Replies

Ah, the putrid odor of misogyny.

There's a hint of that. We used to joke in graduate school that we needed wives. Biological destiny has caught up with me.

The author makes a bit of an error in his last paragraph: "Womenists, however, are infected with the same fatal hubris toward women that the Nazis had toward Aryans: women must be superior to men in every way at every level and in every sense. Because reality is so different from this...". Looking at the (normal) distributions of abilities, whether cognitive, analytic or whatever, the tails for men are longer than men. We don't see female Einsteins, and we don't see female Ted Bundy's either. What we do see is a greater concentration of women in the center of the distribution, right around the mean. There are some men who are better than all women, but more women are better than the average man. And it is people with these abilities, both men and women, who are the backbone of society, and I dare say, even science. Most of science is done by people with a narrow range of interest, wittling away at the leading edge of knowledge. Few, if any scientists are making earth-shaking leaps.

That said, all this pointing to historical giants makes me wonder where today's Newtons are. Men or women.

Looking at the (normal) distributions of abilities, whether cognitive, analytic or whatever, the tails for men are longer than men. We don't see female Einsteins, and we don't see female Ted Bundy's either. What we do see is a greater concentration of women in the center of the distribution, right around the mean. There are some men who are better than all women, but more women are better than the average man. And it is people with these abilities, both men and women, who are the backbone of society, and I dare say, even science. Most of science is done by people with a narrow range of interest, wittling away at the leading edge of knowledge. Few, if any scientists are making earth-shaking leaps.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head, dude... In my field (physics) there's been interminable moaning and groaning about how to attract and keep the chicks in the barn (despite strenuous recruiting efforts, quite a bit of chick attrition at my graduate institution alone)... I having assisted teaching and tutoring a fair number of students of both genders, it is my forthright and unPC opinion that most chicks don't have what it takes to succeed in this field. Better suited for bio, chem, or one a them lesser "sciences"-- less rigid and analytical perhaps, dunno... Flame away, chicks, but I know better than many. Even though I am hardly about to make an earthshaking leap here. ;)

What we do see is a greater concentration of women in the center of the distribution, right around the mean. There are some men who are better than all women, but more women are better than the average man.

Using your stated assumption (normal dist.), and implicit assumption (the means are equal), the medians are also equal, i.e., "more [>50% of] women are better than the average man" is not correct.

Obviously, there's no way to quantify ability, but I wonder how well the tail of the normal distribution characterizes great genius.

There are some men who are better than all women, but more women are better than the average man.

I still find it fascinating that some guy can write an article complaining about wacko feminist theory, pointing out obvious empirical facts such as that the best scientists in general tend to be mend, and get jumped on for being a "misogynist".

Meanwhile, in some of the responses, such as yours, we find sweeping assertions seemingly pulled out of the clear blue sky such as the idea that "more women are better than the average man". (At what? At everything?)

Dare I even ask what the statement "more women are better than the average man" is based on? Is it based on anything besides wishful thinking, a sincere desire on your part to appear non-misogynist, a bit of a patronizing attitude towards the sensibilities of women, and that sort of thing?