A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Any standard of intelligence that ignores a clear tendency to take unnecessary and often fatal risks is dubious at best.
- Status
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Which is hardly proof of your premise that men are smarter overall.
If most of the really bright and really dumb people come from the male group, and women are closer to a happy medium (when it comes to intelligence) then it all kind of evens out.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
In Spiration may claim persecution, but in any time and place but the modern West his views would be dominant.AngryAtheist8, I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed journals such as Science or Nature that support In Spiration’s claims.I’ll stick behind what I said on the previous page. Honestly, if In Spiration went to a major science forum filled with women, he would be ousted out. If he was in a courtroom would be too. Oh by the way, there a quite a few female judges.
There are still plenty of societies (especially in the Middle East and Africa) where its taken for granted that women are basically inferior and that men (specifically husbands and fathers) are their natural lords and masters.
In Spiration seems unhappy with Western beliefs and attitudes, so perhaps he would be happier in one of those places. Though I imagine any woman stuck with him in such a place would be less happy
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
An oversimplification at best.
Factors like endurance, dexterity, and of course skill also matter when judging such a thing. The strongest person is not always the best athlete.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You have repeatedly claimed that just because you think women are less intelligent than men, that doesn’t automatically mean women are inferior (in your eyes).
Yet here you are, casually dismissing women’s brains as inferior.
Tell me, what organs (if any) do women have that are equal or perhaps even superior to a man’s?
Or are all female organs inferior in your view?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Throughout history women have commonly been dismissed as inferior (to men) or even subhuman. Are you really so close-minded that you cannot understand why this would be a touchy subject for many of them (especially women who have achieved success in formerly male only fields)?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Because (here at least) I often say unpopular things.
That’s okay though, I draw strength from their malice.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I will re-post In Spiration’s words and highlight the relevant portion:
More equivocation. And I don’t think the fact that I tend to believe women are intellectually less capable than men is appropriate first-date material. We must have differing approaches toward attracting girls. And it would most frequently be pure naivete to mention something that’s sure to be misinterpreted or elicit a non-logical, emotional overreaction. (Especially w/women being more socially oriented and inclined to conform to group norms. More later.)
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You (I am using the universal you) need to be able to laugh at the nasty statements and words of hateful people like that, otherwise they will drive you crazy. Besides, nothing upsets such people more than being laughed at.AngryAtheist8, thank you for your post.In Spiration insults towards me as a woman in his post 139 is that of a male chauvinist. You can’t change a male chauvinist. I don’t personally know any male chauvinists.
B
bhall0689
Guest
Hello all. I’ve methodically trudged through all 11 pages of this thread, and I find everyone’s comments very interesting. I don’t plan on getting embroiled in this thread simply because it has divulged into name-calling. I get called enough names in real life, and I don’t have the time to respond to the insults of a faceless forum member.
First of all, at least where I attend college, gender studies is a part of the Sociology department, not the Philosophy department. Sociology is the study of human behavior, particularly the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.
Central to the topic of gender studies is the differentiation between what it means to be MALE/FEMALE, and what it means to be MASCULINE/FEMININE. A person’s sex is static and determined by nature, masculine and feminine qualities are fluid and crafted through socialization.
Gender studies does NOT deny that there are differences between men and women, but what it does assert is that most of these differences are due to different socialization of the masculine/feminine, and have nothing to do with what it actually means to be male or female.
On a side note, no one has ever denied in my gender studies classes that men are generally stronger and more athletic than women. This is a difference that is determined by sex, though, NOT gender.
My point is, is that many of the perceived “differences” between men and women are not so much catalyzed by their physical sex, but by the different ways that society initiates men/women into adulthood.
I wanted to leave this link for anyone that would like to look over it: The Male Privilege Checklist
Readings like this are what true “feminism” is all about.
Frankly, I think the assertion that men are intellectually superior to women is a load of BS. 90% of my professors in college were female, the majority holding doctorates in their field. Women also tended to be more actively involved in my classes, and therefore their comments during discussion/lecture outshone the mens’. Finally, more females are enrolled in college nowadays than men. The new generation is awash with educated, thinking, reading females - out with the old, in with the new!
First of all, at least where I attend college, gender studies is a part of the Sociology department, not the Philosophy department. Sociology is the study of human behavior, particularly the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.
Central to the topic of gender studies is the differentiation between what it means to be MALE/FEMALE, and what it means to be MASCULINE/FEMININE. A person’s sex is static and determined by nature, masculine and feminine qualities are fluid and crafted through socialization.
Gender studies does NOT deny that there are differences between men and women, but what it does assert is that most of these differences are due to different socialization of the masculine/feminine, and have nothing to do with what it actually means to be male or female.
On a side note, no one has ever denied in my gender studies classes that men are generally stronger and more athletic than women. This is a difference that is determined by sex, though, NOT gender.
My point is, is that many of the perceived “differences” between men and women are not so much catalyzed by their physical sex, but by the different ways that society initiates men/women into adulthood.
I wanted to leave this link for anyone that would like to look over it: The Male Privilege Checklist
Readings like this are what true “feminism” is all about.
Frankly, I think the assertion that men are intellectually superior to women is a load of BS. 90% of my professors in college were female, the majority holding doctorates in their field. Women also tended to be more actively involved in my classes, and therefore their comments during discussion/lecture outshone the mens’. Finally, more females are enrolled in college nowadays than men. The new generation is awash with educated, thinking, reading females - out with the old, in with the new!
I
ignatius777
Guest
I’m not sure how saying unpopular things leads to insulting behavior on the part of others. I have heard lots of unpolular things but never felt compelled to insult the people who uttered them.
B
bhall0689
Guest
Sorry - I thought I’d give a little bit more context as to why I posted that link. I was in a rush earlier and didn’t have time to edit my post.
I think that reinforcing the false notion that women are intellectually and physically weak leads to the sort of exploitation that the PDF document I posted touches on.
For the purpose of illustrating my point, let’s assume that women ARE intellectually weaker than men, but that their intellectual inferiority does not make them any less equal. This notion leads to the unfair and immoral exploitation of women, particularly in the work force where women (as a whole) are STILL paid less than men for the exact same work. Feminism will not “go away” as long as inequalities such as this persist in our society.
So even if the IDEA of women as intellectually inferior does not in and of itself equate inequality, the application of the notion in society leads to gross inequalities.
I think that reinforcing the false notion that women are intellectually and physically weak leads to the sort of exploitation that the PDF document I posted touches on.
For the purpose of illustrating my point, let’s assume that women ARE intellectually weaker than men, but that their intellectual inferiority does not make them any less equal. This notion leads to the unfair and immoral exploitation of women, particularly in the work force where women (as a whole) are STILL paid less than men for the exact same work. Feminism will not “go away” as long as inequalities such as this persist in our society.
So even if the IDEA of women as intellectually inferior does not in and of itself equate inequality, the application of the notion in society leads to gross inequalities.
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
I’m not laughing at anyone. I take this conversation very seriously. I admit I have shaken my head in disbelief and giggled a tad. However, I don’t appreciate In Spiration and a few others flaming females online. I have quite a few friends that are police officers and FBI friends that I share what I see here. I support and endorce “Advancing the Status of Women Around the World”: state.gov/p/io/rm/2010/150037.htm
I appreciate bhall0689’s contributions.
Again I support my own comments from the previous two pages. I am a woman and acknowledge human rights! I don’t like sexism. I promote women’s career development as academics and the Association for Women in Science (AWIS): awis.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=25AngryAtheist8, I do want to thank you for all that you have done to help promote females. You are truly an inspiration. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Yes to your response to me from page 9. I totally agree except I don’t think he is amusing.
In my opinion he is very much like member In Spiration. I can’t really take him too seriously.
B
Betterave
Guest
The first remotely rational post I read since I posted last is this one, from the guy who suspects that women are intellectually less capable than men. Now his suspicion may or may not be correct, but it certainly makes it obvious that people don’t generally reject this view and accept the equality thesis as a result of being rational. So score one for David Stove.
B
Betterave
Guest
Let *me *at least say thank you. Wilful diocy is depressing. You cheered me up.
B
Betterave
Guest
LOL! Great question! Hmmm… why could that be?
I
In_Spiration
Guest
Depends on the context, her reasons for thinking it, her reasons for saying it, etc. I know one thing: whether I’m justified to be upset would first and foremost relate to the truth of her claim. If it’s true, then I’d only be able to accuse her of poor manners or something (in which case it would be her bad taste, not her belief, that’s offensive). And to be perfectly honest, I’d partially agree with her (exaggerated) complaint, while even cutting her some slack. Girls are very often hurt and deceived by promiscuous men, and this often causes them to lash out against all of us. (And often these complaints are more like “venting” instead of true profession of belief anyway.) Don’t go thinking I cut guys much slack when it comes to the generalizations. It’s a fact that we’re far more sex-driven and, for the most part, instinctively polygamous. Every man has a moral duty to tame these base urges. Not only would I fail to be offended by a girl saying men are only interested in sex, but if I had a daughter, I’d actively do my best to warn her of this all-too-common fact.
I appreciate the attempt to argue point-by-point, but you’ve simply failed to comprehend what Stove argued. I suggest you re-read him carefully. Also, I think I already addressed this charge of yours (explaining how Stove doesn’t ever claim to reject legit evidence, etc.)
Thank you. This is a legitimate criticism. We could argue about the merits of IQ tests for a while, but I’d just advise you to look into both sides of the controversy. I am inclined to think that IQ tests do have value, though willing to admit this value may be overstated in some circles. On another note, the APA is a very large organization with many specialties. The researchers who focus on intelligence testing seem to mostly agree on a certain objectivity of measurement. The counter-points mostly stick to saying, “But what about emotional IQ, or intrapersonal IQ?” These come off as quite weak to me. We could get more into this, or argue which “types of intelligence” may be better/worse, if you like. (I’d probably argue that logical-mathematical IQ and spatial IQ are superior forms of intelligence; and these are the most testable, traditionally understood IQs.)
Most in the IQ field will state that testing can only measure so high. As you get to the 180+ range, you’re a lot closer to having to just say, “These folks are just off the charts.” MvS is extremely bright, I’m sure of it, but not the smartest in the world. Include Christopher Langan, Kim Ung-yong, and William James Sidis in that group. I wouldn’t call any of them ‘genius’ or ‘smartest’ in a full sense. I’ll take a mind like Aristotle’s or Kant’s over theirs any day. We might later explore why. A lot of it has to do with creativity.
LogisticsBranch,
I also appreciate your attempt to use reason over emotion, although unfortunately you haven’t shown much. Merely pointing out that there are alternate explanations for something, so that we might speculate according to ignorance, isn’t very impressive. Read Stove again. The IQ tests aren’t even my best case anyway. History is.
Unwittingly, you’ve just put forth the single strongest case for discounting the validity and legitimacy of IQ tests. (Couldn’t resist.) Seriously, though, the substance of your comments thus far seems irreconcilable w/such a claim. (“OMG! Do you wanna, like, call my mom and ask her, 'cuz she’ll tell you I did!”)
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
I suggest you read the entirety of the my comment from page 10 and not quote mine. Perhaps you should reread everything I’ve said on this topic, especially page 11. By the way, I’m an adult female over 50 years old. I don’t need to call your mommy. Stop “flaming” the women on this topic. Also, I haven’t used one tad of emotion within the context of any of my posting to this topic. Like I earlier stated I don’t agree with you or Stove! You just won’t except that. I recall one topic you were on that I posted to that you stated you have to deal with your demons. Interesting. Your the first person I’ve ever known that has demons.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
How dare you say such a thing!? What if I equate birthing children to overall value? That would mean you’re a nasty sexist!!1!Agreed. Of course, if we said women are far superior at giving birth to men, that would also be true.
[Citation needed] And “equal opportunity” sounds ambiguous. Furthermore, some sciences are more advanced and complex than others…
Depends on the variance. You couldn’t automatically conclude that the cause is “purely cultural” merely on the basis of some variance. It would make sense for *both *culture and genetics to factor in.
I admit the uncertainty and all that. OK, remain agnostic if you wish. Sounds like we’ll need a more precise definition of ‘intelligence’/‘intellectual capacity’. Your next comments are more intriguing.
I’ll try to respond later, since I won’t be able to do your points justice at the moment. I think I’ve run out of mental gas for the day. Basically, I’d deny that any sort of matriarchy or hunter-gather society would be better, though I fully acknowledge the downside of our civilizations. Male dominance has by no means been perfect. I’ve even considered the idea that feminism was a consequence of men who were no longer socially/ethically up to par. Doubt it though. (Your criticism is arguably limited to the post-Industrial Revolution West, too.) I can tell that you’ve got a much better handle and appreciation for open-minded dialogue than the other two. I’ll try to give your arguments some due consideration. I’d be interested to know some of your thoughts on ToM and ASD neurotypology. Different but equal? One is superior to the other?
B
Betterave
Guest
Translation:I’m not laughing at anyone. I take this conversation very seriously. I admit I have shaken my head in disbelief and giggled a tad. However, I don’t appreciate In Spiration and a few others flaming females online. I have quite a few friends that are police officers and FBI friends that I share what I see here. I support and endorce “Advancing the Status of Women Around the World”: state.gov/p/io/rm/2010/150037.htm
I appreciate bhall0689’s contributions.
AngryAtheist8, I do want to thank you for all that you have done to help promote females. You are truly an inspiration. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Yes to your response to me from page 9. I totally agree except I don’t think he is amusing.
In my opinion he is very much like member In Spiration. I can’t really take him too seriously.
“Group hug for those who agree with me. :HUG: And all you stupid bigots who have insulted me by disagreeing with me: screw you. I’m surprised you even exist. And no, I won’t respond rationally to your rational arguments. My general expression of self-righteous outrage is response enough. I am woman - hear me roar!”
[YOU can’t take ME too seriously? You just *can’t? Gee, that’s a shame. I wonder why (I’m sure you must have a good reason so it would really be superfluous for you to say what it is).]
- Status