Originally Posted by
SwordoftheVistula
From another thread which now appears to be closed:
The actual scientific studies which have been done show men to be smarter, with an IQ of about 5 points higher:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...hard-Lynn.html
at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.
The undeniable, easily measurable fact remains that, by the time both sexes reach 21, men, on average, score five IQ points higher than women.
So why the differential? I think it is a combination of:
Explosion in size of humanities & similar degrees (non math/science).
Lower-to-middle class men don't go to college as much, since they tend toward jobs in construction, truck driving, and military which do not need any education. Lower-to-middle class women in tend towards jobs such as secretary, clerical, teaching, etc usually need at least an associate's degree from a community college.
Continued resistance to standardized testing, and instead reliance on grades in K-12 (which are subjective and vary widely) as well as bullshit essays and such.
In the K-12 environment, I'd say in addition to more emphasis on humanities type subjects, there is the focus on conformity and following rules, which tends towards girls instead of boys. Also, the grades can often be subjective, and teachers' opinions of girls are usually higher due to nicer personalities and less likelihood to create classroom disruptions.
Women are Inferior
Females are more sensitive and better at discerning taste and smell. They have greater tactile sensitivity from birth. Women are superior at child care, perceiving signals, reading emotional undercurrents and performing fine, detailed work. Here we are talking about rationality and civilisation.
1. The natural domain of the male is the thing. They can be excited and intrigued, even obsessed, about some thing. Males of certain races have evolved the ability to sublimate sexual drives into physical ones. The result is the discovery or invention of every modern amenity: electricity, computers, engines, cars, science and modern medicine, washing machines and the contraceptive pill, to name but a few. The ability of the male to process abstract concepts and objects is superior. Since the male is superior at manipulating things, the female imitates the male.
2. The natural domain of the female is relationships. Relationships are her primary sexual activity. Females are superior at understanding and manipulating them.
Women are totally sexual creatures who will go to practically any lengths to avoid physical sex.
Here the female is like an expert and naturally gifted chess player playing a beginner. The female expert makes the male beginner work, letting him win occasionally to maintain his interest, but whenever she really wants to win she does. By watching his fumbling attempts she learns his strategies even before he has learnt them himself. This female strategy of manipulating the male into doing her work is inferior.
The manipulative skill of females has evolved to compensate for the greater physical strength and aggression of males. The reason females abhor violence so much is because this is a battleground on which they always lose. Since the female is adept at manipulating relationships, the male can imitate the female.
Ultimately the only thing that relationships produce is babies, which already exist in abundance.
3. Females are hypocritical. Its likely origin is that females are empathic. They are sensitive to and aware of the needs of others, particularly the sexual needs of males, yet their optimal strategy relies on denying them sexual access most of the time.
Females are ambivalent, and thus neurotic. They (at least sometimes) desire sex, and it makes them feel more feminine, but their basic strategy is to raise the costs of sex and this involves avoiding physical sex, because scarcity raises its value. By signalling and other means females seek to load their neurosis onto males.
Females discourage others from pursuing policies they employ themselves (e.g. discouraging males from sexually discriminating but supporting each other). This is a form of Malign Encouragement, though its archetype is probably females encouraging competition among males while they conspire.
4. Females are selfish. The evolutionary origin is that they are thinking not only for themselves but for their child dependants (including eggs). A female may appear to be doing something with an altruistic motive but the reality, almost without exception, is that she is merely satisfying her own instincts. Males will sacrifice themselves for a greater cause, for example in war. Females are more subtle, take less risks and are less adventurous.
If a woman says something which is right, it is by accident. --PROVERB
Females enforce conformity. Females vary less than males. Exceptionally gifted individuals are almost always male.
Since females have been selecting males with female traits for generations, it is not surprising that many males now express feminine characteristics (e.g. monogamous males). Some exceptional males express female characteristics more strongly than do females themselves. This is the reason that while women are generally better at cooking, the best chefs are men.
Females have a deep desire for safety and moderation, which has its origin in her childbearing role. The practice of derogating anyone who sticks out from the crowd is known in Holland as De Wet van Jantje (Little Johnnies’ Law), in Denmark as the Jättelřven and in Sweden as the Jantelagen. If female influence is unchecked the result is a degenerating cycle of blandness, mediocrity and cultural stagnation.
"Cats, from their nocturnal rambling habits, cannot be matched, and, although so much valued by women and children, we hardly ever see a distinct breed kept up." --Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1968, p. 99
6. Females are immature. The evolutionary origin is that immature females interact more successfully with children and make better mothers. The origin of male maturity is that they compete.
8. Females are unable to separate feelings from logic. The corpus callosum, which joins the two hemispheres of the brain, is wider in women than in men. Female instincts are regarded as safer, so there has been less need for females to inhibit them. Females’ favourite occupation is sitting around, measuring, thinking and talking about their feelings. The female instinct is to be passive and to signal. Contrariwise, males must control their instinct to act or they are soon taken out of circulation, either by being killed by other members of the tribe or being imprisoned.
9. Females indulge in irrational fear. They have a thirst for accounts which reinforce that fear. Females project more than males.
The more latitude the female is allowed, the more her capricious nature will be expressed, the more she will project that nature onto the male and the more insecure of his intentions she will become.
10. Females conspire. They instinctively act together to raise the costs of sex and promote monogamy.
Many female procedures involve compound benefit, conferring benefit in multiple ways. The following scenario illustrates a subtle expression of the Conspiracy strategy.
A male makes a random, friendly comment to a female, which she interprets as an approach. Not only does her interpretation benefit her personally, by making her feel desired (enhancing her), but it also confers benefit to females generally. She is likely to have conveyed her interpretation to him in some way. Then he, learning that a pleasantry is likely to be interpreted as an approach in any case, thereafter limits his friendly comments to females he actually desires, weakening his hand. Thus Ambiguity of Intention is removed from males. Females seek to monopolize AoI.
Conspiracy is inherently inferior because competition allows the fittest to prevail.
11. Females know now no limit. They do not check their own behaviour but rely on others to do it for them. Females make unreasonable demands to test and extend their power. They do not limit the excessive behaviour of other females but will exploit whatever gains their excesses achieve (another expression of the Conspiracy strategy). The answer to the question ‘What will women do?’ is ‘Whatever they can get away with.’ Women are never satisfied.
"It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation". --Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 858
"Amongst the half-human progenitors of man, and amongst savages, there have been struggles between the males during many generations for the possession of females. But mere bodily strength would do little for victory, unless associated with courage, perseverance, and determined energy. With social animals, the young males have to pass through many a contest before they win a female, and the older males have to retain their females by renewed battles... To avoid enemies or to attack them with success, to capture wild animals, and to fashion weapons, requires the aid of higher mental faculties, namely observation, reason, invention, or imagination... Consequently... we would expect that they would tend to be transmitted chiefly to the male offspring... Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is indeed fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen...’
An incident... occurred in a troupe of chimpanzees observed by Jane Goodall. One day she saw a subordinate male pick up a pair of empty kerosene cans from near her camp and carry them up to the top of a hill; below a group of dominant males were eating some bananas that she had laid out as bait. The chimpanzee then proceeded to run down the hill towards the dominant males, banging the two cans together to create an awful din. Startled by the clamour, the dominant males rushed off for cover, deserting their bananas. The result of this episode was that the subordinate male not only got the bananas but was elevated to the rank of alpha-male with all its attendant sexual (and breeding) privileges. This illustrates the principle that intellectual prowess may supplant physical strength as a means to achieving dominance in the animal hierarchy, thus helping to account for the startling evolution of human brain power."
--Glenn Wilson quoting Darwin in The Great Sex Divide
Some Female Characteristics and their Evolutionary Origin
Ambivalence — Empathic/denial of males’ evident sexual needs.
Avoidance of risk — Pre-menopausal females are always gravid.
Conspiracy — Acting in unison intensifies male breeding competition and enforces monogamy.
Control of information — Manipulative: compensates for males’ greater physical strength.
Emotionality — Engenders susceptibility to manipulation.
Illogicality — Confounds males, increases the costs of sex, inspires sublimation in males.
Inability to egress — Facilitates the acquisition of the best possible mate.
Inability to sublimate — Fecundity.
Imitation — Obscures the essentially sexual nature of females; utilitarian.
Immaturity — Forging of successful relationships with children.
Imprecision — Fosters ambiguity, promotes familiarity.
Loquacity — Teaching language skills to children.
Neurosis — Females want sex/denial raises the costs of sex.
Obfuscation — Confuses males, disguises female strategies.
Opportunism — Facilitates the acquisition of the best possible mate.
Selfishness — Pre-menopausal females are always gravid.
Signalling — Passive, safe, ambiguous, manipulative; transfers neurosis onto males.
Sophistry — Manipulative: compensates for males’ greater physical strength.
Speculation — Enables sex to be foreseen well in advance without logic.
Speed of response — Compensates for males’ greater physical strength.
Tergiversation — Facilitates the acquisition of the best possible mate.
13. Females have no sense of humour. Women often define Our Cosy Circle (OCC) by deriding people they wish to exclude from it. They can discourage true humour because males use it to distribute information and alleviate neurosis, and it is in the female interest to maintain the male in as high a state of neurosis as possible. By disallowing humour on particular themes taboos can be instituted. Then the perception of a topic can be altered to further an agenda which would be rejected were it to be openly stated.
Dispersive Procedures serve to dissipate normal male reactions such as anger and surprise. When a female says ‘No’ to some trivial request in jest this is merely the precursor to a refusal being made in earnest.
The female will use any argument, however ridiculous, if it suits her purpose.
14. Women are unforgiving. Grievances are too useful to them as weapons to be discarded and forgotten.
15. Females always reduce everything to the personal. Further, females are superficial, because this is consistent with ambivalence.
16. Females’ strategy of creating problems and then blaming males is inferior. The most important expression of this is over-population; that is, women having babies. Human populations have increased roughly fifty-fold in just five centuries, and over-population is the ultimate cause of most modern-day problems. The female who says that she would not like a baby is a liar, because she has become extinct, just as surely as one cannot have a eunuch for a father. Men, most of the time, would simply be happy with sex.
Intelligence may be used to solve problems and create wealth or merely to divest others of wealth by clever manipulation.
https://www.heretical.com/sgs-1998/aaw.html
I shall begin this discussion of sex differences in ability and achievement in the place where the most striking and controversial gender differences are observed. Virtually all the people throughout history whose achievements are acknowledged as products of undisputed genius have one thing in common. They come from a great variety of geographical, national, social and religious backgrounds, but they are all male. Starting with names like Da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, Galton, Shakespeare, Edison, Goethe, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Picasso, we might have to fill many pages before the first comparable woman would appear. When we consider the claims of women for inclusion in the list of outstanding accomplishments, their contributions can be seen mostly in the fields of literature (Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf), humanitarianism (Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa) or politics (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir), rather than science, technology music or fine art.
The supremacy of men in the field of scientific achievement can also be seen in the record of Nobel prizes awarded for physics, chemistry and medicine/physiology. Reviewing the background of the 164 recipients of these prizes between 1900 and 1950, Moulin (1955) noted that only three were women and they had all shared prizes with their husbands. The only exception was Madame Curie, who after sharing a prize with husband Pierre was later awarded another one independently. In a follow-up study by Berry (1981), the sex of the recipients was not mentioned at all. Berry describes the national origin, race, personality and social background of prize-winners, even the age at which their father died, but he does not mention whether any were female. When I contacted him for further information he explained there were so few women in his sample he didn’t think them worth mentioning. Apparently there has been no appreciable increase in the number of women receiving Nobel prizes for science in recent years.
In a recently published book on scientific genius, Simonton (1988) discusses every imaginable demographic and personality factor that might be related to scientific brilliance, including such things as age, birth order and persistence, but sex or gender do not appear in his index. Is this because the gender issue is too hot to handle, or are we supposed to assume without inquiry that genius is a purely male phenomenon? Certainly, raising this question in public today is no way to make female friends, but it is surely intellectual cowardice to side-step it in a book specifically about the topic.
Few social learning theorists or feminists, if pressed, would deny the preponderance of male genius, but would proffer an explanation in terms of the limited educational opportunities for women throughout history and general discouragement to achieve outside the realm of motherhood and the home. This explanation seems to be unsatisfactory on a number of counts.
Variations in the social position of women do not seem to be accompanied by any change in the sex ratio of geniuses. For example, despite the increased number of women in science laboratories in the last three or four decades, the outstanding discoveries are still mostly made by men.
Many male geniuses have to override considerable disadvantage in their educational or social background and considerable social or religious opposition before their contributions are recognized. Galileo, despite being old, feeble, and virtually blind, was imprisoned by the Vatican for his heretical support of the heliocentric theory. Michael Faraday was the son of an itinerant tinker, had practically no schooling and could not afford any books. Isaac Newton came from a family of small farmers, was a premature child so puny and weak that he was not expected to live and received a poor education at the local village school. Charles Dickens and Charlie Chaplin both came from backgrounds of working-class poverty that they capitalized upon in their art. Charles Darwin defied his religious training and risked social ostracism by advocating evolution theory. George Washington Carver emerged from a background of civil war and slavery in Missouri to become one of America’s greatest biological scientists, despite constant hunger, poverty and ill-health and having been denied education because of his colour. Social and educational advantages cannot be held accountable for the achievements of men such as these, so why should disadvantage be invoked to account for the absence of female achievement?
Social learning theory does not adequately explain why a proportion of women do occasionally achieve quite well in certain areas (e.g. literature and politics) but not in others (e.g. science and architecture). Music composition is an interesting case in point, since it is a male-dominated profession despite the fact that girls are given more than equal encouragement to learn music at school and there are many accomplished women performers. British composer Peter Maxwell Davies recalls asking to study music at high school in Manchester and was told very firmly by the headmaster, ‘This is not a girls’ school!’ For hundreds of years European ladies have been expected to sing and play an instrument such as the piano as a social grace, and yet the great composers have without exception been men.
Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 97-99. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.
https://www.heretical.com/wilson/geniuses.html
The nature of the female
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.
Natural weapons
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.
Female truth
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
Feminine charms
Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.
Absence of genius
Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.
Insipid women-veneration
This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.
Monogamy and ‘filles de joie’
In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.
No argument about polygamy
There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.
Property and inheritance
In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband’s money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.
In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.
That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.
Up to ‘Property and inheritance’ the translation is by R. J. Hollingdale, from Arthur Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms (Penguin 1970), then by T. Bailey Saunders.
https://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html
Reply With Quote
Latvija
Bookmarks