/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21943078]

What books refute this, unironically?

[Anonymous No.21943086]

>>21943078
Men and women are equal. They just have different roles to fulfill.

[Anonymous No.21943088]

>>21943078
They are physically inferior for most tasks but not intellectually inferior.

[Anonymous No.21943095]

>>21943086
>>21943088
What a weird title

[Anonymous No.21943107]

>>21943095
?

[Anonymous No.21943130]

>>21943107
are you retarded? little retarded "?" faggot

[Anonymous No.21943134]

>>21943078

Fantasy goyslops.

t. not a sexist, I admit many women are smarter and/or stronger and/or more mature than me

[Anonymous No.21943137]

>>21943078
>Refuting truth
Start with Hegel

[Anonymous No.21943139]

>>21943130
What the fuck are you even talking about, faggot? Why are you replying to me about a "weird title"?

[Anonymous No.21943142]

>>21943078
Everything. This is Schopenhauerian incel sexless virgin nonsense.

[Anonymous No.21943144]

>>21943137
I have a theoretical degree in Hegelian dialectics.

[Anonymous No.21943170]

>>21943139
i don't have to explain shit you don't understand you are a drooling retard with 5th grade reading comprehension. you are confused and you have no idea what is going on. don't fuckign touch me

[Anonymous No.21943177]

>>21943107
>>21943139
wew

[Anonymous No.21943181]

>>21943078
Anything good written by a woman
>inb4 "so nothing?"

[Anonymous No.21943190]

>>21943144
thats not how fucking dialectics works you stupid cuck. I didn’t study Hegel (plus continental philosophy in general) at Harvard for 7 FUCKING YEARS for some LOW LIFE KNOW IT ALL who’s CLEARLY never fucking read Hegel as he would KNOW that HEGEL has NEVER FUCKING EVER used the terms “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” to start perpetuating these LIES at VERY SINGLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY. this isn’t Hegel my friend. No no no. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis was thought up by Fichte and it’s clearly inferior to Hegels dialectical method of imminent critique. Yes. It’s called imminent critique. And dialectics is only ONE PART of Hegels full method. Which again is called Imminent critique which you would know if you had ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ HEGEL ITS LITERALLY IN THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC YOU DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. I honestly cannot believe the fucking arrogance to come onto this post, spouting that anti Hegel garbage. Where did you get your fucking info on dialectics? Fucking Jason Unruhe? Jesus fucking Christ I cannot deal with this bullshit right now I’m sorry I’m leaving I’m fucking leaving.

[Anonymous No.21943191]

first explain why you would want to try and disprove reality

[Anonymous No.21943193]

>>21943078
the scum manifesto

[Anonymous No.21943206]

>>21943190
Ah, shit, man. You're direct, you're no-nonsense. How am I supposed to compete with that? I gotta pay these chem bills.

[Anonymous No.21943218]

>>21943170
There's no title, you stupid nigger. Take your schizo shit to /x/.

[Anonymous No.21943233]

/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

Check the wiki, the catalog, and the archive before asking for advice or recommendations, and please refrain from starting new threads for questions that can be answered by a search engine.

[Anonymous No.21943248]

>>21943078
None
>>21943086
Delusion
>>21943088
Wrong
>>21943134
Correct
>>21943142
Delusion
>>21943191
Correct
>>21943193
Delusional cope and seethe

Meds.
Rope.

[Anonymous No.21943261]

>>21943191
>Schopenhauer
>the faggot who tried to convince a 16 year old to bang him by offering her some fucking grapes

[Anonymous No.21943550]

>>21943088

[Anonymous No.21943566]

>>21943088
>work zoom meeting on friday night goes late because female coworker starts literally fucking crying about something
>bunch of other broads start consoling her like she's a child
>audio peaking as they're all commiserating and sniffling like blubbery babies into the microphone
>wake up next morning
>teeth still gritted in disdain
>check /lit/
>"Women are not intellectually inferior"

[Anonymous No.21943575]

>>21943566
>meet one idiotic woman
>think all women are like that
Wait until you know normie men. They're genuinely into retarded shit like football and marvel movies.

[Anonymous No.21943589]

>>21943575
The normie men at my work are all the competent ones doing the heavy lifting. The women and "gay acting" men are all incompetent and seem to treat work like a surrogate dysfunctional family. Any time I run into a male employee I haven't met before and he's a boring normal low key guy, not dressed fashionably and not emotionally "bubbly," I can already tell I can rely on this guy to at least a reasonable degree. I had to work with one of the engineers recently and he was some kind of black tech nerd with a tshirt that didn't fit great and I was instantly impressed by his competence and conscientiousness, it was night and day compared to dealing with whole departments of women and perpetually grinning gay acting men.

[Anonymous No.21943768]

>>21943261
Didn't some politician just an hero cuz he tried to get tit pics from a 15yo for tay swift concert tickets?

[Anonymous No.21943808]

>>21943078
Socrates himself disagrees with this take and he lived over 2000 years ago chud

[Anonymous No.21943832]

>>21943088
Women are better at magic than men.

[Anonymous No.21943841]

>>21943088
>>21943078
men and women are intellectually the same average, but only because women tend to remain mediocre and men tend to stray towards an extreme. Its why most of the worlds geniuses and criminals are men.

[Anonymous No.21943909]

>>21943078
Reality pretty clearly proved that woman's emotional intelligence makes them superior to men, but you can keep coping.

[Anonymous No.21944094]

>>21943134
in a society of emaciated manchildren who can barely form a sentence and are perpetually drunk/doped, even at the highest echelons of the leadership, this may be true for you.

[Anonymous No.21944100]

>>21943909
What's "emotional" intelligence exactly? Norah Vincent refutes a lot of the sentiment of this claim, also, if you're talking about "being nice" lol

[Anonymous No.21944120]

>>21943589
Truth. I had a 30yr old girl working as a coordinator who acted as if... I was "some guy" bothering her in a bar when I raised concerns about her work and seemed like she was intellectually out to lunch.

Honestly it's partly infantilism (both genders) and partly 'over-socialization', as you say,
> to treat work like a surrogate dysfunctional family
which is not appropriate in a work or a personal environment.

But it is women who act like this 99/100 times, with the male exception being the self-proclaimed gay who rubs everyone the wrong way and is never removed from office.

>>21943575
>flubball
If you can learn to ignore that shit you can get on pretty decently with most men.

[aaa No.21944425]

>>21943078
Bible (New Testament). The inferior part.

[Anonymous No.21944445]

>>21943078
Plato

[Anonymous No.21944457]

>>21943086
>equal
If they're equal in all regards then what reason would there be to have different roles to fulfil? You are really not very intelligent.
>>21943088
They are just as intellectually inferior, it goes hand in hand.
>>21943832
On average, they are better at most things on average. The greatest magicians are all male without exception. Male variability hypothesis.
>>21943909
What you call "emotional intelligence" is the root of all evil in the world.

[Anonymous No.21944619]

>>21943261
She was 17

[Anonymous No.21944630]

The Book of the City of Ladies

[Anonymous No.21944637]

>>21944457
>They are just as intellectually inferior,
Not in average.

[Anonymous No.21944639]

>>21944457
Nta but I will say Dion Fortune was amazing. Nonetheless yes 99% of great magicians are male.

[Anonymous No.21944645]

>>21943078
Basically any biography of interesting and historically noteworthy women of history.

Yeah they are exceptional women, but its proof that you shouldn't write off the whole gender.
Hell, if you play a female courier, the legion it's self recognizes that you are a exceptional woman who is exempt from this generalization.

NV being somewhat western themed, I would suggest the biography of Annie Oakley. That lady could out shoot literally anyone of her day. Was legit one of the best sharp shooters in history. Hell just reading it would probably count as a skill book that raises the Guns skill permanently by +5.

[Anonymous No.21944982]

>>21944637
yes on average

[Anonymous No.21945021]

>>21943575
If men try to force their gay shit on me then I just wreck their vibe and they fuck off. If one does that with broads then they consider it a personal attack and they escalate and stew in it forever. There is a good chance of getting reported to whatever authority figure. Also, broads are multiple factors more likely to lie when they start their social attack. It is not nearly the same.

[Anonymous No.21945050]

imagine how pathetic you need to be to shit on women tho
what is next?
>ha! i am superior to toddlers! look at me! LOOK AT ME!!! hear me roar!!! i am superior to cripples, retards and toddlers!!! LOOK AT MEEEEE
alright, good for you buddy, i just dont understand what am i supposed to do with you

[Anonymous No.21945061]

>>21945050
You could interact with the premises instead of acting like you are triggered and instinctually reacting with shame tactics rather than a valid argument.

[Anonymous No.21945063]

in what field are women more intellectually capable than men? or do we need 300 more years of feminism for their intelligence to fully bloom?

[Anonymous No.21945065]

>the 4chan poster that "identifies" with Fallout bad guys

[Anonymous No.21945074]

>>21943139
She said weird title because she was specifically looking for books that refuted what was said in the picture OP linked—but maybe I’m just projecting. I don’t know.

[Anonymous No.21945078]

>>21945074
Ah, got it. Why can't women be direct and straightforward? Always some feminine Jewish trick or passive aggressiveness.

[Anonymous No.21945100]

>>21943078
>>21943088
Women aren't really intellectually inferior insomuch as they are just less obsessively interested in subjects the same way men are. I've seen few women who developed an interest in a subject they didn't have to study for school/university, the handful I have seen were genuinely autistic to the point of barely being able to function in social situations
>>21943909
Let us know when "emotional intelligence" gives us the cure for cancer

[Anonymous No.21945542]

>>21943088
>intellectually inferior
idk, there was a good thead here last week about the different focuses of men and women in their everyday thought processes which made sense:

The person, arguing that women were fa more intelligent, made the argument that women are far more socially and visually orientated; to think in terms of (superficial) outward appearence and immediate presence, and to struggle with contextual or big picture thinking. He didn't realize he was making that argument , of course hahaha

but it was kind of this:
A Woman sees a shabby dressed person, they don't think in context; "wow, poor guy, he's really down on his luck and is going through a hard time," they think "shabby dressed person" because that's how he appears in the immediate present. To over complicate it, unnecessarily, would be to say that they perform higly detailed judgements based upon superficial objectification of things as they immediately appear. This 'does' require a great deal of intellectual capacity, which is a good argument for women possessing the capacity 'for' reason... since so much effort is spent on make-up and unimportant socialization, for instance, which is probably equal in brain power to a useful discipline but is just not a useful discipline.

My own thoughts on the thing, as I always say, lean more towards Esther Vilar,
1) women possess equal intellectual potential but their potential is atrophied because men subordinate themselves to women and hold them back by making excuses and doing everything for them.
2) women do understand this and are quite happy with the situation of being lazy elites where they consider 'work' is beneath them and enjoy manipulating men or male society into providing for them for no reason.

Good point, however, is that we're only really talking about White Women in the West; urban environments. The effort to conflate the poor conduct of those women with "all women through and places and time" is a real error.

Then again, conflation is the sign of a weak mind. Both genders are pretty retarded culturally and are not introduced to logic, and fall back into the baseline unconscious state, which is where Vilar emerges as the bleeding edge of the subject; taking into account that men will rather kill themselves than admit they're slaves to women by their own culture, and women are quite content with the scenario - even though they ought not be, as the "yes man (who exists to serve)" is an incompetent peon who is just lying all the time.

[Anonymous No.21945559]

>>21945542
also,
> taking into account that men will rather kill themselves than admit they're slaves to women by their own culture
This is really the origin point for a lot of modern western oppression of women myths; history shows that women have usually been the beneficiary of men, and that men, talking amongt themselves, about how men are in control is objectively a delusion and coping mechanism; simply: men going to miserable jobs and giving women a free ride from the small gains they make from that job, has been a constant in urban environments.

I tend to think that a lot of the disregard 'of' men comes from a complex mating strategy on the part of the peon male (puny westerner); to do-down the superior male (third world strong man dictator) to win favor with the nearby or presumed nearby female by presenting themselves as "fairer".

So men destroy their own better selves in the attempt to mate, and women take this at face value and believe it.

anyway i gotta run. job.

[Anonymous No.21945565]

>>21945542
>A Woman sees a shabby dressed person, they don't think in context; "wow, poor guy, he's really down on his luck and is going through a hard time," they think "shabby dressed person" because that's how he appears in the immediate present.
Retarded men also think that but not all people are like that. You seriously don't think women know the homeless and the poor exist? Come on.

[Anonymous No.21945574]

>>21943550
Olympic Weightlifting records

[Anonymous No.21945575]

>>21943078
Half of the feminist literature of the last century.

[Anonymous No.21945583]

>>21943191
It's an axiom across all cultures that women mature earlier than men.
The unspoken part of that axiom is that women stop maturing sooner than men.

[Anonymous No.21945585]

>>21943575
>Meet one smart woman
>think all women are like that
fucking lol.

[Anonymous No.21945592]

>>21944637
You're confusing educational attainment with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.21945655]

>>21943078
>At the international Ibsen symposium held in Gossensass in the South Tyrol the theme was: “Is Ibsen a naturalist or symbolist”? In my view he is in fact both. Ibsen is a cubist. He endeavours to look at a problem from as many viewpoints as possible, from above and below and from every conceivable angle. To Weininger, it was Ibsen who exposed, in literary guise, the lies that are vital to life in a society dominated by conventional morality – just as Nietzsche did in philosophical form. In Kantian terms, in such a society vanity or egocentricity is the basic motivation behind every action. Such a narcissistic society could not help but be obsessed by sex, as Freud would eventually conclude. What is so praiseworthy about Ibsen is that he saw through this narcissistic culture and dared to hold up a mirror to it.
>everywhere full of raging theater kids pretending to have grown up because they have le sex and sex talk and survival of the species which means they failed to solve all problems as a generation and now have to kill off their former idealistic erotic pedophilia for their sterile sexuality as some epic win to be like the cool sexual kids when really they’re just killing off the Peer Gynt that God made as an original thought on his self same brow to love Solveig in pedophilic idealistic bliss but they traded it for the Gyntian Self of absence with his troll-kin army with their one eye scratched so everything appears as perfect so they can forget how much of themselves they were missing in the first place to become the Gyntian sexual emperor ruling in a madhouse of narcissistic psychopaths
*ahem* Ibsen and Weininger vindicated forever. Fuck the sex having theater kids I’m staying an erotic pedophilic theater kid forever

[Anonymous No.21945737]

>>21943078
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_hyena#Behaviour
https://www.britannica.com/animal/dog/Breed-specific-behaviour

[Anonymous No.21945750]

>>21943078
My gf refutes this.

[Anonymous No.21945815]

>>21943088
Just lol. There's a reason women have their own sections for everything. "women in science" "women in STEM" "women's chess". There literally aren't enough of them to fill a room otherwise.

[Anonymous No.21945831]

>>21945565
>You seriously don't think women know the homeless and the poor exist? Come on.
Oh I was using an example, it's more the broader principle going on with it that I'm talking about: he may be homeless, he may not be, he may not even be poor but just didn't have time to shave that morning, you know? I mean, I didn't even say homeless or poor, now that I read back what I wrote lol

But.. it's really the charge of objectification (of the opposite sex) that people were hurling against men for the half of last century, I don't find this amongst men towards women really (look at the slobs in lycra trousers) but it's a constant of women towards men and far moreso against other women 24/7.

I suppose really this one boils down to the influence of peers and fashion magazines to create that sense of hostile 'social-mindedness'. Daily reminder though, straight men have nothing to do with writing those things.

[Anonymous No.21945835]

>>21943078
>>21945750
Roman women also refute this.

"find a plain looking woman, strong in her body, with a sense of propriety towards the business of the household, rather than merely physical prettiness,"
Cato, in paraphrasis

[Anonymous No.21945841]

>>21945815
They don't give a shit about those things for the most part. It's not a matter of intelligence. Women have different inclinations and interests. Although I've seen way more women than men in chemical engineering, for example. It depends on the field, I guess.

[Anonymous No.21945847]

>>21945841
Cap

[Anonymous No.21945850]

>>21945565
>>21945831
>>21945542

So, here's the difference exemplified,

Man mentions,
>The person, arguing that women were fa more intelligent, made the argument that women are far more socially and visually orientated; to think in terms of (superficial) outward appearence and immediate presence, and to struggle with contextual or big picture thinking
e.g.
>A Woman sees a shabby dressed person, they don't think in context; "wow, poor guy, he's really down on his luck and is going through a hard time," they think "shabby dressed person" because that's how he appears in the immediate present.

Woman,
>>You seriously don't think women know the homeless and the poor exist?

Man,
>>it's more the broader principle going on with it that I'm talking about:

[Anonymous No.21945857]

>>21945815
>There's a reason women have their own sections for everything

https://www.chess.com/news/view/women-vs-men-chess-performance-study
"The issue discussed in the science here is whether the performance of women is affected by the gender of their opponent."

"the results of a 2016 study that examined computer-rated quality of moves in games by strong players. There, it was shown that female players make moves of equal quality to male players when they play other women but make moves of lower quality when they play against men."

"The concern that a person might be the target of demeaning stereotypes can disrupt performance, for example in mathematics, as one study has shown."

[Anonymous No.21945864]

>>21945850
>struggle with contextual or big picture thinking
yet the 'contextual empiricism' paradigm in the philosophy of science was initially produced by the feminists.

[Anonymous No.21945901]

>>21945864
err.. the scientific method has always been around, though I'll grant you in the west we've been under the jackboot and tiny penis of totally stupid judeo-christian dogmatism for centuries; resulting in e.g. the man who suggested and proved that hand-washing amongst doctors reduced patient deaths died in an insane asylum for his "beliefs" and the proofs were laughed away, and arguably we're still in that mentality having never left it.

[Anonymous No.21945906]

>>21945857
>There, it was shown that female players make moves of equal quality to male players when they play other women but make moves of lower quality when they play against men."
>"The concern that a person might be the target of demeaning stereotypes can disrupt performance, for example in mathematics, as one study has shown."
That's a good one; that suggests that Women are more cautious because they believe they're facing someone who can defeat them, so they play more safely, whereas Women regard either Women as unfit to be considered a threat and will engage in grander riskier maneuvers.

[Anonymous No.21945938]

>>21943078
On the whole, women have slightly lower average IQ than men. The Nyborg studies ended up placing the difference around 3.5 points if memory serves, which is negligible and doesn't mean anything much at all on a group level (and in addition, Nyborg was widely criticized for his methodolgy: how much of that is politically motivated and how much of it is genuine is difficult to tell, but it may be even smaller. Researchers p-hacking and cherrypicking methodologies to get more noticeable result is the rule rather than the exception).

It is the same as the difference between Norway and Latvia (in Latvian favor), Austria and Poland (in Austrian favor) or East Asia and Europe (in East Asian favor), but no one is going to use that to say that Norwegians or Poles or Europeans are intellectually inferior untermenschen, because it is retarded to do so. People will use it to denigrate women because they can't get pussy and are angry about it. That's literally what it is 100% of the time, sour grapes from being-without-pussy. Mindnumbing and excruciatingly boring. Throw in some Schopenhauer quotes for an added veneer of intellectual gravitas and you've got a thread of whiny incels just like the last 10.000 that were identical.

As for the more interesting aspect, statistics don't mean shit on an individual level and it is embarassing that so many people make the ontological conflation of an average aggregation to a singular part of it, literally equivalent to saying that a brake light is a car. I've no idea how someone can be that poor at reasoning, but then again, I've got a big-dick IQ, not a tiny-dick energy incel IQ.

sauce: pic related. That's mine. I know it's not a real IQ test, it's an internet one. It still works comparatively, and you can take it right here: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/FSIQ/
I guarantee, not a single whiny /r9k/ incel will beat my score. They will try, and they will fail, and they will then not post. Know that I take great pleasure in that.

[Anonymous No.21945952]

>>21944457
>Male variability hypothesis
Very interesting. I'm not the anon you replied to but didn't expect to learn anything from a thread with a FNV image and had to reply. Have a nice sunday anon

[Anonymous No.21945980]

>>21943078
Fallout New Vegas is the best video game of the last 15 years at least and although I rarely play vidya these days, any time I start a new one, my first impression of it is that it is shit compared to New Vegas.
There are two colossal tragedies and crimes in the world of media that hurts my very soul by the thought of what could have been: Kubricks planned film about Napoleon, in which he had secured 40.000 soldiers of the Romanian army as extras, 10.000 of them cavalry, which lost financing after the soviet-made film Waterloo failed commercially (this is the greatest crime of communism btw), and then Fallout New Vegas being denied a sequel because it did not reach 85 on metacritic, but only 84, because some cheeto-dust inhaling dysgenic profligate from "armchair empire" gave it a 65/100. He alone is responsible and deserves crucifixion.

[Anonymous No.21946029]

>>21945980
Ahhhhhh I wouldn't worry about this, New Vegas w cool but the entire story line, inc. DLC areas, were lifted (borrowed, whatever, not original) from Fallout Van Buren - Caesar and Big Empty, even the Tribals in the Canyon.

The only original thing they added to it SNICKER SNICKER was to replace the Made Man aspect (and perk icon) of Fallout 2 with the Cowboy trope, which was just a recoloured fedora.

Anon, I <3 Fallout 2, but the Wasteland series is much better and actually comprises the original creators and writers of Fallout 2. It's time that recognize that Fallout died due to commercial abuse and poor technical support, as evidenced in the blackface bug in Fallout 4 and the subsequent trash that was Fallout 70 something.

[Anonymous No.21946061]

>>21945980
>Fallout New Vegas being denied a sequel
It should've gone darker I think, at Fallout 2 you've basically established NCR as a dictartorship over the region, eyeing Chinatown and Vault City, having allied NCR with the crime bosses in New Reno... so the only way it could go in a legit. Fallout 3 would be to have American Style Democracy invading and probably losing to Chinese people in San Frrancisco...... probably the protagonist would be criminal scum from New Reno, which was the center of the map and the place the player was spending the most time in as a base.

But the militarism and corrupt NCR government... I don't think that would've gone over well with the investors and board room, given their love for Lincoln, Cowboys and the Minutemen. Then again, NCR is pretty corrupt in New Vegas.

Thinking about it, I could never get over the ending scene, when the NCR general misread the script and referred to the Legion as being "plum" rather than "plumed". Laziness. After that it was easy to side with the Legion. You got better loot from killing the NCR assassin squads they sent after you anyway, $$$$$

still, trash.

[Anonymous No.21946124]

Friendly reminder that obsidian has been 100% restructured since 2011 and a New Vegas 2 WOULD include
>Tranny shit
>Drumpf political "humor"
>Explicit anti fascism

Any reaction to the announcement of a sequel should include physical violence in the streets. Not joy or celebration.

[Anonymous No.21946141]

>>21945938
So what's your "high IQ" take on the variability hypothesis? Why did you spend 3 paragraphs attacking a strawman that nobody in this thread even mentioned?

[Anonymous No.21946157]

>>21943078
You know the crazy thing about this is that whether you believe this is true or not you can't deny that this is a very meaningful purpose in life. And I know the vast majority of women would agree with that. If there's one thing women love it's rearing children. It's simple biology. Meanwhile countless modern men feel completely without purpose in this world and suffer because of it. Women are just handed this free purpose on a silver platter and some of them literally say "no this isn't good enough for me I want to be like a man".

[Anonymous No.21946216]

>>21946141
Obviously that it might be a good explanation of the 3.5 difference.
Which still means fuck-all and is virtually meaningless, which is the pertinent point concerning a discussion where women are claimed to be intellectually inferior.
>strawman
I am not responding to anyone but OP, whose vacuous post about "le wamen", thinly disguised to not get pruned, invites nothing but loose reflections on the subject matter, which I gave. If you do not think they are relevant to any opinions commonly found here in general, you're just not very perceptive.

[Anonymous No.21946285]

>>21943191
Schopenhauer is a literal incel.

[Anonymous No.21946302]

>>21946216
3.5 difference is meaningless, that's not what it explains at all. I'm sure you know why it's relevant but are simply being disingenuous.
You're correct saying motivation for some of these posts originates from the sour grapes of not getting pussy, however you're purposefully using that to obfuscate and invalidate any valid concerns men have. At least half of these posts comes from divorced men, or men "too" experienced with women. What you did was frame a very complex issue(with which so many people have a problem it's bound to be a symptom of an underlying sociological cause). Again, you're being disingenuous, seemingly on purpose.

[Anonymous No.21946327]

When did this board get filled to the brim with liberal cucks?

Physically they're inferior. Intellectually similar, but male variability ultimately edges men forth in societal impact. Having more geniuses is a good trade off even if you have more idiots as well.

I will say the the natural inclinations of women hinders them heavily. On average they're significantly less curious and driven.

Anyone who converses with educated men and women will quickly notice this. Your average normie male has more intellectual interests and hobbies.

Men are more "intellectual" and thus put their intelligence to better use I'll say, or maybe they just show it off more.

This is demonstrated in the tier list of best movies split by gender. men like classics, women like brainless young adult movies.

[Anonymous No.21946390]

>>21943261
Based

[Anonymous No.21946404]

>>21946327
Election tourist posts glow in the dark, but with the reddit spacing as well, this is like staring directly into the sun.

[Anonymous No.21946418]

>>21945063
Wait, so lower number means higher rating, right?

[Anonymous No.21946478]

>>21946124
Ha, .. i wonder if the literalism in videogames has anything to do wit trannyism, i mean, i usually play as a female character but it's better visuals, and generally you can use the Pussy Perk to get advantages in some scenarios. I wonder if our generation realized this and the more stuupid of them thought to apply it IRL.

[Anonymous No.21946517]

>>21945063
You are showing me a picture that women rate highly slop designed around their sensibility, and that men rate highly slop designed around their sensiblity (le war.. le samurais.. LE WESTERN..)
It is completely, unfathomably cringe that you would bring this up, and try to frame juvenile and manchildish preferences as an argument for male superiority.
This is like saying men are better because they have more legos or bionicles.
Get better taste in movies.

[Anonymous No.21946604]

>>21946517
The difference you should be noticing is not between wish fulfillment and wish fulfillment, it's between quality filmmaking with wish fulfillment and blockbuster slop with wish fulfillment. Unless you mean to tell me the likes of Kurosawa and Sergio Leone are not giants of filmmaking.

[Anonymous No.21946631]

>>21946517
>>21946604
Kek this thread is a goldmine of examples of just the thing it's discussing. Amazing to behold.

On a semi-related note, this is definitely not an IQ thing, I went to a schoool for gifted children and obviously met a lot(30-40%) of girls in the similar IQ range(130+), and they displayed the same characteristics and limitations in their reasoning.

[Anonymous No.21946676]

>>21943078
When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

[Anonymous No.21947259]

>>21945078
Because they're not human, it is known.

[Anonymous No.21947285]

Sneed

[Anonymous No.21947293]

>>21943191
>a face not even a mother could love

[Anonymous No.21947499]

>>21943078
Women are better as fighter jet pilots because they're smaller and can pull higher Gs without losing consciousness.
Based Obama replaced them with drones though.

[Anonymous No.21947588]

>>21946285
He wasn't unless you don't know what incel means which is likely

[Anonymous No.21947630]

>>21943909
The definition of "emotional intelligence" is essentially just equanimity. Do you really and truly believe that they have that?

[Anonymousn No.21947643]

I read 'Useless Beauty' by Guy de Maupassant yesterday and it tackles this subject in a neat way.

[Anonymous No.21947794]

>>21947630
>equanimity.
if that word means.. petty-minded, covetous of items (materialistic in the most trashy of ways), self-loathing, paranoid schizophrenia, child abuser, perjurous, family-wrecking.. sure..

Also, reminder: Women are the culprits behind the wort atrocities through False Accusation; see Lynching in America and the Witches accused of magic and tortured to death through false accusation of other Women, the lynched men accused of rape and the modern day equivalents;all false accusations from women leveraging mens simple-mindedness and eagerness to play the chivalrous knight... which currently infests the western world like a blight... as well as having birthed modern day white guilt over atrocities against women and black people, where women were the chief instigators and "all society" has been tarred as if it were guilty.

[Anonymous No.21947810]

also the present-day "fashion trend" of mothers chemically or surgically castrating their own children for no reasoning anyone could articulate.

[Anonymous No.21947819]

I honestly think it's pretty simple

Physically: well that's obvious
Intellectually: just google the top 10 contributions made by women to any intellectual field, whether it be philosophy, science, art, and then compare that to men and try your best not to chuckle

But if OP is talking about averages then it's the variability hypothesis for intelligence