This article is great, and so are all the others!

wolfe said:

maxime said:
you are abviously lost in your gender divisions which you base upon who can identify, seperate and protect male privielge most firecely.

The greatest male privilege is the privilege of spelling correctly.

You leak into the area of Equality now, (like women really know what they want). Let them have it, let them have it. Case in point: one guy I know works at mill where they’ve experience some H.R. phenomena in that a ’shemale’, morphidite head case has required the addition of a ’special restroom’. Special Ed is not required to figure out that this hormone-injected, mutated little creature will never have the bone structure to do the lifting required for her position. Alas, no leverage-only w/ the government, who just denied some guy who lost his hand anything at all so ’she-a-pet’ can skid through!
What the world coming to?

Leaving that remark aside, male privilege:
- to die years younger.
- to be much smarter, and harder working, but only earn 33% more.
- to be rooked on social security, getting $0.37 out for every dollar women get out.
- to be drafted
- to be the number one victims of violence
- the number 1 victims of gender violence
- yet endlessly falsely accused of rape and DV, especially in custody disputes
- to have the deck stacked totally against them in custody and family courts.

Yes… please tell me more of this male ‘privilege’.

-wolfe

KL said:

stupid fags

http://singleabroad.com

Textbook example of your ungrateful, dull western girly-girl. I assure you she is above knowledge of any field, just look at her postings. She’s too stupid to even begin to comprehend what humor is - she’s almost subhuman. I suppose relying on your body as a substitute for your character does that to you. She’ll never know what it feels like to be respected like Teddy Roosevelt, to actually contribute something worth meaning as opposed to being a social parasite.
Shame.

Cottag said:

So, according to Dick, men are much better at sucking cock than women?

This site is um, interesting. I had no idea there were so many of you Manly Gay Men out there who are so obsessed with women that you would dedicate an entire site to it!

You make no sense

This site is um, interesting. I had no idea there were so many of you Manly Gay Men out there who are so obsessed with women that you would dedicate an entire site to it!

Suffice to say, though, that I agree with the premise that someone who works hard at a job is more likely to succeed than a somewhat more intelligent (or better connected) person who doesn’t.
-wolfe

Maybe this was true way back but affirmative action has ruined that for many. Kuntz rule.

abaddon_fff said:
@wolfe:
The only problem that I have with your argument, is that you equate the level of stupidity with the level of education.
-Strength and Honor-

To be clear, level of intellect has only a loose correlation with level of education. It is not feasible to be a moron and have a PhD from a reputable university; it is certainly feasible to be of mediocre intellect and have a PhD, or a brilliant genius and have no degree.

The statement that I think confused matters was:

IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

I agree; it’s poorly written. My only defense is that I quoted it; a poor defense. What that statement means to me is… “a level said to correspond with people generally capable of getting first class degrees.” And that’s all I intended.

Bob said:

It is amusing that you should mention this - my neighbour is currently reading a management/psychology book that shows (with numbers) that how good someone is at their job, and how far they’ve gone is completely unrelated to IQ (past a certain barrier level of say 120 for scientists). On the other hand, it’s very much related to how much time a person puts into work.

Common sense really!

I’m actually skeptical of that book. After all, a coloring book, with paint by numbers shows (with numbers!) how to paint pictures. That doesn’t make it an authority. Much of what’s been written on the subject of IQ (on either side) is rubbish.

Suffice to say, though, that I agree with the premise that someone who works hard at a job is more likely to succeed than a somewhat more intelligent (or better connected) person who doesn’t.
-wolfe

abaddon_fff said:

@wolfe:
The only problem that I have with your argument, is that you equate the level of stupidity with the level of education.
-Strength and Honor-

Actually, I think you’re misreading something I quoted, though I agree it’s not terribly clear. To be clear, level of intellect has only a loose correlation with level of education. It is not feasible to be a moron and have a PhD; it is certainly feasible to be of mediocre intellect and have a PhD, or a brilliant genius and have no degree.

The statement that I think confused matters was:

Common sense really!

abaddon_fff said:

@wolfe:
The only problem that I have with your argument, is that you equate the level of stupidity with the level of education.
-Strength and Honor-

I agree with abaddon. Too many women are ignorant airheads who think a college degree makes you honest. Quite the opposite.

- There have been many intelligent men who didn’t graduate high school who achieved great things. Ever heard of a woman doing that without education?
IQ has much to do with schooled knowledge and there are many with book knowledge that have no walking around sense.

Women doing the same work as man is a fallacious fantasy of the feminist and other women who hate truth.

No, most men and women with the same occupation don’t generally work equally hard at outside-the-home jobs, in terms of continuous full-time employment. Statisticians normalize for this, and the 33% difference drops to between 0 and 5% when you account number of years of full-time work.

(I make no comment as to which gender ‘works harder’ inside the home).

Women typically take time out for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is pregnancy and child rearing.

Beyond even that, just look at the sub-specialties that men and women go into even when they have nominally identical educations. Female med students disproportionately become GP’s, or, if the specialize, become (say) allergenists, dermatologists, rather than oncologists or cardiac surgeons.

Look at professionals who work unpaid overtime. Unless a woman is unmarried, she is unlikely to work anywhere near the overtime of her male colleagues.

[NB- Never-married women outearn never-married men. This is interesting, and suggests men who don't marry don't work as hard].

The former specialties offer much more predictable hours and far fewer emergencies.

—————-
As to intelligence, the average man is not that much smarter than the average woman; correct.

However, the standard deviation for men’s intellects appears to be substantially higher than that for women. To put it another way (I don’t know how familiar with statistics you are), there are far more highly intelligent men than there are highly intelligent women. (And presumably far more highly stupid men at the bottom end than there are highly stupid women).

Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing analyzed decades worth of standardized testing in British schools, and came up with this peer-reviewed conclusion:
[quote]There were twice as many men [as women] with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman. [/quote]

One obviously can argue about how generally applicable or accurate or culturally biased their study was. Fair enough. One can also argue about how relevant IQ’s are, though the US Armed Forces find them invaluable as a predictive tool, and most non-crazed Marxist studies have tended to conclude that there is validity, provided the test is sound. (Many, especially historically, weren’t).

Now. It is the nature of our society and capitalism to value and compensate high achievers much, much more highly than average or low achievers.

This may not be ‘fair’, especially in the sense that many start with ‘unfair’ genetic or social advantages, but it is nevertheless the case.

If there are twice as many men as women with the intellectual capacity to get first class degrees (and they are paid triple the average salary, say), then one can rapidly see that one would expect men, on average, to out earn women by considerably more than (say) 3-6%.

(Assuming of course income tracks to intellect — and it doesn’t, quite, but that’s not infinitely far off either).

What about the low end? Well, there are still dirty jobs that may not require much intellect but require strength; these tend to be reasonably compensated.

A stupid woman (outnumbered, likely, by stupid men) who is not physically strong, has fewer high earning employment options unless she is physically attractive and young.

Hopefully that gives you an outline of my thinking on the matter, and why I think a 33% disparity is not prima facie evidence of sexist unfairness. (It may be unfair in other societal ways, of course, and I’ve also generally outlined many of the possible logical counterarguments to my thinking on the matter above).

Best,
-wolfe

maxime said:

but what if they are?

and what if men who turn ionto women are really women? just born with the wrogn genitals, but the right mind.

Why not take that argument the illogical step further? What if they’re the real women?

- Los Paraguayos - Ave Maria

maxime said:
you are abviously lost in your gender divisions which you base upon who can identify, seperate and protect male privielge most firecely.

The greatest male privilege is the privilege of spelling correctly.

Leaving that remark aside, male privilege:
- to die years younger.
- to be much smarter, and harder working, but only earn 33% more.
- to be rooked on social security, getting $0.37 out for every dollar women get out.
- to be drafted
- to be the number one victims of violence
- the number 1 victims of gender violence
- yet endlessly falsely accused of rape and DV, especially in custody disputes
- to have the deck stacked totally against them in custody and family courts.

Yes… please tell me more of this male ‘privilege’.

-wolfe