100 Things You Need to Know About Women

You choose to use the race card out of stupidity, and no one in here except you brought race into it, and if you don't like the thread, then don't post in it.

And, as much as you stereotype us, you have the nerve to whine about a personal attack? :roll:

 

Not at all. (See, I disagreed and didnt even have to use any derrogatory words for you). What is oppressive is when men espouse superiority based on average IQ statistics, yet leave out the whole story of the average IQ statistics.

I am showing the bullshit factor by "flipping the script". If I were to start a thread speaking about how black people score lower on IQ tests, most people would counter it with the affects of racism etc. Yet, when the statistics show higher IQ's of the average male v the average female, it is taken as the whole truth instead of just a portion of the picture.

The point I am showing by bringing up the difference in IQ's by race is that if it is flawed when speaking of racial IQ diffeerences, then wouldnt it also be flawed when speaking of gender IQ differences? But, you guys wont even see that because you hold on with every thing you got to anything that says you are supriror.

 

yeah, sure do. Show it is a pet peeve of mine. I have called many people out on it. Calling names is for people with weak arguments that cant stand on their own. If you have to resort to name calling, you dont have an argument.

PS I have called white women out on this also.


And, as for me stereotyping black men, quote me in a thread. The only times I do it is to make a point like I am here, a sort of "flipping the script", which always goes over you guys heads.

 

So, when men points these truthful statistics, it's only a superior complex? Well, how do you explain the women who do it?

You didn't flip the script to prove any of us wrong. You are just a racist who can't handle opposing opinions from black men, otherwise, you wouldn't need to flip the script with a tired stereotype, and then outrage something you can't prove wrong.

Still putting words in our mouths. Typical.

 

As for the "putting words in our mouths", I quoted you 7 specifically. Do you now speak for hiim?

 

Oh, please. You are acting ignorant, but then complaining about being called out on it, along with stereotyping us just to validate it.

You made a point about what? That YOU can't handle disagreements with black men, so you start stereotyping over and over again? And, to quote you in a thread would be quoting you in several threads, which all the other men can confirm.

 

quote it or I wont speak to it again.

 

No, but does 7 represent all of us? NO. Are you teaching all of us a lesson, or just him? :roll:

 

That the average IQ of women v men isnt the whole picture anymore than it is for white v black.

 

I am not "teaching a lesson". I am making a point. I am counter the points HE argued and you seem to want to now argue that the points he made were never made in this thread. I quoted him. You responded.

 

did you really feel the need to say that? I am very sure that you know racist ideas are not a sign of very high IQ.

 

See the above, I explained it. And as for the signs of a very high IQ, neither is misogynics ideas. Why dont you speak to the guys who expoused them?

 

What are you talking about now? Do you even know the difference between gender and color?

 

I responded because you called us out on it, but haven't been able to prove anything, except that you are the so-called victim over and over again, just like the way you defended black women in here before, stereotyped black men in here before in certain threads, like 'Is being a thick girl a race thing?' 'what is it about white men we don't like', 'the wage gap myth', 'Calling all Lexington's', 'and usually whenever you don't like something we say on the boards.

 

Too bad it goes both ways, but you don't cry about it when women do it. :roll:

 

yeah, I do. I have said things to women in here too.

 

You have only said things about 'white saviors', and not women in general, and since you are using a quote Seven wrote as your signature, to push your own hidden agenda, well, that speaks volumes about your personality.

 

I am using this quote because it is the most repugnant thing I have read on the board. I want to remind everyone who 7 is. I disagree with almost everything he espouses.

I have said things when women say things about black men. Go here:

http://www.whitewomenblackmen.com/f...p?p=30190&highlight=central+park+jogger#30190

 

Is there even any point my bringing up the plain fact that the majority of the so called "developed" world has been trapped in patriarchy since the dawn of time? That history for a thousand years was written by men, for men, because in the main part it wasn't even considered necessary for women to read? (After all, how would that quite help them fulfil their function as the chattels of their male counterparts?)

When people make claims that men are naturally superior and more accomplished than women in such a wide range of tasks, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Of course, men with a natural ability to develop strength, muscle and speed to rival women's, will excel in fields of physical strength, warfare and courage (although quite why it is an achievement to excel in warfare is something I remain to be convinced about, since I still see that as the root of many of the world's evils - and a field where men excel because it is a creation and perpetuated by men). Perhaps also in politics and in areas of life which are adversarial and competitive this is the case. But beyond that, if people here are going to use crude figures of "but men score higher in IQ than most women" then we have to take into account different factors. For one, IQ tests are merely one way to gauge intelligence, which are heavily weighted in favour of people with mathematical and pattern-oriented brains. Many women have this, but it is 'accepted' that men excel with one side of the brain whereas women with the other (the creative left hemisphere). In which case, let's look beyond at how many accomplished women exist in the field of the arts...and how many more there will be in a few decades' time. Then let's throw that in the mix with my first point about the history - and enduring nature - of patriarchal society and work out what has really been going on in the world.

 

Flygirl and Miss B,

I am not talking about male superiority or female inferiority. To assert such a thing is absurd and foolish. What I am saying is - females lack the NECESSARY INTELLIGENCE to be independent - meaning: the intelligence of relative importance.

But you are right on one account - BM on average have lower IQ's then WM. I am not disputing that FACT. How can I - when ALL scientific evidence will say so? But that is only on AVERAGE. The average IQ is one standard above deviation - which I believe is 85-100, someone please correct if I am wrong.

You should also know, higher levels of intelligence is an social construct, it is difficult to argue that cultural, environmental, gender, socio-economic, or educational discrepancies will not affect your level of intelligence. Which will explain why BM and women will have lower IQ levels then WM and Asians. It is also absurd to think BM and women do not have above average IQ or into the genius levels of comprehension. Men and women of first class education such as Miss B and Myself is where you the separation. For every women with an IQ of 126 there will be 2 men. For every women with an IQ of 155, there will be 5 men. For every female with an IQ of 165, there will be 10 men. Again, this not to say females are inferior to men. It is just the FACTS. Any women of high intelligence will pursue Independence as a man would - aggressively, cutting off emotions and attachments, and the like. I sustain, this is not attractive to men, it will never be seen as feminine in the eyes of men. The idea of femininity to men is different then that of the women's and always will be. To aggressively pursue independence will land you single at the age of 40+ - that is another FACT society has a hard time swallowing. You can not separate the two - being loving, nurturing, and supportive because achieving Independence constitutes you shutting off those emotions. Another FACT!

As Miss B mentioned there are different 'types' of intelligence. Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"), Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart"), Spatial intelligence ("picture smart"), Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart"), Musical intelligence ("music smart"), Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart"), Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart"), Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart"). But the constituent of these 'types' derives out general intelligence, which men, will edge out women as the level of education rises. It should never be mistaken as to be superior because there areas of these 'types' where women edge out men and always will. Multi -tasking and the sheer resilience to endore pain and suffering is almost unmeasurable in a female and men will never come close. But as I stated, we should NEVER confuse the nature of men and women; because it is as nature intends it and always will.

There are two distinct schools of thought on the nature of intelligence. The proponents of one general intelligence have a theory that explains the biological reasons for intelligence. Given that they see neural processing speed as the root for intelligence, their theory has an effective causal explanation. On the other hand, the theory of one general intelligence does not encompass all peoples. In the example with the Brazilian street children, they would most likely score poorly on an intelligence test, and be labeled with a low general intelligence. However, they are intelligent enough to be able to do all of the math that they need to know how to do. A drawback to the general intelligence school of thought is that it is heavily dependent on psychometric evaluations. Consequently, it cannot take into account the vast array of different talents that people have.

As for multiples intelligences, there are many theorists in that school of thought as well. Some of the theories presented by the proponents of multiple intelligences are excessive and have too many constructs to measure for example, Guilford's theory. But there are reasonable explanations of intelligence put forth by those from the school of multiple intelligences. Gardner's theory has a very clear causal explanation for intelligence, like the explanation of one general intelligence. But, unfortunately, it is very difficult to pinpoint and confirm Gardner's hypotheses experimentally, because of the delicacy involved with the human brain. Sternberg's theory does not have a biological basis to it, and that detracts from its validity. But that may also be its strength. The theory does not focus on the brain and biological functions, but on different social situations. Therefore, the theory applies to different social situations and environments, as none of the other theories does.

But, given that there still is a substantial debate about the nature of intelligence, and no one theory is accepted by all, there is still room for improvement on any given theory. This is why I believe to understand General Intelligence is inconceivable by Humans. There are too many people who believe there can be NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS like you two - FlyGirl and Miss B. But I do not blame the position you take, given your nature as a women.