The Blackberry: Releasing a Woman’s Inner Bitch
I have a Blackberry, you have a Blackberry, let’s all go have a fucking parade about it.
Or let’s just use our Blackberrys to get the job done like men.
And that’s why women should not be allowed to have Blackberrys. They don’t use their Blackberrys to get the job done. They use their Blackberrys like the morphine drip you get at the hospital after back surgery. When you need a dose of morphine, you hit the button. When a woman needs a dose of attention, she whips out her Blackberry during dinner like it’s totally acceptable.
It’s not acceptable. It’s rude. Dump that bitch like an anchor.
Giving a woman a Blackberry is like giving her a permanent excuse to behave like a rude, inconsiderate pig.
Men use our Blackberrys for business — emailing and such. And also, finding where awesome restaurants are, like Big Wang’s which is located at 1562 N Cahuenga Blvd. And sometimes, we use our Blackberrys to show all our drunk friends a picture of an awesome set of hooters that some chick just text messaged me.
Mantastic.
Naked pictures of hot tits is the only kind of sharing a man should do. All other sharing is for ladies.
A woman once asked me why I don’t keep my Blackberry on the nightstand when I sleep.
“Why the fuck would I do that?” I said.
And why the fuck would I do that? The middle of the night is my time for sleeping and dreaming about being the keyboard player for Dethklok. I’m not going to interrupt that to answer some shithead’s question about why men are better than women at playing marbles.
It’s because men have finesse and are used to handling balls.
But that’s exactly the point. Women can’t deny attention — no matter what kind of attention it is, no matter how married they are, and no matter what time it is. If it’s three in the fucking morning, a woman wants to know that someone is trying to sell her Viagra. If it’s in the middle of a conversation with a man, a woman wants to know what other man wants to have a conversation with her.
When you give a woman a Blackberry, you’re giving her an IV of attention.
Every time a woman’s Blackberry vibrates, she’ll jump like she’s got an electric collar. That’s because women are addicted to attention. Have you ever seen a dog with an invisible fence electric collar? A dog will hear the beeping and just about shit himself. It’s the same reaction a woman has when her Blackberry starts going off like a jackpot.
Blackberrys are like Dumbo’s magic feather, except instead of flying, a Blackberry gives a woman the power to act like a rude bitch.
To a man, someone else’s importance is based on a complicated algorithm of their wealth, influence, and proximity. Manly stuff. To a woman, someone’s importance is based on one thing.
First come, last served.
Have some kids with a woman and you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. Daddy comes last.
Related Articles:
April 9th, 2008 at 12:38 am - IP Man-Hash: cac781805e4ce
April 9th, 2008 at 12:42 am - IP Man-Hash: cac781805e4ce
it seems like you people go through a lot of trouble just to bitch and complain im not going to argue about your points even though they are dumb but my question is why arent you doing something else this is the gayest shit ive seen and if u hate girls so much you should try being gay it seems like your only option oh and if you are dating a girl and she knows this is how you feel then she is an idiot
April 9th, 2008 at 4:44 am - IP Man-Hash: 86de5ce5dd5b4
wow i’ve just discovered this site and it’s refreshing to know that there are such intellectually stunted people in this world. it makes evolution almost apparent.
a couple of points to make here; male versus female is (past biological differences) social construction. our differences are fostered by being treated differently according to our gender from birth.
plus scientific research has shown that it is possible to make one baby from the DNA from two women without any male input needed, however the same cannot be said for two male donors. it has been said that this could be the first step in men being obscelete.
the final major point is to not accept the ‘glory’ of maleness to lightly. all wars, all social oppression, all massacres, all genocide, all atomic attacks, all of society’s ills have been brought about by male hands.
if we want to go by ‘betterness’ then here ya go;
men are ‘better’ at violence. ‘better’ at abuse. ‘better’ at cruelty.
for every one example you find of a woman going crazy and killing people or children you’ll find thousands of examples of men doing it.
you’re just damn lucky that for the time being society is still fostering the idea that men are needed for women to perpetuate life because when society advances past that men are going to be very lonely indeed.
although you may have a bit of a headstart in that respect.
seriously, what high school trauma did you have? was your mommy mean to you? did she abuse you? or abandon you? did some mean high school girls humiliate you?
either was you have my pity.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am - IP Man-Hash: ba89f5eba2b91
April 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 86de5ce5dd5b4
okay the nature versus nurture argument IS fact. its called scientific evidence, a term probably most underused on this website.
what i’m saying is that just because there is a majority of men doing things, does not mean that men are ‘better’, because of social factors.
if this website is asserting that men are better because of a higher prevalence of acheivement in good things then it should accept that men also have a great deal to answer for for taking almost all of the responsibility for fucking the planet up until the last century or so.
to be honest the whole idea of anyone being ‘better’ in any way when one gender has controlled the world (and still does) and the other hasn’t even been given enough of a chance in life to get paid the same fucking wage is ludicrous.
you fucking pissing and moaning men are some of the most privaledged in the world so stop trying to assert yourselves as better than the other gender for a minute and just try and get on with your pathetic lives.
and fyi if you’re a chauvanist shit-head and believe all this bullshit then you’re gonna be surrounding yourself in women who are stupid, because women with any ounce of self-respect or intelligence wouldn’t give you the time of day, let alone give you enough of a chance to ‘diagnose’ her with some female malady.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am - IP Man-Hash: 064f47df7e658
The world didn’t give the greater gender “a chance.” Men throughout the ages have grabbed what they wanted with their man-hands and forced it to be whatever it was that they wanted it to be. That’s called progress.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1366de80a158b
lol, I just saw your youtube vid.
Man- that was the best fucking PWN of the 21st century and beyond.
You handled that bitch PROPERLY.
Good man, Good man.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: ba89f5eba2b91
Nature vs nurture? What about it? And what does it have to do with women and Blackberry phones? Take a wild guess who coined the phrase Nature vs nurture.. uh huh. Another great man.
How is the planet f’ed up? If it’s because it’s full of women rudely using their Blackberry’s then you are correct.
Another great man named “J” once said: “The world didn’t give the greater gender “a chance.” Men throughout the ages have grabbed what they wanted with their man-hands and forced it to be whatever it was that they wanted it to be. That’s called progress.”
If “pathetic life” = “pissing and moaning on a web site”, then what does pissing and moaning about someone pissing and moaning on a web site equate to? I would assume less than pathetic? Don’t worry sweetcakes, if you can’t follow my logic, it’s because you are a chic.
My f.y.i? You should first establish credibility before dispensing advice. And the crap you’ve managed to type out hardly counts as “information.” -The Rooster
April 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: ba89f5eba2b91
Oh, and Alex, you did give me the time of day. It’s at the top of your post:
Alex Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
April 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: cc0ba5ce3c574
The nature vs nurture argument is fact. What isnt a fact is the conclusions that feminists have drawn using the nature vs nurture argument.
Feminists want women to believe that for the entire history of mankind their naturally given roles in giving birth and child rearing and by that extension home making were imposed by men, hence nurture. And women actually believe this bullshit. But then I suppose women dont really have a choice.
Having berrated the traditional role of women for so long feminists have left women only one option to make themselves feel worthwhile. That is the need to believe that throughout human history men have ‘oppressed’ women and have never allowed them to achieve parity with men. Its called a fucking delusion, and if women want to buy it then by all means keep dreaming. Just dont expect us to.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pm - IP Man-Hash: a03d9beed6df7
I will make sure to tell my hubby ALL about this the next time he pulls out his ipod during dinner. He doesn’t do it very often but I never do it cause its rude. Though I will say women are wayyyyyyyy more annoying talking on their cell phone in a resturant than a guy.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: cac781805e4ce
Sounds like something in your childhood really bothered you either that or your some imbred living two hundred years in the past. and now I understand, living two hundred years in the past would foster the terrible ideals that you seem to base most of your logic on. some women are responsible for greater things than youll ever even think of doing. No thats not my opinion thats fact.
my advice for you is to change your prehistoric ideals, call the clan and let them know that theyre nothing more than racist assholes, and grow up.
your wrong
April 10th, 2008 at 7:02 am - IP Man-Hash: ba89f5eba2b91
LEVI aka ALEX:
Pretending to be two people because no one will take up for your dumbass is pathetic. Here is what you sound like on my end:
(your emotion kicks in) blah blah blah, buzz word, buzz word, overuse of the word “foster”, lame attempt at sounding intelligent by inserting the words “scientific fact”, insult, insult, blah blah, ending with - your wrong (it’s you’re wrong –> you + are = you’re)
1 + 1 = 2 is a fact but what the hell does that have to do with women and their inappropriate use of Blackberry’s? Shut the hell up if you don’t have anything intelligent to say. Do you have any more non-points to make -not including proving that you’re a dumbass chic with nothing to add but lame insults?
The men here have something intelligent and relevant to say sprinkled with some well intentioned funny classy insults. Since you are an ignorant chic, I would expect you to at least be funny… is racist all you’ve got? And who said anything about race? You mean sexist?
– The Rooster
April 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3d11fe36fe871
@ LEVI/ALEX
You got rinsed woman. Maybe you should try some ketchup with that foot of yours.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: f730d9d2c4f09
wow this website fucking owns
April 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: b0fbeee8eec8d
Hey, Dick.
I just wanted to say that you’re awesome. I read these things, and it’s like somthing all men have thought, but none have spoken. I can’t stand when a woman ignores me to talk to someone else. Especially if I’m the first one there.
What’s worse than when they pull out that damn phone during a meal, is when THEY call YOU. And they start texting. The sound of those buttons being mashed in my ear drives me mental. Like if the bitch wants to talk to me.. SHE CAN TALK TO ME! Not whoever the hell just texted her. Damn.
But I’d like to thank you for speaking out against how stupid women are. The worst part about it is, they actually get away with it. Guys always think that it’s okay for women to act the way they do, just because they give us sex. I hardly find that a good reason. Sure, we love sex. But being a bitch hardly makes the sex worth it.
p.s. Women are stupid.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:55 am - IP Man-Hash: d828aa326d197
I assume you mean Marie Curie. The answer to your question is because her husband was so smart. He shared 1/4 of the 1903 physics prize, and did at least half of the work. Actually he did most of the work. The Curies only won 1/4 of the prize each, so the female contribution there was 25% at best. Becquerel won the other half of the prize. For the 1991 chemistry prize, basically all she did was study the chemical properties of Radium. Once you have some Radium, that is not hard. The bulk of the work was just mindless extraction and concentration of radium from pitchblende, which Pierre would have done also if he wasn’t killed in an accident in 1906.
If you want a better example then you should use Einstein’s wife, because she was more intelligent and capable than that fraudulent old fake Albert who was hyped to ridiculous levels just because he was jewish (i.e. not just because he was a man).
The worst stereotypes are the PC stereotypes because more often than not they have no truth in them. Marie Curie did good work, but it is not anywhere near the significance of what men have done, and in no way negates the superiority of the record in men’s favor.
April 13th, 2008 at 5:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 955d4e1befbbb
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard anyone say. You think the individual who thought of special and general relativity is an old fake? I guess you want to discredit him in some fashion because he was Jewish? Jim—if you want to be a racist, go ahead–there are plenty of anti-semitics on this site—but the fact is that Einstein was brilliant and did the things he did. You really are a pathetic moron.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3e8d1e2b2a4c4
MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES
Steve Blinkhorn is a controversial psychometric researcher and gender scholar who has been repeatedly implicated in many attempts to deliberately falsify evidence. He is widely known for maintaining a strong ideological kinship with gender feminism and the liberal Keynesian economics of the social welfare state. Blinkhorn is also a staunch advocate of the extreme social constructionism propagated by the late Harvard palaeontologist S.J. Gould, another fellow socialist academic suffering from a severe bout of left-wing infantile psychosis. It has been fully established by much of the scientific community at large that much of his research has been thoroughly discredited by all leading proponents of hereditarianism and evolutionary biology. Many of the studies that have been produced by Blinkhorn have actually been derided by many scholars as both methodologically unsound and characterized by frequent distortions of whatever available scientific evidence is on hand. To illustrate, it was widely believed by a number of British psychologists, as determined by the mechanical technique of establishing coefficients of co-variation by means of electromagneto-encephalography (EM-EEG), that brain electrical activity could be reliably associated with psychometric differences in measured intelligence; the mathematical determination of “string length”, interpreted as average evoked potential, is expressed in terms of evoked potential component amplitude, and often under the parameters of such brain wave features as latency, contour length, variability, and zero-crossings. The major premise of those investigations involved in gathering together such empirical observations is based on the null hypothesis that people of high intelligence would have more reliable brain electrical responses to stimuli generated by the outer environment. Many within the academic community argued that the string length of the average brain electrical potential demonstrated an unmistakably positive correlation with both reaction time and differential abilities in mental capacity.
In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.
Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”. According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. This raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.
Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.
Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.
Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.
Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:
The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.
The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.
From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:
The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…
Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.
The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.
Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.
In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.
Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.
We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.
MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES