/lit/ - Literature

>>7126321
Insert the graph that shows that women and men have the same IQ on average but men have a larger proportion of very high and very low IQ people

>>7126321
Because IQ isn't indicative of intelligence, it's just indicative of an ability to pass standardised tests. women have only relatively recently experienced the freedoms of thought and action that men have.

I'm fairly certain most, if not all, the historic female philosophers have been very wealthy. Most womenfolk hadn't the power or social standing necessary to be able to pursue philosophy. Give them a few years.

Look at how PC and mild my opinion is, holy shit.

>>7126321
women have the same iq on average, but as there are more male retards, there are more male geniuses

Women have a higher average IQ but men are more likely to be very gifted or very stupid.

>>7126349
That's wrong though, between 1900-1950, 4% of all Nobel Prize winners in science were women, from 1951-2000, despite gaining the 'freedoms of thought and actions that men have', they constituted just 3% of winners.

>>7126401
Men's IQ is 3.6 points higher: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250

>>7126321
Systematic repression of the female intellectual in the public sphere throughout the majority of written history

>>7126414
You think there isn't systematic repression of the male intellectual?

>>7126349
Yeah, then we can have more Felecia Day and Laurie Penny types. Joy. Aren't women smart?

>>7126424
For the majority of written history? no.

>>7126428
Tumblr, everyone.

I met a woman who told me that the only book that has ever made her cry is 1984

>>7126425
Both rich. You weren't paying attention.

>>7126349
>Because IQ isn't indicative of intelligence, it's just indicative of an ability to pass standardised tests
You must have taken a different IQ test because mine was completely different from any other test I've taken.

>>7126321
They are natural beings, not spiritual beings. They don't have to construct their own purpose because they are born with the most important task of all: select the males that will birth the next generation and then raise that generation.

>>7126434
Might be stereotyping but did you ask her if it's because the proto denounces his love in the end?

>>7126407
>between 1900-1950, 4% of all Nobel Prize winners in science were women, from 1951-2000, despite gaining the 'freedoms of thought and actions that men have', they constituted just 3% of winners.
That hardly disproves the claim that a sexist culture is responsible for their lack of intellectual recognition. In fact, many feminists would use an "under-representation" of female Nobel Prize laureates as evidence for the continued prevalence of sexism. For example, it's widely known that 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine laureates
Watson and Crick could not have made their groundbreaking discoveries without more or less stealing the work of the female English chemist Rosalind Franklin.

>>7126407
>3.6 points higher
That's a very small advantage, even if "Science Direct" is to be trusted. It's almost insignificant.

I don't even necessarily disagree with the claim that there are more male geniuses and than female geniuses, but you argue like a woman

>>7126438
You can't be smart and poor.

>>7126460
Do we need a quota for women in the Nobel prizes? That won't mean they're better.

>>7126460
>but you argue like a woman
says the person who disregards science, data and statistics as sexist and uses emotion and anecdotal evidence about 'sexist culture' to argue

>>7126446
I'll find out

ayyn rand

>>7126469
She's an Aunty Tom to women.

>>7126461
Shit, dude. I forgot.

>>7126346
This. Women have less idiots and geniuses. They're more of a comfy middle management sex.

>>7126475
>dude

>>7126349
>women have only relatively recently experienced the freedoms of thought and action that men have.
Yeah, no need to talk here if you buy into that feminist shit.
Women have always been free in this regard, its just men wouldnt take it as seriously: as they shouldnt because womens thoughts on the matter turn into feminism or other such meaningless and downright annoying ideologies.

>>7126465
>Do we need a quota for women in the Nobel prizes? That won't mean they're better.
No, and I never suggested that we impose a quota for women "in the Nobel prizes". Please don't make up new arguments for me; simply address the ones I actually made. If you are unable to this then don't respond to my posts.

>>7126466
>says the person who disregards science, data and statistics as sexist
I don't remember doing this. Could you please direct to me where I disregarded science, "data", and the almighty, empirical, and infallible subject of "statistics"? Challenging your claims (which you seem to have confused with empirical facts) is not the same thing as ignoring science.


You MRAs are boring debaters, I'm sorry. I'm simply highlighting flaws in your poorly reasoned arguments out of boredom, how would you do against an actual feminist? Poorly I assume, which is why you retreat to the anonymous imageboards of 4chan to whine about women with other pasty virgins

>>7126501
3 posts in and you're already buttmad enough to resort to personal attacks

>>7126501
>assuming mra
>based on disregarding feminist propaganda
well i guess we know what ideology you subscribe to.

>>7126495
More like self-serving ideologies. It's just like white supremacy.
>>7126501
You don't have an argument, you have no evidence for this 'historic oppression of women'.

>>7126507
Personal attacks made up a very small portion of my post. The first and more immediate portion, in which I refuted your arguments point by point by point, you have consciously chosen to ignore. Until you are able to provide a critique of these claims, I will stand by my insults, because they appear to be quite justified

>>7126501
>address the [arguments] I actually made
>you retreat to the anonymous imageboards of 4chan to whine about women with other pasty virgins
gr8 deb8, m8

>>7126520
too late now dude, everybody has seen how retarded you are, and couldnt give less of a fuck, for the mind that produced that god awful shit is the same mind incapable of thinking its way out a paper bag bitch

>>7126520
You actually didn't refute anything, stop being naïve, you silly, little kid.

>>7126501
Penny, is it you?

>>7126539
Why is her vagina so low? She's also ugly.

>>7126524
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense
Made is a past tense verb, and refers to an earlier claim of mine, not the minuscule one at the bottom of my argument which seems to have riled everybody up so much.

>>7126526
>dude
>retarded
>fuck
>shit
>bitch
Why are you on a literature form? You have no grasp of the English language.

Anyways, I thought the bullies of 4chan were supposed to be thick-skinned tough guys who didn't care about what anybody thought about anything? I didn't realize they were so sensitive. I seem to have struck quite a nerve with an insult made in passing. This speaks to more support of my claim that most of you are bitter virgins who wish they had a girlfriend.

>>7126472
who cares about women, she's great

>>7126545
>>>/r9k/

In basically all areas of life women inhabit a comfortable middleground whereas men tend to cluster at both extremes of the spectrum. This is why feminism is wrong-headed, because half of men are actually less privileged than women, but they insist on attributing the privilege of the few to the whole sex. Identity politics need to die and be replaced once more with good old fashioned class consciousness.

>>7126579
Class identity is a form of identity politics.

>>7126542
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_tense
>Made is a past tense verb, and refers to an earlier claim of mine, not the minuscule one at the bottom of my argument which seems to have riled everybody up so much.
Wow omg ur so smart!
I wrote that post to point out your inconsistency. First you ask people to stick to the arguments that you've made, to keep the discussion from going off-topic. Then, at the end of your post you insult people and expect the discussion to go on normally. The guy you replied to might have made a fallacy but you've made a far worse one. You've made a personal insult. And now you can clearly see its results. It was you who ruined the discussion.

>>7126446
>>7126468
It was 'because he had lost all hope'

>>7126432
Lol what name one male who was suppressed for being male before 1990

>>7126838
All of them?

>why have there been almost no female philosophers of worth?
because women are a meme, you pleblord

>>7126848
Mm yes yes all those volunteers definitely. It's hardly as if the women in power (yes all 0 of them in 1914) sent them to the front. Male on male is not a sexist thing

>>7126856
>all those volunteers definitely
Clearly, these guys were ASKING to get killed or shellshocked.

>Male on male is not a sexist thing
I bet you're going to say men can't get raped next. The fact remains that all those people died only because they were male. If a person gets to live and another gets to die, and its decided purely on their sex, then guess what? That's prejudice. Sex-based prejudice... what do we call that hmm?

>>7126856
Lol, sexist oppression is the lowest form of oppression.
Obviously everyone who is oppressed is oppressed by men because women are to weak to oppress anyone

>>7126321
Come on /pol it's too early for this shit.
Everyone shut up we've got girl Army Rangers now I don't want to hear it.

These threads are so fucking stupid, god damn.

>>7126851
womemes : ^ )

What about Ayn Rand?

"The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis suggests that although men and women have similar average IQ, men will end up over-represented in high-IQ occupations like “physicist” because men have higher variability (and therefore more men will be at both the high and low extremes). Some studies have shown preliminary support for this idea, but of course IQ is really hard to study and frequently confounded by cultural stuff. But the hypothesis says this variability should exist for every biological trait (it’s because men have only one X chromosome, so all their recessive mutations are expressed). So the best way to study it would be to study a bunch of easy-to-study obviously biological traits and see if men have more variability among most of them. And they mostly do, in categories from blood bilirubin levels to 60-meter-dash-running times (women are more variable along other parameters, including BMI and thyroid hormone levels, but there are fewer in this column). Overall the paper seems to provide significant albeit inconsistent support for greater male variability."

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cdeyoung/psy5101/Lehr_2009_male_variability.pdf

>>7126541

What the fuck are you talking about you creepo

>>7126350
This. Women are slightly more intelligent than men on average, but have a narrower bell curve so extreme values are much less common.

>>7126321
I actually btfo this feminist friend of mine when I asked her to name 5 female philosophers

>>7127135
Sauce on that image? It's pretty different compared to this one: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

>>7127137
I'm not a feminist and even I can do that. In fact I can name five that I've actually read.

>>7127137

It's pretty easy, honestly. Same goes for inventors, scientists, etc.

It's one of the most foolproof way to rustle feminist jimmies.

>>7127137
Simone de Beauvoir, Ayn Rand, Judith Butler, Donna Haraway, and Martha Nussbaum, off the top of my head.

>>7127151
i can only name 3, rand, de beauvoir, and wollstonecraft.

i dont know if any of them even count as legitimate.

de beauvoir:
>"Though she did not consider herself a philosopher, she had a significant influence on both feminist existentialism and feminist theory"

rand
>is a meme

wollstonecraft:
>another feminist who wrote about muh patriarchy

>>7127137
jesus christ. do you dumb fucks not realize how societal structures continuously fucked up and will continue to fuck up women's ability to even propose an original thought if people keep believing they are less intelligent? (which, by the way, doesn't have shit to do with the ridiculous measurement that IQ is)

Wasn't the first novelist in the world a woman?

My take is that philosophy has been defined as a male profession for most of history. It's like asking why there aren't female gigolos. You can make an argument as to why women are biologically unsuited to be gigolos, but you'd be missing the point.

>>7126866
Many did volunteer without knowing how horrible it would be, just saying

>>7127178
Not sure if trolling, but last time I checked, Western men knowing that they're demonstrably less intelligent (on average) than East-Asian men hasn't stopped them from contributing.

>>7127198
>Wasn't the first novelist in the world a woman?
As far as we know, yes (Murasaki Shikibu).
>My take is that philosophy has been defined as a male profession for most of history
This is a reasonable point, but it's hard to tell for sure.

Because intelligence isn't the same as wisdom. Women can be as clever as men and think the same thoughts, but they can't feel assured in their thinking and they are too afraid to tread new ground. Women aren't sure of themselves, they generally would prefer to be told what to think. To be a philosopher means largely to do a lot of solitary thinking. Solitude is difficult men, it's more or less impossible for women. The guy in the pub with an IQ of 90 might be more wise than the woman university professor with an IQ of 140 because her intelligence is used on acquiring pedantic learning that only serves to make her appear smart, nothing really sinks into her heart.

>>7126460
>That hardly disproves the claim that a sexist culture is responsible for their lack of intellectual recognition. In fact, many feminists would use an "under-representation" of female Nobel Prize laureates as evidence for the continued prevalence of sexism.

Ah, the old SJW switcharoo. A classic maneuver.

>>7126321
they were culturally pressured to pursue other things

>>7127175
every male philosopher is pretty much a meme at this point

>>7127262
Kek

>Wolstoncraft
>de Beauvoir
>Butler
The list could literally go on...

>>7127281
...for two more people.

>Butler
>2015

Her book is the worst garbage and Zizek btfo it tbqh

Just because something is cultural doesn't mean we should shift to genderless-topia

>>7127281
Luxemburg, Arendt and Weil surely deserve more credit than fucking Judith Butler.

>>7127333
Oh yeah, I knew I was forgetting more important ones. Damn...
How could I forget Arendt? She's based AF.

>>7127333
>>7127308
[I look up Judith Butler]

3rd-wave feminism really is a clusterfuck of sophistry. I don't even think women should have the vote, but at least the first-wave was somewhat intellectually honest and coherent.

>>7127346
Sure, it's their problem if you're too stupid to understand them...

>>7127346

>"I don't even think women should have the vote"
>can read wiki articles

yes your opinion is so valuable unlike those braindead SJWs

look another virgin thread this is why twiggy doesn't stick around do you see now do you see

>>7127359
I was being facetious; I don't think anyone should have the vote.

>>can read wiki articles
?

>>7127363
are you the real twiggy?

made this for science board a while ago

Women don't have the Peacocking instinct that men do. They may have had profound thoughts, but heir reproductive success never hinged on telling everybody about it, and thus they were forgotten.

If history seems dominated by men, it's because the desire to make history is a male instinct. Not that women are unremarkable.

Y'all may have triple digit IQs but do you have double digits?

>>7127433

>bobbyhillholdinghisheadinbothhands.jpeg

>>7127433

>>7127228
>Murasaki Shikibu
Homer came 2000 years before her though

>>7127392

>Gentilemanliness
>Top Kek.

>>7127308
I still can't get over her prose:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

>>7127470

Homer was a poet, not a novelist.

I inadvertently mastered the art of guaranteed replies.

>>7126407
>That's wrong though, between 1900-1950, 4% of all Nobel Prize winners in science were women, from 1951-2000, despite gaining the 'freedoms of thought and actions that men have', they constituted just 3% of winners.
Nobel prize awards are arbitrary, why are you citing it as evidence? Don't bother answering, you think IQ's of importance, so I can't expect reason from you.

>>7126425
Rich people, as I said.

>>7126440
Take more tests.

>>7126495
I'd take you more seriously if you used punctuation.

If they're too poor to voice their opinion - ie, all their cash goes on household upkeep and child upbringing, then they can't hope to find the time or cash to pursue philosophy. It's not about something as infantile as not being taken seriously, it's that they were simply too poor to stand amongst the gentry. There is a reason why all of the historic philosophers and scientists are male, and with large amounts of expendable dosh, and why the few female achievements are made by women who have lots of expendable dosh.

As something of a parallel, if Neil deGrasse Tyson were poor, he would likely have never have become an astrophysicist. If he were poor AND a woman, he'd be even more fucked.

/lit/ was never this triggered in the past, nor were there this much frogposters and memesters about. There were always memesters, but certainly not this many.

>>7127805
>you think IQ's of importance
You can literally almost predict a person's occupation and earnings from their IQ. It fucking matters, sorry if your social science degree doesn't tell you this.

>>7126349
>Because IQ isn't indicative of intelligence, it's just indicative of an ability to pass standardised tests
Of course it is.

Read up on "g". IQ tests are specifically tailored to measure "g"

>>7126581

class is not an identity you fucking pleb.

No one is capable of original thought.

>>7128027
Right, just like having african ancestry is not an identity.

You can be in the working class without identifying with the working class.

>>7126838

>>7127178
>muh big Other
just start the androicide already
why are feminists so bad at totalitarianism?
protip:
the patriarchy

>>7126460
>Rosalind Franklin

Had the bad luck to die before they gave out the prize. The Medicine prize is never awarded posthumously.

>>7126321
>If women allegedly have the same IQ as men, then why have there been almost no female philosophers of worth? Are women capable of original thought?

The moment you can tell us which male philosopher that truly has had an original thought apart from the Greeks and the Far Easterners, I'll wait.

Because intellectual capacity is contingent on social conditions. Do you know what they do to poor kids who want to become astrophysicists? They buy them books for their birthday.

don't be stupid, this is obvious

>>7128068
>apart from the Greeks and the Far Easterners
And what gender were the greek and far eastern philosophers, exactly?

>>7128080
Male, but my point is that these philosophers were the true revolutionaries, and they were an extremely small number of males in the history of philosophy.

So simply claiming that philosophy is something intrinsic to manhood is false, because exceptional philosophy is rare even in men.

>>7128089
>and they were an extremely small number of males in the history of philosophy.
Nobody's arguing that all males are great philosophers. Just that all great philosophers were male ;^)

>So simply claiming that philosophy is something intrinsic to manhood is false
I think you should read the wikipedia article on logic.

Between this and the scientism posts we're really going full reddit here.

>>7128095
>Just that all great philosophers were male ;^)

And I don't deny that. But as I said, very few males are even decent at philosophy, so given the history of the female sex, I wouldn't expect much.

I hope none of you feel kinship with men like Nietzsche simply because you share the same gender. That would be pretty presumptuous. I also doubt many WW1 veterans would appreciate a bunch of keyboard warriors speaking up on their behalf against the female conspiracy. In those days it was considered honorable to fight so that women could stay safe at home. I know, what a spook huh? Fuck, I wish I did live one hundred years ago so that autistic virgins would get sterilized and locked up under eugenics laws.

>>7128125
This is a fallacious way of looking at things.

This would be akin to me saying "okay, all the best 100m sprinters in the world are black, but not all blacks are good 100m sprinters, so there is innate difference in sprinting capabilities between whites and blacks".

I'm sure there's a fancy latin term for such a fallacy but I can't be bothered to google it.

>>7128133
>"okay, all the best 100m sprinters in the world are black, but not all blacks are good 100m sprinters, so there is innate difference in sprinting capabilities between whites and blacks".

This is literally what the OP said.

>>7126483
how is this picture real

>>7126349
>I'm fairly certain most, if not all, the historic female philosophers have been very wealthy. Most womenfolk hadn't the power or social standing necessary to be able to pursue philosophy

Yes. Like every male of the working class. Where's you point? Philosophy has always been a privilege of those with enough ressource to go to college or idlely learning on their own without working. Simone de Beauvoir, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Theodor Adorno, Judith Butler, in what kind of family do you think they were born?

>>7128140
>This is literally what the OP said.
Oops, meant "there is no innate difference in sprinting capabilities between whites and blacks".

There are obviously such innate capabilities.

no one loves me

>>7128068
The logic behind your request is so terribly flawed.

>>7128202
Yes, but the only difference is that genes that make muscles more explosive have been prove scientifically to exist within certain portions of the black community in the world.

There is not been demonstrated any such link in the ability to do philosophy between female and male intelligence.

>>7128220
Does running enhance reproductive success?

Does philosophy enhance reproductive success?

Answering those questions is the first step in determining if there's likely a strong genetic factor involved.

>>7128246
>Answering those questions is the first step in determining if there's likely a strong genetic factor involved.

Yes, and come back when you've found the answer, instead of making a shitty thread, with shitty bait.

Imagine you don't let a person work out and then have him compete in a weightlifting competition with another person who gets to work out whenever he wants to. A day before they compete, you let the first man work out. Assuming they are equal before you start the experiment, who wins?

>>7127982

triggered

>>7128220
>There is not been demonstrated any such link in the ability to do philosophy between female and male intelligence.
Because the field of genetics is just starting. Give it a few decades.

Anyways we don't need to wait for genetics to progress. We already know why men dominate women in philosophy. It's the same reason why men dominate women in mathematics, or in chess. The IQ distribution for men is wider than for women, thus there are far more men in the genius IQ range than there are women.

>>7128273
I agree. There are more male geniuses, but also more retards.

But this does not mean there can never be any female philosopher of worth, and neither does it mean that women are "incapable of original thought".

>>7128289
>I agree. There are more male geniuses, but also more retards.
Yes. But geniuses are what is relevant here.

>But this does not mean there can never be any female philosopher of worth, and neither does it mean that women are "incapable of original thought".
No, but given the historical record one has to think that it's incredibly unlikely. Kind of like there ever being a black mathematician or a black philosopher.

>>7128298
>No, but given the historical record one has to think that it's incredibly unlikely.

No, you see, this is where your biases are showing.

>>7128306
>No, you see, this is where your biases are showing.
What biases? I'm just stating basic statistics.

You're the one being biased by ignoring statistics to fit your feel good ideology.

>>7128309
You can't predict the future m8. Regardless of how much statistics you pull out of your ass.

>>7128317
>You can't predict the future m8. Regardless of how much statistics you pull out of your ass.
How unscientific.

That would be like me saying "if you drop a bowling ball from the top of a building it will fall to the ground" and you replying with "nuh huh you can't know for sure what will happen, regardless how much science stuff you pull from your ass".

>>7128309
You do realize that for centuries in the civilized world, women and minority groups were not offered the same educational opportunities as men, right? So if you use historical data, you should take that into account

>>7128324
Statistics and a demonstration of the laws of the universe are not analogous you literal ignoramus.

This has to be b8.

>>7128324
Is there gravity on this planet?
Is there a ground to fall to?
Is there 0 possibility of nothing interfering with the experiment so as to prevent it from achieving it's destination?

>>7128255
I'm not OP, sir.

>>7128309

statistics are descriptive not explanatory

this is what everyone who hinges overtly on IQ based arguments fails to realise

I fucking hate SJWs but c'mon, you can't just ignore the fact that women and minorities, at least in the West, weren't given the same opportunities as white men. Period. That's a fact.

The question: Does this fact have anything to do with the absence of female philosophers? If not, then why not?

Also, the hard-on for statistics here is laughable. You do realize that many, many scientists who conduct these surveys don't know what the fuck they're doing right? At least look at the sources and the method here. So many of these charts/graphs/etc. that supposedly "factually demonstrate" something, those stats were culled from a pool of only a thousand people, sometimes even less! There are 6 billion people and you think blanket statements can be applied to humanity because of a group as small as that?

If you're going to argue, don't be intellectually dishonest. Post multiple stats, multiple figures, and do your research.

Wait, who am I kidding, this board is filled with kids who would rather be right and will do any underhanded thing to prove they're right, as opposed to presenting the truth. Why? Dunno. Emotional investment, I guess? People always seem to get their panties bunched up over this shit.

>>7127982
>occupation and earnings matter

>>7128385
>Wait, who am I kidding, this board is filled with kids who would rather be right and will do any underhanded thing to prove they're right, as opposed to presenting the truth. Why? Dunno. Emotional investment, I guess? People always seem to get their panties bunched up over this shit.
It's getting worse. /lit/ reads like fucking /int/ or /v/ right now.

>>7126321

Holy shit that is fucking stupid. Also, you should see the trend of women in academia, but I can' t believe I'm actually replying.

1/10