In on billionth misc woman hate thread.

But on a srs note, I had read somewhere that autistic women often have equivalent or better social skills than the average male. This is kinda interesting, as autism is overwhelmingly (~80%) diagnosed in males, and there's a sense that it might be underdiagnosed in women because even a disabled woman may be socially functional enough to where it may never be noticed as anything wrong - unlike your average male who pretty much turns into a miscer.

It's not meaningless, cultural marxism is a kind of neo-marxism that originated from the Frankfurt School in Germany. Listening to Flynn talk, he obviously supports this kind of thinking. Simply saying something is meaningless does not make it so.



I just read the study you cited. A simple read of the methodology shows that these researches included 2 inferior IQ tests to get their result of trying to disprove the majority of scientist in this field who show that men have higher IQ. The gold standard of general intelligence testing is the Ravens. They used a language heavy test in this study. We already know females have a very slight advantage with language. Language is not general intelligence. To test for g, there must be problem solving and pattern recognition. What these researchers did was take an inferior test that does not actually measure general intelligence, then also take a proper IQ test and say "look the females did better than males on this language test, so even though the males outperform females on the problem solving test that means there is no IQ difference after all". Did you actually read the methodology?
It seems to me like you are starting with a conclusion that females and males have the same IQ, and that you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that suggests this is not true and just sticking to your conclusion for ideological reasons.

You argument is essentially what climate change deniers do. The empirical evidence shows the Earth is warming, and 97% of scientist agree the Earth is warming, but climate change deniers ignore all the evidence and stick to the 3% of scientist who conduct biased research. When it comes to IQ, 97% of the research shows that adult males have a higher IQ in general intelligence. In some studies it is as high as a 12 point difference. But instead you chose to cling to studies that test adolescents, and ONE study that didn't even use a Raven's Progressive Matrices test, but used 1 proper test, and 2 inferior tests, then averaged out the 3 different kinds of tests to say there is not significant difference. It would be like testing who is a better weight lifter, and including one bench press test, then testing a 5 mile run, then saying "oh yea the men did better on the bench press, but the women did better on the 5 mile run, so theres no difference, they bench the same"

But again, what do you mean by superior? Are you saying males are superior at fulfilling their role than females, as in, they are better adapted with the skills and qualities needed? Or do you mean that the male role is superior to the female´s (utterly hilarious)? Again, you have to argue either one of those positions otherwise you are making a VALUE JUDGEMENT. ****tard.

So in other words if women are better at anything than men the value of said thing is reduced immediately. What you are doing in engineering an ÍQ test that guarantees males will score higher.

I´ve personally never heard a scientist say that there is a significant difference between mens and womens median IQ scores.

the argument is men commit murder 10 times more than women and most crime is done by men. by far, women are better than men in that regard. however men are better than women at inventing things, brb the internet, the car, the airplane, we went to the moon (allegedly) etc, most great inventions were invented by men

I am saying nothing about the male's role or the female role. You brought all that up.

I am saying that males are stronger than females. I am saying that males are faster than females. These are averages we find when we test for these specific things.

On the intelligence thing, given that men and women do not score significantly differently in terms of their median IQ scores

the discrepencies in things such as rocket scientists chesss masters, etc. being how they are almost all male (which you claim is evidence of superior male intellect) can be explained by the different temperments and tendencies between en and women (why does this argument always begin and end at the wage gap debate?).

What you are doing is looking at data (such as there are ore chess grandmasters than women) and using it to confirm a prewritten conclusión. This is bad use of data. As a rule, data is best used in raising questions, not in answering them. There are far more explanations available.

Ok, two things here:

1. You don´t know how to argue.



You can´t just dismiss your opponents counter arguments by saying ´I didn´t bring all that up, you did. You can´t force me to defend my position. I´m just going to reiterate my hypothesis as loudly as I can until you understand how right I am´.

2. You don´t even understand your own arguments.



Ok, great. But these are the tenets of your argumment, not the arguent itself. I mean, do you honestly think anyone would disagree with these points? (I disagree on the intelligence thing but that is for another time).Your argument is obviously greater than this. Let me tell you what it is.You are saying that males are superior to females. This is your argument (don´t backtrack). This is based on a type of bias known as value judgement. What you have listed is a male skillset which equips them to fulfill their role in society (in theory), and you are listing the male skill set (their physichal prowess) and using this to argue that MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO WOMEN.

Now, I can list the things women are better at than men, or specifically, things women can do that men can´t (indeed, some women CAN do some of the things you listed and this makes men insecure about their value in society), but everyone who isn´t a misoynist has already pointed out what those things are.

I do not believe that one skill set is superior to another because to do so would be fundamentally incompatible with any scientific or objective measure, and with the nature of our very species and its survival.

This is last time i reply to you because you keep deliberately misrepresenting my actual arguments. You can't reasonably debate the actual arguments I make so your going to "tell me" what my real arguments are? I don't mind debating Rebel012 because he is a lot more honest and logical in his responses, but with you it's pointless.

You can't reasonably debate the actual arguments I make so your going to "tell me" what my real arguments are?

I deliberately put that line in there to troll you and it worked. You used it an an excuse to duck out of an argument you were clearly losing.

Are you actually denying that your argument is that men are superior to women? All they are superior at is fulfilling their role. Women have a different role that men cannot fulfill. Works both ways. Argument over. Move on. *******.

I dont think he is saying anything of the sort.

Superior is a much more complex metric which would need to be defined and even if it were, its highly likely that definition would lie outside any attempt of empirical objectivity.

You just appear to be a bit dense tbh and cant understand the subtleties of the argument.

Men are biologically, innately superior to women.

Humans are typical of mammals, with the exception of the hyena, almost all mammals have a superior male of the species. In primates it is true in all species. The female is the one that carries the baby, cares for the baby. The male uses his superiority to protect and provide for the female. It's simple biology.

Men are biologically, innately superior to women.

I am saying that males are superior in very specific and objective ways.

Men are biologically, innately superior to women. Both physically, mentally, and emotionally.

This is the guy whose main arguing tactic is to say ´I never said that´ when in fact he did. He denied making the value judgement that female roles are inferior to male roles:

Then when I called him out on why he is wrong to say this while claiming to be sound and scientific, he backtracked, by saying this:

OK, I'll take a crack at this one.
I was raised around racing/mechanical surroundings. I have a documented average IQ score of 147.
I feel a large part of the high score is due to learning mechanical "puzzles" at an early age. Only a small percentage of females get this opportunity, as opposed to a larger percentage of males. Thoughts?

Put the quote into full context...

Mainstream narrative is that all humans are equal in these areas genetically (especially with the IQ which is why that's the one I've talked about the most), and that any differences are either social constructs or caused by men oppressing women. The mainstream belief defies all evidence and observable reality so I do not hold the mainstream view. I am open to having my mind changed provided sufficient evidence and/or a logical argument.

How you twist what I've written in this thread, to mean that the male role in nature is more important than the females role is beyond me and defies all logic. The only thing I can think of is you're either borderline retarded, or deliberately being dishonest. I tend to think it's the latter.

Your main arguing tactic is to use straw man and ad hominems. My stance has always been that men are superior physically, mentally, and emotionally. I've never made any value judgments on whos role is more important in nature. This is what I actually wrote…

´I am not saying the male role is superior to the female role. I am not saying males are superior at fulfilling their gender roles than females.´

I'm not convinced that a larger percentage of males get the opportunity to learn mechanical puzzles relative to females. Idk what you are basing that on? Anecdotally I know neither myself nor my brothers or friends played with mechanical puzzles. Regardless, IQ is most likely a combination of both environment and genetics/biology. There is not sufficient evidence to say with absolute certainty to what degree environment plays a role relative to genetics. Could be 50/50 could be 30/70...I think within 10 years with more genetic research we will know. But my personal opinion is that everyone is born with a genetic potential much like height. Like height, neglect can stop one from reaching their potential. But extra nutrition won't make someone grow taller than their potential. And extra education won't allow them to surpass their IQ potential. An IQ of 147 is 3 standard deviations above the norm, and would be greater than the top 1% of females (or males). May I ask what kind of IQ test was this? Did you take the Ravens Progressive Matrices?

I just provided a series of quotes you ****ing spastic.

nope, once again this is what you said when addressing me, showing you backtracking from the post you made before I entered the thread, on page 5, where you were using the different roles males and females have in the mammals. In that post you also made a number of other ridiculous assertions that you Drew from data, such as that women can´t innovate. What intelectual person would make such a statement?

ITT thorpowers is in disbelief that a female can score higher than him on an IQ test. Asks for pics or it didn´t happen.

Ad hominem...and no, you've yet to provide a quote showing I said that I believe a woman's role in nature is inferior to a man's role. I've already clarified twice that both males and females roles are equally important and necessary for the survival of the species. You refuse to accept this.

Never said women can't innovate, another strawman.

Women are not capable of innovating, building, discovering the way men are. And it's because of innate biological differences.

Aren't women smarter than men ?
Haven't the studies shown that ?

Yes you did, another backtrack:

It's not meaningless, cultural marxism is a kind of neo-marxism that originated from the Frankfurt School in Germany.

You can't be srs with this bit^
Dads/uncles friends, bros, involve other males in their projects ie fixing things. Girls play princess, boys help Dad/other guys, fix chit. <-On average. My friends who went to public school would say most guys took some type of shop class. SRS, how many chicks do you, who can rebuild a carb, or can tell you exactly what all the numbers, and letters mean on the sidewall of a tire? Now how many guys can do that without batting an eyelash?

´Nothing of the sort´?



lol

The Frankfurt school was influenced by a number of thinkers, Marx was only one of them.

Can you explain what the tenets of Neo-Marxism are exactly?

Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky is a good start.