Male genetic superiority

MrBean

This is a continuation of the thread 'Women are genetically superior, but are there some downsides?' which has been closed.

My argument is that men are (generally) superior to women genetically. The Y chromosome contains genetic material which differentiates men from women, making them physically stronger, generally more apt at survival, generally more aggressive, innovative, intelligent, and adventure-seeking. Some of these admirable tendencies have been attacked and re-framed by feminists. 'Adventure-seeking', for instance, has been re-labled as 'risk-taking'. This is an attack, I believe of jealous women on the male spirit.

It is men, after all, who are the builders of society. It is through the determination, willpower, adventurous nature, and intelligence of men which has led to nearly all modern technology, (arguably) the most appreciated art, the greatest works of engineering, space travel, the greatest feats of physical endurance and achievement, healing of disease, and even improvements on the process of giving birth itself.

Some things, such as 'greater intelligence' will be controversial and attacked. Many people even believe that women are more intelligent than men. This is not the case. IQ studies have determined that men are more intelligent than women by an average of 3.5 to 5 IQ points. This is across all cultures, levels of education, and adult age-groups. The IQ variance of men is much greater than that of women. There are more men than women of below-average intelligence, for instance. However, the majority of geniuses are men. The higher one goes up the IQ ladder, men outnumber women at an increasing rate.

It is true that currently, men live shorter lives than women. I do not believe, however, that this is due to a genetic difference, but probably more likely due to harder-lived lives. Whatever the truth, I do not believe that this trend will exist for long as technological improvements in the medical field become more capable of handling heart disease and cancer (in the case of men, particularly prostate and lung cancer).

I will also address suicide rates, since that has been an issue raised by feminists, since the male suicide rate is higher. Although this is true, actual rates of depression are higher in women, signifying (at least to me) another genetic handicap. More men commit suicide, I believe, due to the fact that they generally exhibit a higher level of individual self-determination. They are simply more able to 'go through with it'.

allabouteve

MrBean wrote: »

This is a continuation of the thread 'Women are genetically superior, but are there some downsides?' which has been closed.

My argument is that men are (generally) superior to women genetically. The Y chromosome contains genetic material which differentiates men from women, making them physically stronger, generally more apt at survival, generally more aggressive, innovative, intelligent, and adventure-seeking. Some of these admirable tendencies have been attacked and re-framed by feminists. 'Adventure-seeking', for instance, has been re-labled as 'risk-taking'. This is an attack, I believe of jealous women on the male spirit.

It is men, after all, who are the builders of society. It is through the determination, willpower, adventurous nature, and intelligence of men which has led to nearly all modern technology, (arguably) the most appreciated art, the greatest works of engineering, space travel, the greatest feats of physical endurance and achievement, healing of disease, and even improvements on the process of giving birth itself.

Some things, such as 'greater intelligence' will be controversial and attacked. Many people even believe that women are more intelligent than men. This is not the case. IQ studies have determined that men are more intelligent than women by an average of 3.5 to 5 IQ points. This is across all cultures, levels of education, and adult age-groups. The IQ variance of men is much greater than that of women. There are more men than women of below-average intelligence, for instance. However, the majority of geniuses are men. The higher one goes up the IQ ladder, men outnumber women at an increasing rate.

It is true that currently, men live shorter lives than women. I do not believe, however, that this is due to a genetic difference, but probably more likely due to harder-lived lives. Whatever the truth, I do not believe that this trend will exist for long as technological improvements in the medical field become more capable of handling heart disease and cancer (in the case of men, particularly prostate and lung cancer).

I will also address suicide rates, since that has been an issue raised by feminists, since the male suicide rate is higher. Although this is true, actual rates of depression are higher in women, signifying (at least to me) another genetic handicap. More men commit suicide, I believe, due to the fact that they generally exhibit a higher level of individual self-determination. They are simply more able to 'go through with it'.

Your subject matter and your username are hilariously at odds.

category

MrBean wrote: »

This is a continuation of the thread 'Women are genetically superior, but are there some downsides?' which has been closed.

Anyone have any trollsnacks?

Wibbs

Moved from the Ladies lounge

Delirium

MrBean wrote: »

This is a continuation of the thread 'Women are genetically superior, but are there some downsides?' which has been closed.

My argument is that men are (generally) superior to women genetically. The Y chromosome contains genetic material which differentiates men from women, making them physically stronger, generally more apt at survival, generally more aggressive, innovative, intelligent, and adventure-seeking. Some of these admirable tendencies have been attacked and re-framed by feminists. 'Adventure-seeking', for instance, has been re-labled as 'risk-taking'. This is an attack, I believe of jealous women on the male spirit.

It is men, after all, who are the builders of society. It is through the determination, willpower, adventurous nature, and intelligence of men which has led to nearly all modern technology, (arguably) the most appreciated art, the greatest works of engineering, space travel, the greatest feats of physical endurance and achievement, healing of disease, and even improvements on the process of giving birth itself.

Hardly a surprise since women were generally excluded from the same education that was made available to men.

Some things, such as 'greater intelligence' will be controversial and attacked. Many people even believe that women are more intelligent than men. This is not the case. IQ studies have determined that men are more intelligent than women by an average of 3.5 to 5 IQ points. This is across all cultures, levels of education, and adult age-groups. The IQ variance of men is much greater than that of women. There are more men than women of below-average intelligence, for instance. However, the majority of geniuses are men. The higher one goes up the IQ ladder, men outnumber women at an increasing rate.

So, men are smarter than women, even though more men than women are of below-average intelligence??

It is true that currently, men live shorter lives than women. I do not believe, however, that this is due to a genetic difference, but probably more likely due to harder-lived lives. Whatever the truth, I do not believe that this trend will exist for long as technological improvements in the medical field become more capable of handling heart disease and cancer (in the case of men, particularly prostate and lung cancer).

Even though, women are more likely than men to live in poverty??

I will also address suicide rates, since that has been an issue raised by feminists, since the male suicide rate is higher. Although this is true, actual rates of depression are higher in women, signifying (at least to me) another genetic handicap. More men commit suicide, I believe, due to the fact that they generally exhibit a higher level of individual self-determination. They are simply more able to 'go through with it'.

Whatever the reasoning, the result is still that men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Hardly a genetically superior trait.

I'm male btw, and don't get where you're going with this.

dolliemix

how come women survive longer than men on average if men's genes are so superior? They obviously don't last as long

MrBean

allabouteve wrote: »

Your subject matter and your username are hilariously at odds.

Yeah, I know. Thanks for noticing I guess...

SkepticOne

From an evolutionary point of view the only thing that counts passing on your genes to the next generation. In this respect males and females are equal. Men can't out-reproduce women and vice-versa. Every other criterion of superiority is subjective.

MrBean

koth wrote: »

Hardly a surprise since women were generally excluded from the same education that was made available to men.

Not anymore.

koth wrote: »

So, men are smarter than women, even though more men than women are of below-average intelligence??

because... right below that... most geniuses are men. If the IQ variance of men is greater, it means that there are more men of below and above average intelligence. However, on average, due to more men in the upper IQ ranges, men are more intelligent.

koth wrote: »

Even though, women are more likely than men to live in poverty??

Dunno anything about that one.

koth wrote: »

Whatever the reasoning, the result is still that men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Hardly a genetically superior trait.

Arguable. Is it better to live in depressed suffering, all the while actually wanting to kill yourself but not having the guts to? Thats a whole new debate.

koth wrote: »

I'm male btw, and don't get where you're going with this.

[/quote]

dunno man, just killing time... I saw the post about 'female genetic superiority' and thought it was pretty lame, so I decided to counter it with some reality.

MrBean

category wrote: »

Anyone have any trollsnacks?

You got me. I really am ACTUALLY at troll!

MrBean

SkepticOne wrote: »

From an evolutionary point of view the only thing that counts passing on your genes to the next generation. In this respect males and females are equal. Men can't out-reproduce women and vice-versa. Every other criterion of superiority is subjective.

True and false.

Although overall this is true, on an individual basis men have a much greater opportunity to pass on their own genes. A single man can successfully make babies with many women. Women are much more limited in the direct number of offspring they can produce.

Delirium

MrBean wrote: »

Not anymore.

Ok. But you said men had contributed more to the arts, science etc. But they have had more of a head-start, with regards to education, compared to women.

because... right below that... most geniuses are men. If the IQ variance of men is greater, it means that there are more men of below and above average intelligence. However, on average, due to more men in the upper IQ ranges, men are more intelligent.

But for that to work, the number of male geniuses would have to be more than the below-average numbers. Somehow, I don't think that is the case.

Dunno anything about that one.

Do you not think that would be something to cause a re-evaluation of the 'men have the harder life' claim?

dunno man, just killing time... I saw the post about 'female genetic superiority' and thought it was pretty lame, so I decided to counter it with some reality.

Fair enough, didn't see that one. Would put both of those ideas down as pretty lame tbh.

MrBean

dolliemix wrote: »

how come women survive longer than men on average if men's genes are so superior? They obviously don't last as long

I'm thinking it's because men on average are harder on their bodies. Men drink and smoke more, and do more physical labor. Possibly, the opportunity cost of having a predisposition for adventure is the possibility of an early death. When you think about it though, at least men's genes are more lived-in.

dolliemix

MrBean wrote: »

I'm thinking it's because men on average are harder on their bodies. Men drink and smoke more, and do more physical labor. Possibly, the opportunity cost of having a predisposition for adventure is the possibility of an early death. When you think about it though, at least men's genes are more lived-in.

Eh no! Women give birth.....and carry growing babies for nine months in their wombs

Delirium

MrBean wrote: »

I'm thinking it's because men on average are harder on their bodies. Men drink and smoke more, and do more physical labor. Possibly, the opportunity cost of having a predisposition for adventure is the possibility of an early death. When you think about it though, at least men's genes are more lived-in.

On the smoking and drinking, women are harder on their bodies because they are more likely to suffer negative effects from smaller amounts.

SkepticOne

MrBean wrote: »

True and false.

Although overall this is true, on an individual basis men have a much greater opportunity to pass on their own genes. A single man can successfully make babies with many women. Women are much more limited in the direct number of offspring they can produce.

If you are talking about men in general then it is the average you want. On average men make the same number of babies as women.

MrBean

koth wrote: »

Ok. But you said men had contributed more to the arts, science etc. But they have had more of a head-start, with regards to education, compared to women.

I would argue that they only had a head start because they were the ones with the drive to discover and create the knowledge to be learned in the first place. I believe that inherent in the nature of men, generally more than women, is the drive to discover, invent, and create. That is still true today, despite basically equal education opportunity. Even though more women than men are going to school, it is still men, by a vast majority, producing the technological advancements and scientific discoveries. The women who are going to school are becoming para-legals, nurses, and business majors. The men who are going to school are becoming lawyers, doctors, and entrepreneurs. This is a generalization, but it is generally true.

koth wrote: »

But for that to work, the number of male geniuses would have to be more than the below-average numbers. Somehow, I don't think that is the case.

Well... it is. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm&gt;

koth wrote: »

Do you not think that would be something to cause a re-evaluation of the 'men have the harder life' claim?

I understand. No, my point is that men 'live harder' on their bodies and in their lives. I don't mean they necessarily have an 'externally imposed' harder life.

koth wrote: »

Fair enough, didn't see that one. Would put both of those ideas down as pretty lame tbh.

Your opinion is perfectly valid. But it begs the question of why you keep participating.

allabouteve

MrBean wrote: »

I would argue that they only had a head start because they were the ones with the drive to discover and create the knowledge to be learned in the first place. I believe that inherent in the nature of men, generally more than women, is the drive to discover, invent, and create

I would argue that its also because they weren't oppressed, as women were, by a well documented patriarchial society, in which religion with its mysoginistic tendancies held much sway. They had the freedom to discover and create, women didn't.

Your beliefs are all very well, but not fact.

MrBean

dolliemix wrote: »

Eh no! Women give birth.....and carry growing babies for nine months in their wombs

That's true! You get a point and a smiley sticker.

Women kick ass, they are awesome, I'm so glad they exist because I would not want to carry babies in my womb.

... but all of my points are still valid

Delirium

MrBean wrote: »

I would argue that they only had a head start because they were the ones with the drive to discover and create the knowledge to be learned in the first place. I believe that inherent in the nature of men, generally more than women, is the drive to discover, invent, and create. That is still true today, despite basically equal education opportunity. Even though more women than men are going to school, it is still men, by a vast majority, producing the technological advancements and scientific discoveries. The women who are going to school are becoming para-legals, nurses, and business majors. The men who are going to school are becoming lawyers, doctors, and entrepreneurs. This is a generalization, but it is generally true.

I was referring to women being stopped from going to schools throughout history.

Well... it is. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm&gt;

From the same article:

"This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."

And

The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".

If anything that shows, that when comparing a male and female of equal IQ, the women achieve more than the men.

Your opinion is perfectly valid. But it begs the question of why you keep participating.

I'm bored. It's a public forum. I disagree with premise of your OP.

MrBean

allabouteve wrote: »

I would argue that its also because they weren't oppressed, as women were, by a well documented patriarchial society, in which religion with its mysoginistic tendancies held much sway. They had the freedom to discover and create, women didn't.

Your beliefs are all very well, but not fact.

Yes, society up until recently has been pretty patriarchial. Women have been oppressed, that is true. Some religions have been[FONT=&quot][/FONT] mysogenic. But isn't this an argument for victimization and enabling? Men have been blamed for this evil, mysogenic patriarchal history. So where are the women in this story? They were participants in patriarchal society as much as men were. Should all responsibility be removed from their shoulders? If this is the case, then women must indeed be inferior, since they are unable to bear the burden of responsibility for their own willing participation in a patriarchal history.

allabouteve

MrBean wrote: »

Yes, society up until recently has been pretty patriarchial. Women have been oppressed, that is true. Some religions have been[FONT=&quot][/FONT] mysogenic. But isn't this an argument for victimization and enabling? Men have been blamed for this evil, mysogenic patriarchal history. So where are the women in this story? They were participants in patriarchal society as much as men were. Should all responsibility be removed from their shoulders? If this is the case, then women must indeed be inferior, since they are unable to bear the burden of responsibility for their own willing participation in a patriarchal history.

Opression means marginalizing, silencing, subordinating and disempowering another.

To a large extent, with improved education, which results in empowerment, women have reclaimed their power, but to say that they were at one time responsible for thier own complicity in their oppression, is simplistic.

Resistance resulted in witch-hunts, shunning, damning and ostracization most of the time. Failing to resist - to your satisfaction - was a survival technique, because lets not forget, that a woman outside society, was and still is, deprived of her children as punishment, and judged more harshly.

tallaght01

Men are stronger, and more aggressive. Thats about it. I've never seen good, controlled IQ studies to show that men are cleverer than women. They may exist, but even if they do, 3 to 5 IQ points on a population level is probably not statistically significant.

I guess you have to look at what's relevant in society today. Strength and aggressiveness aren't that important now. In fact, where they're the big factor in survival, men have pretty much screwed that up. Look no further than Darfur, the Congo etc to see society's in which women have very little power, and strength is the dominant factor. Survival of the fittest indeed, when you've destroyed your country to the extent that life expectancy is in the 40s or 50s.

In the modern world, even with a lower IQ, you can be more sucessful. there's no getting away from the fact that 65% of my medical school class were girls, and about the same portion of my sister's law school class are girls.

The other obvious difference is that we men don't have the ability, biologically, to bear children, and the aptitude, psychologically, to rear them :P

I don't see what use a few extra muscles and a bit of testosterone are to the modern world, tbh

MrBean

koth wrote: »

From the same article:

And

If anything that shows, that when comparing a male and female of equal IQ, the women achieve more than the men.

If this is true, then where are these dramatic achievements? Men build and design most buildings. Men invent most technology. It was men who explored the oceans. Men conquered space and landed on the moon. In the past and in the present, despite differences in educational achievement, etc., it is men who are consistently 'the do-ers' of the world.

It is absolutely true that more women than men are going to school. I've studied this in order to determine the cause. What I discovered was that the problem seems to lie in the age of maturation of boys vs. girls. In primary school, girls begin outperforming boys in general. This seems to be due to length of attention span rather than intelligence or drive to achieve. Simply, they are more mature at a younger age. It is not until adulthood that males perform better on IQ tests than females. However, by that time, boys in general are already behind girls educationally due to the lag in their natural developmental cycle. Some schools in the UK have implemented teaching methods to account for this difference in attention span; these schools demonstrate equal achievement between boys and girls.

The fact is, the education system is failing boys. Boys are not failing themselves. The same developmental stages which I believe make men generally intellectually superior in the long run are unfortunately a handicap for them earlier on... at least given conventional education techniques.

koth wrote: »

I'm bored. It's a public forum. I disagree with premise of your OP.

k.

tallaght01

A) a "superior" sex shouldn't just have a higher IQ that somehow just kicks in too late to be useful :P

What use is this supposedly higher IQ if women have a greater attention span/work ethic etc?

MrBean wrote: »

If this is true, then where are these dramatic achievements? Men build and design most buildings. Men invent most technology. It was men who explored the oceans. Men conquered space and landed on the moon. In the past and in the present, despite differences in educational achievement, etc., it is men who are consistently 'the do-ers' of the world.

It is absolutely true that more women than men are going to school. I've studied this in order to determine the cause. What I discovered was that the problem seems to lie in the age of maturation of boys vs. girls. In primary school, girls begin outperforming boys in general. This seems to be due to length of attention span rather than intelligence or drive to achieve. Simply, they are more mature at a younger age. It is not until adulthood that males perform better on IQ tests than females. However, by that time, boys in general are already behind girls educationally due to the lag in their natural developmental cycle. Some schools in the UK have implemented teaching methods to account for this difference in attention span; these schools demonstrate equal achievement between boys and girls.

The fact is, the education system is failing boys. Boys are not failing themselves. The same developmental stages which I believe make men generally intellectually superior in the long run are unfortunately a handicap for them earlier on... at least given conventional education techniques.


k.

MrBean

tallaght01 wrote: »

Men are stronger, and more aggressive. Thats about it. I've never seen good, controlled IQ studies to show that men are cleverer than women. They may exist, but even if they do, 3 to 5 IQ points on a population level is probably not statistically significant.

I guess you have to look at what's relevant in society today. Strength and aggressiveness aren't that important now. In fact, where they're the big factor in survival, men have pretty much screwed that up. Look no further than Darfur, the Congo etc to see society's in which women have very little power, and strength is the dominant factor. Survival of the fittest indeed, when you've destroyed your country to the extent that life expectancy is in the 40s or 50s.

In the modern world, even with a lower IQ, you can be more sucessful. there's no getting away from the fact that 65% of my medical school class were girls, and about the same portion of my sister's law school class are girls.

The other obvious difference is that we men don't have the ability, biologically, to bear children, and the aptitude, psychologically, to rear them :P

I don't see what use a few extra muscles and a bit of testosterone are to the modern world, tbh

Hey man, at my engineering school, approximately 70% of the applicants and graduates are male. Where are the women in science? Where are the women in technology?

Being 'male' isn't all about muscles and physical power. It is just as much about the inherent desire to create, invent, and explore. Testosterone drives these things.

Look. Male power can be utilized constructively or destructively. It is the responsibility of the individual to determine how he acts. Men who engage in genocide, rape, and use their drive - their power - for these things are failing themselves. Violence is not what real men are about. It is a destructive and senseless culture that tells them that that is what they are. If men believe that all they are capable for is violence, then of course they will hate themselves and be destructive. But this is NOT who we are, even if feminists and even other men think so. Real men are creators of progress and love. We are supposed to be the dominant sex. It is in our DNA, and it is what we are. But if we use our power for destruction rather than protection of our women, children, and for productive change, of course we don't look good. Not at all.

As far as not having the same aptitude as women to raise children? Bull****. Many men make superior parents as well.

MrBean

tallaght01 wrote: »

A) a "superior" sex shouldn't just have a higher IQ that somehow just kicks in too late to be useful :P

What use is this supposedly higher IQ if women have a greater attention span/work ethic etc?

A) Too late to be useful is relative to whether or not you use it. Some men do, and they achieve great things. Others end up working at the local Texaco's.

The attention span thing is only during childhood.

MrBean

tallaght01 wrote: »

A) a "superior" sex shouldn't just have a higher IQ that somehow just kicks in too late to be useful :P

What use is this supposedly higher IQ if women have a greater attention span/work ethic etc?

Also, its not all about IQ; all of the other things that come with having a Y-chromosome... increased strength, durability, and the added creative/destructive (depending on how you use it) power that comes from having increased levels of testosterone

MrBean

allabouteve wrote: »

Opression means marginalizing, silencing, subordinating and disempowering another.

To a large extent, with improved education, which results in empowerment, women have reclaimed their power, but to say that they were at one time responsible for thier own complicity in their oppression, is simplistic.

Resistance resulted in witch-hunts, shunning, damning and ostracization most of the time. Failing to resist - to your satisfaction - was a survival technique, because lets not forget, that a woman outside society, was and still is, deprived of her children as punishment, and judged more harshly.

+2 points for definition of oppression!
- 2 points for incorrect spelling of oppression.

tallaght01

OK so we know the following:

1) men probably don't really have a higher IQ than women.

2) women perform better in their exams

3) women are more highly represented in the professional courses at third level, except engineering.

4) Men have caused most of the wars in the world, and are responsible for most of the violence.

5) War, violence, and gender inequality cause more illness than anything else worldwide, other than poverty (which is very often linked to the above).

6) The odd bloke raises a child.

7) Men develop their apparently superior traits at a point in life where it's usually too late to take advantage of them.

Look, I'm not having a go at you, but none of this really illustrates that men are "genetically" superior to women. It's all just very confusing to my massive male brain.

Wibbs

I would say that on average women are more intelligent than men. I would say they're definitely more socially intelligent. I would however agree with Mr Bean that there are far more men at genius level than women(with a corresponding amount of male idiots at the other end of the scale). There have been many studies that have shown this. Of course what are they measuring? IQ. Which is fine and dandy and useful, but doesn't take into account social and emotional intelligence and adaptability, dilligence etc, which will drive the society just as much as the few genius types at the top.

So like tallaght01 mentioned you will get higher amounts of women in medicine, law and I suspect soon enough in engineering et al. I would suggest that the top percentile in those fields will still be men though. even in women dominated arenas, men are in that top percentile. Think fashion for one.

I don't think this means men are superior. Not by a long shot. Indeed it would suggest on average women are. It does suggest to me that there is a wider spread of "spare" traits inc brains in the male.

It makes sense in some ways. Women have selected men for countless generations for particular traits. They're the ones who drive this. Different times required different traits in the male, so there is a wider spread of traits in males, that could be selected for if evolutionary pressures change. There would be less spread in the female by comparison.

If the modern world was to go south in the next few years, then that spread of traits would prove useful. Speed aggression and strength would become more useful again. Being an academic would be less useful. Still needed but to a much smaller degree, but the gene for that would live on, much like the genes for physical strength which are less used today. That scenario isn't just conjecture either. Overwhelming epidemic on the order of say a vigourous airborne pneumonic plague would actually have a greater effect on our more finely balanced society than it did first time around(and no, science wouldn't save us either, beyond maybe telling us why we're dying off). Supervolcanos, meteor strike, change in ocean currents etc. All of these have happened as humans evolved and we survived those(sometimes just about) due to our variability and adaptability.

I would disagree with tallaght01 on the parenting angle(though I figure it's a tongue in cheek comment:D). Even in my own life I can think of three men who are better parents than the mothers of their children. One of those mothers would agree with me too.

I think looking at one gender or another as superior is pointless. There are more differences in individuals than in genders for a start. We're complimentary and we have been for millions of years. One gender as a group alone is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Both have made the world today and will continue to do so.

Dudess

Obviously men throughout the ages have a longer list of achievements than women - the conditions of a patriarchal society were socially constructed for this to be so. I have no doubt that if women were the ones who had the upper hand throughout the ages, they would have done all the achieving.

MrBean

tallaght01 wrote: »

OK so we know the following:

1) men probably don't really have a higher IQ than women.

2) women perform better in their exams

3) women are more highly represented in the professional courses at third level, except engineering.

4) Men have caused most of the wars in the world, and are responsible for most of the violence.

5) War, violence, and gender inequality cause more illness than anything else worldwide, other than poverty (which is very often linked to the above).

6) The odd bloke raises a child.

7) Men develop their apparently superior traits at a point in life where it's usually too late to take advantage of them.

Look, I'm not having a go at you, but none of this really illustrates that men are "genetically" superior to women. It's all just very confusing to my massive male brain.

lol. no, it's ok.

Ok, I'll do your list thing...

1) that's your assumption which I don't see any evidence to support. IQ tests (just do a google search) based on gender consistently demonstrate A) the higher the IQ the more likely to be male and a much higher number of male geniuses and an overall average IQ difference of 3-5 points higher for men.

2) Not on standardized tests. Girls consistently perform lower on the SAT, for instance.

3) It's true that in many disciplines, more women than men attend college. It is my argument that this is the fault of the school system, and its lack of attention to the learning methods best suited to boys during primary and highschool education. For instance, traditional lecture is much less stimulating for boys to learn than it is for girls. Flashcards and board-races, however, are shown to be better for boys. In schools which make an effort to create a round environment good for both boys and girls, grade attainment is equivalent.

4) Consider the fact that we don't have any evidence to show that the world would be different if women had attained more positions of power throughout history. Some of the ones who did were pretty mean. Catherine the great had her husband offed to get the throne.

5) I'm not sure how to respond to this one; I don't know what it has to do with genetic superiority based on gender. Gender inequality as far as human rights is totally different. I never said that men and women should ever be treated differently. Just that men were genetically superior due to the extra things given to them through the Y chromosome.

6) Sometimes by himself, sometimes in a marriage. You'd said originally that men didn't have what it takes to raise children. That, I think, you would probably disagree with if you went back and re-read your own post. You're trying to re-frame what was said... But I'm not lettin ya.

7) Not true. Look back at all of the most attained people. How many have been men? Pretty much a vast great amazing majority. Is this all due to the oppression of women...?

Setun

Does anyone else think arguments like this should be banned from existence?

FFS OP, read some Donna Haraway. Don't you know that we're all non-gender specific cyborgs nowadays?

MrBean

Dudess wrote: »

Obviously men throughout the ages have a longer list of achievements than women - the conditions of a patriarchal society were socially constructed for this to be so. I have no doubt that if women were the ones who had the upper hand throughout the ages, they would have done all the achieving.

I completely disagree. If I had a time machine and could manipulate the past to put women in charge and see what they do, and then go back again and change it back, and record all of the history onto my PDA to show you I would. And I bet you would be wrong... but I wouldn't be able to prove it still, because in the hypothetical matriarchal timeline there would be no PDAs or computers anyway.

Blazer

Dudess wrote: »

Obviously men throughout the ages have a longer list of achievements than women - the conditions of a patriarchal society were socially constructed for this to be so. I have no doubt that if women were the ones who had the upper hand throughout the ages, they would have done all the achieving.

That's what all the women say...but us males know you're all wrong.
So women over the last 40-50 years had it good..and so far I've yet to hear of one who created or invented something.
Of course I could be proved wrong

nyarlothothep

women are evil and withhold sex from us. We must form a brotherhood of men so that we can roam free and gay.

ChocolateSauce

I think both sides of this argument are stupid. Superior how? Men have superior strength, women superior pain tolerance, and so on. We're different, and each sex is better at some things than the other one.

Saying one is better is like saying all black people can play bass, or all Asians are good at maths.

Society and its social structures will have such an overpowering influence on how men and women develop that there isn't a useful reference point to compare them to.

MrBean

Wibbs wrote: »

I would say that on average women are more intelligent than men. I would say they're definitely more socially intelligent. I would however agree with Mr Bean that there are far more men at genius level than women(with a corresponding amount of male idiots at the other end of the scale). There have been many studies that have shown this. Of course what are they measuring? IQ. Which is fine and dandy and useful, but doesn't take into account social and emotional intelligence and adaptability, dilligence etc, which will drive the society just as much as the few genius types at the top.

So like tallaght01 mentioned you will get higher amounts of women in medicine, law and I suspect soon enough in engineering et al. I would suggest that the top percentile in those fields will still be men though. even in women dominated arenas, men are in that top percentile. Think fashion for one.

I don't think this means men are superior. Not by a long shot. Indeed it would suggest on average women are. It does suggest to me that there is a wider spread of "spare" traits inc brains in the male.

It makes sense in some ways. Women have selected men for countless generations for particular traits. They're the ones who drive this. Different times required different traits in the male, so there is a wider spread of traits in males, that could be selected for if evolutionary pressures change. There would be less spread in the female by comparison.

If the modern world was to go south in the next few years, then that spread of traits would prove useful. Speed aggression and strength would become more useful again. Being an academic would be less useful. Still needed but to a much smaller degree, but the gene for that would live on, much like the genes for physical strength which are less used today. That scenario isn't just conjecture either. Overwhelming epidemic on the order of say a vigourous airborne pneumonic plague would actually have a greater effect on our more finely balanced society than it did first time around(and no, science wouldn't save us either, beyond maybe telling us why we're dying off). Supervolcanos, meteor strike, change in ocean currents etc. All of these have happened as humans evolved and we survived those(sometimes just about) due to our variability and adaptability.

I would disagree with tallaght01 on the parenting angle(though I figure it's a tongue in cheek comment:D). Even in my own life I can think of three men who are better parents than the mothers of their children. One of those mothers would agree with me too.

I think looking at one gender or another as superior is pointless. There are more differences in individuals than in genders for a start. We're complimentary and we have been for millions of years. One gender as a group alone is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Both have made the world today and will continue to do so.

I think that once the issues in the lower education system are addressed, the imbalances in enrollment in higher education will nullify. I don't think that there will ever be more women than men in engineering; math and science are pretty much universally man-things. I'm thinking that there will probably continue to be more women than men in healthcare. Enrollment in things like business and law will probably normalize. I still see more men than women in power-positions. I don't think that will change much, even with total gender equality. I feel that men, whether they accept it or not, are bred for dominance. It's all in the DNA, even what people find attractive is based on DNA. Think about it: how many women are attracted to men that they feel are inferior to them? Not many. Typically women choose men who are dominant and able to make them secure.

I actually like the idea of total equality... but balance is probably a better term than equality. There will always be man-things and women-things. Complete gender neutrality isn't something that anyone would want. But I think you almost have to admit that male superiority is pretty easy to argue for.

...suspiciously easy...

MrBean

nyarlothothep wrote: »

women are evil and withhold sex from us. We must form a brotherhood of men so that we can roam free and gay.

HAHAHA

+10,000 points for being from multidimensional space

MrBean

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think both sides of this argument are stupid. Superior how? Men have superior strength, women superior pain tolerance, and so on. We're different, and each sex is better at some things than the other one.

Saying one is better is like saying all black people can play bass, or all Asians are good at maths.

Society and its social structures will have such an overpowering influence on how men and women develop that there isn't a useful reference point to compare them to.

I like your thoughts and generally agree with you. I honestly started this post to counter the 'women genetically superior' post, which was a lot dumber than this one, and written by insecure self-and-man-hating women of low intelligence. Also, it occurred to me that I could argue for male superiority pretty easily. Honestly though, I'm all for equality. When neo-feminists stop being man-hating ho's, I can stop going through the effort to balance the equation.

GirlInterrupted

allabouteve wrote: »

Your beliefs are all very well, but not fact.

Allabouteve has a PhD in Chemistry. She likes facts.:)

MrBean wrote: »

Where are the women in science? .

Look up.

GirlInterrupted

MrBean wrote: »

I like your thoughts and generally agree with you. I honestly started this post to counter the 'women genetically superior' post, which was a lot dumber than this one, and written by insecure self-and-man-hating women of low intelligence. Also, it occurred to me that I could argue for male superiority pretty easily. Honestly though, I'm all for equality. When neo-feminists stop being man-hating ho's, I can stop going through the effort to balance the equation.

Um, okay so.

ChocolateSauce

MrBean wrote: »

I honestly started this post to counter the 'women genetically superior' post, which was a lot dumber than this one

Have you seen the quality of the posts in the Ladies Lounge? In that place women become what men become when watching a live performance of Dirty Sanchez. I wouldn't take anything said by anyone in there to be indicative of their individual or collective intelligence. I think you got needlessly offended by half-assed, not-even-serious bitching and decided to start a revenge thread.

Nevyn

MrBean wrote: »

I like your thoughts and generally agree with you. I honestly started this post to counter the 'women genetically superior' post, which was a lot dumber than this one, and written by insecure self-and-man-hating women of low intelligence.

So tell me in all seriousness when was the last time you got laid ?

MrBean wrote: »

Also, it occurred to me that I could argue for male superiority pretty easily. Honestly though, I'm all for equality. When neo-feminists stop being man-hating ho's, I can stop going through the effort to balance the equation.

Neo-Feminist,lollers.

Who are these posters that you are labelling neo-feminist man hateing ho's ?

That imples that we were at one stage post feminism and that we now have a new type of feminism. There is no neo-feminism there is just feminism and feminists. So neo-feminist do not exist.

And a person who says they are a feminist does not mean they hate men,
(Gods no I happen to like men a hell of a lot ) and your whole statement about equality gets blow out of the water by your use of the word
term 'ho's'. cos that's not even a word, I believe the terms is whores which is the vernacular for prositutes.

Sooo to sum up you have not gotten laid most like in for ever and even
prosituties have turn you down.

Wow really it's sucks to be you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pq8PwHFhy8

,8,1

Ok. But you said men had contributed more to the arts, science etc. But they have had more of a head-start, with regards to education, compared to women.

A lot of these artistic contributions and inventions may have nothing to do with education but rather could be an advanced form of "peacock's plumage" in human males.

I.e. extravagant displays to attract females. Does this prove male "genetic superiority"? Not really, but it does provide some cool stuff, and also rebuts feminist claims that lack of female inventors is because of historical exclusion.

I like your thoughts and generally agree with you. I honestly started this post to counter the 'women genetically superior' post, which was a lot dumber than this one, and written by insecure self-and-man-hating women of low intelligence. Also, it occurred to me that I could argue for male superiority pretty easily. Honestly though, I'm all for equality. When neo-feminists stop being man-hating ho's, I can stop going through the effort to balance the equation.

Neo-feminists? As if they are different from vanilla-feminists?

That imples that we were at one stage post feminism and that we now have a new type of feminism. There is no neo-feminism there is just feminism and feminists.

Nor is there such as thing as "moderate feminism" "radical feminism" "liberal feminism" etc. It's just one big blob of gynocentric ideology with a compulsory anti-male component.

tech77

MrBean wrote: »

Yes, society up until recently has been pretty patriarchial. Women have been oppressed, that is true. Some religions have been[FONT=&quot][/FONT] mysogenic. But isn't this an argument for victimization and enabling? Men have been blamed for this evil, mysogenic patriarchal history. So where are the women in this story? They were participants in patriarchal society as much as men were. Should all responsibility be removed from their shoulders? If this is the case, then women must indeed be inferior, since they are unable to bear the burden of responsibility for their own willing participation in a patriarchal history.

Mysogenic?
That would be "muscle-creating" i take it? Well, almost .

What do you imagine the made-up "myso" stands for OP.
What do you think the suffix "genic" stands for?

The word is misogynistic.
The unfamiliarity with the term is a bit ironic

Just to take one (of many) point - more than half my med class in college were female and AFAIK that's the case generally in Ireland.
A lot of what you say is way off tbh.

Edit: Incidentally, i can't stand the facile male-bashing "men are stupid" stuff by some women either (which i gather is what prompted this thread).
But this attempt to identify male superiority is similarly misguided.

tech77

SkepticOne wrote: »

If you are talking about men in general then it is the average you want. On average men make the same number of babies as women.

Don't think he thought that one through tbh.

tech77

Wibbs wrote: »

I think looking at one gender or another as superior is pointless. There are more differences in individuals than in genders for a start. We're complimentary and we have been for millions of years. One gender as a group alone is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Both have made the world today and will continue to do so.

Yet more sense from Wibbs.
It's the complementarity/co-operativity that matters anyway.

The attempt to
define intelligence/superiority in terms of the variety of female/male traits (academically/creatively/socially/emotionally/parentally etc etc) is a bit futile.

And any (negligible?) differences in who is smarter (if they do exist) are largely
academic in light of what's actually important- how well the sexes get on together (their complementarity).

994

If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that the term "genetically superior" is meaningless. Both sexes of a species depend on each other for survival. They are each equally genetically capable by definition, as every child born is derived from 50% male and 50% female genes. If you decide "superior" means cleverer, happier, longer-living, stronger, more DNA, then good luck to you, but it's easy to "win" when you set the rules yourself.

MrBean

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Have you seen the quality of the posts in the Ladies Lounge? In that place women become what men become when watching a live performance of Dirty Sanchez. I wouldn't take anything said by anyone in there to be indicative of their individual or collective intelligence. I think you got needlessly offended by half-assed, not-even-serious bitching and decided to start a revenge thread.

could be. but my points are still good!