The inferiority of women

Negrophobe

In terms of intelligence men and women are not equal, in terms of physical strength men and women are not fucking equal, in terms of using logic and reasoning men and women are not fucking equal, in terms of sex drive men and women are not fucking equal- men have higher sex drives. Men are dominant in all of these fields.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/women.html
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/women_and_minorities_in_science.htm

Men dominate greatly in mathematics and science and every important field because they're better at it. If those links aren't to your liking then you can search for yourself to see what I'm saying is true.

Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the 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.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, 1874, pp. 859-860.

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.

1. Variations in the social position of women do not seem to be accompanied by any change in the sex ration 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.

2. 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?

3. 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.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AshleyHerzog/2008/03/13/will_feminists_again_attempt_to_censor_science

Here is a good review of that article;
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/04/women-in-sciences.html


I'll be making my thread refuting any of that "women were oppressed" bullshit soon.

DeepThought

From a statistical perspective thats quite true.

While the popular phrasing "women are equal to men!" its easy to misunderstand what it means due to everyones individual understanding of what that exactly means.

The equality in women is a reference to the equality in potential. Every individual is not born with the same capabilities however are somewhat equal in potential if they are able bodied individuals.

If you think about it, a women can do ALMOST anything that a man does with a few exceptions (grow a penis) its just that women have to work hard at it due to a statistical disadvantage

Negrophobe

If you think about it, a women can do ALMOST anything that a man does with a few exceptions (grow a penis) its just that women have to work hard at it due to a statistical disadvantage.

False. And the things they can do that a man can, they do considerably and notably worse.

Work place discrimination is a must.
Equal opportunity and potential is bullshit too, equality of any kind is an impossibility.

DeepThought

you cant make a vast stereotype of what equality is to people, its not a black and white issue. Equality in the workplace with women and men should give oppurtunities to people with talent and skill, forget all this BS seperating the sexes in the workplace. that sounds kind of gay actually.

Negrophobe

No, it sounds pefectly logical actually and your use of the term gay in this conversation adds no merit to your argument, on the contrary, it makes you come off as childish. The only reason I'm for women working at the moment is because the economy is currently shit.

I am a "sexual realist" and disapprove of attempts to set quotas to put women in positions of power beyond what they actually earn. Currently women have affirmitive action to help them acquire their job positions. Work places are FORCED to take women on, whether they're suitable for the job or not, and when they are taken on and can't do the work they pass the work onto a man to do it for them. Often women, as a group, tend to be lounge social types who are not very goal oriented, and this reflects on the behavior both in forums, and in the work force. Women tend to make discussion about other posters, not about topics, and hence, loungification is a side-effect if things get out of control.

Teachers, nurses, and bank tellers are predominantly female because those jobs are easy, cheap, and worthless. They’re a perfect fit for women because that’s what women are, but hell, they're not even very good at being teachers either.


For jobs such as police officers, firefighters, doctors, pilots, scientists in general, weapon technicians and other such import jobs, they should be left to the men entirely. Work place discrimination is a must.

DeepThought

Well its something that needs to be regulated then right?

Teaching, nurses and bank tellers should hire whoever does the job best. What do you want to do? Have only females become teachers?

Any kind of fanatical regulation such as regulating certain sexes to certain job positions would create a huge imbalance in the job market and turn the laborforce of a nation upside down.

Negrophobe

Hell no, women should be banned from the education stablishment completely.

One of the best things Benito Mussolini did in the early 1920s was banning women from the workforce. Infact I agree with a lot of what Benito had to say in regards to women.

War is to man what motherhood is to a woman. From a philosophical and doctrinal viewpoint, I do not believe in perpetual peace.

Women are like sardines, best kept in tins.

- http://sp3.stbrendanschool.com/Computers/Shared%20Documents/TheLeaders/Mussolini/Quotes.pdf

I am rather pessimistic... I believe, for example, that a woman does not have a large power of synthesis, and she is thus unfit for great spiritual creations.

With work, a woman becomes like a man; she causes man's unemployment; she develops an independence and a fashion that is contrary to the process of childbirth, and lowers the demographic curve; man is deprive of work and dignity; he is castrated in every sense because the machine deprives him either of his woman or his virility

- http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cndls/applications/postertool/index.cfm?fuseaction=poster.display&posterID=1227

There are those who say that I intend to limit the right to vote. No! Every citizen will keep his right to vote for the Rome Parliament… Let me also admit to you that I am not thinking of extending the vote to women. There would be no point. My blood opposes all kinds of feminism when it comes to women participating in state affairs. Naturally a woman shouldn't be a slave, but if I conceded her the vote, I'd be laughed at. In our state, she must not count.

^^ My personal favourite.