Heh, it's been a while since I've cited that. I had to look it back up. Unfortunately, I can only find an article discussing the study in the limited time I have right now: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html

And, also, I must correct myself: 20+ points away from norm is 2:1. 70+ points away from norm is still 30:1

1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men enjoy that do not apply to women in equal or greater measure.
2) Please enumerate any government-imposed responsibilities which women endure that do not apply to men in equal or greater measure.

Now please reverse those questions.

Which gender is being discriminated against? Small hint: it's not women.

You're going to claim that the discrimination which is important is social? Women make up 52-54% of the population. If women are, in fact, "equal" then social discrimination will end as soon as women want it to end.

Are you going to claim that women are disadvantaged in money or spending power? Women make 80% of spending decisions (I can cite this if you actually care).

Equal rights without equal responsibilities or privilege is NOT equality.

Traditionally:
A) Men had greater rights.
B) Women had less responsibilities.
C) Women had greater privilege.

Feminism wants to correct A and ignore B and C... again proving Feminism is not a movement for equality.

The only real question remaining is if Feminism is a lie or a hate movement.

Did you read past the title? Apparently not.

No, but nice try to make his comment what you need it to be so you can actually debate it.

What he said was: [paraphrased]"There are more smart men than women (and more dumb men than women.) When we look at people who are skilled at math enough to apply to our math-heavy science college, there will be more men than women in the group."

The entire scientific community agrees with me. SAT scores agree with me. Nature agrees with me. Reality agrees with me.

See, mother nature was a smart cookie. She decided that it wasn't wise to waste reproductive capacity on environmental testing.

Actually, there is a difference in standard deviation depending on gender as well. Men have larger standard deviations than women in just about every physiological trait. IQs 20+ points away from norm (120 and above or 80 and below) are 6:1 male:female. IQs 70+ points away from norm have a gender ratio of 30:1. So, yes, to say that one gender is "superior" to another, even in IQ would be incorrect. However, to say that the superior people are much more likely one gender (male) is truth no matter how politically incorrect it is.

So you are correct that knowing one's gender is insignificant about predicting their IQ, but knowing one's IQ can help significantly in predicting their gender.

Actually, no. This false belief is one of the biggest problems in today's society. The truth of the matter is that men are more diverse than women, even if the averages are the same. What that means is that you'll only see 50/50 gender split if the job is something that 50% of the population could qualify for. As soon as you have a job/role/whatever that less than 50% of the population could do, you will see more men than women who are capable of doing said job.

For example:
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 50th percentile math ability? You'll see 50/50.
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 95th percentile math ability? You'll see 64/36 in favor of males.
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 99th percentile math ability? You'll see 71/29 in favor of males.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

It's really that simple. A job that requires skills that only one out of a hundred people have, and you're already seeing a massive gender disparity on who is even capable of doing the job.

So robbery has a 40% false allegation rate*? I never knew.

*"False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12)

Well I don't know about your species, but humans tend to keep their reproductive organs quite a bit lower than between their ears.

An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- the author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf.

As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.

In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.

I always wonder about the mental capacity of people willing to make idiotic statements like this.

What would you do in the situation? Nothing?
Or would you inform management? And if the person who cut in line tells management to F-off? Then the cops are called. And if that person tells the cops to F-off? Then violence is used to keep the person in line.

The only difference between you (assuming you do something other than nothing) and the person you are criticizing is that they are willing to handle the problem themselves rather than pass the buck to someone else. If you do anything to stop the person from getting in line, you ARE justifying having their ass kicked, or the threat thereof, to keep that person "in line" with social norms. Morari is willing to admit to himself that this is what is being done, while you hide behind the power of "socially acceptable" violence in the form of police action (and hide behind being an AC).

The difference between democracy and anarchy:

Anarchy is mob rule.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.

The difference between anarchy and civilization:

Under Anarchy, you must project the threat of violence to keep yourself safe.
Under Civilization, you pay taxes to people who will project the threat of violence to keep you safe.

These statements are the truth of the matter, no matter how much you want to pretty them up. Violence is what makes the world go 'round.

That same 'social contract' that states you don't kill someone over a disagreement?

But let's look at the root here: WHO put that child in danger?
A) The guy who "didn't do enough" (in your opinion) to protect the child.
B) The guy with the fucking axe invading the house with the intent to do harm on person A.

Out of those two, who really deserves your scorn?
Since you chose A, I can tell how fucked up your moral code is.

When you compare never-married childless women to never married childless men (and control for education and work experience) you will find that the average woman's wage is 118% of the average man's wage.

Source: Why Men Earn More, by Warren Farell

Actually, Google should sue the country of Brazil for damages for allowing the Internet inside their domain.

I mean, if it's Google's fault for allowing an anonymous posting, then it's Brazil's fault for allowing Google to be seen.

Well the trick is to define "sexist" and "racist" in manners that don't cause one to be an idiot if they refrain from being racist and/or sexist.

Is the average black man different from the average white man? Yes. This is truth. So if "being non-racist" means that you have to ignore truth, then you are being an idiot.

Is the average man different from the average woman to the point where one would be stupid to not treat them differently unless given reasons to believe otherwise? (i.e. would you be very likely to get a different response for cracking a lewd joke in front of a unknown random male co-worker than a random unknown female co-worker?) Again this is yes. So to treat them the same rather than make best guesses means you must refuse to use deductive reasoning... again making yourself an idiot for "being non-sexist"

So I have no problem with being "racist" or being "sexist" as I am not an idiot. If someone wants to define racism or sexism in a way that doesn't make someone an idiot for conforming, please feel free to make the attempt... I haven't seen success yet.

Oh, and yes there is such a thing as bigotry, but that's a separate issue and can apply to much more than race or gender. There is no need for a special word to mean "bigotry in regards to race" or "bigotry in regards to gender" when just plain bigotry will work.

(Damn, this is worth losing the mod points used)
what is interesting from a science standpoint is that a simple deletion of some 26 genes of the 7th chromosome can result in extreme, but uniform social difference from neurotypical people.

It's not really interesting once you realize that genetics works above the neck as well as below. That it's ok to say Blacks are more likely to get sickle cell, but not state their average IQ is lower. It's fine to think the subset of Cacusians called Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, but to say they are more likely to be good with money is bad. Nobody would disagree with "boys have penises and girls have vaginae" but everyone gets up in arms if you state men prefer to go do things while women prefer to leave work and stay home once they have babies.

People don't want to allow the admission of a genetic driven behavior. It entirely destroys many of the "progressive" movements which are based on the fallacy of equality. But, unfortunately, we as a society have decided to put the goal of equality over the reality of human existence... and we'll eventually pay the price for that.