"Why women don't want top jobs, by a feminist"

This statistically irrefutable data about male versus female extremes of intelligence is precisely what got Harvard University Larry Sommers dismissed.

All he said was -- there are large variances in I.Q. and men tend to exhibit them more than women.

More male genuises, also more male idiots.

That was misunderstood as a slam against women who might want to become engineers.

Some women swooned and had to be revived after he said that.

It was an objective observation based on real data, and the dude got fired.

So, what does that tell you about feminism's interest in truth and dialogue?

Oh, and Harvard U. has a female President today. Women's Studies graduate.

The entire Harvard incident felt planned. It's almost like feminist groups on colleges have plans like this already in place. They got attacked and carried out planned invasions of the campus and the day was theirs. All on the basis of objective facts thrown in their face. In this day and age, do you really think that the Man is keeping women down in these degrees? Shit, just signing into the sciences gets you basically free access to all the women's groups on campus to artificially pad your resume. If that's not enough, you can join the rest of the groups as well (because guys having their own groups would be sexist).

Camille Paglia made two mistakes in her comment - a big one and a little one.

The little mistake is to assume that Jack the Ripper was male. Nobody knows who the Ripper was, so how does she know the killer was male? It might have been Jill the Ripper. I believe there has even been a theory to that effect.

But that leads to exposure of the second, and much bigger mistake. The fact is that while it is true there is no female Mozart, it is not true that there is no female serial killer. There are several of them. Does anybody reading here really need a list?

So what does that mean? We have the male sex, mainly consisting of more or less average Joes, but occasionally throwing out an extreme genius or an extreme monster. The monster may kill a number of people, but is usually stopped eventually and dealt with. The genius will almost certainly enhance more lives than the monster destroys, and bring about positive benefits to huge numbers of people - even the whole world. Civilisation has advanced largely due to the efforts of those male geniuses.

Then we have the female sex, which largely consists of more or less average Jills - which occasionally throws out a monster, just like the male sex. But which, most significantly, fails to throw out any geniuses like the male sex does. No Mozart, no Shakespeare, no Michaelangelo, no Einstein, no Newton, no Aristotle...not even a Bill Gates or a Richard Branson. Exceptional women certainly exist, but none in the super league of those guys.

Now what does that tell you about the two sexes?

And yet our societies continue to pour investment into the female sex, in the apparent belief that women represent the best that the human race can ever achieve, and the future must therefore be female...actions that might, right now, be stifling the real geniuses of the next generation. How many boy geniuses are being crushed by our gynocratic education system?

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

What's the indication that Jack the Ripper wasn't smart? He didn't get caught, did he?

It is true that on the I.Q. curve there are more males than females at the extremes, but the average is still higher for men, and that cannot be explained mathematically by the existence of the really smart ones. As far as Mozart and the like, i.e. high achievers, she's giving some really faulty information. Not only misandric, but just plain wrong.

Moxon does a good job explaining it in his book.

-ax

Well, of course the "average" would be statistically higher given the greater extremes both high and low for men's I.Q.s.

So, it is kind of a meaningless number.

The average cat weighs eight pounds.

So what?

Still a lotta very fat cats in the sample population. And some skinny ones too.

"Averaging" is a way of concealing information.

The "average" American makes $XX,XXX dollars a year.

That tells you nothing about the actual state of American families.

Statistics are typically used to manipulate and to pretend to explain things.

They rarely provide any real data.

I prefer qualitative analysis.

Actual narratives. Stories.

the curve can be viewed in Moxon's book, and elsewhere I'm sure. Look at it, you'll see what I mean.
-ax

When you need a triple bypass heart surgery, do you really want to know that your cardiovascular specialist is a feminist?

If America ever faces another 9/11 type event, does it matter if the commander in chief is a feminist?

What exactly is the social benefit of feminism today?

Other than cute sit-coms and advertisements?

(Oh, and the obvious economic leverage of the misandrist Family Courts & DV Industry.)

So really, feminism is just a business.

then what do you call a woman who drives her children into a lake?

and what about a woman who chases her children down one by one to drown them all?

and let's not forget the 40 million + dead babies made legal by fem-court.

and male children RAPED (it's not a relationship) and no justice?

and what about the preacher ... heck, this list goes on and on and on.

oh, my bad. in this warped society women are always victims,
and most probably walking around free, after some therapy. poor poor women.

This whole thing about "extremes" will become a new "paradigm". It will become what everyone (including the general public) knows. Feminists are taking the IQ curve out of context and applying it to other things, and then in turn making men look bad no matter which end of each of these newfound fictional "curves" they (the men) are on. The feminists are doing this as a concerted effort to denigrate men. Not long from now, Time magazine will have this as an article:

Headline: "Men: No Middle Ground"

"...it turns out men are either smart or stupid, lazy or masochists, anal or lackadaisical, playboys or losers, fat or skinny..."

-article by David M. Asswipe, C.M.D. (Certified Media Dipshit)

[when the article appears, write Asswipe and/or the editor a letter - ask him which end of these curves he himslef is on. Based on his answers, he will come out looking like "either a braggart or a loser". Touche.]

-ax

Excellent comments. I especially agree with the following:

And yet our societies continue to pour investment into the female sex, in the apparent belief that women represent the best that the human race can ever achieve, and the future must therefore be female...actions that might, right now, be stifling the real geniuses of the next generation. How many boy geniuses are being crushed by our gynocratic education system?