Nagging Philosophy Shrews and Their Enablers

From this wonderful project:
It is well established that women are under-represented in philosophy at all levels. There is also some data on the under-representation of women in journals. However, further data is necessary to see more clearly what has gone wrong
No. Further data is definitely not necessary to see clearly what has gone wrong. It’s this: white men, in some kind of pathetic, disastrous, misguided quest for justice, have allowed women to use some of the oldest tricks in the woman book – nagging, scolding, and manipulating – to gain unwarranted benefits and advantages over them. Good job, you emasculated losers!

Criticus Ferox

Criticus Ferox was relegated to the basket of deplorables because he refused to embrace the vilification and destruction of his nation, culture, race, sex, and way of life. You can contact him at: criticusferox@gmail.com

View All Posts

52 Comments

  1. The site linked, and information within, is very vague on all fronts of this supposed problem. Here’s what I propose: put up a counter site that asks: “why are there so _many_ women in philosophy?” Given it’s similarities to math and the hard sciences but without the huge potential for employment, it’s curious why any woman would want to stake theirs and their families future on such a financially risky field of study? Since when has biology ever been a problem? Here’s another nagging problem: “why are so many women giving birth these days and so few men?”

    • “Of course, women are also underrepresented in the prison population, and this too is explicable in part by reference to IQ, but nobody is whining about the lack of women in prison.”

      This is clearly the workings of the oppressive patriarchy. More whining is clearly needed. I suggest quotas for women in prison. And since radical feminists are such staunch defenders of equality at all levels, as they should, they will surely not object that a beginning could be made by having the police rounding them up.

  2. Considering all disciplines, the average college professor has an IQ in the 120’s. Average IQ by field is a fairly good indicator of the native intelligence required to do academic work at the professional level. In philosophy, the average IQ is probably a good bit higher and is likely in the 130s if we go by standardized testing as a proxy for IQ. Now, if you look at any bell curve featuring IQ test scores broken down by gender, you will see that the average IQ is the same for men and for women, but with much greater variation in the male population, so that there are more men at both the high end and at the low end. In essence, there are both more male geniuses, and more male idiots than female geniuses or female idiots.

    This by itself explains a substantial amount of the “underrpresentation” of women in philosophy. There are, relative to the general population, fewer women than men with the requisite level of natural intelligence necessary to do philosophical work at the professional academic level. Of course, women are also underrepresented in the prison population, and this too is explicable in part by reference to IQ, but nobody is whining about the lack of women in prison.

    • The IQ stuff is on point.

      Not to mention that, like it or not, women by nature have different tendencies and inclinations than men. Even rather small preferences can add up to big differences in outcomes. These make it likely women will prefer a different major than philosophy.

      Also, and relatedly, notice that if you take a random department (not necessarily just the top schools), count the number of women philosophers — both faculty and graduate students — working in, say, ethics or political philosophy (not to mention gender theory), and then count the number of women philosophers working in, say, metaphysics or philosophy of language or logic: The ratio for women will probably be greater than the ratio for men. And even within ethics I’d venture to guess that women on average prefer normative or applied over, say, meta. Women philosophers tend to prefer, and to excel more often, in these particular areas. (Obviously these are not absolutes.) There are natural psychological explanations for this.

      An even better test would be to take a poll of the undergraduate female majors, and ask them what classes they find most interesting, whether they want to go to graduate school in philosophy, what, if not, they prefer to do after college, and what, if they do, they would like to specialize in. And you can of course ask for a brief explanation in each case. Then do the same for the males. (A more general test would be to ask undergraduates *generally* about their choice of major.)

      This would be better since, generally, in undergraduate admissions there aren’t any feasible affirmative action policies to select women who are under-represented in particular areas of specialization (in part because, in the first place, most undergraduates do not even have particular areas of interest yet). Whereas in graduate school, the admissions is actually done by the department, the number of people being vetted is much smaller, and PhD programs will sometimes prefer women who work in areas where women are traditionally under-represented.

      This is of course similar to another pattern: The sciences. Women tend to prefer, and excel more often, in areas like biology and chemistry than, say, mathematics or physics. This is a function of many things including IQ, but *also* just general preferences and psychological and emotional tendencies that are biologically based. It’s not necessarily worse (why assume that physics and chemistry are more important than, say, biology?). It’s just different. But of course that is among the greatest taboos of our time: The acknowledgment that men and women are different.

    • To Gracie Law:

      The study you link is shoddy. The sample sizes for the specific age ranges are quite small, which is bad for detecting the small average difference in IQ between the sexes that’s typically found (3-5 points). They also use tests that don’t discriminate well between the sexes. Tests that fail to so discriminate are not better or “fairer” tests. The people making the tests simply fail to include items that women do worse on relative to men, often because they assume there’s something unfair about the items in light of the fact that women do poorly on them relative to men. But of course women might be doing badly on them simply because they’re, on average, less intelligent than men. To assume otherwise is to beg the question.

      • Can you elaborate on your reasons for claiming that the tests used by Iliescu et al are biased in favor of women?

        Are you suggesting that CAT ASVAB test, used in the results you link to below, is a better test of native intelligence? The CAT ASVAB is not a pure intelligence test. Among the tests used in the study you link are Mechanical Comprehension (“Measures knowledge of the principles of mechanical devices, structural support, and properties of materials.”) and Electronics Information (“Measures knowledge of electrical current, circuits, devices, and electronic systems.”)

        http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab/versions-of-asvab.html

        You can’t think of a cultural explanation for why men and women might score differently on a test that studies electrical circuits or properties of materials?

      • The ASVAB is in fact a highly g-loaded (g = general intelligence) test, much more so than the Raven’s, contrary to popular belief, which is one of the tests the authors look at.

        You’ve subtly shifted the discussion here by framing your question in terms of what “might” be the case. It “might” be the case that women do worse than men on questions about circuits because of some factor unrelated to intelligence. It also “might” be the case that women do worse than men on those questions because they are on average weaker in the domain or domains of intelligence that those questions tap. I strongly suspect the latter. It has long been thought that vocabulary items are unfair measures of intelligence because they are culturally loaded. But in fact vocabulary items are among the most g-loaded items on intelligence tests. The whole culture-fair effort in intelligence testing has proven to be a farce that’s given us tests that fail to effectively measure g.

      • That was a rhetorical understatement. I meant to suggest that it should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the cultural environment children grow up in that boys and not girls are encouraged to acquire knowledge about mechanical and electronic devices.

        One can grant that these questions are highly g-loaded and still conclude that they bias the test, since there are strong theoretical reasons to think that the non-g-loaded part of the questions (the learned knowledge of mechanical devices) are more likely to bias the test against girls and are unlikely to break even between girls and boys.

      • Purely theoretical considerations, which are often wrong, would also lead one to think that vocabulary and information items limit the validity of tests via the introduction of unfair culture loading. But that’s wrong.

      • I agree that purely theoretical considerations are often wrong. But they’re better than nothing, and nothing is all you’ve offered to justify your claim that the theoretical considerations are wrong in this case.

      • In fact, I’ve provided eminently sound rebuttals supported by the best of the germane psychometric literature to all your points.

      • Find me one reason to think that removing “gender biased” items from intelligence tests has increased their g loading for women.

  3. There’s also a big psychological difference that should be obvious to everyone: women are way more conformist than men. If we go to the tail of the curve where you find the real innovators, rebels, shit disturbers, contrarians, skeptics, those willing to speak truth to power and stand alone–those who are going to be the real first-rank philosophers–those are almost all men. Women love those kinds of men, once it’s clear that they’re for real–that they really believe in themselves and don’t bow down to the herd–but they don’t want to be like that themselves. They want to submit to a man like that.

    There are probably good evolutionary reasons for this (as with other examples of male extremity). Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Or, as Roissy (I think) puts it, men are disposable and women are perishable. But even if we had no idea what the evolutionary reasons might be, it would still just be an obvious pattern in human life through all of history and even now. So the very best female philosophers tend to be sharp minds working dutifully within some system of thought that some man came up with. She is his star student–deeply receptive, respectful, taking his enemies and eccentricities as her own. And in the Kali Yuga this gets taken to sick extremes. Think of Cora Diamond and her worshipful Wittgensteinian bullshit. Sure, lots of men are like that too. But it’s the norm with female intellectuals.

    There’s something dehumanizing (dewomanizing) in this. What normal woman would want to be Cora Diamond? What man would want a relationship with a woman like that? A woman debases herself when she expends all of that receptive worshipful energy on the basically worthless task of defending and elaborating on some man’s opinions. Yeats had it right:

    “F____ is learning Gaelic. I would sooner see her in the Gaelic movement than in any Irish movement I can think of. I fear some new absorption in political opinion. Women, because the main event of their lives has been a giving themselves and giving birth, give all to an opinion as if it were some terrible stone doll … to women opinions become as their children or their sweethearts, and the greater their emotional capacity the more do they forget all other things. They grow cruel, as if in defence of lover or child, and all this is done for ‘something other than human life’. At last the opinion is so much identified with their nature that it seems a part of their flesh becomes stone and passes out of life…. Women should have their play with dolls finished in childish happiness, for if they play with them again it is amid hatred and malice.” (Autobiographies, 504)

    • These ignorant and stupid comments on Cora Diamond are offensive beyond belief. One wonders what level of envy and anger drives the urge to tear down one of the finest moral philosophers of our time. It is very discouraging that a conservative blog that presumably aspires to be taken seriously would publish this juvenile stuff.

      • I don’t speak for this blog, but I have read the comments policy. Since you seem to have missed it, I’ll repost it here:

        “Rightly Considered would like to make clear that we have a very liberal (no pun intended) comment policy. Consequently, some comments posted will involve inflammatory and repugnant views. Readers should not assume that because a comment was approved, Rightly Considered shares the sentiments therein. Very often we don’t.”

        The dig at Cora Diamond seems a bit gratuitous to me, but not so much so that I would want the comment scrubbed from the internet. Unlike the left blogsophere, I don’t think rightlyconsidered is much into playing the “dynamic silence” game with combox moderation.

      • Hi Andrew. I can’t speak for others but I don’t aspire to be taken seriously by people who think Cora Diamond is “one of our finest moral philosophers” and I can’t imagine why being taken seriously by the academic establishment (or whatever) should matter to a sensible person. I don’t want to be in your club, or hers, and I don’t believe in “our” discipline. A real “conservative” now is a revolutionary, and you guys–no offense–are simply enemies. I myself don’t take seriously the judgments of people who take seriously the complaints of hyper-privileged feminists regarding “under-representation”. Talk about juvenile. But if you get something from CD’s work, great!

      • Jacques, can you really say in your heart, in all sobriety and truthfulness, that you did not cross a line when you wrote the words: “What normal woman would want to be CD? What man would want a relationship with a woman like that?”

        Not everything is about right vs. left. Sometimes there is just right vs. wrong. Even in war.

      • Andrew–Good question. Yes, I can say that in my heart. Maybe you’re skeptical because you misunderstand what I mean by “a woman like that”. (Though I think it was kind of clear from the context. I wasn’t taking a cheap shot at her looks, for example.)

        You’re right that not everything is right versus left. However some things are. We are living through a brutal relentless campaign to destroy normal human life and the family and organic society, a campaign to make natural masculinity and femininity into shameful sickness while elevating dysfunction, perversion, disease, sterility, abortion, sexual mutilation, atomization and civilizational death. That’s really happening, right now, and this idiotic cant about “representation” is one important tactic. And the left is utterly ruthless, cold, inhuman in their pursuit of all this toxic stuff. They obviously couldn’t care less about ‘right and wrong’. Conservatives need to stop being so dumb. We need to start winning. That means, yes, we may have to be a little impolite sometimes; in this very sick and evil context, it’s not morally wrong to say some not-nice things about a famous super-privileged leftist philosopher in order to drive home a rhetorical point.

        If anything is clearly _wrong_ it’s the left’s relentless anti-human campaign against normality and normal people.

        We probably just have fundamentally different starting points. I regard it as immoral that people anyone has the social position and power that people like Cora Diamond have. I think our so-called universities should be abolished. I think most of the establishment should be put in prison for treason (or executed in some cases, depending on whether capital punishment is justifiable). So for me it just seems utterly unimportant whether someone says some mildly rude things about a famous philosopher. (Things that also really are true, in my opinion.)

        PS–It’s also my considered opinion, having read quite a bit of her stuff, that (a) essays such as “Having a Rough Story about What Moral Philosophy Is” have zero philosophical interest and (b) would never have been taken seriously or attracted any attention had it not been for certain irrelevant facts about Cora Diamond such as her being female, and (c) her writing is terrible, pretentious, often very poorly reasoned when not so obscure that we can’t tell what reasoning she has in mind, much like her hero’s writing but without any of its sort-of redeeming features.

    • Andrew Gleeson,

      As some have already pointed out, we have a very liberal comment policy and have, in the past, posted insulting comments against contributors of this blog. The fact that we allow a comment to be posted (comments aren’t approved, they’re immediately published) should not be taken to imply that we support it (obviously). I’m a contributor and I think Jacques’ swipe against Diamond (with whose work I’m not familiar) was gratuitous.

  4. I’m curious, what sort of unwarranted advantages and benefits have female philosophers gained over their male counterparts?

    • OK, I’ll bite on your fake question Tom: huge advantages in getting into graduate school, getting job interviews, and getting job offers.

      • Thanks for the reply. It was a genuine question. I’m only an undergrad so I’m not very aware of things going on at this level. However, I see your point. I think my school has entrance scholarships for women, just for being women. No other reason.

      • Tom, please understand that, given the highly corrupted and politicized state of the field, I figured you were the typical white knight riding in to save the day. Yes, what the feminists and their enablers have done to the field is really awful and people are actively striving to make it worse. So, beware.

      • Thanks, Tom. I’m glad you’re reading the site, where you’ll get a very different perspective from that of most academics.

  5. What the actual heck? “oldest tricks in the woman book – nagging, scolding, and manipulating” Care to provide some scientific documentation for those being things women actually do more? Men never manipulate, scold, or nag women. Not at all. Not, like, in this very article. Terrific job providing evidence against the “men have a higher IQ” claim in the comments. Clearly, that person either didn’t read what you wrote, or thinks you are a woman.

    • Dear An *actual* literate person,
      I’m glad you let us all know that you are *actual*. I was worried that you might have been a counterpart person to a person who is actually literate.

      • S/he attributes to me the claim “men have a higher IQ” which I most definitely did not make, and suggests that the author is nagging women in “this very article” even though he is clearly addressing “white men.” I conclude that the our “actual literate person” is actual, and a person, but certainly not literate.

    • “Men never manipulate, scold, or nag women. Not at all. Not, like, in this very article.”

      Actually, you will note that the article scolded the emasculated white males who (gallantly, but misguidedly) let this happen.

    • By point of fact, men have higher IQs than women on average. Both this higher average IQ and the greater variance in the male, relative to female, IQ distribution entail there being far more men than women at the very high levels of intelligence. Just about every good study on sex differences in intelligence has found what I’ve just described. Reality doesn’t give a damn that you have, against close to all good evidence, assumed that men and women are equally intelligent because you were silly enough to embrace the bio-egalitarian nonsense that is now, quite strangely, de rigueur for the Western world. Fortunately, this profound delusion has only had real purchase on the developed world since the 1960s. Because it is so utterly contrary to empirical reality, as virtually all humans in nearly all other times and places would have recognized, it’s unlikely to last long. Gormless social scientists and PC humanities clowns can only hide the mountain of biosocial science disconfirming their garbage “theories” — in fact, special pleading — for so long. Male-female IQ differences, along with other factors that I have mentioned in separate comments here, parsimoniously explain why women have contributed so very little to the most intellectually demanding fields of human endeavor. (Even when they have contributed, they have done so mostly via empirical observation rather than theorization; the latter, not former, is the most demanding of intelligence.) “Muh oppression” doesn’t.

    • By point of fact, men have higher IQs than women on average. Both this higher average IQ and the greater variance in the male, relative to female, IQ distribution entail there being far more men than women at the very high levels of intelligence. Just about every good study on sex differences in intelligence has found what I’ve just described. Reality doesn’t give a damn that you have, against close to all good evidence, assumed that men and women are equally intelligent because you were silly enough to embrace the bio-egalitarian nonsense that is now, quite strangely, de rigueur for the Western world. Fortunately, this profound delusion has only had real purchase on the developed world since the 1960s. Because it is so utterly contrary to empirical reality, as virtually all humans in nearly all other times and places would have recognized, it’s unlikely to last long. Gormless social scientists and PC humanities clowns can only hide the mountain of biosocial science disconfirming their garbage “theories” — in fact, special pleading — for so long. Male-female IQ differences, along with other factors that I have mentioned in separate comments here, parsimoniously explain why women have contributed so very little to the most intellectually demanding fields of human endeavor. (Even when they have contributed, they have done so mostly via empirical observation rather than theorization; the latter, not former, is the most demanding of intelligence.) “Muh oppression” doesn’t.

  6. Leiter links while name-calling to cover up the act. Methinks he also agrees with the OP a bit and wants to spread the message.

  7. I don’t think women are primarily to blame for this. The privileges they get when applying for jobs or to graduate schools aren’t primarily there because women nagged, scolded, and manipulated white philosophers in positions of power. The primary cause is the adoption by these men of the ideologies of equality and diversity.

  8. I should add: it’s fantastic to be “offensive beyond belief” to feminists and leftists and other normies locked into the present grotesque and insane system. Let them be offended, and let them not even believe how offended they are. Everything we want and value and believe, everything true and important, is going to be “offensive beyond belief” under the rules of this system. If they’re not offended (“beyond belief”) you must be doing something wrong.

    The gist of all their rules and norms is that (a) every seriously right-wing idea is stupid or evil, along with most of what used to be considered common sense, and (b) even the most patently stupid and evil leftist ideas are, at the very least, worthy of serious discussion and never decisively refuted.

    Marriage is about men and women making babies and caring for them together? Evil and stupid. You hate gays.

    A man becomes a woman by saying he is one? Well, that’s a bit controversial–not sure we’re there yet–but we can certainly see why reasonable people might think so; let’s talk about it!

    France for the French? You’re a Nazi. I don’t talk to Nazis.

    Replacing France and the real French people with millions of hate-filled high fertility Muslim parasites and criminals and fanatics and terrorists? Well, cultures are always changing and evolving, and it would be kind of racist to think there was any such thing as a ‘real’ French person or a ‘real’ French culture; it seems to be working out pretty well for the moment, so let’s just wait and see.

    Philosophers should be hired on the basis of their intellectual abilities and achievements alone? You’re clearly a woman hater (with a small penis). Women ABD with no publications and no teaching experience should be hired instead of some pasty old white guy with years experience and publications in first-tier journals? Well, that seems fair enough. And anyway it’s kind of uncool if you don’t have some women up there in front of the class; but let’s not have ‘quotas’ for women, that’s going too far.

    Whenever there’s some evil insane leftist innovation, the respectable “conservatives” get to quibble about details and degrees for a little while, til it’s been thoroughly entrenched and then they know they’re not allowed to say that anymore. But luckily there’s always some new evil insane invention they’re allowed to sputter about for a bit.

    And so, if you don’t like this game: Reject their dumb rules and norms. Don’t seek their approval. Don’t worry about offending them. Don’t try to convince them. They hate you anyway and they’re not open to any arguments you might have. (Because they already know you’re just a dumb bigot looking to hurt women and minorities, or whatever.) Don’t be the kind of “conservative” that the leftist enemy considers respectful or respectable. Be yourself! Be normal! They’re insane. They think women are basically just like men, for God’s sake. They don’t even know about yin and yang. You have to _argue_ with them to convince them that women like male leadership. Or that this isn’t just the result of some kind of social conditioning or brainwashing. They think a man can become a woman just by thinking he is one. They think mean white people are a major physical threat to blacks like Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. They think it doesn’t matter that the beautiful, irreplaceable peoples and cultures of white western civilization are being eradicated and replaced by others. Lots of them even think that’s a good thing! They actively _want_ their grand-children to be racial-cultural minorities in their own lands, under a system that promotes racial-cultural hatred and contempt for them. They are crazy, crazy, crazy.

    The alternative is to try to play by their rules and slip in the odd mild criticism of this or that detail once in a while. You might sway some of them a little, I guess, but remember that “conservatives” using that method haven’t actually conserved a single thing. Not their nations, not their traditions, not their institutions, not their intellectual standards, not their historical narratives, not the reputations of their heroes, not their religion, not their moral code, not their physical living space, nothing at all.

  9. Jacques, I appreciate your comments and I empathize with your frustration at the dysfunctional mass idiocy caused by liberal control over the institutions of society. But please remember it’s a red *pill*, not a red suppository. I’d suggest toning it down just a little bit.

  10. Well then. This discussion is lively. Rather than get involved in the drama, I’d simply ask why we should think anything is “wrong” at all. Underrepresentation doesn’t entail injustice.

    • This point needs to be made more often. Should we start hiring more male elementary school teachers because men are underrepresented in that profession? What about sociology? Are these injustices against men?

      Silliness.

      • Yes we should, both because of the social structures that make nurturing jobs seem like “not mens’ work” and because of the valuable role models they provide. And indeed, many schools have begun programs seeking to reach out to male elementary school teachers, on just those grounds. Of course, thinking you were making a brilliant refutation required that you not do actual research before making a comment.

      • Not silliness at all,

        While agree with you that there are good reasons for wanting to hire men in elementary schools, you’re missing Conservatrarian’s point. He didn’t say that there are no reasons for doing such or no good reasons. What he did say is that the reason shouldn’t simply be that there is underrepresentation. And he also questions whether, given the underrepresentation, we should think that there is an injustice being done to men. With him, I think the answer is “no” unless we have some further evidence of injustice.

      • Here’s a good example. It’s just “social structures” that make women think nurturing is their role while making men think their role is something different. Just a bunch of “social structures” that have apparently been produced independently by all human societies throughout all of history and often with no cultural contact between them. Not human nature, not evolution, nothing like that. Just “social structures” which of course–of course!–do not themselves reflect any natural or biological or evolutionary or metaphysical difference between Male and Female. And, of course, it’s impossible that any such “social structures” lasting for hundreds of thousands of years might have produced biological differences in the humans living under those “social structures” so that what might just conceivably have begun as mere “social structures” ends up as deep human nature.

        Were it not for those “social structures” the conquistadors and explorers and warriors and political leaders and great philosophers and whatever else would all have been 50% female. Genghis Khan and Plato and Hitler and Beethoven would have been just as likely to devote their lives to early childhood education and supporting their wives in their careers.

        Because lots of “actual research” has shown all this–didn’t you know?

        It’s so hard not to argue with them. But just consider how crazy they are. Christians say “In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”, and Muslims say “Inshallah”, and liberals say “Studies have shown”. (Not to suggest Christians or Muslims are anywhere near as batshit crazy as PC liberals and leftists.)

      • You’ll note that he rhetorically asked “Should we…?” and not “Do we…?” The fact that such programs exist is not evidence that we *should* start attempting to achieve equal representation of men and women in that profession. Nor is it evidence that invidious discrimination or systemic injustice are the correct explanations for the lack of equal representation. The existence of these programs is, at most, evidence that a large number of professional educators perceive unequal representation as a problem, and think the explanation is “social structures” as opposed to intractable differences between men and women psychologically and biologically, differences which make nurturing roles naturally a better fit for women. I know that is yucky hatethink, but it has to be argued against, not assumed as false right from the get-go.

        So all you have established is that lot of professional educators are egalitarian liberals and acting on their convictions. This is not exactly the devastating refutation I’m sure you thought you were delivering.

      • Hello Mr. Silly,

        Read my comment. I asked whether we should hire more male teachers and sociology professors *because males are underrepresented in those fields.* I then asked whether the mere fact that men are underrepresented is evidence of injustice against men, which is what you’d have to say if you think that the mere fact that women are underrepresented in philosophy is an injustice against women.

        So, yes, silliness.

  11. Helmuth Nyborg recently found that the average IQ of women is 3.6-7.03 points below that of men, across three races, at age 17. See the following: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615000525. Note that most or all studies finding that men and women are equal in average IQ rely on data gathered from younger people, those at ages by which women are typically cognitively mature but men are not. Also keep in mind the fact that the male IQ distribution has greater variance than the female IQ distribution, which, on the assumption of no average IQ difference, entails more men than women at the higher (and lower) ends of the IQ distribution. Thus we’d expect more men than women in elite professions given the variance difference alone. Once the average IQ advantage of men is factored in, it’s overwhelmingly apparent that these sociological explanations of the underrepresentation of women in math, science, philosophy, etc. are just claptrap. Two last things to consider. First, there’s some evidence that men are especially strong in visuospatial intelligence relative to women, which is very important for success in STEM fields. Second, endocrinal differences between men and women are such that men are far more able to handle the rigors of highly competitive fields than women on average. Testosterone is a significant contributor to one’s psychological, not to mention physical, hardiness. Feminists like Manne who remain steadfastly ignorant of the wealth of excellent research on the substantial biological dimension of individual and group behavioral differences simply shouldn’t be paid any attention.

  12. It’s a shoddy study. The sample sizes for the specific age ranges are quite small, which is bad for detecting the small average difference in IQ between the sexes that’s typically found (3-5 points). They also use tests that don’t discriminate well between the sexes. Tests that fail to so discriminate are not better or “fairer” tests. The people making the tests simply fail to include items that women do worse on relative to men, often because they assume there’s something unfair about the items in light of the fact that women do poorly on them relative to men. But of course women might be doing badly on them simply because they’re, on average, less intelligent than men. To assume otherwise is to beg the question.

  13. High IQ? I think it might be because women are less “nutty”. So example, they tend to less believe in conspiracy theories or have paranoid traits than men.

    • Less nutty in a sense: less prone to step outside the consensus. But if the consensus is nutty they’ll go nuts. Beatlemania might be a benign case. Feminism and anti-racism are less benign cases (and absurd conspiracy theories to boot). Lots of the truly batshit SJWs are women. The craziest Red Guards and Hitler worshippers and Stalinists were often women.

Comments are closed.