Posts
It is incredibly inspirational to know that all of the world’s major religious traditions have always recognized the fundamental distinction between genders as being marked by the internal dialectic of male patriarchal dominance and complete female subordination and debasement. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity have all understood all women as being essentially sick, twisted, evil creatures in need of superior masculine guidance.
One text I would love to recommend to all of my male readers is the so-called Laws of Manu or the Manu Smriti (in Sanskrit), one of the oldest Hindu religious and legal texts amongst a collection of works known as the Dharmasastra, the composition of which dates from around 200 BC. Regardless of whatever one’s opinions on religion are, I firmly believe that even the most atheistic and materialistic of men can still profit enormously from the great wisdom and insight offered into the character of women and the nature of femininity provided by the Laws of Manu. It is a very spiritually uplifting work and can provide a tremendous amount of encouragement and inspiration for all those men seeking to keep their wives and mistresses under the control of an iron fist. Some of the great and timeless pearls of wisdom contained within the Laws of Manu include,
It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never left unguarded in the company of females. For women are able to lead astray in this world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and to make him a slave of anger and desire. (Manu, 2: 213-214)
By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. (Manu, 5: 147)
Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife. (Manu, 5: 154)
The rightly celebrated, yet controversial, ninth section of the Laws of Manu contains a vivid portrait of how thoroughly perverse and satanic all women are. One can readily see from the opening paragraphs of section IX itself that the knowledge that “all women are whores” is many thousands of years old.
It was once famously quipped upon the discovery and publication of the Laws of Manu by the Indologist Sir William Jones in 1794, that the British Raj thereafter almost universally neglected the education of women throughout their colonial occupation of India. It was widely known that the strong legal prohibitions against women reading or even touching the sacred Vedic literature in the Laws of Manu were widely interpreted by the English colonizers as justifying the total subjugation of women through denying them any access to education, not just in India but everywhere. It also revealed that male dominance and female inferiority has been sanctioned by Hinduism as the supreme law of India for untold millenia.
Thus, I think that the Laws of Manu should be essential reading for all virile men regardless of religious or even spiritual conviction. No philosophically inclined chauvinist should lead his life in abysmal ignorance of it. Let no man who wishes to dominate and fully control his wife or mistress be without knowledge of its contents. It is one of the many ancient works revealing how cold, selfish and incredibly mentally limited all women are in a most didactic, picturesque way. Even Friedrich Nietzsche, that immortal prophet of a will to power the natural consequence of which is pure, unadulterated masculinity, declared that the New Testament pales in comparison to the Laws of Manu. He saw all other ethical codes as simply imitations or gross caricatures of it. Nietzsche saw the Laws of Manu as being a salubrious breath of fresh air amidst the frozen wastes of Christian “slave morality.”
Women should NEVER have been given the right to vote!
Women have no sense of humour...
All women should cover their ugly faces in public!
The best way to discipline a western woman is to have her draped in a burkha...
Sunday, April 20, 2008
In praise of Islam
I certainly understand the great disgust that most men harbour against the Islamic religion. The very theological underpinnings of Muslim fundamentalism may seem irrational, if not downright incoherent. Osama bin Laden and company may be the most comical of demagogues since Charlie Chaplin last goose-stepped on camera. However, the strict Wahhabi puritanism of most Islamist terrorists and salafi jihadists, the images of which are commonly plastered throughout the media, are actually rather quite marginal to the overall aims of the Islamic religion as a whole.There seem to be numerous misconceptions about Islam itself. I have little interest in evangelizing anybody in the central tenets of Islamist theology. After all, I am no missionary, but an apostle of male patriarchal dominance in its purest form. However, the very social structure legitimated by the religion of Islam is certainly praiseworthy and very much in harmony with the ideals of the truest and most virile masculinity.
Those people who are fully assimilated to the values as well as ideological superstructure of modern Western European civilization can actually learn a thing or two about manliness and manhood from Muslim culture.In fact, the United States on September 11, 2001, as well as other western societies like Great Britain and Spain, were successfully attacked by teams of well-organized radical Islamic fundamentalists because of the fact that all western societies have been undergoing a period of rapid feminization since the dawn of the Sexual Revolution in the sixties. The Sexual Revolution was the foolish male attempt to liberate themselves from the tyranny of female domesticity and matriarchal asexuality through the invention of effective synthetic progesterone-based oral contraceptives. Ultimately, it seems that the invention of the pill itself, which relieved so many women from the burdern of pregnancy by making the timing of pregnancy the outcome purely of female choice, triggered the catastrophic de-masculinization of western society that has made the current global social and political order almost tottering on the brink of collapse.
Actually, the contemporary scene within the Occident on an international level can no longer be seen as consisting of the great western democracies. Rather, we are living in an age which is politically dominated by female-controlled western cliterocracies or gynecocracies. Thus, on the eve of September 11, the United States, in the grips of a dangerous matriarchal obsession with (embarassingly enough) women in all levels of the central bureaucracy itself, was attacked. It was attacked because the people of the United States were too busy feminizing all apects of the Western European culture within it. Maybe if the androgenization of both genders, the chief ideological goal of any doctrinaire feminism, wasn’t so touted by the male feminist-dominated United States legislature, the World Trade Centre would never have been attacked.Now, my brothers, let’s look at how Islam deals with women. I know the religious doctrines may sound a tad objectionable to our rationalistic male sensibilities. However, let us ignore the religious dogmas for a minute and let’s focus on religious practice.For one thing, in Islam, the woman belongs in the kitchen and is legislated at gunpoint to stay in the kitchen. I find this an excellent solution to the problem of pay equity and sexual harassment in the workplace.
Islam also teaches us that having women in the workplace is a crime against nature; those who permit women to participate in the workforce should be beaten severely, even executed by the government. In addition, Islam is its strict segregation of the sexes, known as purdah. Islam fully recognizes the obvious intellectual and biological inferiority of women and mandates that they should have no right to associate with any man in public, barring blood relatives. Islam also demands that all women be veiled from head to foot when they go out in public. This makes it exceedingly difficult for any woman to use the natural weapons of her sex, namely the use of her body to financially exploit male sexual vulnerability. Another example of the excellence of religion of the prophet is that no woman can testify against any man in court. A husband’s right to administer corporal punishment to his wife is legally enshrined within the constitution of the Islamic Caliphate itself.Women are also not allowed to vote or participate in public office as well. Another highly praiseworthy aspect of Muslim culture is its legal recognition that women are essentially pieces of chattel property that should be bought and sold. It also alleviates the marriage problem by allowing any man to purchase a wife as a commodity that can be disposed of at any time. In Islam, only men have the right to divorce. Women are not even allowed to have access to any kind of education whatsoever.
In the Muslim religion, men are men and women are women. All women must obey all men and any woman who refuses to submit to male dominance will be promptly handed over to the police and imprisoned.Islam, when it comes to the treatment of women, is a paradise for men.So, my brothers, I don’t think we should be so quick to dismiss the religion of Islam. Yes, I admit Osama is a bit laughable, but the Prophet Mohammed was really onto something when he allowed polygamous marriages in which women are treated as property.
I think that Islam has many virtues, especially in its celebration of unbridled masculinity and naked male patriarchal dominance. We could actually learn a thing or two from the Koran, especially in regards to how we should better control our women who, dressed in stiletto heels and tight boob shirts, are out wrecking the veryfoundations of western civilization itself. No wonder the west is in a state of rapid decline and Muslim culture is in the ascendancy. We’ve given women the reins of power for so long.
Come on, men, let’s pull up our trousers and force all women back into the kitchen where they belong, even at gunpoint, if necessary. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Those people who are fully assimilated to the values as well as ideological superstructure of modern Western European civilization can actually learn a thing or two about manliness and manhood from Muslim culture.In fact, the United States on September 11, 2001, as well as other western societies like Great Britain and Spain, were successfully attacked by teams of well-organized radical Islamic fundamentalists because of the fact that all western societies have been undergoing a period of rapid feminization since the dawn of the Sexual Revolution in the sixties. The Sexual Revolution was the foolish male attempt to liberate themselves from the tyranny of female domesticity and matriarchal asexuality through the invention of effective synthetic progesterone-based oral contraceptives. Ultimately, it seems that the invention of the pill itself, which relieved so many women from the burdern of pregnancy by making the timing of pregnancy the outcome purely of female choice, triggered the catastrophic de-masculinization of western society that has made the current global social and political order almost tottering on the brink of collapse.
Actually, the contemporary scene within the Occident on an international level can no longer be seen as consisting of the great western democracies. Rather, we are living in an age which is politically dominated by female-controlled western cliterocracies or gynecocracies. Thus, on the eve of September 11, the United States, in the grips of a dangerous matriarchal obsession with (embarassingly enough) women in all levels of the central bureaucracy itself, was attacked. It was attacked because the people of the United States were too busy feminizing all apects of the Western European culture within it. Maybe if the androgenization of both genders, the chief ideological goal of any doctrinaire feminism, wasn’t so touted by the male feminist-dominated United States legislature, the World Trade Centre would never have been attacked.Now, my brothers, let’s look at how Islam deals with women. I know the religious doctrines may sound a tad objectionable to our rationalistic male sensibilities. However, let us ignore the religious dogmas for a minute and let’s focus on religious practice.For one thing, in Islam, the woman belongs in the kitchen and is legislated at gunpoint to stay in the kitchen. I find this an excellent solution to the problem of pay equity and sexual harassment in the workplace.
Islam also teaches us that having women in the workplace is a crime against nature; those who permit women to participate in the workforce should be beaten severely, even executed by the government. In addition, Islam is its strict segregation of the sexes, known as purdah. Islam fully recognizes the obvious intellectual and biological inferiority of women and mandates that they should have no right to associate with any man in public, barring blood relatives. Islam also demands that all women be veiled from head to foot when they go out in public. This makes it exceedingly difficult for any woman to use the natural weapons of her sex, namely the use of her body to financially exploit male sexual vulnerability. Another example of the excellence of religion of the prophet is that no woman can testify against any man in court. A husband’s right to administer corporal punishment to his wife is legally enshrined within the constitution of the Islamic Caliphate itself.Women are also not allowed to vote or participate in public office as well. Another highly praiseworthy aspect of Muslim culture is its legal recognition that women are essentially pieces of chattel property that should be bought and sold. It also alleviates the marriage problem by allowing any man to purchase a wife as a commodity that can be disposed of at any time. In Islam, only men have the right to divorce. Women are not even allowed to have access to any kind of education whatsoever.
In the Muslim religion, men are men and women are women. All women must obey all men and any woman who refuses to submit to male dominance will be promptly handed over to the police and imprisoned.Islam, when it comes to the treatment of women, is a paradise for men.So, my brothers, I don’t think we should be so quick to dismiss the religion of Islam. Yes, I admit Osama is a bit laughable, but the Prophet Mohammed was really onto something when he allowed polygamous marriages in which women are treated as property.
I think that Islam has many virtues, especially in its celebration of unbridled masculinity and naked male patriarchal dominance. We could actually learn a thing or two from the Koran, especially in regards to how we should better control our women who, dressed in stiletto heels and tight boob shirts, are out wrecking the veryfoundations of western civilization itself. No wonder the west is in a state of rapid decline and Muslim culture is in the ascendancy. We’ve given women the reins of power for so long.
Come on, men, let’s pull up our trousers and force all women back into the kitchen where they belong, even at gunpoint, if necessary. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
A few thoughts on the legitimacy of rape...
From an evolutionary biological perspective, rape is primarily an act of sexual gratification achieved by means of circumventing female reproductive choice. Rape can also be interpreted as a justified political act of revolutionary upheaval; it is a vehicle by which mass terror is readily disseminated throughout any given female population demographic. In the hands of any trained urban guerrilla commando, it can be one of the most effective tactics of psychological warfare at one’s disposal. On the basis of military strategy alone, the act of forcible copulation itself can function as a form of personal empowerment that can only be asserted in the face of any female-dominated liberal establishment. Often, the only way to destroy any matriarchal tyranny, which happens to be ideologically sustained by the prevailing social liberalism within current political discourse, is through the sublime mechanism of rape.
Rape is the supreme act of revenge against the power of the dominant Alpha male. To take a woman, the property of the dominant male who secured her, and use her for the sole purpose of sexual release is a supremely heroic act. It is the logical extension of the central physiological aim of the male reproductive strategy; it is based on the fierce competition for available females as a scarce commodity that pits rutting animals against one another in an attempt to secure a viable means by which the transmission of their own genes is assured. To rape a woman is the ultimate act of male sexual superiority. Through raping another man’s woman, one not only denigrates the woman who is being raped, but one also diminishes whatever status or influence has already accrued to the dominant male whose sexual partner is the one being violated in the first place.
Rape is the supreme act of revenge against the power of the dominant Alpha male. To take a woman, the property of the dominant male who secured her, and use her for the sole purpose of sexual release is a supremely heroic act. It is the logical extension of the central physiological aim of the male reproductive strategy; it is based on the fierce competition for available females as a scarce commodity that pits rutting animals against one another in an attempt to secure a viable means by which the transmission of their own genes is assured. To rape a woman is the ultimate act of male sexual superiority. Through raping another man’s woman, one not only denigrates the woman who is being raped, but one also diminishes whatever status or influence has already accrued to the dominant male whose sexual partner is the one being violated in the first place.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Men have bigger brains than women...
Male intellectual superiority can be easily explained on the basis of a neuro-physiological examination of gender-based differences in relative brain size and z-value conversion of male-female IQ scores.
Scientists have known for hundreds of years that adults have a much larger cranial capacity than children because of higher levels of developmental intelligence; human beings have greater relative brain size than the higher primates due to the effects of biological evolution; and males have heavier brains than females because men have greater mental capacity than women.
Consistent with the latest craniometric analyses, men have an average brain mass of 1,077 g; women have one of 949 g. Men also have 4 billion or 16% more neocortical neurons than women, meaning that the male brain is much more highly specialized in the processing and transmission of information. Ultimately, it is this neuro-anatomical fact which underlies the pervasive biological reality that between genders, relative brain size determines level of general intelligence.
The researchers Andreasen et al (1993) conducted a meticulous investigation into the well-known causal relationship between brain volume and mental ability. They discovered that men and women of more gifted intelligence than their same gender peers, as evaluated by the WAIS-R (a powerful analytical tool devised in accord with conventional psychometric methodology), also had correspondingly heavier brains, larger intracranial capacity, more complex external convolutions on the brain surface and larger frontal lobes. It also determined that the men, having the larger cranial capacity per cubic centimetre, performed at considerably higher levels of competence on IQ tests than women.
As indicated by z-score conversion of bell curve values generated by IQ scores for men and women (based on figures derived from the psychometric analysis of Stumpf and Jackson, 1994), there is a 65% probability that the average man is considerably more intelligent than the average female; whereas, there is a 35% probability that the average woman is more intelligent than the average man. Another way of expressing this is that 65 out of a hundred men will demonstrate a much greater mental capacity than the average female; 35 out of 100 women will actually exceed the average male score for mean intelligence. Thus, it follows that if there are almost twice as many men as there are women who exceed the mean intelligence for both genders then it follows logically that the average man is much more intelligent than the average female.
In the final analysis, women have lower levels of intelligence and creativity than men. This is probably due to the fact that women have brains that resemble a gorillas’ in both size and overall neurological functioning; amongst human beings, the female possesses a brain the furthest removed from that of modern, civilized man. On this basis then, the average man has considerable rational justification for assuming that most women are dumber than fuck.
Is not this gender assymetry in brain size made more obvious still through the daily interactions of the sexes? In reality, the overwhelming majority of women are just as dumb as the vapid blonde bimbo of locker room folklore.
Scientists have known for hundreds of years that adults have a much larger cranial capacity than children because of higher levels of developmental intelligence; human beings have greater relative brain size than the higher primates due to the effects of biological evolution; and males have heavier brains than females because men have greater mental capacity than women.
Consistent with the latest craniometric analyses, men have an average brain mass of 1,077 g; women have one of 949 g. Men also have 4 billion or 16% more neocortical neurons than women, meaning that the male brain is much more highly specialized in the processing and transmission of information. Ultimately, it is this neuro-anatomical fact which underlies the pervasive biological reality that between genders, relative brain size determines level of general intelligence.
The researchers Andreasen et al (1993) conducted a meticulous investigation into the well-known causal relationship between brain volume and mental ability. They discovered that men and women of more gifted intelligence than their same gender peers, as evaluated by the WAIS-R (a powerful analytical tool devised in accord with conventional psychometric methodology), also had correspondingly heavier brains, larger intracranial capacity, more complex external convolutions on the brain surface and larger frontal lobes. It also determined that the men, having the larger cranial capacity per cubic centimetre, performed at considerably higher levels of competence on IQ tests than women.
As indicated by z-score conversion of bell curve values generated by IQ scores for men and women (based on figures derived from the psychometric analysis of Stumpf and Jackson, 1994), there is a 65% probability that the average man is considerably more intelligent than the average female; whereas, there is a 35% probability that the average woman is more intelligent than the average man. Another way of expressing this is that 65 out of a hundred men will demonstrate a much greater mental capacity than the average female; 35 out of 100 women will actually exceed the average male score for mean intelligence. Thus, it follows that if there are almost twice as many men as there are women who exceed the mean intelligence for both genders then it follows logically that the average man is much more intelligent than the average female.
In the final analysis, women have lower levels of intelligence and creativity than men. This is probably due to the fact that women have brains that resemble a gorillas’ in both size and overall neurological functioning; amongst human beings, the female possesses a brain the furthest removed from that of modern, civilized man. On this basis then, the average man has considerable rational justification for assuming that most women are dumber than fuck.
Is not this gender assymetry in brain size made more obvious still through the daily interactions of the sexes? In reality, the overwhelming majority of women are just as dumb as the vapid blonde bimbo of locker room folklore.
Friday, April 18, 2008
A good lot of women are stupid!
The gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in human intelligence as extrapolated from both child and adult versions of Weschler’s intelligence scale is just a small amount of the substantial psychometric evidence pointing in the direction of tremendous sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. Only somebody possessing the limited intelligence of a lesser evolved and more primitive female central nervous system would assume that the bell curve itself is dimorphic; what the gaussian distribution demonstrates is that the disparity between male and female levels of intelligence can be mathematically substantiated through the rigorous application of non-overlapping analytic geometrical co-ordinates.
Gender-based differences in mental capacity are obviously sexually dimorphic because both traits are unevenly distributed between both genders. There are substantial neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological factors, such as higher levels of circulating androgens and greater relative brain size in males, which are responsible for the sexual differentiation in human cognition that leads to men having significantly higher levels of intelligence than females. Just because gender-based differences in human intelligence demonstrate some degree of overlap in no way invalidates the accepted scientific fact that the average male is significantly more intelligent than the average female. For example, male and female levels of aggression also show some degree of overlap, but this in no way invalidates the fact that there is considerable sexual dimorphism in levels of human aggression; gender differences in aggression gravitate around certain statistical polarities which indicate that, regardless of the degree of overlap, men are considerably more aggressive than women. It is the very universality of both higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, within all societies and across all cultures, as well as the substantial body of both neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological evidence, which makes them both sexually differentiated traits just as dimorphic as gender differences in genitalia (which also demonstrate some degree of overlap, if one takes such intersexual phenomena as hermaphroditism into consideration).
Expressed another way, one could say that the higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, as well as the male reproductive organs, are all sexually dimorphic traits because the expression of all three is the result of higher levels of circulating androgens within the male body; in contrast, the lower levels of intelligence and aggression in the human female, as well as the female reproductive organs, are sexually dimorphic traits because of the presence of higher levels of circulating estrogens within the female bloodstream.
To assume that gender-based differences in native mental ability do not exist is really an act of Orwellian doublethink; those who do so willfully contradict a large body of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taking the data accumulated by Stumpf and Jackson (1994), if 65% of men are more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic and 35% of women are more intelligent than the average male, then it is obvious that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female by a factor of 30% (65% - 35%), a figure which is by no means statistically insignificant. If there is a 30% higher probability that the average man is considerably more intelligent than the average woman, it becomes virtually impossible to assume that there are no sex-based differences in mental capacity. The only way to safely assume that there are no differences in mental capacity would be if the data indicated that there was a 50% probability of both genders being more intelligent than each other. However, this is not the case; the available data reveals otherwise. Men are significantly more intelligent than women because there is a higher probability that the average man (65%) is more intelligent than the average female (35%).
Consistent with these observations, it is furthermore absurd to deny the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence given the fact that both female brain size and mental capacity decreases rapidly throughout the female life cycle as opposed to the male. The researchers Ho et al (1980) actually uncovered a pattern of massive brain shrinkage as the human female ages. This is especially marked from the age of 45 onwards and is a process of nervous degeneration that is almost unparalelled in the life cycle of the human male.
In addition, the team of Ho et al also discovered that the female central nervous system consists of a much higher ratio of cerebrospinal fluid to actual brain tissue, whereas the male has a higher ratio of brain tissue to cerebrospinal fluid. By confirming that men have bigger brains than women, the researchers make it obvious that the human female is mentally inferior to the intellectually dominant male.
In the final analysis, when it comes to cases such as these, it is probably safe to assume that any woman of supposedly high intelligence is considerably dumber than the average man in the street.
Gender-based differences in mental capacity are obviously sexually dimorphic because both traits are unevenly distributed between both genders. There are substantial neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological factors, such as higher levels of circulating androgens and greater relative brain size in males, which are responsible for the sexual differentiation in human cognition that leads to men having significantly higher levels of intelligence than females. Just because gender-based differences in human intelligence demonstrate some degree of overlap in no way invalidates the accepted scientific fact that the average male is significantly more intelligent than the average female. For example, male and female levels of aggression also show some degree of overlap, but this in no way invalidates the fact that there is considerable sexual dimorphism in levels of human aggression; gender differences in aggression gravitate around certain statistical polarities which indicate that, regardless of the degree of overlap, men are considerably more aggressive than women. It is the very universality of both higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, within all societies and across all cultures, as well as the substantial body of both neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological evidence, which makes them both sexually differentiated traits just as dimorphic as gender differences in genitalia (which also demonstrate some degree of overlap, if one takes such intersexual phenomena as hermaphroditism into consideration).
Expressed another way, one could say that the higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, as well as the male reproductive organs, are all sexually dimorphic traits because the expression of all three is the result of higher levels of circulating androgens within the male body; in contrast, the lower levels of intelligence and aggression in the human female, as well as the female reproductive organs, are sexually dimorphic traits because of the presence of higher levels of circulating estrogens within the female bloodstream.
To assume that gender-based differences in native mental ability do not exist is really an act of Orwellian doublethink; those who do so willfully contradict a large body of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taking the data accumulated by Stumpf and Jackson (1994), if 65% of men are more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic and 35% of women are more intelligent than the average male, then it is obvious that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female by a factor of 30% (65% - 35%), a figure which is by no means statistically insignificant. If there is a 30% higher probability that the average man is considerably more intelligent than the average woman, it becomes virtually impossible to assume that there are no sex-based differences in mental capacity. The only way to safely assume that there are no differences in mental capacity would be if the data indicated that there was a 50% probability of both genders being more intelligent than each other. However, this is not the case; the available data reveals otherwise. Men are significantly more intelligent than women because there is a higher probability that the average man (65%) is more intelligent than the average female (35%).
Consistent with these observations, it is furthermore absurd to deny the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence given the fact that both female brain size and mental capacity decreases rapidly throughout the female life cycle as opposed to the male. The researchers Ho et al (1980) actually uncovered a pattern of massive brain shrinkage as the human female ages. This is especially marked from the age of 45 onwards and is a process of nervous degeneration that is almost unparalelled in the life cycle of the human male.
In addition, the team of Ho et al also discovered that the female central nervous system consists of a much higher ratio of cerebrospinal fluid to actual brain tissue, whereas the male has a higher ratio of brain tissue to cerebrospinal fluid. By confirming that men have bigger brains than women, the researchers make it obvious that the human female is mentally inferior to the intellectually dominant male.
In the final analysis, when it comes to cases such as these, it is probably safe to assume that any woman of supposedly high intelligence is considerably dumber than the average man in the street.
On female intellectual inferiority
The notion that women are intellectually inferior to men is one of the cornerstones upon which the modern psychometric investigation into gender-based differences in both fluid and crystallized intelligence, expressed as global mental capacity, is based. In fact, female intellectual inferiority can be readily demonstrated on the basis of that elementary principle of physiology which states that larger brain size = higher intellectual capacity. Thus, it has been established that men exceed women in brain size by an average of .78d. When this is multiplied by the .45 mean correlation between brain volume and g relationship derived from the research of Shoenemann et al (2000), we are left with a standard deviation of 0.351. Further multiplying this figure by 15 (the unit conversion of SD into IQ points) produces a male lead in average intelligence by about 5.265 IQ points. Therefore, because the average man has a significantly bigger brain than the average female, it can be mathematically calculated with ease that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female; the greater size of the average male brain in comparison to the female is central to being able to fully comprehend male intellectual superiority over the lesser mental capacity of the female.
In addition, it has been further argued by the British psychologist Richard Lynn that relative brain size and mental capacity is highly correlated; because men have larger brains than women it follows logically that men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Lynn also notes, on the basis of current psychometric research, that occupational status and income are also highly correlated with intelligence; men have greater occupational status and income than women, therefore men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Even the greater male advantage in mean intelligence, estimated by both Lynn and Irwing (2005), in their meta-analysis of gender-based differences in global intelligence as revealed on the highly g-loaded Progressive Matrices, as being roughly .33d or 5 IQ points, cannot be interpreted as being statistically insignificant.
Whether we accept a determination of the gender gap in mental capacity as being the equivalent of 8.4 IQ points in favour of males as uncovered by Stumpf and Jackson or Lynn and Irwing’s measure of male-female differences in global intelligence as being approximately 5 IQ points, it would be foolhardy to dismiss these results as being of little consequence. The effect of even a 5 IQ point gap favouring males in gender-based differences in intelligence is ultimately translated into an exponentially increased series of male-female ratios at the higher end of the normal distribution curve of intelligence. Therefore, the male advantage over the lesser intelligent female would be formulated as a ratio of 2.3:1 with IQs exceeding 130, 3:1 with IQs exceeding 145, 5.5:1 with IQs exceeding 155, and 30:1 with IQs exceeding the range of 170. Consistent with the foregoing, Benbow (1992) and Benbow et al (2000) both observe that male intellectual superiority over the lesser evolved and smaller brained female is most likely revealed in tasks of high complexity such as problem-solving with high level abstractions in mathematics, engineering, physics as well as other tasks calling for high degrees of spatial visualization, the sex-typical neurological specialization for which has been heavily integrated into the male central nervous system by a process of gradual biological evolution.
In light of the entire discussion so far, it follows that the greater advantage of the average male in both relative brain size and intelligence should also go a long way in providing an explanation for the omnipresence of male dominance throughout all social, economic, and political institutions around which human civilization is organized. The greater variability in male intelligence as opposed to female, as the German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck has pointed out, has tremendous implications for the socio-economic and political organization of human socio-sexual relations. It produces a significantly greater proportion of males at either end of the normal distribution curve of human intelligence. For example, it can be shown from the research of Benbow (1988) that of those students between the ages of 12 - 15 who scored over 700 on the mathematical section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), there was a ratio of 12.9 boys for every one girl. Thus, it is results such as these which help explain why a disproportionate number of those positions requiring high levels of intelligence or spatial and technical ability are always occupied by men; it helps elucidate the reasons as to why male patriarchal dominance has been both universal and psycho-physiologically inevitable throughout all societies and cultures.
In the final analysis, it would seem that the radical gender feminist theory of a ‘glass ceiling’, in which women face constant discrimination from men resulting in the routine social exclusion of women from the professions and senior level positions in industrial management, is shameless drivel. Male intellectual dominance over the lesser evolved and mentally inferior female is a product almost exclusively of genetic factors; it has absolutely nothing to do with the false ideological construct of male chauvinism, which essentially constitutes a theoretical leftover from the days when Marxist sociological analysis was fiercely advocated by the now defunct Frankfurt School of Dialectical Materialism.
In addition, it has been further argued by the British psychologist Richard Lynn that relative brain size and mental capacity is highly correlated; because men have larger brains than women it follows logically that men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Lynn also notes, on the basis of current psychometric research, that occupational status and income are also highly correlated with intelligence; men have greater occupational status and income than women, therefore men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Even the greater male advantage in mean intelligence, estimated by both Lynn and Irwing (2005), in their meta-analysis of gender-based differences in global intelligence as revealed on the highly g-loaded Progressive Matrices, as being roughly .33d or 5 IQ points, cannot be interpreted as being statistically insignificant.
Whether we accept a determination of the gender gap in mental capacity as being the equivalent of 8.4 IQ points in favour of males as uncovered by Stumpf and Jackson or Lynn and Irwing’s measure of male-female differences in global intelligence as being approximately 5 IQ points, it would be foolhardy to dismiss these results as being of little consequence. The effect of even a 5 IQ point gap favouring males in gender-based differences in intelligence is ultimately translated into an exponentially increased series of male-female ratios at the higher end of the normal distribution curve of intelligence. Therefore, the male advantage over the lesser intelligent female would be formulated as a ratio of 2.3:1 with IQs exceeding 130, 3:1 with IQs exceeding 145, 5.5:1 with IQs exceeding 155, and 30:1 with IQs exceeding the range of 170. Consistent with the foregoing, Benbow (1992) and Benbow et al (2000) both observe that male intellectual superiority over the lesser evolved and smaller brained female is most likely revealed in tasks of high complexity such as problem-solving with high level abstractions in mathematics, engineering, physics as well as other tasks calling for high degrees of spatial visualization, the sex-typical neurological specialization for which has been heavily integrated into the male central nervous system by a process of gradual biological evolution.
In light of the entire discussion so far, it follows that the greater advantage of the average male in both relative brain size and intelligence should also go a long way in providing an explanation for the omnipresence of male dominance throughout all social, economic, and political institutions around which human civilization is organized. The greater variability in male intelligence as opposed to female, as the German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck has pointed out, has tremendous implications for the socio-economic and political organization of human socio-sexual relations. It produces a significantly greater proportion of males at either end of the normal distribution curve of human intelligence. For example, it can be shown from the research of Benbow (1988) that of those students between the ages of 12 - 15 who scored over 700 on the mathematical section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), there was a ratio of 12.9 boys for every one girl. Thus, it is results such as these which help explain why a disproportionate number of those positions requiring high levels of intelligence or spatial and technical ability are always occupied by men; it helps elucidate the reasons as to why male patriarchal dominance has been both universal and psycho-physiologically inevitable throughout all societies and cultures.
In the final analysis, it would seem that the radical gender feminist theory of a ‘glass ceiling’, in which women face constant discrimination from men resulting in the routine social exclusion of women from the professions and senior level positions in industrial management, is shameless drivel. Male intellectual dominance over the lesser evolved and mentally inferior female is a product almost exclusively of genetic factors; it has absolutely nothing to do with the false ideological construct of male chauvinism, which essentially constitutes a theoretical leftover from the days when Marxist sociological analysis was fiercely advocated by the now defunct Frankfurt School of Dialectical Materialism.
Steve Blinkhorn is an idiot; men are still smarter than women
MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES
Steve Blinkhorn is a controversial psychometric researcher and gender scholar who has been repeatedly implicated in many attempts to deliberately falsify evidence. He is widely known for maintaining a strong ideological kinship with gender feminism and the liberal Keynesian economics of the social welfare state. Blinkhorn is also a staunch advocate of the extreme social constructionism propagated by the late Harvard palaeontologist S.J. Gould, another fellow socialist academic suffering from a severe bout of left-wing infantile psychosis. It has been fully established by much of the scientific community at large that much of his research has been thoroughly discredited by all leading proponents of hereditarianism and evolutionary biology. Many of the studies that have been produced by Blinkhorn have actually been derided by many scholars as both methodologically unsound and characterized by frequent distortions of whatever available scientific evidence is on hand.
To illustrate, it was widely believed by a number of British psychologists, as determined by the mechanical technique of establishing coefficients of co-variation by means of electromagneto-encephalography (EM-EEG), that brain electrical activity could be reliably associated with psychometric differences in measured intelligence; the mathematical determination of “string length”, interpreted as average evoked potential, is expressed in terms of evoked potential component amplitude, and often under the parameters of such brain wave features as latency, contour length, variability, and zero-crossings. The major premise of those investigations involved in gathering together such empirical observations is based on the null hypothesis that people of high intelligence would have more reliable brain electrical responses to stimuli generated by the outer environment. Many within the academic community argued that the string length of the average brain electrical potential demonstrated an unmistakably positive correlation with both reaction time and differential abilities in mental capacity.
In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.
Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”.
According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. The raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.
Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.
Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.
Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.
Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:
The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.
The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.
From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:
The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…
Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.
The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.
Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.
In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.
Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.
We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.
MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES
Steve Blinkhorn is a controversial psychometric researcher and gender scholar who has been repeatedly implicated in many attempts to deliberately falsify evidence. He is widely known for maintaining a strong ideological kinship with gender feminism and the liberal Keynesian economics of the social welfare state. Blinkhorn is also a staunch advocate of the extreme social constructionism propagated by the late Harvard palaeontologist S.J. Gould, another fellow socialist academic suffering from a severe bout of left-wing infantile psychosis. It has been fully established by much of the scientific community at large that much of his research has been thoroughly discredited by all leading proponents of hereditarianism and evolutionary biology. Many of the studies that have been produced by Blinkhorn have actually been derided by many scholars as both methodologically unsound and characterized by frequent distortions of whatever available scientific evidence is on hand.
To illustrate, it was widely believed by a number of British psychologists, as determined by the mechanical technique of establishing coefficients of co-variation by means of electromagneto-encephalography (EM-EEG), that brain electrical activity could be reliably associated with psychometric differences in measured intelligence; the mathematical determination of “string length”, interpreted as average evoked potential, is expressed in terms of evoked potential component amplitude, and often under the parameters of such brain wave features as latency, contour length, variability, and zero-crossings. The major premise of those investigations involved in gathering together such empirical observations is based on the null hypothesis that people of high intelligence would have more reliable brain electrical responses to stimuli generated by the outer environment. Many within the academic community argued that the string length of the average brain electrical potential demonstrated an unmistakably positive correlation with both reaction time and differential abilities in mental capacity.
In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.
Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”.
According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. The raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.
Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.
Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.
Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.
Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:
The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.
The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.
From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:
The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…
Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.
The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.
Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.
In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.
Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.
We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.
MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES
Women are intellectually inferior to men...
There are multiple ways in which to conceptualize the lesser intelligence of the human female. The best way to comprehend female intellectual inferiority to the superior mental capacity of the male gender is by constructing a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait distribution within a given population demographic. There are two fundamental operationalizations around which gravitate those statistical polarities synthesized from the standard gaussian distribution of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the first serves as an important basis upon which the typical gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in mental capacity rests. This can be readily observed in its primary function as being a scientific methodology which generates both an epistemological praxis and workable data on the basis of objective statistical and empirical information. A second function that needs to be emphasized is that such a mathematical tool also serves as a means of conducting a rigorous analysis of corresponding normal distribution curves whose final pupose is to calculate the relative probabilities which determine the likelihood of the average male being more intelligent than the average female and vice versa. This is achieved by standardizing the product of the raw score subtracted from its population mean and than further dividing the product by the standard deviation. The final step involves converting the end result into a z-score or standardized variable as statistically computed from a standard normal distribution table and than subsequently expressing the result as a percentage of the pattern of continuous probability distribution.
The analytical process itself functions as an underlying computational methodology which enables us to fully grasp the fact that the average male has significantly greater levels of ‘g’ than the average female; it is this process which highlights the fact that this can only be done by gaining an exact knowledge of what is the relative probability that the average male has significantly higher levels of intelligence than the human female. To be fair, the body of statistical data used for constructing such a level of probability shall be the gaussian distribution of male-female differences in mental capacity provided by the WISC-R, a test specifically designed to assess the intelligence of children between the ages of 6 - 16.5. It is also an IQ test notorious for furnishing experimenters with one of the most conservative measures of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the overall format of the test is structured in such a way as to largely lean in the direction of minimizing sex differences. Another important aspect of the data collected from the administration of the WISC-R is that the test is generally designed to assess the ‘g’ of solely of the developing child; although male intellectual capacity may be closer to the female in childhood, the gap in intelligence between both male and female genders widens by up to 10 points as the juvenile gradually matures into adulthood. In addition, it is also important to point out that, with the onset of old age, the average female IQ declines at a much more rapid pace than the male.
The data furnished by the WISC-R is converted into a z-value by means of standardizing the raw scores. This is done by statistically computing them on the basis of a standard normal distribution table. The equation that expresses this function is:
Z = X - mu / sigma, where Z represents the z-score, mu represents the mean population distribution, and sigma symbolizes the standard deviation of the continuous probability distribution of X. This is ultimately calculated by converting the end result into the z-values of the standard normal statistical tables, and than finally expressing the figure as a percentage of the probability of X.
A further, much more practical example is needed in order to fully elucidate this point. For the purposes of instruction, our mathematical calculation of the probability that the average man will be considerably more intelligent than the average female and vice versa shall be directly based on the raw data gathered by the WISC-R. The subsequent equation will look thus:
103.08 - 101.41 / 13.55 = 0.123 = 0.4510535 = 0.45 = 45%
This equation expresses the fact that the probability of the average woman being more intelligent than the average man is 0.45. Expressed as a percentage of its own probability distribution, it indicates that 45% of the female population demographic will be smarter than 100% of the male population demographic.
101.41 - 103.08 / 14.54 = - 0.115 = 0.5457775 = 0.55 = 55%
The solution of this equation expresses the fact that the average man has a 55% probability of being considerably more intelligent than the average female; this means that 55% of males will be substantially more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic.If the values provided by the more liberal estimates of Stumpf and Jackson (1994) were substituted into the equation itself, than the probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female would increase from 55% to approximately 65%; correspondingly, the probability that the average female would be more intelligent than the average male would decrease from 45% to 35%.
In the final analysis, we can see that the notion that the average male is likely to be just as intelligent as the average female is a propagandistic falsehood based on the radical social constructionist interpretive framework of Marxist cultural anthropology. It is impossible to maintain such a ridiculous notion when one recognizes the fact that the average male is about as likely to share equal intelligence with the average female as plants are likely to share the same anatomical structural isomorphism with mammalian species. The statistical tabulation of the probability that males have a 55% chance of having a greater likelihood of being more intelligent than the average female leads to the higher probability that males will be more intelligent than females. This is almost simultaneously translated into average male intelligence being considerably than average levels of female mental capacity.Thus, if males have a 55% probability of being more intelligent than the average woman and females have a 45% probability of being more intelligent than the average man, it follows that this directly leads, by logical extension, to more average men being significantly more intelligent than greater numbers of average women; the higher the probability that a certain proportion of men will be more intelligent than 100% of women means a substantially larger number of average men who are more intelligent than average women; this in turn leads to higher levels of overall male intelligence in relation to the female.In short, it is virtually impossible to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. The above statistical computations yield one conclusion and one conclusion only: it reveals that most men are smart and that most women are dumber than shit is an irrefutable fact of the logic of scientific inquiry.
The analytical process itself functions as an underlying computational methodology which enables us to fully grasp the fact that the average male has significantly greater levels of ‘g’ than the average female; it is this process which highlights the fact that this can only be done by gaining an exact knowledge of what is the relative probability that the average male has significantly higher levels of intelligence than the human female. To be fair, the body of statistical data used for constructing such a level of probability shall be the gaussian distribution of male-female differences in mental capacity provided by the WISC-R, a test specifically designed to assess the intelligence of children between the ages of 6 - 16.5. It is also an IQ test notorious for furnishing experimenters with one of the most conservative measures of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the overall format of the test is structured in such a way as to largely lean in the direction of minimizing sex differences. Another important aspect of the data collected from the administration of the WISC-R is that the test is generally designed to assess the ‘g’ of solely of the developing child; although male intellectual capacity may be closer to the female in childhood, the gap in intelligence between both male and female genders widens by up to 10 points as the juvenile gradually matures into adulthood. In addition, it is also important to point out that, with the onset of old age, the average female IQ declines at a much more rapid pace than the male.
The data furnished by the WISC-R is converted into a z-value by means of standardizing the raw scores. This is done by statistically computing them on the basis of a standard normal distribution table. The equation that expresses this function is:
Z = X - mu / sigma, where Z represents the z-score, mu represents the mean population distribution, and sigma symbolizes the standard deviation of the continuous probability distribution of X. This is ultimately calculated by converting the end result into the z-values of the standard normal statistical tables, and than finally expressing the figure as a percentage of the probability of X.
A further, much more practical example is needed in order to fully elucidate this point. For the purposes of instruction, our mathematical calculation of the probability that the average man will be considerably more intelligent than the average female and vice versa shall be directly based on the raw data gathered by the WISC-R. The subsequent equation will look thus:
103.08 - 101.41 / 13.55 = 0.123 = 0.4510535 = 0.45 = 45%
This equation expresses the fact that the probability of the average woman being more intelligent than the average man is 0.45. Expressed as a percentage of its own probability distribution, it indicates that 45% of the female population demographic will be smarter than 100% of the male population demographic.
101.41 - 103.08 / 14.54 = - 0.115 = 0.5457775 = 0.55 = 55%
The solution of this equation expresses the fact that the average man has a 55% probability of being considerably more intelligent than the average female; this means that 55% of males will be substantially more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic.If the values provided by the more liberal estimates of Stumpf and Jackson (1994) were substituted into the equation itself, than the probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female would increase from 55% to approximately 65%; correspondingly, the probability that the average female would be more intelligent than the average male would decrease from 45% to 35%.
In the final analysis, we can see that the notion that the average male is likely to be just as intelligent as the average female is a propagandistic falsehood based on the radical social constructionist interpretive framework of Marxist cultural anthropology. It is impossible to maintain such a ridiculous notion when one recognizes the fact that the average male is about as likely to share equal intelligence with the average female as plants are likely to share the same anatomical structural isomorphism with mammalian species. The statistical tabulation of the probability that males have a 55% chance of having a greater likelihood of being more intelligent than the average female leads to the higher probability that males will be more intelligent than females. This is almost simultaneously translated into average male intelligence being considerably than average levels of female mental capacity.Thus, if males have a 55% probability of being more intelligent than the average woman and females have a 45% probability of being more intelligent than the average man, it follows that this directly leads, by logical extension, to more average men being significantly more intelligent than greater numbers of average women; the higher the probability that a certain proportion of men will be more intelligent than 100% of women means a substantially larger number of average men who are more intelligent than average women; this in turn leads to higher levels of overall male intelligence in relation to the female.In short, it is virtually impossible to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. The above statistical computations yield one conclusion and one conclusion only: it reveals that most men are smart and that most women are dumber than shit is an irrefutable fact of the logic of scientific inquiry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Finally, something that ALL women are good at... BEING WHORES!
KEEP WOMEN VEILED!
The burkha is the only antidote to liberal socialism and feminism!
