. They are wanted for it.

And the mental environments in which they choose to spend their time definitely develop their talents even further.

That is, they give much more time to their minds.

And this is mostly why women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, will never be able to compete successfully with men intellectually and nor, therefore, in any task or job which requires intellectual endeavor.

Finally, not only do men develop their intelligence by CHOOSING to engage more so in activities that enhance it – as opposed to emotionalizing – (and so, to the extent that the environment affects intelligence then it will do so more for men than it will for women) but it is also the case that, thanks to the Y chromosome, the genetic variability of men is greater than that of women, so spreading the range of their intelligence more widely. The consequence is that at the bottom range of intelligence there will be found to be far more men than women, and in the top range the SAME will be true.

Further, and for the same reason, both the highest and the lowest intelligence levels of men are more extreme than are those of women.

At the high-flier levels, women haven’t got a hope of competing with men.

And the upshot of all this is that at the high-flier levels, women haven’t got a hope of competing with men either in terms of their number or in terms of their achievements – unless, of course, the men are deliberately handicapped in some way.

Thus, there is not so much of a glass ceiling created by sex-discriminatory men holding back the realization of statistical parity between men and women in the higher echelons of the world, the women’s relative lack of success in these lofty places is far more due to the choices that they make and their less-variable genetic makeup, neither of which is the fault of men.


Nature vs Nurture

 

For at least half a century, the overwhelming evidence that intelligence is determined very significantly by genes has been hidden from the public – by the usual culprits. The politically-correct view was that the environment was the most significant factor in the development of intelligence and that genes were almost irrelevant.

Indeed, scientists who have expressed the view that intelligence is largely the product of a person’s genes have been labeled by the politically-corrected feminist-dominated left as racists, sexists, Nazis, and goodness know what else. And, for example, during the 80s and 90s many of the UK’s school teachers were indoctrinated with the view that children do not differ at all in terms of their mental abilities. This is absolute rubbish, but I have met many young teachers who actually believed this wholeheartedly as a result of the politically-correct nonsense being propounded by the teacher-training colleges.

The point here, however, is this.

IF it is true that intelligence is largely, and significantly, determined by the mental environment in which it is engaged, then it follows, for example, that those individuals who find themselves – or place themselves – in situations conducive to the development of intelligence are going to end up more intelligent than those who do not.

As such, for example, those who live or mostly work in more impoverished circumstances are not going to end up being as intelligent as those who live or mostly work in more enriched circumstances. And so, for example again, middle class people are going to end up more intelligent than those from the working classes. Whites from the rich West are going to end up being more intelligent than impoverished blacks from, say, Africa (or who live in western ghettoes) and, presumably, men throughout history, not being tied to their children and their homes, ended up being far more intelligent than their womenfolk who, apparently, spent most of their time dealing with children and being oppressed.

The politically-corrected cannot stomach the conclusions that must be reached even on the basis of their very own doctrines

Needless to say, the politically-corrected cannot stomach the conclusions that must be reached even on the basis of their very own doctrines concerning the development of intelligence.

And so it is that the various pronouncements of the politically corrected concerning the development of intelligence reveals that they are either mostly incredibly stupid, and simply cannot see where their own arguments lead, or that their propositions are mostly designed to manipulate people rather than to enlighten them; which means, quite simply, that they are bald-faced liars.

Mostly, one discovers that they are both.

But, in either case, their influence (which is mostly due to intimidation) is a negative one, and it tends to make societies structure themselves on the basis of serious falsehoods.

And clearly, societies that do this, particularly complex ones, are not going to progress very well. In fact, eventually, they are going to cave in – well, they will eventually collapse or perform hopelessly in those domains where the falsehoods form part of the very foundations upon which they have been built.

And with regard to the negative consequences of having serious misconceptions about the nature of intelligence, the whole UK educational system immediately comes to mind.

I repeat; these people are either very stupid in that they cannot see what follows from their own pronouncements, or they are dishonest manipulators for whom the ideological ends justify their thoroughly dishonorable means.

The arguments that I have made concerning intelligence are relatively easy to grasp and they are worth understanding.

And they boil down to this:

The more that the environment is said to affect the development of intelligence (a PC left-wing argument) the more must the conclusions from this position suggest politically very-incorrect outcomes. For example again, the men from the past must have been more intelligent than the women. The colonizers must have been more intelligent than the colonized. The masters must have been more intelligent than the slaves. The whites must have been more intelligent than the blacks. The rich must be more intelligent than the poor.

You fruitfully expose them for the intellectual phonies that they are.

And when you point this out to the politically-corrected and their feminist friends, in order to expose their ludicrous and conflicting claims, you fruitfully expose them for the intellectual phonies that they are.

And it is very important that we do expose these frauds, because they and their bankrupt ideologies have achieved enormous influence in western societies. And, as a consequence, the futures of these societies are being continually undermined.

About Angry Harry

Angry Harry is a noted Men's Rights Activist and psychologist from Great Britain. He is the webmaster of Angryharry.com.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • Seriously?

    This is truly absurd. I constantly see men congratulating themselves for being far more intelligent than women, but haven’t we seen that women tend to be more average as far as intelligence goes? There are some brilliant men, but there are also lots of incredibly idiotic men who can barely tie their own shoes. Women on the other hand, tend to fall into those two categories less (though there are brilliant and stupid women), and have a very adequate level of intelligence.

    Why are you pointing out that you knew a man who studied locust legs? I can point to plenty of female scientists who study single, obscure things in depth for a long period of time.

    Also, you seem to be “emotionalizing” as much as any raging feminist I’ve ever met! Seriously, you keep talking about statistics and fact that you aren’t citing, but rather you “feel” them to be true. You are citing one person’s interview here who you “feel” makes sense and lines up with your world view.

    Sir, I have to say, you’re not in the “brilliant”, “non-emotional” portion of men. You’ve named yourself after an emotion, for god’s sake.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      First, though you don’t know it, you started by making a point he also made in the article. Second, you should not use quotes on things never said.

      It’s dishonest and destroys your credibility.

      • Mike

        Paul,

        I think it is better to say “There are more intelligent men than there are intelligent women.” This is the point of your article, and this the only statement that can be said with some scientific credibility.

        Saying men are more intelligent than women confuses people and is really not what you mean.

        • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

          Check the byline. It’s not my article. Thanks.

        • Type 5

          Mike: Saying men are more intelligent than women confuses people and is really not what you mean.

          And yet, you seemed to understand his point and not become confused. Puzzling…

        • Tom M

          Mike, logic and truth only confuse “good men” & “conscious men.”

        • L.

          Aha .. “confuses people and is really not what you mean”

          Whatever anyone means doesn’t matter much does it.

          If you look at the past, you will see that most of what we have today is thanks to male scientists, with important contributions by women, but still mostly male.

          If you look at the post 1970’s .. well it’s just the same.
          2010 ? the same.

          Breakthrough = good science = very smart people = mostly men.

          Why is it ? Because men are mad enough to be 100% focused on one single thing that does neither make them eat or survive.

          There are more intelligent men than there are intelligent women, and the most intelligent men are and were more intelligent than the most intelligent women.

          I’m all for women to prove the contrary, but that ain’t done yet so let em strive for it instead of protecting some people’s sensibility by saying “insufficient scientific credibility” in a situation where even basic statistics all point to that same and clear conclusion.

          Look at the “real” Nobel prizes (i.E. not peace or other non-scientific ones).

          Look at everything you use today, from your cellphone to your computer screen to your car to planes, and tell me that isn’t a result of men’s obstination to strive for more.

          Women have their own strengths and they should be recognized for those, but saying men and women are equal in (real, not psychology) science is a ridiculous statement.

          • matt_m

            Are you retarded. First of all, the concept of intelligence encompasses many more facets than solely those of math and science. You state that men are more intelligent than women because looking back in history all the scientists, mathematicians and important figures are all men? Your argument lacks an embarrassing amount of depth and intelligence (how ironic). Women obviously could not have become great leaders in history, or important mathematicians or scientists or writers or anything since what society demanded of them was to stay at home, raise the children and cook. Most cultures did not allow women to go to school. Society was sexist back then and still is today, although not as bad as before. George Sand was one of the most acclaimed novelists of France; she was a woman. Her success was possible due to her hiding behind her male pseudonym. She is just one in a million examples. It is societal prejudices and preconceptions of female inferiority that either discourages them to get ahead career-wise or disallows them to do so.
            Yes, maybe statistically more men or women show to excel in different fields, but claiming that one’s intelligence is defined by their gender, is not only ridiculous, it is sexist and demonstrates a obvious lack of education. Here is a piece, written by a legitimate writer with backed up sources, and statistics and facts run by Schools of science, the school you so praise.

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html

    • Tom M

      Brilliant cognitive process, Harry! And to think, comming from one in a profession (psychologists) comprised mostly of unthinking, robot-sheeple-parrots of the PC cult.

    • Eff’d Off

      Hey Seriously… this one is for you.

      [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Fem with blue man.jpg[/img]

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      Men are represented at the top and bottom of the curve: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b0zTyfXcvvc/TVe_8sCyPDI/AAAAAAAAAhk/xxFgCkyxKI8/s1600/ScreenShot020.jpg

      The reason this is so is because the male XY is the variable. I suspect it has something to do with sexual selection and otherwise heavy selective pressure placed upon males. I have not quite figured it out.

      This is what happens when men speak openly in the highest chambers of academia upon this subect:

      http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/harvard-university-lawrence-summers.html

      • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

        In fact if someone knows more information as to the exact processes involved in creating the distribution in the graph above I would like to learn more if you have any information on it.

        So far I understand that there is more selective pressure upon males by for external variables or rather, for our adaptive traits manifest themselves for utility. After all, the male role itself is to serve as the variable i.e. the Y chromosome. But why are there an exact proportion males at the bottom of the distribution curve?

        INTERESTING QUESTION: Could it be that these males though they don’t embody the advantageous selective variable of intelligence they possess another trait that is or has been adaptive? ARE THESE MALES ON AVERAGE BIGGER, AND STRONGER??? If so, and these males at the bottom are proportional, are the traits they possess just as adaptive now or in evolutionary history as intelligence is or was? Could brute strength and size be just as important as intelligence through most of our evolutionary history and even now?

        I believe it very well could be. There must be an explanation as to why these males still exist. I do believe the above answer could be the correct one.

        • reficul

          Male variability is there because of the need for male utility. Just look at the variety of jobs men do as compared to women.
          Women’s utility is mainly limited to the extension of house duties in workplace environment (cleaning, nurturing, gossiping ;) etc.).
          In the office environment majority of women’s roles are limited to:
          – shuffling papers (administration)
          – talking (meetings, phone calls…)
          – bossing around (telling other people (men) what to do)

          This is not to say women can’t do other stuff – they simply naturally gravitate towards the above.
          I work in the research institution where most women even with their PhD’s (mostly in Biology) sooner or later end up in some administrative roles – the roles they seriously enjoy!

          I couldn’t grasp it for very long thinking (projecting) they were probably forced to take on these jobs because of some external circumstances (evil patriarchy comes to mind). But they do seriously enjoy them – they have enough time to gossip, there is not much pressure and the athmospere is so homey (yuck ;)

        • giselle

          maybe because the human race needs more indians than chiefs? This doesnt make the indians any less desirable or good mate material..theyre just not super brilliant….

          • giselle

            remember:Beauty is better than ugliness, strength is better than weakness…The strong rule the weak and the intelligent rule the strong.

      • tamerlame

        Or because men live in a society that treats men at the bottom like shit, and gives everything to the winners?

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      More Nobels but More Dumbells, Why Men Are At The Top: by Helena Cronin:
      http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin

    • Adi

      “Also, you seem to be “emotionalizing” as much as any raging feminist I’ve ever met! ”

      This part is definitely true. MRA are just as tempted to go down the same road as feminists did and because they’re human, many of them do. And, just as the feminists, they don’t know they did.

    • Snark

      “You’ve named yourself after an emotion, for god’s sake.”

      LOL

      Miss the point much?

  • giselle

    Most men are smarter than most women. Whats the big deal….i dont understand what all the fuss is about. When I listen to Michio kaku talk about physics and theory on space time quantum jumping into parallel universes and dimensional expriences and the like I have no idea what he’s really saying but it sure makes my panties wet. i applauds those who are more awesome than I, why cant everyone else? Blech.

    • Seriously?

      Why do you see yourself listening to Michio Kaku and not following to be an indication of the average level of intelligence of men and women? It may turn out to be true, sure, but you seem to be basing your perception of how intelligent other women are around yourself, and your perception of how intelligent men are around the most intelligent of men. Why don’t you compare yourself to one of the guys from Jersey Shore instead?

      • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

        She should compare herself to you. It might not make her wet, but I bet her self esteem gets a boost.

        • L.

          +rep

      • BeijaFlor

        Seriously, how many women can you point out who made breakthroughs in science, engineering and technology? Or who even contributed significantly to such breakthroughs?

        I will admit that I, too, can make myself “feel better about myself” if I minimize or dismiss the brilliance and superior achievements of others. But it’s not very realistic of me, is it?

      • giselle

        Okay, listen up, I read what you wrote about the topic of intelligence. Theres something that needs to be mentioned: There are varying levels and classifications of Intellegence. You may have mathematical/logical Intelligence, then you have emotional intelligence. There’s also creative intelligence. I cant do algebra to save my life, I tried so hard 4 times, and during the last and final attempt the TUTOR told me to leave. He actually threw his hands up and said “You have to go home now, I cant take it anymore.”

        But do you think that inability interferes with my talent for sizing you up in a millisecond? no, of course not. I can tell a crazy or dangerous or untrustworthy person from a mile away…I can read extremely well but write like shit. Look, I dont think anyone here beieves that women are stupid, but there are alot of men who aresimply smarter, especially where math and science come into play. Yes, many women are brilliant scientists and engineers, but for the most part that type of thought pattern is hardwired in men. Thats all…Camille Paglia stated that Masculinity is the most creative force in the universe. If anyone wants women to do better and be more grown up it’s her. I dont understand what Michio talks about but just knowing that he understands makes me feel safer…..Im wierd like that, I know. and BTW LOL, i love the “situation”, he’s so hot! J/K

    • The Enlightener

      What’s the big deal?

      Fairly intelligent women who are envious of more intelligent men.

      I’ve thought about this long and hard.

      If I were an intelligent woman, either ugly or born in a feminist world – because if I were not either of these things, I would have focused my time teaching my children good things, transferring my knowledge that way – well, I certainly would be envious of men, who seem to have it so much easier, either based on what feminists told me, or based on my misinterpretation of the fact that men weren’t sexually interested in my ugly ass as some sort of “oppression”.

      It’s not surprising today that even fairly intelligent women buy into the idea that men are evil and subjugate them. It’s what they are taught from childhood onward, not only that they are special, but that masculinity is evil. They realize that they are fairly intelligent, and buy into the idea that men have it easier, better, they have advantages over them, because that’s what they are told, and they recognize that many men don’t value them for their intelligence – even the alpha males they desire scold them for it.

      So they grow angry with males – which really means, the alpha males they desire – and they decide that they have been discriminated against their whole lives simply because they are women. Smart women. But still women, women who are easily led. Led to believe that they are victims. Victims of toxic masculinity.

      Fuck that.

      • The Enlightener

        TL;DR- Even intelligent women are led to believe they are victims fighting the oppressors who are men. And that’s why they find it so offensive to suggest that men are *still* more intelligent than men despite all their efforts.

        • The Enlightener

          bah, I mean men are still more intelligent than women

      • The Enlightener

        By the way, this is how feminism started – ugly, fairly intelligent women who were mad that men weren’t attracted to them.

        • The Enlightener

          Any lasting society would also consider how to deal with such women effectively, by the way. In a society where women have free time to complain (rather than spending their time raising children and managing the household or the hut) they must be given something else to spend their energy on.

          • fondueguy

            Lets make them do real work while saying its privilege… haha

          • The Enlightener

            lol

          • Tom M

            Take out the trash , mow the lawn and change the car’s oil, beotch – and consider it male privilage, while I make my own dam samich and watch soap operas because I’m going to be oppressed instead of you!

          • Kazzi

            Tom.. I have done all that bar change the oil in the car – but yes I have changed the leads, petrol filter etc… but I will NEVER call my self a Feminist / new age women / nor independent… I am just a mum and wife who at times has had to do these things (over years)

          • Snark

            “Tom.. I have done all that … but I will NEVER call my self a Feminist”

            lol that’s because feminists don’t do those things. They complain and stamp their feet until a ‘privileged male’ comes along to do it for them.

        • Tom M

          Ah, feminism was started mostly by ugly stupid women, mostly ugly because of their ugly-ass attitudes… They would only be considered smart if you count being able to deceive, lie and get whatever they want by manipulation and coercion.

      • L.

        I wish I knew I had it easy … to think all that time I was under the impression of fighting an uphill battle, in a society where only the best men have a slight chance on getting on the cover of a magazine.
        Gee I’m so happy now I know I had it easy, I’d never have guessed.

        It’s quite interesting to see that those who have it the easiest think the others have it even easier — and that they would succeed because of that …

        Quite obviously, the strongest are usually those who had it the hardest, maybe they should try “not having it easy” as a way to beat men, doubt they’ll vote for that though.

    • fondueguy

      “Most men are smarter than most women.”

      Mmmmm, no. The best evidence I’ve seen that men are smarter than women says that men on average are 4 points higher on the IQ test. That does not mean that most men are ‘smarter’ than most women. Most of the curve overlaps!!!

      That difference for most purposes is very small, smaller than the differences between the races (not arguing wither nature or nurture). In most cases that difference is inconsequential and you never notice it especially in smaller numbers. The small difference in averages, if correct, does have large consequences at the ends of the curves. Based on a different average you’d expect a lot more men whither high iqs.

      The reason I care to say this is that if there is a difference its not that big and I don’t think its a good idea to tell yourself women are dumb when their not. I feint think it helps our cause to underestimate women’s intelligence and what they are capable of doing to men. Remember that women spread information well and learn how to help themselves in the future and get advantages.

      Their not master manipulators but their not retards either.

      • The Enlightener

        Meanwhile, every time I see an unsafe driver of the slow/unsure/doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing variety, it’s either a woman or a senile old man. The aggressive drivers *might* be more often men, but it’s definitely not *always* men.

        I also know that women have advantages in every field they work in.

        So if I have the choice of a female or male doctor, I’ll always choose the male, given no other information.

        It may not be true that “most men are smarter than most women” but to ignore the fact that men’s intelligence, where it matters, tends to be higher, would not have much utility.

      • L.

        This is an interesting way to look at it and I’ll present this from another point of view to help you see how big it can be.

        Everything you own that’s remotely technological : 95+% man (and yes, like me you prolly like your cellphone and your 40″ LED TV, blu-rays, car, hospitals and all the stuff).

        Why is it so ?
        Most Scientific Discoveries and applications are made by people at the far right of the curve.

        4 points on an IQ test can be “a lot”, just ask high IQ societies for people above 150.

        Now about the implication it has on everyone’s daily life :
        If your IQ is around 100 : no impact or almost

        If your IQ is above 130 : a whole lot of impact, at that point there is less than one woman for every 2 men at your “level”.

        Push that to 150, and you know you will never find a soulmate with who you can discuss as an equal on any scientific subject.

        Oh and, if your IQ is below 65, most cases your mate will be smarter than you, but there’s also a fair chance you don’t give a damn about science, graphs and stuff.

        As presented (and I don’t think those statistics are worth anything, especially if they’re US-based as I’m from Europe), the only effect that can be seen is on the fringes of the graph.

        Women are not dumb, but they’re not very scientific, they’re “emotional intelligent” if that means being overwhelmed by hormones and being hardcore social architects (yeah, that includes advanced and permanent manipulation, too but not only). A man who does not recognize that is in grave danger indeed, however a man who is aware of that is probably not at risk of being outwitted – or so it seems to me since I pushed the security setting up. (chess anyone ?)

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      “it sure makes my panties wet.”

      And for good reason, feminists think there is some sort of Social Darwinist competition between men and women…quite to the contrary for necessitating a gender war and challenging men for top positions etc….

      To clear things up Sexual Selection has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the supposition that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

      In terms of male and female you can not apply Social Darwinism as there inherently is no division of power between the sexes by genetic or biological terms. Any biological and genetic disparity that is “superior” adaptive, disproportionately advantageous over others of ones species is also sought after by the opposite sex, is mutually beneficial, complementary and shared entirely with the other sex, with great eagerness I might add.

    • matt_m

      You’ve clearly been brainwashed by societal prejudices against female inferiority to men. But I see how you would see yourself as less intelligent than men; your comment is crawling with misspelling and grammatical error. Oh, you heard complicated and sophisticated scientific hypotheses of a MALE scientist? Yes, therefore men are more intelligent. NOT. Women have only gained the right to go to school in the passed century, as opposed to men who have been allowed ever since the first forms of school appeared. Even today, in some countries, women cannot go to school or vote. Do yourself a favor and stop being so insecure.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html

  • Rad

    Whole ‘lotta mind-body dichotomy going on in this article.

  • AntZ

    I don’t care who is smarter or stronger or faster. I would like to see equality of opportunity AND equality of protection under the law.

    For millenia, the law afforded greater opportunity to men, and greater protection to women.

    Today, the law protection only to women, and greater opportunity to women. Obscene.

    What would happen if the law treated everyone equally?

    People who are afraid to find out are called “feminists”. People who don’t care are called MRMs.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      I can’t speak for Harry, but I think his point, and I agree with it entirely, is that whatever goals we have as MRA’s, even simply as human beings, have no chance to go anywhere as long as we have gags on.

      I personally don’t care if men or women are more intelligent, or if there is no difference at all. What I do care about is that asserting an opinion on it is verboten in this culture unless it meets feminist approval.

      Until we break that down, we get nowhere fast on anything else.

      • http://freehumanbeing.com/ Free Human Being

        My point exactly if I had one.

        Feminist wax lyrically inept on the subjects they feel are worthy but also prejudice anything that doesn’t fit into their extremely narrow paradigm of thought.

        So let’s free ourselves from their rigidly obtuse mentality and speak openly and freely.

        Go to ANY feminist blog and you’ll find story after story of something a bad man did.

        One may think that this would be evidence that men are extreme.

        Nope, not to them. They want to bitch and whine about men, but maintain the line that men and women are exactly the same.

        …but continue to post news article after news article of male perpetrated crimes.

        It takes years to learn how to think like a feminist

    • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

      @Antz

      You should read this! …

      http://www.angryharry.com/esGoingRoundInCircles.htm

      LOL

      • Tom M

        Harry, your article on chimpanzees and Women ties in here too – very good!

        I also like your views in your articles on the Darren Mack judge and wife-shooting incident, orchestrated and driven BY that judge and by a whole system gone mad, not by men gone mad.

        Those primarily attacking Mack are a clear sign of how gullible they are to feminazi agitprop brainwashing and why they thus undermine any semblance of truth, justice, equality and the whole MRM. Maybe they just think that if we kick ourselves in the ass long and hard enough, femi-chivalrists won’t need to?

      • Peter Charnley

        @Harry
        “Without the belligerence, the one-sidedness and the hostility, matters for men will simply continue to get worse.

        And there is no realistic evidence to be found anywhere to suggest otherwise, as far as I am aware.

        only the aggressive groups ever win

        If you look at our History, our Psychology and our Biology, you also soon discover that only the aggressive groups ever win.”

        Exactly – exactly – exactly.

        A very old saying. A very true saying. “The best means of defense is attack”.

        There is no way feminists are going to start questioning themselves until they begin to notice that people are utterly horrified and enraged by what they are saying and doing. Die hard radical feminists wouldn’t question themselves, under any circumstances, anyway.

        Even if it was their next door neighbors son who hanged himself after being subjected to anti-male, Ritalin, substance abuse (a similar such incident happened very recently here in the UK).

        If society continues to go along with them, reality will eventually bring their revolting empire to an end with full consequence whatever future action or inaction is taken by those opposing feminism today. That is inevitable.

        But if we as MRA’s want to bring things forward and avoid much of the eventual catastrophe that would result from unrestrained feminsim and political correcetness, and which lies in wait for everyone over the horizon – the feminists, and probably far more importantly, the apathetic, the brainwashed and the power seeking politicians hungry for approval, have got to start noticing both real, articulately delivered, outrage by practised campaigners – alongside (and perhaps most importantly of all) the perhaps not so articulately delivered outrage of Joe Bloggs.

        People have got to realise something is wrong. Tactful, diplomatically delivered messages don’t reach the consciences of evil tyrants – nor those brainwashed by them.

  • Stu

    An oldie but a goodie from Angry Harry In fact they are pretty much all goodies from Angry Harry.

    Why women get so upset with the demonstratable truth that on average, men are more intelligent then women beats me. It would be a big issue if women were valued on that, but they aren’t.

    This is something that feminists can’t get through their heads. Go have a look on any dating site, you can pick the feminists by their profiles. If they spend time trying to impress men by waffling about their careers, education, etc, they are barking up the wrong tree. Men don’t give a rats about that. Women don’t have to be smarter then a man to be attractive to a man. Women have been looked after, ahead of men, and valued ahead of men, throughout history, without having to demonstrate that they are mans equal.

    That doesn’t mean men want a retard in a woman. Just that higher then average intelligence does not increase attractiveness to a man. It doesn’t increase her value to him either. If men were attracted to those qualities primarily, then most of us would be gay.

    I’ll give my sexist advice to women here. It’s better to work on being a first class woman rather then a second class man.

    Fast becoming the man they love to hate here lol

    • CourageHonorLoyalty

      I think the reason feminists take issue with men being more intelligent is grounded in the fact that it is the extreme end of the scale that produces most of the truly useful advances in technology and knowledge. It also makes it less credible for them to argue that the reason women haven’t invented as much as men is because they haven’t been taken seriously and are oppressed.

      The reality is that countless generations of wealthy women frittered life away instead of doing anything lastingly meaningful. Meanwhile many of their husbands contributed to the advancement of human knowledge. This is why women where not taken seriously in the past in areas of science.

      • fondueguy

        Dude, many of the greatest scientists came from really shitty backgrounds and crewmen taught themselves against all odds… the stuff about women not inventing because they were held back is crap. They may have been held back but so where many of the greatest male scientists.

        The more I keep hearing this bullshit about men get all the inventions I just want to say.. ya and women should be thanking men for existing and taking them out of the huts. Imagine an island of just women and see how far they go without oppressive men. Whenever women say men get all the Nobel prizes, just say so what good are women.

    • fondueguy

      Why not have women compete on the basis of things other than looks. No matter what else men expect of women (smarts, nice behavior, supportive, strong (not fake strength like Feminism), etc…) there will be women with good looks. Its not something that needs our encouragement, its just always going to be there.

      I agree that her intellectual “achievements” aren’t that impressive especially when she tries to shove it in your face. But I don’t see how its not a good thing for men to put greater stock in things other than looks (women gets looks and more from men). Why not expect the woman to have some useful talents and let her bring some things to the table. Looks fade and you don’t want a drain the rest of your life.

    • Tom M

      Stu, I think women are much more attractive when they are smart – smart enough to abhor feminism.

      • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

        Most all women are feminist because they support feminism through their in-action to stop feminist policy making Cultural memes and lies are met with silence on women’s part.

        Futhermore women do what they are told apparently because they show no interest in learning about gender issues. In my experience all male thoughts, feelings and shared experiences are met with accusations of woman hatred…That’s about as far as women go in their critical thinking upon these issues.

        • CourageHonorLoyalty

          That in-action is called passive acceptance.

    • J.G. te Molder

      Then there’s that problem that just because they have great careers, it doesn’t mean they are more intelligent. Quite the contrary, a better career usually means they are more aggressive, not to mention feminist which makes their aggressiveness toward you as a man even greater. A great career means aggressively going after better positions, and aggressively going after all those gender-“equality” laws made for women to get a head up.

      You want a man, the last thing you want to do is show him you’re an aggressive feminazi.

  • Kazzi

    Very interesting article yet again (nice one Angry Harry)… I agree with a lot of points stated. Women use too much emotion when it comes to ‘most tasks/jobs’ in this world. It is due to the use of the emotion element that makes them better at certain jobs – but a lot less in others.

    One point I will raise though is the 2nd last paragraph ~ The rich must be more intelligent than the poor ~ I cant see this being true in todays society.. and with that I refer to some ‘hollywood stars’ and socalites… You cant tell me that they are more intelligent – both men and women … lol (the hiltons and lohans come to mind – but then again they are women hehehehe)

    In todays society women are given the same opportunities as men to go into so many fields of employment after finishing High school… yet there is still a very small % of women taking up the ‘difficult, time consuming and sometimes boring’ trades and uni courses. Instead they go for the quick and easy… ie: Hairdressing, secretaries etc… rather than the mechanics, full on surgens, aeronautical engineers etc etc… so they have no one else to blame bar themselves.

    Yes I do agree that men are more intelligent than women… as they use logic when it comes to any type of work. They dont use emotion when it comes to doing a job.. They figure out why things are not working thru basic commonsense.. if it does work the first time.. go back and try something else.. women on the other hand… do go for the emotional aspect.. because that is how they want it to work out.. whether it is the right result.. its because its what they wanted it to be.

    I myself and greatful to both of my parents.. my dad for letting me know the difference between a G-clamp and a monkey wrench.. a phillips head to a pair of bull nose pliers, how to check the oil in my car, even the correct air pressure in my car tyres.. and my mum for teaching me the basic skills of cooking, sewing etc. I reckon I turned out ok.. and well rounded. (but I must admit I still ask hubby or my son to change my tyres.. I cant get those stupid wheel nuts off).

    Do I dare admit that Hubby (Stu) is more intelligent than me… I will keep that opinion to myself…

  • Stu

    Yeah Giselle, and most women, whether they admit it or not, are attracted to men that are more then them. Whether it’s physically, mentally, financially, or all of the above, or which ever of the above criteria take prioity, they want a superior man, superior to them that is……that’s what turns them on.

    Men know this, and they know if they take up with a woman that is more then them, they will soon be traded in and flicked to the roadside like a cigarette butt.

    The women who pursue career, education, etc etc, are simply going to up the qualifying standards. But they are sacrificing being what men are attracted to by spending great amounts of their time being what they themselves are attracted too……so they get flicked to the roadside like cigarette butts.

    The feminist lifestyle is really only satisfying for lesbians. For women that lust after men…..don’t go there….you’re only making yourself unattractive to the object of your desire

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      “The women who pursue career, education, etc etc, are simply going to up the qualifying standards.”

      This study was conducted by a woman. The source is labeled on the first graph:

      Hypergamy in action:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ii_mDW8Lhqg/TVfAY2ROrpI/AAAAAAAAAhs/OvqQAzuRPjM/s1600/18178_1277295145456_1622331797_726485_3876340_n.jpg

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V-tzFSGoMqo/TVfAqTG8csI/AAAAAAAAAh0/iIdm4k8XZoI/s1600/33.jpg

      • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660
        • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

          Sorry the prior graphs have not been approved by the moderator yet but it shows the inverse for women in relation to marriage and chance of ever having children.

          • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

            You know you can post the images directly, right?

          • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

            Damn, I’ll have to start doing that Paul. Sorry for the mess.

    • fondueguy

      ‘”The women who pursue career, education, etc etc, are simply going to up the qualifying standards.”’

      No, it is going to up the standards on women. At the very least men will want a woman who does not drain them financially and some men may even want the woman to do work. I have no idea why some people think its natural for men to want to marry a talentless and unproductive woman. (Hell, you wouldn’t dish out money just so you can be friends with someone but call it “support”). In more primative times the home was very productive… now it is only a place for retired entitled women. The Cinderella story is very new and in the last most Men actually guarded their assets and may even expect to gain assets in marriage. The support model turns men into working mules who retire later in life and die sooner.

      Also in the primitive societies women actually bring home more than half of the mainstay and yet men still get pussy. Women are hypergamous but that doesn’t mean men as a whole need to work more than women…. not at all.

      • giselle

        well i dont understand why it needs to be referenced to primitive cultures that men still get pussy even after the woman does a shit load of work…thats the way it supposed to be. He works, she works, at the end of the day they are married, a unit, a couple, they love eachother and they hump. Any lady who uses her pussy as a reward for being a good boy deserves to be kicked in it. Bad girls arent fun.

        • giselle

          and the husband should have the RIGHT to TAKE it…..fair is fair motherfuckers.

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    Gender Intelligence Curve: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b0zTyfXcvvc/TVe_8sCyPDI/AAAAAAAAAhk/xxFgCkyxKI8/s1600/ScreenShot020.jpg

    Story of former President of Harvard Dr. Lawrence Summers who was removed and silenced by feminists for mentioning gender differences:

    http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/harvard-university-lawrence-summers.html

    Men quickly learned that if were to speak about science openly we had to do so in a more emasculating way but at least we are allowed to speak: http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-walter-block-on-sexual.html

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    Gender Intelligence Curve: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b0zTyfXcvvc/TVe_8sCyPDI/AAAAAAAAAhk/xxFgCkyxKI8/s1600/ScreenShot020.jpg
    Story of former President of Harvard Dr. Lawrence Summers who was removed and silenced by feminists for mentioning gender differences:
    http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/harvard-university-lawrence-summers.html
    Men quickly learned that if were to speak about science openly we had to do so in a more emasculating way but at least we are allowed to speak: http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-walter-block-on-sexual.html

  • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz

    This was one long piece. Very long. Sad thing is, regardless of whatever actual facts, evidence, or sensible points it may have, most people won’t be able to get past the title without already making up their minds about the validity of the piece and the person who wrote it.

    Why?

    Because it says men are smarter than women. Put forth anything that says men are better than women within a specific criteria and you will be shut out and ignored.

    Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

    Men are more physically capable than women? Why, no sir, you sexist.

    Men have better control over their emotions than women? Why, no sir, you sexist.

    Make any claim you want, fill it with however much evidence and however many facts you want. Won’t matter.

    But say something like…

    Women can do anything men can do…and do it better…and do it in heels…well then HELL YEAH I WANT YOU FOR PRESIDENT!

    Just sayin’

    You know it’s bad when you have psycho nuts (feminists) claiming that female ballerina dancers can easily kick an average guy’s ass, because you know, physical strength doesn’t matter in a fight, just flexibility.

    The group think mentality from those wackos is astounding. It reminds me of a scene from that movie Sin City (a movie with more chivalrous white knight misandric messages than you can count) where one of the bad guy senators says quite smugly, without fear;

    “If you can get everyone to say what they know in their hearts isn’t true you’ve got em’ by the balls. I could shoot you right now and get away with it…everyone would lie for me.”

    Same thing with feminists. One idiot makes a claim that a 100 pound “flexible” woman can kick an average guy’s ass because muscles don’t matter and apparently slow you down and the rest of the idiots all chime in vigorously with agreements. Doesn’t matter that it’s a lie, as long as everyone else says it’s the god honest truth then it doesn’t matter.

    Political examples?

    Ninety something percent of DV is committed by men. Feminist lie that made it law to only recognize women as victims of DV, which led to VAWA and all DV awareness on the planet featuring or suggesting (on sick billboards with smiling little boys) a man beating a woman.

    1/4 women are raped. Another feminist lie that led to basically the stripping of the right to due process in a court of law. Only if you’re a man of course.

    The glass ceiling. One of the most powerful lies feminists have ever concocted. This one went global. Pretty much made sure that if a man (and only a man) starts a business and a female employee (and only a female employee) has a discrepancy (legitimate or not) with her pay…well…say goodbye to your business or at least a sizable chunk of your profits.

    I could go on but the point is, when one feminist tells a lie, all feminists repeat that lie regardless of whether or not they know it is a lie.

    Some might think my reference to someone murdering a man and everyone lying to protect that murderer is a little extreme and only pulled from a movie as an extreme example.

    Well…

    Actually…because of another feminist lie, the lie that claims that women do not lie about rape or abuse led to women being able to murder their husbands or boyfriends, claiming it was self defense…and…everyone lied for those women. In most of these cases, even the ones where there was evidence suggesting that the male spouse had been abusive…the female spouse usually murdered him while he was asleep…or poisoned him.

    You would think that anyone with common since would conclude that if someone murders another person in their sleep it can’t possibly be self defense.

    You would think that anyone with common sense would conclude that the murder was premeditated.

    Nope.

    Everyone just repeated the lie the murderer told.

    Feminist lies have even decided what can be funny and what can not. As always, at the expense of men. I recall a story where a woman went on national television because she had cut a man’s penis off. Her reaction? It was funny. That is a lie so blatant that it shouldn’t even have to be said to be a lie.

    I don’t think it was a lie that that twisted evil…”person” thought it was funny because she most likely did. No. It was the public reaction that was the lie. Everyone lied for her and claimed it was funny.

    What a piece of shit is man.

    Everyone will lie for feminism.

    Why?

    Because feminism has got democracy by the balls.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      Standing ovation. 5 stars. Bows silently.

    • Peter Charnley

      @jmnzz
      “Everyone will lie for feminism.
      Why?
      Because feminism has got democracy by the balls.”

      I rarely agree with anything Karl Marx ever had to say. But one thing he did point out was very accurate.

      “If you say something often enough, people begin to believe that it is true”.

      This is certainly so for people in the short and medium term future. But, evidenced by the examples of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, the increasingly capitalist reality of fading Chinese Communism, the pitiful spectacle of the self-imprisoned withered plant pots of N. korean Communism and Cuba – because of reality and inevitable consequence, the balls of people of the long term future are protected by the invulnerable cricket box of inescapable consequence.

      Certainly they become immunised to the lies of their yesteryear that have been lived through and for which the bill has arrived.

      One day people will not lie for feminism. Painted and real smiles, genuine and canned laughter will be the licensed norm for satire and mockery aimed, not at its victims, but which will reflect a horrified culture’s widespread full awakening as to a crime against humanity.

      Some aspects of which, if such realities as the ‘silent holocaust’ of the unborn is factored into the equation, will be out of reach of satire.

    • Keyster

      “Because feminism has got democracy by the balls.”

      And to disagree with it risks alienating half your voters and all of your campaign contributors. Who’ll be the first one with a credible bully pulpit to stand up and openly defy it? It won’t be a man, because regardless of how principled he might be, they’ll ruin him for life.

      The more power you have the higher the stakes, the higher the stakes the less risk you’ll take of rattling the femisphere. The enlightenment has to slowly rise up from the grass roots level, and influence the behavior of so many, it can no longer be ignored.

      This is the period we’re in right now.
      This is history in the making.
      The deconstruction of the most successful and damaging social movement in our time.

  • Promoman

    Good piece. Conventional intelligence aside, I think the real difference between the sexes is more pronounced in the sense that men tend to be more rational and emotionally mature than women. I’ve met some women who’re quite brilliant but are riding the short bus, if not still at the bus stop, when it comes to those areas. Women’s slant on things is that feelings are reality and that’s what leads them to live life deceitfully, foolishly, and hypocritically at the expense of others and themselves. Women may be more emotionally intelligent than men but it’s more often wasted on how to be a better bullshit artist rather than in positive interpersonal dealings. It’s even worse since society enables and rewards the resultant behavior.

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    “At the high-flier levels, women haven’t got a hope of competing with men.”

    Competing with men is a feminist idea. Men are at the top because that’s where female sexual selection wants us and has in fact crafted us over millenia to be. This is not a competition : ) Men and women together make the whole.

    “And the upshot of all this is that at the high-flier levels, women haven’t got a hope of competing with men either in terms of their number or in terms of their achievements – unless, of course, the men are deliberately handicapped in some way.”

    Oh and that we are! “women first” Affirmative Action in college admissions, Title IX, gender quotas, special programs, women only funding, scholarships, grants etc. Entire curriculums have been redrawn toward female centric learning models. Women are not going to be happy with the following generations of men. It is already happening.

  • Jabberwocky

    Bravo Harry.

  • Keyster

    One key peripheral unintended consequence of PRETENDING women are just as smart (but in a “different” way), is that boys and men have been pressured socially to compromise their own intelligence, so as not to offend the female.

    Expectations lowered for women have lowered expectations for everyone, stifling the development and advancement of society.

    When an individual girl or woman accomplishes something normally associated with the male, she’s lauded and praised and held up as an example of the potential all females have. This is meant to boost female confidence and self-esteem, as if all else being EQUAL, that’s all they’re lacking in order to achieve.

    A boy or man has to do something extraordinary as a HUMAN BEING (or male), to get noticed…and even then, it might not be compelling enough to report, because it’s expected, assumed and happens on a rather routine basis.

  • Lady Catherine

    I am a psychologist… and a woman. My opinion is that men tend to be all over the IQ bell curve and women tend to be stuck on averages. There is also significant proof that nurture does play a role in development of intelligence on some level, but I also accept that genes are the ultimate arbiter of who is going to be intelligent or not. My husband scores significantly higher than me on IQ tests, he scores roughly 15 points higher than me in fact, but I am more educated. There isn’t a problem with this, I am not intimidated by the fact that there are people more intelligent than me.

    What is a problem and something I agree with, is that most people are going to read the title and already make up their minds and make a judgement on the entire piece. The sad fact about reality is that there are tangible differences between the sexes, as much as the political left and feminists would try to deny it, a significant portion of women aren’t up to the task of making great discoveries like men are.

    These are just stats people, whether or not these stats aren’t bullshit isn’t a real concern, the concern is accepting that there are some real differences, whether they are here due to nature or nurture(or in my view a mix of both).

    I am sick of others in my field ignoring that, “Hey, my massive husband might be stronger and faster than me, oh and what’s this? He has more raw intelligence than me too?” in favor of “It’s all in the environment”

    People are people, there are going to be women smarter than men, and there are going to be men smarter than women. It’s a fact.

    • BeijaFlor

      @ Lady Catherine: “My opinion is that men tend to be all over the IQ bell curve and women tend to be stuck on averages.”

      I think that’s a sensible conclusion. But I see that you also recognize that IQ is one thing, and what you do with your mind can be quite another. Also, you sound as if you are not “into competition” about mind and mental capability, but rather “into COMPETENCE.”

      I was told, when I was a little boy, that I had a high IQ. Today I look back and I have to say, “So what?” I didn’t do a lot with it; I took decent care of my own life, and I think I can say I carried my proper share of Society’s burdens, but I didn’t become any “shining star” in science or technology. There are plenty of others who did better than I did, and frankly it doesn’t matter whether they got more points (or less) on an IQ test, or better (or worse) SAT scores than I did.

      I worked with people, men and women, who were smarter than I am, more competitive, more grasping about “climbing the ladder.” I worked for women who were good supervisors, and women who weren’t; the same thing was true about the men who were my supervisors. Some of my women colleagues were better than some of my men colleagues, and vice versa; when I reached team-leader status, I found the same to be true about the women and the men who worked for me. But the really important thing, to me, was whether-or-not the job got done and got done right. And in the years leading up to my retirement, the other really important thing was whether-or-not my protegés learned what they needed from me, so that they could carry on when I sailed off into the sunset.

      If you’re “doing your job,” handling your responsibilities effectively and well, that is what is important to me. Competence is supreme, or it should be.

      • giselle

        LOl i work with a bunch of women and its utter chaos, i end up screaming, throwing things, stomping off into the freezer and saying how i wish everyone there would get run over by a truck….we finally got a young male manager and everything has changed….everyone is always on their toes and doing things the way they should have been done from the beginning…No i just mumble under my breath how i hate everybody.

      • reficul

        I am probably biased due to my personal experience but… I do have a problem with female managers managing men – every single one I had (5 in total, 3 in the row) clearly demonstrated they have no clue about men’s motivation to work and achievements.
        Every additional effort put by a man is treated as a given and something they deserve from you as a manager just as any help you are giving to them when they ask for one (and they do ask for a lot of help – chivalry anyone?).

        At the same time crab mentality seems to be the dish of the day – especially if you are considered by them as a lower status male – your promotion is out of question.

        My personal misery of working under women only ended after I was headhunted by men from other department. My female bosses reaction – silent treatment for 2 weeks. Never again I am going to accept a position knowing a woman will be my line manager – I would rather be homeless… seriously!

        I don’t know what is women’s experience working under male line managers so I am not going to comment on this or make any assumptions but:

        It seems to me like men and women have completely different paradigms of work and trying to mix those 2 only adds to the confusion, inefficiency and anger.

    • Adi

      “a significant portion of women aren’t up to the task of making great discoveries like men are.”

      True. But the same is true for men. The discoveries you describe are a very small minority.

      I say the same here as I said in the other thread: Those achievements of men weren’t done by women, not because they were oppressed (feminist dogma) but also not because they can’t (MRA dogma) but simply because they largely didn’t have to. For women, reproductive and social success does not require such achievements and, moreover, such achievements do not help their reproductive success significantly. A woman doesn’t gain attractiveness by being more successful in her career – at least not significantly. While, for men, professional success is directly proportional to their attractiveness. Hence, there was never a strong female boundary-pushing creative culture. Just wasn’t necessary.

      The lack of necessity was the reason, not the lack of freedom or ability.

      Now let the people come saying that I’m wrong because I’m wrong and therefore I’m not right and there’s no such thing as circular reasoning among anti-feminists. And anyone who disagrees is just a PC slave. So bloody well conform to MRA views and stop being politically correct (read that sentence a few times).
      And if your name is “The Enlightener”, then please clog up the thread by repeatedly answering your own comments creating multiple levels of comment nesting without any discussion taking place. That way, nobody can bother to even read let alone answer and you can feel like you’re right without even using circular reasoning.

      • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

        Well I understand where you are coming from but these preferences over time affect innate ability in the genders.

    • Lady Catherine

      This is a reply for BeijaFlor and Adi, you seem to have gotten the intent of my post.

      Competence and the willingness to do something is more important than than how well you do on tests and your IQ. I am more interested with what you do with it. My husband uses his intelligence to create beautiful music, I use my intelligence to bring therapeutic change to my clients’ lives.

      • Adi

        Ha, I’m a musician too! :)

        I agree that IQ is very overrated and I say that as someone who tends to score high. Everything I learned about life is that it’s down to discipline, hard work, perseverance and motivation. A high IQ is just a tiny help and the difference between average women and average men is far too small to dwell upon.

        The only reason to write such an article is because PC forbids it.

        For both genders, most men/women will regularly encounter more intelligent specimens of both genders. How often, depends mostly on your own individual score rather than your gender.

        I’ll rephrase it: This IQ gap only means that for every 10 women you meet who are more intelligent than you, you’ll probably meet 11 men who are more intelligent. Those aren’t exact numbers but they make the point.

        • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

          @ Lady Catherine, Adi and BeijaFlor,

          I think the real intelligence test here (of sorts, I am not making any assumption about your intelligence) is in whether you get the real point of Harry’s article.

          I don’t think it is to invest his energy in proving men are smarter than women. I have talked with the man on a few occasions. He is much smarter than to invest himself in living or dying by that point.

          The article, in my opinion, is simply intended to provoke people into demonstrating our real difficulties even talking about differences in the sexes that don’t make women look better.

          We have a president who says “Women can do anything men can do, and do it better, and do it in heels.” and very few raise an eyebrow, even though it is patently false enough to qualify as a campaign promise.

          On the other hand, we have Larry Somers get fired from a prestigious presidency of an Ivy League School because he says that men have more aptitude for hard sciences, which they demonstrably do.

          I got permission to run Harry’s article precisely because it fit in well as a follow up piece to one I wrote about men taking on the lions share of risk and being the real “producers” of both Neolithic and modern society.

          All of it was to demonstrate that even in the MRM we struggle with the feminized idea that we are not supposed to acknowled any differences between men and women that don’t pass muster with PC.

          And it gives us a much better opportiuity to demonstrate some points while in action, rather than just writing them down as ideas.

          It was an experiential set up and it worked.

          • Lady Catherine

            It’s something I wish more people in my field would do(accept the very real differences between the sexes). I’m pretty glad that someone in my field has the guts to do that(Angry Harry and you(?, I think I read in your biography or elsewhere that you’re a psychologist of some sort))

            I mean there is some proof that things like gender(which isn’t the same thing as sex) is a bit more flexible, but I also think that most of that is pretty much set in stone and no amount of influence is really going to change that.

          • Lady Catherine

            And I’m talking about the differences.

          • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

            “It’s something I wish more people in my field would do(accept the very real differences between the sexes).”

            Well the social sciences and psychology fields of study have become very feminized and even anti-male. Dr. Tara talks about it on one of Paul’s radio show episodes. She said it made her stomach turn.

          • BeijaFlor

            … And I guess I didn’t pass muster. If I were a “real man” I’d have stood up for masculinity instead of settling for mere competence.

            Oh well. It surely won’t be my last mistake, either.

        • Peter Charnley

          @Adi
          “A high IQ is just a tiny help and the difference between average women and average men is far too small to dwell upon.”

          That may be relevant to the music business – but it isn’t to fields such as medicine.

          For many years now women have made up the majority of medical students. In the UK it has recently been lamented that we are suffering from a woeful shortage of home grown surgeons.

          Someone has even been so bold as to blatantly say “women are killing surgery”.

          Ordinary doctors are very intelligent people – top ranking surgeons are brilliant people.

          People try to put it down to such factors as will, implication, opportunity, family ties, career breaks etc. But these causes of disparity are now only partial – considering the time the majority of med. students have been female and the numbers of them who do actually take breaks or go part-time.

          The real reason that males , although the minority of medical students, are the majority who go on to be standing in an operating theater with an open sternum before them, is down to greater natural skill and superior grey matter.

          There are many other parallels in other fields that collectively will have enormous implications for the future across the whole sphere of science, economics and technology. Unless we start to accept reality again.

  • giselle

    I bought a book entitled “the Beautiful Boy”by Germaine Greer, years ago, like 9 years ago. It was all photos of beautiful young men and the insert on the front cover stated that women have been denied the aesthetic (?) pleasure of looking at scantily clad young men, as if women do not have eyes to see…..i kind of understood, but women have always seen….we do have you know….i thought germaine was a gay guy…lol isnt he? she?

    • Lady Catherine

      Despite being demisexual(it’s a form of gray asexuality), I found the assertion that women were being denied the pleasure of looking at men’s bodies weird. I mean shit, I generally don’t see physical attractiveness* in people, but I can easily find examples of where guys are supposed to have sex appeal for women.

      *Side note: Lady porn exists and there is a good chance that it has always existed.

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      I’ve asked several women what they thought of the penis and the told me it is not attractive and ugly. I don’t think this to be true at all and chalked it up to female narcissism.

    • Eff’d Off

      She might be or not… one thing for sure though is she is a nasty piece of something unpleasant.

    • gwallan

      Young men?

      Not to mention lots of close ups of little boys’ genitals.

      Interviewed by Australia’s ABC Greer stated her purpose in publishing was to “position young boys as legitimate objects of womens’ lust”. She wanted to sexually titillate women through the use of naked lttle boys.

      Sounds like child porn to me.

  • giselle

    We do have “eyes” you know….sorry, i meant.

  • http://equalitythrouhghtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

    Interesting article.

    Sir Francis Galton (cousin of Charles Darwin) was the first to make correlations between intelligence and genetics and spent a good part of his life trying to prove that the aristocracy was entitled to rule because they produced more scientific discoveries–a faulty theory which failed to take into consideration the greater allocation of resources for the education of the wealthy compared to the poor.

    In fact, the variations in intelligence are confounded by many factors. Not the least of which is the expectations of parents and the environment. It has been shown that children are more likely to do better in school and even go to college if their parents have a bookshelf with books on it. The parents need never read the books to the child but only keep them in the home.

    Nature is responsible for creating a healthy human being. Nurture is responsible for making the most out of that human being.

    Take for example a psychological study of a young girl who was chained in a dark closet by her mother until the age of 14 and was never able to fully grasp and reproduce human language. Eight years later she was still grunting and pointing. Those vital early years were necessary to grasp the nuances of our language. Imagine what happens to the Shepard boy who rarely talks to people during his young life?

    There are also more kinds of intelligence than just book learning. The professional football player has far more physical intelligence than the physics professor. Could any of us bend it like Beckham?

    My point is that men are not necessarily more intelligent than women because we are genetically superior. The mean intelligences of both sexes are almost identical.

    But males have some advantages that women do not.

    First we have more processing power. It’s a tiny amount but imagine a road race that lasts 70 years where you drive .01 mile an hour faster? You will outdistance all others over time.

    Second, males don’t make babies. Women’s insistence on maintaining their hegemony on all things reproduction forces them to divide their efforts between career and family.

    And finally, males have no choice. Men instinctively realize that if they want to be respected by others and attractive to women then they must gain status and we gain status primarily by working and making money. Women know that if things don’t work out they can always find a man and get knocked up. For this reason many women never even try to rise through the corporate hierarchy and most simply prefer menial jobs which pay the rent and nothing more.

    This final reason is a product of male dominance hierarchy (MDH) for which women do not participate in as children and therefore, by the time they reach adulthood are often incapable of understanding let alone navigating. Males learn how to get along with other males who are both higher and lower in the hierarchy and spend most of their lives attempting to rise through it. Women, however, inject themselves into the hierarchy and wonder why everyone isn’t kissing their asses because they have a vagina. All the problems women face in the workplace, from harassment, to the female boss who hates them can be laid the feet of their ignorance of MDH.

    I recently met a woman who complained how her co-workers at the motorcycle parts store didn’t “respect” her. I asked her, “Why should they respect you?”. She looked at me as if I was from the moon and walked away. She simply expects everyone to respect her and cannot grasp the concept that people might think she’s an arrogant cunt and her tight yoga body doesn’t grant her any points when she’s competing against men in MDH.

    All that said I think the most salient point of your article Harry is that women are innately hypergamist. By competing against men in the workplace, which is an extension of male dominance hierarchy, they are reducing the number of men who they would be willing to marry and procreate with. This not only will result in women being more unhappy over time but it will also devalue men and result in more men falling out the bottom of the hierarchy. This is something that women cannot do except through extreme acts of criminality–fall so low in status that society is willing to discard her. This is why so few women are in prison and those that are get lighter sentences and why so many men are in prison for longer sentences.

    Feminism devalues men. With fewer high value men women are forced to “settle” for men they feel are beneath them or over time will fall beneath them.

    Lastly, while women are hypergamist, men are also programmed with hypergamist expectations. Many men simply cannot value themselves as worthy of a woman unless they are better than she is. Whether this is genetic or cultural or both it is very real. Over time they can develop a lower sense of worth which can poison a relationship with a woman.

    As we’ve learned from Game Theory it’s more important to believe you are somebody than to actually be somebody and if you believe you are a loser then you are one.

    Men must learn to value themselves as something other than a woman’s personal beast of burden. Doing so successfully may allow millions of men to bi-pass the female desire for hypergamy just as fake tits bi-passes many men’s desire for a better looking woman.

  • Stu

    @Giselle

    “and the husband should have the RIGHT to TAKE it…..fair is fair motherfuckers.”

    And you like the idea of that don’t you Giselle lol

  • B.R. Merrick

    I’ve been waiting too many months for something new from Angry Harry. Maybe I just haven’t been looking in the right places. Regardless: Hurray!

  • Nergal

    Bravo. Awesome as always,Harry.

  • http://matthewabsurdity.blogspot.com/ Matthew

    As usual,
    I agree with Angry Harry with his main points, but have some issues about his argumentative style.

    He has made some good points indeed. If women are so intelligent, then why it is still men who make the MAJORITY (not all, though) important breakthrough? Why are they so easily affected by feeling and emotions when making decisions (statistically speaking, of course)?

    I believe this explains why MOST innovators and influential people are still, men despite all those feminist craze.

    Still, I think AH should consider changing his argumentative style a bit, since he has made a considerable number of mistakes in his minor points. This may cause hindrance to promotion.

    Say, I think he should cite more actual evidence when supporting his point, although as far as I know, most of his points are indeed supported. But I want to remind him that not all people are as knowledgable as we do.

  • Sonia

    Lol why don’t you look at actual statistics that show women and men are on par when it comes to intelligence. Lololololol the fact that you would even to begin building an argument that puts women below men at intelligence shows how inadequate you are at thinking. I can’t even stop laughing. It’s just ironic because in order for one to think men suffer in terms of the social hierarchy means you must be completely and unfathomably stupid. Oh man. FUNNY.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      “men are on par when it comes to intelligence”
      -Where are your statistics?

      The statistics show that average IQ for men is 3-4 points higher and at the genius level men outnumber women by 10:1.

  • Sonia

    Re: Matthew
    I can’t believe I’m bothering to even indulge your idiocy, but child. It’s hard to invent things when people FORBID YOU FROM GOING TO SCHOOL. good god man woman only got the vote early last century. women could not even file patents because of their gender, so they would have to file them under husband’s names, and many female authors would publish their shit under pseudonyms.
    you make me laugh.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      I love this comment. The next article on this site will be a response to it. Oh DO drop in for the answers to your questions. :)

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      I bet you don’t know any woman alive who was ever forbidden from going to school, voting or filing patents. Why are you still complaining about it?

    • http://matthewabsurdity.blogspot.com/ Matthew

      Well… can you tell me why still it is MEN who make almost ALL important motivation even in regions in which such restriction absolutely don’t exist?
      (e.g. USA, UK, Some parts of China…)

    • Peter Charnley

      Oh Sonia I worship you and all of womankind. And I fully recognize that without the input of female ingenuity the foundation stones of modern civilization could never have been laid.

      Paul, please give credit where credit is due and try to apply a little unprejudiced perspective when looking at the astonishing world we are now living in.

      Paul, can you honestly imagine how you would feel if you were a human being living in medieval Europe suddenly deposited, without warning, into the 21st century ? Can you imagine how such a person might interpret the obvious and phenomenal defeat of the natural world that has been achieved by humanity ?

      Take a look at the list below Paul. We should feel humbled and should fully appreciate just how far the human race has come over the past few centuries. We should feel an enormous debt of gratitude. I do.

      Read, learn, inwardly digest and, above all, learn respect.

      Ms. Benjamin was a black woman inventor who received a patent. She received a patent for an invention she called a “Gong and Signal Chair for Hotels”.
      Bessie Blount invented a device to help disabled people eat with less difficulty.
      An improvement to the ironing board was invented by African American Sarah Boone on April 26, 1892.
      Dianne Croteau invented Actar 911, the CPR mannequin.
      The convenient disposable diaper was invented by New Yorker Marion Donovan in 1950.
      Sally Fox invented naturally-colored cotton.
      Liquid paper, also known as White-Out, was invented by a woman.
      KK Gregory is the ten-year old inventor of Wristies®.
      Ruth Handler The Barbie Doll in 1959.
      Mary Phelps Jacob invented the bra.
      Marjorie Stewart Joyner invented a permanent wave machine that would allow a hairdo to stay set for days.
      Gabriele Knecht patented the Forward Sleeve design for creating clothing.
      Ann Moore invented the Snugli baby carrier.
      Madame Walker invented a method to soften and smooth African American hair in 1905.

      How would a person plucked from the distant past possibly come to terms with such staggering sights as chairs with gongs, bras, wristies, barbie dolls, cotton doing its own thing and African Americans who didn’t look as they had been struck by lightening ?

      Forgive us our bone-headed ignorance Sonia. Ignore us, and pave the way for our future. Continue to provide the world with purpose and a sense of destiny. Sonia – take us to the stars.

    • Nergal

      I guess the men who invented schools went to school to learn how to do that?

      Most of the early explorers,inventors, and thinkers were men who didn’t even know how to write their own name.

      Leonardo Da Vinci made schematics of flying machines based on principles of aerodynamics he learned by sticking a twig in a stream,Archimedes,it is said, used a bathtub to discover the Archimedes principle.

      Knowledge does not come from school, it comes from observation. No woman has ever been forbidden from observing things, it would be impossible to do so even if someone wanted to.

      You feminists keep coming back to this schooling thing.

      The men who invented the disciplines taught in schools didn’t go to school to learn them, they formulated them themselves. Since it was unregulated at the time, women could have created their own disciplines just as easily, but they didn’t.

      I’ve said this a thousand times. I’ve even said it directly to YOU more than once.

      If women were unable to invent things based on not being able to go to school (patently false since women received a general education in several disciplines AT HOME) then how do you explain male black slaves inventing things despite also not being allowed to go to school and even forbidden from READING AND WRITING (something women were NEVER forbidden from doing in the United States)?

    • mideonphish

      Gotta love these women who like to think they know it all, huh!

      Sonia,

      Yes isn’t It a great pity that they didn’t forbid you from going to school,
      as then you wouldn’t be on this website wasting everyone else’s
      time talking about things you don’t have a hope in hell of ever actually understanding.

      The more I read unspeakably ignorant comments like your own,
      the more firmly convinced I become that giving women the right to vote
      was the single biggest mistake humanity ever made.

      As for you deary, I would suggest that you quit trying to play the intellectual lest you succeed in making a complete fool of yourself.

    • Eff’d Off

      Sonia…. c’mon now you know it, and we know you know we know you know it…

      Women cannot compete with men when it comes to inventing stuff.

      If you were a man would you still be sitting on your tall cross-eyed horse shouting out the same lame drivel ?

      You know it’s true and secretly you hate it.

  • Delusions of heliocentrism

    Heads up, the PC mafia is likely to use Cordelia Fine’s “Delusions of Gender” book as a rebuttal to the arguments in this article. I personally find Ms. Fine’s book to be wholly unconvincing, yet the only one who has thus far tried to challenge her argument is Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen.

    http://issuu.com/thepsychologist/docs/psy1110/15

    We need to have a point-by-point debunking of “Delusions of Gender”, because almost no one is challenging this piece of femprop, and it is actively being used to suppress/attack any research on biological gender difference. The reason why is obvious: the money spigot flowing to femarxism gets closed when confronted by hard scientific evidence. The fembot lobby has already tried infiltrate the hard sciences and largely failed (unlike the AGW lobby), so instead they’re taking a different tack and trying to de-legitimize them. Most of their efforts thus far have been laughable and rather counterproductive, but this new book marks a definite increase of sophistication in the ploy.

    Anyway, it shouldn’t be too hard to construct a brief debunking, particularly if we elaborate on some of the points presented by Baron-Cohen.

  • Kris

    Completely agree with Angry Harry’s thesis. Men are valued for their intelligence and the societal rewards that flow from it. Women are valued for their beauty and their ability to bear and nurture children. And so the evolution progressed the males and females on those divergent paths. You can see this playing out all around you. Stroll into any shopping mall – you would see that the majority of items displayed and vended are for the female gender -items to enhance their attractiveness (to the males); and the majority of the shoppers you find are female. As females are busy shopping for their nail polishes and mascaras, their male counterparts are slogging away in their corporate offices and labs – each trying to make oneself desirable to the opposite gender. This is the way evolution progressed so far and will hitherto. Perhaps until the time the intelligence of males has no more significance for mating and procreation. If feminists want to hasten forth their utopia, the best strategy perhaps is to counsel their sisters to seek out and mate with the dumbest of the males. Over time, intelligence as a valued male trait, would probably cease to be.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Matthew

    “Still, I think AH should consider changing his argumentative style a bit, since he has made a considerable number of mistakes in his minor points. ”

    I do make mistakes – but I don’t leave mistakes hanging around on my site.

    I get rid of them.

    @Sonia

    “It’s hard to invent things when people FORBID YOU FROM GOING TO SCHOOL”

    Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are female.

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia

    No-one is blocking them from contributing.

    • http://matthewabsurdity.blogspot.com/ Matthew

      I am sorried that I didn’t say it clearly.

      What I mean by “mistakes” is that I think you could consider adding some reference to your articles, rather than simply supporting your points with some quotes. Because the majority of people (or men at least) are more likely to be convinced by reference rather than quotes, assuming that they have basic knowledge about logics.

      I understand that you are very busy, maybe you can have someone else do this job for you?

      • yurlungur

        Mathew said:
        “I understand that you are very busy, maybe you can have someone else do this job for you?”

        Is there some reason why this can’t be you considering you are “knowledgeable” about such things.
        Why don’t you compile a list of references and edit his articles to link to them?

    • Never Blue Again

      Please read this…..

      http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/communication-styles-make-a-difference

      Read specially the comments…..
      I can’t stop laughing …… :D

      The researcher (linguistic professor) says linguistic is the problem ….. it’s Not Women Friendly….!!

      O’h GOD… !!

      Some Future Expectations :
      Feminist Web developer : The websites structure is not Women friendly. Too much backward, forward here and there hyperlinks. Too Bad. We are too busy with family and social pressure that it’s too hard to maintain. Wikipedia must change it’s hyper-linking standard. It’s an oppression to women ; designed by patriarchal society.

      Feminist working in Keyboard manufacturing company:
      Well the keyboard design is not much female friendly. It’s HARD to type for that long. Specially with the FACTS . ;)
      We need to redesign the keyboard for women. :!:

      O’Boy someone hit me in the head…. otherwise i’ll die laughing…. !! :lol:

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Adi

    ““A high IQ is just a tiny help and the difference between average women and average men is far too small to dwell upon.”

    But ***at the highest levels*** the NUMBER of men therein exceeds that of women by some considerable amount.

    For some 98% of us, the difference in IQ between men and women is just about irrelevant. But, at the very top, it is the men who outnumber the women.

    I should also add that many of these top men are likely to be somewhat aspergic/autistic in character.

    Furthermore, **traditional** IQ tests are statistically jiggered to ensure that males and females both come out to average 100.

    • Tom M

      The last woman I saw with a very high IQ was as dumb as a box of rocks. She could not apply it constructively to anything but brainwashed Marxism. It only reflected her ability to memorize and parrot BS. A high-IQ Useful Idiot.

  • Zuberi

    Of course men are smarter than women. It’s been that way since the beginning of recorded history. However you can’t repeat this in public because it’s Un PC and the walking dead (liberals and feminists hate mongers) shame and demonize you into silence.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Matthew

    “the majority of people (or men at least) are more likely to be convinced by reference rather than quotes, assuming that they have basic knowledge about logics.”

    You wish, eh? …

    http://www.angryharry.com/esScienceDoesNotHelpVeryMuch.htm

    LOL

  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    Could it be that most women are just lazy, expecting others to do what they too could do?

  • yurlungur

    @L.Vinczer
    Could be, maybe It’s the fact that women simply do not have to work as hard as men to survive. Women just don’t have to be as dedicated as they can rely on the support of others. Women are just not as willing to support a man financially – who know maybe if they did men would quit their jobs to stay at home.

    @harry
    “Furthermore, **traditional** IQ tests are statistically jiggered to ensure that males and females both come out to average 100.”

    How are these test statistically jiggered?

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @yurlungur

    See the third section here, …

    http://www.angryharry.com/esMenareMoreIntelligentthanWomen.htm

    • yurlungur

      Thank you. If they Don’t like the result then they change the test – by making it more female friendly.

      • yurlungur

        Oh sorry, I think I made a mistake.
        Do you mean that the area where women do well are rated more highly or are more female questions inserted into the test.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @yurlungur

    The test items remain the same – more or less.

    But when they compute the overall IQs – across thousands of individuals – they will weight the various subtests (even the various questions) in such a way as to maximise the correlations between the weighted results and what appears to be ‘intelligence’ – the latter being deemed to be related to academic-type capabilities and success (among other things) AND TO OTHER ITEMS IN THE TEST.

    They will also weight all these things in such a way as to equalise the IQs of males and females.

    This is a completely valid thing to do because it is quite likely that the nature of our IQs simply differs depending on our gender.

    It is NOT an attempt to pander to women. It is simply a genuine attempt to get a good measure of IQ – mostly for practical purposes; e.g. for schooling.

    Think about a test that determines how attractive people are.

    Quite clearly, the women who are rated, say, 8/10, will have somewhat different characteristics from men who are also rated 8/10.

    The problems with measuring IQ are similar.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Defying Gravity Edition

  • josh
    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      Yes, it’s well known girls develop faster at a young age and then boys catch up when they are teens.

      “academics” don’t translate into real world accomplishments.

  • eBrady98

    Aw, this is depressing, especially for me, as I’m a 14 year old girl.
    However, I do agree with all your points about feminism. One came to my school. I wouldn’t exactly call her a feminist, more of a man hater.
    Anyway, this bitch was rambling on about how men oppress her, blah blah blah, but she was happy enough to let my male teacher hold the door open for her. And to let a man queue for her dinner for her (yes, that happened.)
    But, it is argued that women are too emotional. There are exceptions. I’m a teenage girl. Every girl around me is a victim to her own hormones; crying one minute, laughing the next. Unless they are all schizophrenic, I’m assuming that’s normal behavior.
    I, on the other hand, am not emotional what so ever. The last time I cried was when a loved one died. I’m sure that’s allowed, right?
    People are so quick to judge. Like feminist assuming that all men are pigs, and men assuming that most/all women are whiny bitches. It goes both ways.
    Personally, I’m very interested in forensic science. Oh no, I can’t get a job in forensic science because my IQ is statistically 3.63 points lower than a given man!
    Statistically speaking.

    • Never Blue Again

      WOW..!! You’re 14…. Yet you’re observations are quite fascinating. I bet you have a lot higher IQ then you think.

      Yet you’ve missed the point a little bit. Statistics don’t imply on a person to person comparison. It implies on collective comparisons.

      Collectively WOMEN may lag 3.6 IQ then MEN. But as an individual you may lead say 20 point from an individual MAN and may lag 10 points from another individual MAN. It depends on with whom you are comparing yourself.

      Wish you best with you’re interest in forensic science.

  • tookit

    I like this article, but it is perhaps a bit one-sided. Statistically speaking, there are more extremely intelligent men than there are extremely intelligent women, and there are also more extremely dumb men than there are extremely dumb women.
    As a result, calling underrepresentation of women in science and government opression is bullshit.

  • matt_m

    It’s funny how a good part of your text and respective arguments are based on an illustration that you put together. I wasn’t able to get through the end of this none sense. You are a joke not only to all civilized and educated individuals, but to all men for that matter.

    • Never Blue Again

      if you talk in specific arguments, then it would make it a lot better for rest of us to argue with you.

  • Coriolanus

    [CITATION NEEDED]

  • Never Blue Again

    Harry …… Man i’m a big FAN. Almost eaten your entire website …… !!

  • Never Blue Again

    One common argument we regularly hear that the reason of very insignificant contribution of WOMEN to Science in the past (pretty much true for present also) was because they were oppressed, kept in house and they weren’t allowed to do research for Science. And MEN were privileged to do anything they like.

    Hmm…..!! Ok let’s start to eat this argument bit by bit.

    First thing Women were never oppressed.
    Never. They were always been the protected class for any nation. Yes they were mistreated by enemy nations. But ENEMY is ENEMY you see. Enemy has no gender.

    If some Alien attacks earth what would Women do ….? Tell them it is not right to oppress women …?? Feminist will start protest….. ?? Another slutwalk ….. ?? Wow … !! How awesome….!! Why don’t feminist just go to Palestine or Gaza and deploy these awesome techniques against Israel ….!! Clearly Women in Gaza (men also) are the most oppressed class of women in the whole world …. !!

    Well they will never do that. Put it simply THEY ARE THE MOST COWARD PEOPLE. And to be BRAVE first you need to be honest. Honesty is the fuel that drives the engine of Bravery.

    And in a parallel argument most of the men who invented something were pretty much poor. Some of them were orphan…!! They suffer disgustingly bad childhood. Put it simply most of the inventor were from oppressed class of the society.
    So even if oppression existed against Women in general it should work somehow in favor of them not against. Same way it worked somehow in favor of Men. Because oppression drives any human being crazy….!! And to be a scientist you have to be a bit crazy or passionate if you say so.

    Second “Women were pretty much kept inside the house.”
    Ok..!! that is true to some extent. It is not that they were never allowed to go outside or do things. But their movements were monitored by family members to make sure they were safe. That’s it. And there was nothing wrong to share their needs with some of their family members to get help which they can’t do themselves. If they truly wanted to do something better for the society….!!! Besides the mobility were varied in between different classes of people. Not that mobility was controlled to equal extent for every woman.

    Some may say well women were not allowed to file patent …. !! Who the hell try to invent something primarily to file patent? Especially back then …!! And the rigid concept of patent is relatively very recent idea. No one cared about it that much back then because patent is related to copyright and royalty. To enforce those you need a robust law, monitoring and enforcement team. Those were not present in those days. Men invented thousands of things without even considering about the idea of patent.

    Besides most of the Men who invented something back then… where they invented it … ? In some fancy research LAB . . . . ?? In some big corporate company R&D office…. ? In some University LAB …. ?? Where …. ?? Mostly in their HOME…… you see.

    Newton discovered the idea of gravity when he was seating under an apple tree…!! Women were so oppressed that they were not allowed to sit under an apple tree … !!! WOW . . . !!

    Back then research was not building nuclear bomb, Nano particles or genetically engineered virus..! It required much less resource then we use today. That’s why it was possible to conduct a research pretty much by a single man himself. Poor man mostly you see. So there were thousands women, whose were much wealthier than most of the scientists and inventors.

    But what did they do with their resources …. ?? Pretty much nothing …. !! Why ….. ?? Some may say well they didn’t have to or they were not required or expected to do so.

    Well I disagree. It’s another excuse.
    Women were not expected to do so that doesn’t mean if they do society would not accept it.

    As an individual was newton expected to discover gravity.. ? Her mother wanted him to look after their family property. He was dropped from school for lake of merit (WTF… ??) … !!!

    Was Einstein expected to discover theory of relativity…?? He was a patent Clark (!!) for god’s sake…!!

    Another very important concept which some people don’t understand clearly. Science itself doesn’t make money. It is the application of the science which we call technology that produces the money. General people don’t use science; they use technology. So unless we’ve devised a way to apply the scientific knowledge, until then it has no tangible value.

    So back then when scientific research was pretty much single man’s job. It could not be a profession itself. It was the passion of some mad, crazy men. They have to do something beside the research itself to feed their family and themselves. Because unless you’ve found the solution and find a way to apply it in a practical field there is no way someone is going to give you money for your bullshit.

    So when women were busy to do housework then, men also were busy to work outside the home which was just work as a profession. Beside that some men did something extra as science for their society which led the civilization where it is today. GOT IT … ??

    And finally “Men were privileged to do anything so they did science.”
    Yah … !! Men were so privileged to do science that thousands of them burned alive, throne to jail or their head goes under the guillotine.
    Giordano Bruno burned alive.
    A man like Socrates was forced to drink hemlock.
    Galileo was throne to jail and forced to confess that he was wrong about his theories.
    And many more examples you can have. Just Google it ………

    But did those things stop MEN from doing science or research. NO.!! Rather they accelerated it. WHY …. ??

    Because there is really something called APTITUDE inside most MEN. (and small number of WOMEN)

    Which was indicated by Harvard professor Lawrence H. Summers and the Feminist (read IDIOTs) have no idea what this shit is ….. ?? and started CRYING . . . . . . !! The very thing Feminist do best.

  • angela

    No Female Pascal, Milton, or Kant? Maybe you have’t studied intellectual history as much as you should have before writing this (which is odd; you’re a man, aren’t you? Shouldn’t you have obsessed over it by now to the point of possessing the whole of human wisdom? Shirking your male duties I see. For shame). Simone de Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt, Emma Goldman, Luce Irigaray, Teresa of Avila (who brings to mind the point that many, many women have contributed to religion; some of the most vital figures in mystic religious thought have been women), Mary Wollstonecraft, Madame curie (to name one among MANY historically indispensable female scientists), George Sand, Ayn Rand, Flannery O’Conner, Clara Schumann. Not only that, but if you want to talk about obsession and intellectual dedication, and this coming from a classically trained pianist with many competition wins under belt, the world of competitive art is overwhelmingly populated by women as well as men. Martha Argerich, Valentina Lisitisa, Yuja Whang, Angela Hewitt, and I could go on and on. These women are not just notable in their field, but many of them, such as Martha Argerich, were monumental. I would also like to point out that your appeal to emotions is ridiculous. You basically assume based on your predisposition to sexism that women exercise more irrational emotion then men. Anyone who has ever been to a baseball game knows how absurd that is. (need I point out that men commit more violent crimes then women. Stronger, more irrational emotional responses are needed for such crimes). Another point, your augments regarding the statistical inequalities between men and women, and how women show less “ambition” can be equally shown to exist between white male boys and black male boys, but we know this is because of societal structures which have prevented social advancement in the latter. It is a sociological fact that these inequalities apply to women for the same reasons. So much ignorance in one place at one time. Thank you for killing a few of my precious female brain cells. Also, the appeal to women dating “up” is explained away with patriarchy. As society comes to grant more equality to women, women will stop seeing the need to advance themselves through partnership. I, for one, am in a very equal relationship with my fiance, who is brilliant, but not any more brilliant than I am. We are both about to study philosophy in graduate school. We make identical grades, and want to pursue research projects together for publishing in our post graduate work. I really see no need for him to be more intelligent than I am. and neither does he. But that’s because he’s secure in his penis size, unlike most of the gentlemen who likely frequent this page :)

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Oh look. Another feminist who knows everything. yay.

    • tamerlame

      Simone de Beauvoir? Really? Your list sucks and the sad thing is I could come up with a better list of females who are intellectuals.

  • Joe

    You’re missing the point entirely, and a feminist would have your head for positing such things.

    Do you know what the feminist doctrine is? It goes something like this…

    WOMEN are fundamentally equal to (or better than) MEN in every discernible way. Therefore, any discrepancy in outcome is due to the latter’s oppression over the former.
    What is this oppression? And where did it come from?
    It cannot be the result of emotional manipulation; as any feminist will tell you, a woman is equally capable of using such tactics, and intelligent enough to see through it.
    It cannot be the result of physical manipulation; as any feminist will tell you, a woman is equal in physical strength to a man.

    It cannot be the result of intellectual manipulation; as any feminist will tell you, a woman is equally intelligent (if not more so).

    So, about this oppression…

    What is it, and where does it come from?

    I think everyone’s first clue that Feminism is a massive inferiority complex, fueled with circular, nonsensical points is that they give themselves no possible way to have been oppressed throughout history if the hypotheses of their doctrine were accurate.