Dick’s Voice Mail #1
Part 1: The Man Beginning
Part 2: The Mantermission
Part 3: The Manclusion
If you’re a man, call 213-985-3425 and leave me a message.
The topic this week is things men are better at than women. Pick one thing men are better than women at, and make your case.
Women, as usual, do not call my voicemail. I don’t want to hear your opinions.
Download Dick’s Voicemail: Episode #1
Related Articles:
April 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 666508dec08b7
*sigh*
Here we go again. Shall I repeat my statement on the opposable thumb theory?
Save your Happy Meal insults for someone else, lest you end up resorting to repetitively applying the same insult to others. The thing is, you lost the ability to effectively insult me when you began inserting false scientific data into your posts. I can respect someone, even if I don’t like their point of view, as long as they back up what they say with accurate information. As you cannot prove your points without tapping into your “creative side,” you do not have my respect.
Even worse, it seems to me that you desperately need validation from people that you don’t know for the measure of your intelligence. Otherwise, why bother posting your IQ score? How many times is it now that you’ve bragged on your own intelligence? That tells me that you lack self-confidance.
Anyway, I have no doubt that you will post yet another lengthy reply to my statement, rife with venom, and then concluding with once again touting your own intellectual superiority.
(Or, you won’t, because you don’t want to prove me right. Personally, though, I don’t think you can stand not getting in the final word.)
Either way, frankly, I’m bored with this conversation.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: 49683b3080e63
what is your opinion on women who hate themselves so much they take testosterone shots to change their sex?
April 10th, 2008 at 5:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: 59262bc17710b
Land skapping thats because all girls do is buy STUPID SHIT so they can put it in the backyard and spend your money.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 39e6f2205b498
Dude, seriously?
This was your aspiration? To profit by degrading the opposite sex? This isn’t breakthrough man. You’re just a controversial mofo that is going to expire shortly. Have fun while you are it.
Oh btw, you got my attention. I took the time to post on this dirt bag site and now I hate myself for it. Congrats, I am a loser and you’re the F’n man. The world is a better place with you in it, because you serve as contrast - Douchebag!
April 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: cd49edd445169
I love how that fat bitch on Dr. Phil got owned! And, if you’re a man and you don’t think that you’re better than most (not all) women, then you’re a fuckin pussy.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:28 am - IP Man-Hash: b0fbeee8eec8d
Let me tell you a secret about IQs. It’s your ability to learn. Not how much you know. Your IQ doesn’t mean shit if you don’t have knowledge to back it up with. Dumbass.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:29 am - IP Man-Hash: b0fbeee8eec8d
I laughed so hard at that part. She just looked fucking shocked. Like.. Wow.. Hahahahah. That was the most win I’ve seen in so long.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am - IP Man-Hash: a5f3a30b88dc6
Genius IQ actually starts at 145, dumb-dumb. Reference: http://www.increasebrainpower.com/iq-scale.html
April 11th, 2008 at 3:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3e8d1e2b2a4c4
The notion that women are intellectually inferior to men is one of the cornerstones upon which the modern psychometric investigation into gender-based differences in both fluid and crystallized intelligence, expressed as global mental capacity, is based. In fact, female intellectual inferiority can be readily demonstrated on the basis of that elementary principle of physiology which states that larger brain size = higher intellectual capacity. Thus, it has been established that men exceed women in brain size by an average of .78d. When this is multiplied by the .45 mean correlation between brain volume and g relationship derived from the research of Shoenemann et al (2000), we are left with a standard deviation of 0.351. Further multiplying this figure by 15 (the unit conversion of SD into IQ points) produces a male lead in average intelligence by about 5.265 IQ points. Therefore, because the average man has a significantly bigger brain than the average female, it can be mathematically calculated with ease that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female; the greater size of the average male brain in comparison to the female is central to being able to fully comprehend male intellectual superiority over the lesser mental capacity of the female.
In addition, it has been further argued by the British psychologist Richard Lynn that relative brain size and mental capacity is highly correlated; because men have larger brains than women it follows logically that men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Lynn also notes, on the basis of current psychometric research, that occupational status and income are also highly correlated with intelligence; men have greater occupational status and income than women, therefore men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Even the greater male advantage in mean intelligence, estimated by both Lynn and Irwing (2005), in their meta-analysis of gender-based differences in global intelligence as revealed on the highly g-loaded Progressive Matrices, as being roughly .33d or 5 IQ points, cannot be interpreted as being statistically insignificant.
Whether we accept a determination of the gender gap in mental capacity as being the equivalent of 8.4 IQ points in favour of males as uncovered by Stumpf and Jackson or Lynn and Irwing’s measure of male-female differences in global intelligence as being approximately 5 IQ points, it would be foolhardy to dismiss these results as being of little consequence. The effect of even a 5 IQ point gap favouring males in gender-based differences in intelligence is ultimately translated into an exponentially increased series of male-female ratios at the higher end of the normal distribution curve of intelligence. Therefore, the male advantage over the lesser intelligent female would be formulated as a ratio of 2.3:1 with IQs exceeding 130, 3:1 with IQs exceeding 145, 5.5:1 with IQs exceeding 155, and 30:1 with IQs exceeding the range of 170. Consistent with the foregoing, Benbow (1992) and Benbow et al (2000) both observe that male intellectual superiority over the lesser evolved and smaller brained female is most likely revealed in tasks of high complexity such as problem-solving with high level abstractions in mathematics, engineering, physics as well as other tasks calling for high degrees of spatial visualization, the sex-typical neurological specialization for which has been heavily integrated into the male central nervous system by a process of gradual biological evolution.
In light of the entire discussion so far, it follows that the greater advantage of the average male in both relative brain size and intelligence should also go a long way in providing an explanation for the omnipresence of male dominance throughout all social, economic, and political institutions around which human civilization is organized. The greater variability in male intelligence as opposed to female, as the German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck has pointed out, has tremendous implications for the socio-economic and political organization of human socio-sexual relations. It produces a significantly greater proportion of males at either end of the normal distribution curve of human intelligence. For example, it can be shown from the research of Benbow (1988) that of those students between the ages of 12 - 15 who scored over 700 on the mathematical section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), there was a ratio of 12.9 boys for every one girl. Thus, it is results such as these which help explain why a disproportionate number of those positions requiring high levels of intelligence or spatial and technical ability are always occupied by men; it helps elucidate the reasons as to why male patriarchal dominance has been both universal and psycho-physiologically inevitable throughout all societies and cultures.
In the final analysis, it would seem that the radical gender feminist theory of a ‘glass ceiling’, in which women face constant discrimination from men resulting in the routine social exclusion of women from the professions and senior level positions in industrial management, is shameless drivel. Male intellectual dominance over the lesser evolved and mentally inferior female is a product almost exclusively of genetic factors; it has absolutely nothing to do with the false ideological construct of male chauvinism, which essentially constitutes a theoretical leftover from the days when Marxist sociological analysis was fiercely advocated by the now defunct Frankfurt School of Dialectical Materialism.
The aforementioned material clearly demonstrates that female intellectual inferiority is an established scientific fact, proven by the most rigorous experimental methodology. For all of those individuals who have enormous difficulty reading the fine print, I will recapitulate: THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WOMEN ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET ARE INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR TO MEN. WOMEN ARE A LOWER FORM OF HOMO SAPIENS DESIGNED BY BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION TO BE IN COMPLETE SUBJECTION TO MEN. It is precisely for this reason that women possess much smaller brains and considerably lower levels of intelligence than the human male. All women, except for the most masculinized amongst them, were created by nature to be owned by the considerably superior male patriarchal rulers of human civilization.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 666508dec08b7
1. Lynn and Irwing’s research has been shown to have a critical flaw, noted by psychometrician Steve Blinkhorn, namely that 45% of the data from which they drew their research was excluded, which demonstrated that there was a difference of only 0.07 of a standard deviation, or that males only answered on average 0.4 more items correctly than females out of 60. They drew their median from the information that was left over:
“The 10 studies with estimated differences above the median cover a total of only 2,591 participants, whereas the ten studies with differences below the median include 15,735 participants. The four largest differences come from samples of 111, 173, 124, and 300, the four smallest from samples of 844, 172, 9,048 and 1,316. Choosing to use the median is a flawed and suspect tactic.”
2. Evidence against differences in overall average IQ scores between men and women comes from several very large and representative studies. Deary et al. (2003) performed an analysis of an IQ test administered to almost all children in Scotland at age 11 in 1932 (>80,000). The average IQ scores by sex were 100.64 for girls and 100.48 for boys. The difference in mean IQ is not significant. However, the standard deviation was 14.1 for girls and 14.9 for boys. This difference was statistically significant. In the sample studied, 49.6% are girls and 50.4% are boys. Because of the difference in variance between the sexes however, girls are in excess by 2% in the middle IQ range of 90–115. At the extreme IQ ranges, 50–60 and 130–140, boys make up 58.6% and 57.7% of the population (a gap of 17.2% and 15.4%) respectively. That is, boys were overrepresented amongst the lowest and highest IQ groups.
3. 2005, Haier et al.: compared with men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. The brain areas correlate with IQ differences between the sexes, with the conclusion that men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions. Although women may have smaller brains than men, they appear to have greater neuron density in their prefrontal lobe, which is involved in higher functions such as planning, judgment, and language, although men still have higher absolute grey matter volume than women in their prefrontal lobe.
4. A recent report by the National Academies in 2006 found that female performance in high school mathematics now matches that of males, and expressed that if biology were the basis of the change, then major evolution has occurred in the past decades. In addition, the report found that there were lower numbers of women in the mathematics and science fields than there should be even when studies based on biological differences, childbearing demands, and hormonal differences were looked at. The report concluded that women were the subject of unintended bias in these fields. (Bias or no bias, people are responsible for their own choices. Claiming that you can’t do a thing because there is a bias is a cop-out. It’s called personal responsibility.)
I concede that on while average, there are more males than females on both the highest and lowest ends of the spectrum, that doesn’t go to say that there ARE no females included on those ends of the spectrum. Although there is more variance in males, the average levels of intelligence are pretty much the same, with differences only being noted (in favor of both genders) based upon the type of test given. Generally speaking, average = the majority of people on the planet. As you only acknowledge research that falls in line with your own desired outcome, your argument that the majority of women on the planet are intellectually inferior to men is based upon your personal bias, and not on sound scientific reasoning.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2636375729391
I actually have a friend that runs a laboratory that studies certain aspects of the brain (thats all that I know about what this person does) and SHE (yes, its a she) pointed out to me that a lot of studies that find no gender difference b/n IQ scores are never published b/c its considered to be a negative, and therefore unoustanding, result. Basically, in american scientific research, if a result is no different that the main body of literature published, it probably wont be published in a significant scientific journal or not at all. Ill have to talk to her more about this.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: c2f9d3c632dd9
Hi Dick,
Im new to your site.
I have downloaded Dick’s voicemail episode 1
I love it I and I want more of it. Like you said, women are into reading. I prefer to listen.
I’m not sure whether, there are more episodes to download, or are they coming?
I wanna make sure I saved each and everyone of them.
Personally I think you message gets across better by voicemail, than by written responses, Pls make it ongoing.
Pls write info on your site, where to find more of your voicemails. So far I can see only one voicemail to download – the nr 1.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: c2f9d3c632dd9
You don’t have to ask her, she doesn’t know the answer to your question. Brains are not different. Results are not published cos they do not support, the difference theory. This difference theory was created, so women and men can hate each other, which is good for the social matrix. The difference comes form behavioral patterns, after all we are what we repeatedly do. Women behave and think the way they do, because the social matrix supports it and does not allow men to speak up and doesn’t allow women to ever have a chance to became themselves. And it all happens under the shield of “Liberaton of women” and “Feminism” headword, just to deceive us people for what it really is. This way all people are fuc –ed, and more miserable, which is good for the social matrix. Unhappy people just buy more things they don’t really need, so we all instead of being free humans, are just batteries for credit cards. I tried to make it short.
And that is why, the social matrix hates Dick Masterson, cos he at least attempts, to reveal the truth. But dont worry, every regime must finally fall. It first starts as an underground movement, Just like this site. Cheers.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 57a3ffcb4a8ec
The latest science suggests than male and female brains are different. As an earlier poster suggested, intelligence for each gender is localized in different areas of the brain–which may support the idea that men and women do have different strengths (eg Men have better math skills visual spatial ability).
It sounds to me you feel feminism drives materialism in our society; an author named Rich Zubaty feels the same way that you do. I think materialism, though, may no longer be driven by feminism, but it just drives itself. In other words, men and women both see other people living good lives, and so they spend more on crap for themselves, causing others to do the same. Sort of like keeping up with the Joneses. Its just now, under the guise of chivalry, the crap men have to buy women to earn their affections is more expensive.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:23 am - IP Man-Hash: ab072761d7122
a little difernet equation - for you
a feminism leads to misery and misery leads to people spending more money on things they don’t need, to make up for their misery.
the last part of equation goes like this;
feminism does not exist any more, it served its purpose long time ago. but a social matrix has picked up on this trend and used frminism as headline, to inslave women. And like in the movie they dont even know it exist. They are only frustrated and look at men to put the blame on, which corresponds to a feminism somehow.
So right now we have a sudofeminism not feminism. the feminism only lead to sudofominism and so on misery ….
April 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 666508dec08b7
Although feminism in its current form has become one of the undermining factors in our society, I think that the idea of discriminatinon in all its possible forms has become the most pervasive issue. The idea is that, unless you’re a white male, if an individual fails to succeed, then the only possible cause is not a from some lack on the part of the individual, but because they were discriminated against.
Politicians, psychiatrists and lawyers set their livlihood on this concept, at the expense of the idea of personal accountability in our society. If a person gets fat from eating too much fast food, sue McDonalds. if a person gets cancer from smoking, sue the tobbacco company. If a child didn’t study and failed a test, then the test was too hard.
We are losing the idea of taking pride in ourselves, that we may succeed by our own merits and hard work. We are getting spoiled by the idea of immediate gratification, and put ourselves in serious debt by placing more importance in possessing an object, by whatever means, than by earning it through patience and prudence.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:56 am - IP Man-Hash: 0a074b6031993
Suggestions - instead of “social matrix”, say “social milieu”
sudofominism = pseudo-feminism
April 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am - IP Man-Hash: 0a074b6031993
@Lynn-I have to admit I am a liberal with socialist tendencies–a dangerous admission on this site. I agree with what your saying in that americans are not taking care of themselves as they should, but I think most of them cannot do it, even if someone grabs them by the neck and shakes them. I feel we need government intervention of some kind to prevent people from destroying themselves b/c of influences of Madison Avenue. For example, I feel fast-food may need to be regulated like tobacco. This may mean that local municipalities control how many and where fast food restraunts can operate. I also feel that some support is needed for the poor and disenfranchised because if we were ever to became a libertarian society, say with a minimal flat-tax, the richer would get richer and the middle class would be eliminated, leading to social discord. Therfore, rather than having things like affirmitve action providing specific supports here and there, we need government to effect a transfer of wealth and control to the people that really need it, becauser the poor and dienfranchised simply do not have the will-power to do it themselves. Just my opinion.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 70508d469c148
“I have to admit I am a liberal with socialist tendencies”"
Yea just like 99.9% of women you twat..
Number one reason why women should not have the right to vote right there. They vote in Socialist-Commie scum every single time.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:42 am - IP Man-Hash: eed0010850a54
Numero uno, Im a man, dip shit. Numero dos, being a liberal can be consistent with a profound dislike for radical feminism. I’m all for equality of the sexes, but I don’t think women should be promoted in society over men. At the same time, I see the strength of a country with a middle class and feel a liberal democracy best supports this, rather than a more libertarian government. Numero quatro, there are zillion of conservative/Republican women in the USA who would never vote for commie-scum, or even Hilary. So FUCK OFF, dumb Anon-flux-fuck.