Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

Again side tangent...everone knows you know how to be snide nad sarcastic and latch onto incidentals. For once why don't you give us your take on the question being raised?

Interesting that on the rare occasions that you have proof, it's a salient point. But when they're lies and you're called out, they suddenly become


.....

What's the big deal with the link obsession? Michael believes that paedophiles should be castrated. Who cares if there's a link. Michael is the postman who isn't even online. Can't people voice an opinion without asking for links. That is the curve ball some posters constantly use when they lack a point fo view or are incapable of formulating one or, more likely than not, prefer being cute and clever (in their own mind alone) and call people names than disucss anything sincerely.

Are you suggesting he's offered you proof of whatever it is he said (I haven't followed this recent exchange and don't know where the conversation is at but yours was the first thing I read and this question popped into my head so...whatever)?

Originally I didn't catch on, but now I can see a common ruse of many PF-ers is to use the so-called 'call for proof' as a diversioanry tactic to block or sidetrack the discussion and avoid expressing an opinion. Clever but not clever enough!

Here is a case in point.
As a reuslt of this 'clever' repartee (link below), the poster wormed his way out of answering whether it was fair to force boy scouts to admit girls but allow girl guides not to admit boys. So we still don't know what he thinks about that. More likely than not he will find some cutesy way of explainign his failiure to respond. Let's sit back and see what he thinlks up htis time! The usual one is: LINK, LINK, GIVE US A LINKI, WE CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT LINKS!!!!!

Girls should not be allowed in the Boy Scouts. We have Girl Scouts for girls. I lived in an all-girl dormitory once. After a year it was made co-ed. I didn't think it would make a difference, but it really did. I'm not convinced that all-boy or all-girl organizations should be made co-ed. The videos made very good points. I'm curious what feminists think of men opting out of marriage and how many women are doing the same, because I know some who have.

Could much of the way courts rule on child support be attributed to the 1988 Family Support Act? I remember reading something about it and doesn't it basically mandate that biological fathers pay child support without regard to circumstances? Isn't that why rape victims still pay child support? If so, it's a loophole that needs addressed. Presumed paternity is ridiculous since marriage isn't necessary to reproduce so it should definitely be changed, too. I don't understand why paternity fraud isn't more commonly prosecuted since there must be precedent, but I'm no lawyer. What about County of Los Angeles v. Navarro 1996? Doesn't that case set precedent? nfja.org/newsrelease/2004-07-19.shtml

I think women who lie about paternity aren't often punished for fraud because it's not criminal fraud that violates statutes, but civil fraud. I don't remember exactly. A good start may be to change the law so that neither marriage nor biological fatherhood would be the only criteria, which is happening. And men should never owe back payments for children proven not to be theirs. That's nuts. I would say, if these women can't find the father then let them deal with the consequences on their own, but . . . then the children suffer (unless she has a good job). The ultimate shame is the pain and confusion of children caught between dishonest women and men they see as their dads who don't mean to hurt the children but shouldn't be forced to pay hundreds of dollars a month, even when they're actively involved in the children's lives. It's the principle, but it also involves a lot of emotions. I can't imagine thinking a child is mine for years only to discover otherwise. It's not the kid's fault and it's not the man's fault. But how do we hold the mother accountable in such a way that the child doesn't suffer undue consequences? It's a mess, and I don't mean to be harsh, but women need to be held accountable for paternity fraud. I don't understand why people don't just tell the truth. Of course it'll be bad and you'll probably lose your husband/boyfriend, but children deserve to know who their fathers are. I don't know all the factors that led to this situation so it's hard to think of possible solutions, but there definitely need to be changes.

You are making up stories as they come.

I do not subscribe to the liberal herd-like view of humanity: "Who am I to state such a truth, when there are others out there who may disagree with me? Its all relative!" Ugh!


Ha yes, the usual canard that feminism is all about the "rights" of women, and that it has nothing to do with being a far leftist radical movement.

Example A: huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/ghetto-not-fabulous_b_49701.html

You can tell just how much socialism there is in feminism by their constant cries at victim hood, a true hall mark of marxist propaganda.

So in a nutshell, female writers are being ignored by males unless they write subjects that interest men? And that's discrimination? And OMG, let's give piece a chance, no more war fiction, we should all read Harmony books and watch romantic comedies from now on, the very survival of the human race is at stake here.

Then you wonder why western civilization is getting more pathetic with each passing day when half of the population abide to this type of mindset...

Feminists lie all the time and use shame tactics to browbeat their opponents. In contrast, MRAs use facts and logic to counter feminist bullsh!t. They are the antithesis of one another. In fact, the men's right movement was born to fight against feminism in the first place. Ergo, why it is about men's "rights", the right to fight against female privilege and the right to fight against misandry, both of which are the result of feminist influence in government and society. When feminists talk about rights its just an empty buzz word used for propagandist purposes.


In order to understand feminism, just imagine if those unsung female heroes were actually men, and how lukewarm the general reaction would be to their achievements. Women are basically treated like children. Every time they do something special their performance is exalted way out of proportions purely because it is unusual by female standard, even though it may be the norm among men. Thus when a woman shows a bit of technical prowess she is suddenly considered to be "awesome", while the average male who's accomplishments exceed hers is generally one in the crowd, expertise of any kind being so common among men as to be almost taken for granted for the most part.

Never heard of hyperboles, metaphors, parables or examples, have you?

Women who choose to have children shouldn't be forced or willing to work or to pursuit career. I see maternity leave as a privilege granted to women due to biological and psychological differences between genders.

I do not begrudge women their privilege but I'm pointing out that women are not treated badly in a society.
In reality society is not divided on men and women but on families and singles, wise and dumb, good and bad, educated and uneducated, rich and poor and those in-between.There are many inequalities in society which cannot be cured by the courts, women are not a perpetual victims or an underdog of society.

Dichotomy between sexes is artificial, created by the faulty political system which is exploiting natural differences in society to its advantage. In this light feminism is noting else but a redundant gnarl on society aiming at empowering few to rule over people using concept of the gender struggle. That concept have been derived from an old Marxist idea called the class struggle.


I do not believe that something what is in fact an idea leading to totalitarianism would be beneficial to the society.

That is your prerogative however when you state your opinion as fact then people will eventually say "prove it" like on this thread and at that point you are forced to either put up prove or admit whatever you wrote as fact is not. Overall though your thought process on this matter is lacking as it allows anyone to state anything is a truth as long as they have enough conviction. Sorry but you're dead wrong on this one.

Since the beginning of civilization, all important contributions to the advancement of society have been brought fourth my men, with little relevant exception. Statistically, the difference is gargantuan. You can take the liberal route, and blame it on the oppression of women through out the ages, or simply follow the most logical course. The data remains constant though, and since the inception of feminism things haven't improved much, nay, they have gotten worst, by all accounts.

In the current climate of political correctness (one of the many wonderful gifts we received from your kind) all forms of intellectual digressions from the accepted status quo are discouraged and suppressed. You are never going to see a proper scientific research in order to categorize all the differences between the sexes, because academia already believes there are no such differences, no test necessary.

Convenient, is it?

All you can hope for is a comparison between various data and statistics (IQ scores, SAT tests ect.), which so far seem to tip the balance towards male intellectual superiority.

Research suggests that testosterone has an effect on intelligence.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11913330&dopt=AbstractPlus
Specifically, it seems that high amounts of testosterone has a correlation with high IQ among educated men, while too little or too much had a negative effect with those with unsuccessful educational levels.

Therefore, right amounts of testosterone = higher IQ.


Then I'll bring out evidence when relevant. I always do. But adding to every statement "it is just my opinion" I consider an intelectual cowardice.


Which one? And your evidence?

In case there is a single person left that still reads Kondzior's fascist rants, here is a relevant article in Psychology Today:
psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

It is evident from the language you're using that you're not distinguishing your opinion from fact.
There are ways to communicate you've read, heard or witnessed an event, phenomenon or information which you believe to be true but still mentally allow that there could be factors you haven't taken into consideration. That's just good objective thinking, there's nothing wrong with that at all. I agree some things are not going to be disputed but statements like the quote following this paragraph are not something you've quantified (nor do you have the ability to) so on those things, it's simply honest to state them as opinion and not fact. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm being condescending but I can't think of any other way to explain it to you right now.


......come on man, you know that can't be true. I don't know why you'd even make that claim. Can you even quantify what is or isn't an "important contribution to the advancement of society?" It's not objective and it's not true.

f stop rocks :-).

It's true that in the past, some tests showed men as having higher IQs. But there are social factors at work, such as differences in education and expectations. As these have reduced over time, so the performance of girls and women has overtaken us. Given that the pressures still exist, I would suggest that the inherent mental superiority of women over men is probably greater than tests currently show, and that the trend of female IQ results improving faster than male will continue.

Sorry guys, but the days of claiming to be superior to women and using this to marginalise and oppress them are over.

Think about what you've written and then think a bit more.




It's an interesting idea but ultimately very improbable that the intelligence level of the planet's apex species could ever be dichotomized along the lines of gender. From what I've read, and seen this much does seem to ring true among most species on the planet; in terms of behaviour and potential:

- males = nature's gamble
- females = nature's insurance policy

Men generally reach higher highs and lower lows, women tend to hug the line and there's likely a very good biological reason for that.

Man, you've got to be kidding. You seem pretty confident with your logic. Here's some advice: use it. Most women could not get any education until very recently. Women could not vote until very recently. How could you possibly 'contribute' to our brilliant civilization (right?) when you're stuck home with your 12 kids? Waiting for your logical answer.


Here's some more advice: stop talking sh!t. IQ alone doesn't mean ANYTHING.
Many people with a high IQ are far from being brilliant.
You may have billions in your bank account, if you forgot the code, you'll never see your money.
Someone with an IQ of 100 can do much better than someone that has an IQ of 130.
This is irrelevant. Find something else.


That's interesting, please develop. And even if that was true (which I highly doubt), how would that be relevant, really?
Would that be your excuse to keep women home to wash your underwear and cook your dinners?
If there's any difference in that matter between men and women, then it must be trivial, insignificant.

I am objective because my arguments are objective. It is generally the resident lefists who have never been objective when dealing with this issue, hence, why their arguments are always absurd.


And why they could not? Common sense, nothing more. Schopenhauer understood the situation better then most, and his elucidations have become nearly prophetic in light of current trends. I don't have much too add to his excellent analysis.

heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html


Educational outcomes do not concern me, only achievement matters. It's a well known reality women land themselves very well to academic environments, where conscientiousness, memorization and routine are valued over creativity and specialization. They are also better at dealing with continual assessment rather then devoting their energies to one big task (like a final exam).

The problem is not whether women are doing better or not, but whether males are doing worse. This is where the issue of feminization kicks in, which is why i'm in favor of single-gender schools.

On a related note, i just discovered that IQ tests are biased against males. I recently acquired a Mensa approved self scoring test, which contained thee sections centered around basic skills (verbal, mathematical and spatial respectively), with 50 questions per section. At the end of the test, you were supposed to add the total number of correct answers to achieve your score, except answers from the verbal section had to be multiplied by three.

Any particularly reason why this might be?

Following your "logical course" it appears that Polish men are far stupider than American or German men, since very few of the "important contributions to the advancement of society have been brought fourth" by Polish men.

But I'm sure you will be able to find arguments in 3 minutes disputing your global intellectual inferiority, and I'm sure it's not going to be the level of testosterone.

Good work Marynka, shaming tactics at it's best. And no real argument whatsoever. That's what I expected.

Shaming? Again, I only used your "logical" course. Doesn't work anymore? Exactly what I expected. And my argument is as real as yours. Bye.

What objective argument have you put forward for the following assertion:Since the beginning of civilization, all important contributions to the advancement of society have been brought fourth my men?

How could you or anyone possibly validate that?

So its come to this, lol. My time is very limited now but I'll be delighted to extrapolate about many issues presented here sometime in the future.

As to "Psychology Today" I've noticed that in the past few years very few issues have a picture of a man on the cover, indeed, I've only seen one in the past year and he had to share the cover photo with a woman. This magazine knows who to cater to and its readership is about 80 percent female. It's also very liberal in most of its presentations, in other words, it's "politically correct". Even "Time" magazine attempted to tweak intelligence numbers to show how smart women are. They compared university women who are now 60 percent of all students with the general population of men. That's how far our "PC" culture has come to raise women whiie downgrading men.

Now, on to intelligence: I only have time for a quick Cliff Notes general analysis Here is what Professor Camille Benbow of Vanderbilt University found in a peer-review research,

*At the 98% IQ level (mensa level), the ratio of men to women is 3:2. (This is also the ratio in Mensa groups, worldwide,)
*At the 99% IQ level, the ratio is 4:1
*At the 99.5% level, 7:1.
*At the 99.9% level, 11:1
(I can feel the blood pressure rising in some of our posters)

As a poster already pointed out, men have the highest IQ's and also the lowest. Women tend to hug the middle grounds and I suppose that is part of nature's plan. Of course most people are not in the extremes be they male or female.


Academics have been 'adjusting' like this so that articles like the one in "Time" and "Psychology Today" and many others normalize differences unless they favor women. At any rate, gotta go so I'll leave you with this: en.wikinews.org/wiki/UK_study_claims_men_have_higher_average_I.Q._than_women

Keep them uneducated, keep them in the kitchen and let them produce children...Something like that?

@ Zimmy, I think it's true that men are over-represented at the top of the IQ range - but also at the bottom. Overall, women outperform us in intelligence tests in most developed countries.

BTW, it has been suggested that very high IQ scores - which require very high performance in the maths test - correlate closely to being somewhere on the Asperger's/autism spectrum. Men outnumber women heavily for those conditions. People with Asperger's or autism can find it difficult to work constructively in teams, which may make it hard for them to deploy their on-paper intelligence. So I don't see the over-representation of men at the very top of the IQ range as taking away from the overall point that women are more intelligent than us and are accelerating ahead of us, or that women have greater potential than us, which has historically been held back by social and biological factors.

Those type of statements stem from a desire to acknowledge the truth in regards to the sexes while trying to sugar coat the whole thing for female consumption. "Men are smarter, but they are also dumber!" "All innovation is the product of male aggression!"

The fear of female opinion this reveals is a testament to the power exerted by women over the whole of society, a power which has always been in their possession, despite the charge of patriarchal dominance. Truth is that men, being naturally authoritarian, are merely better at barking orders and punishing transgressors. True power is the ability to sway the herd, which is the domain of the "fairer" sex, who IS the herd.

Indeed, this is essentially where the problem lies. Individuality defines masculinity, while aggregation is the basic nature of femininity, which exists, quite literally, in a state of perpetual "group-consciousness". This is probably obvious to anyone who has at all considered the matter, but nobody ever dug as deep as Otto Weininger, who's masterpiece Sex and Character is the final word on the "woman question" and has been for the past century.

As an epistolary, it is important to specify that masculinity and femininity are abstractions which do not exist in real life. Weininger spends considerable amount of time

arguing, quite successfully, that all human beings exist in a state of hermaphrodism, everybody being biologically both male and female, in various degrees (Incidentally, this also explains homosexuality, which, when seen from this perspective, is in fact quite "natural"). All that follows applies to the abstractions, all though this essentially precludes the existance of exceptions, for every achievement of woman is due the "masculine" element of her biological essence and as such it is to be considered essentially male in nature. Weininger wasn't the only one to notice the "masculine" quality of all great women. In the words of Ambrose Bierce: "Women of genius commonly have masculine faces, figures and manners. In transplanting brains to an alien soil God leaves a little of the original earth clinging to the roots".

To return to our previous argument. Not all males are individuals (when the female component is high enough), but all individuality is male. It is masculinity and masculinity alone which posses the individual ego, the I, the self, the unique form of individual consciousness, the soul that separate us from the mere emotional/instinctive state which is found in the animal kingdom. Women, by and large, do not have an individual ego, and are by extension soulless. This, of course, does not imply that women lack all reasoning powers and the ability of thought, but they don't see themselves as individual entities disconnected from time with the ability to envision the past as well as the future (Schopenhauer), their consciousness being inextricably tied with that of all women, so that their thoughts are the thoughts of womanhood and so are their desires, hopes and wishes. For themselves, they care not, for they have no conception of self, see nothing of the future and only live by the spur of the moment, unaffected by the realization of their own mortality, which by contrast is what gnaws at the heart of every man.

The reason this is essential in understanding why only men are capable of genius is that the latter is essentially an higher form of individual consciousness, it's a matter of fact, the very highest. Of course, nowadays genius is misinterpreted as being some form of "super intelligence" or, in the case of art, a superior "talent". Truth is, genius has nothing to do with IQ, it has nothing to do with talent, it is merely the ultimate form of individual expression, the ultimate manifestation of the will (Nietzsche), and it's produce is a corollary to the eternal struggle of the death denial (Ernest Becker), the essential pursuit for immortality by projecting the individual ego into the most durable and valuable (universal) truths, manifested in the great works of art, all the philosophy, religious dogma ect. which characterizes a civilization. Indeed, all cultures are a product of individual genius, by which we can all share this pursuit for immortality (as Mark Twain said : "Next to possessing genius one's self is the power of appreciating it in others").

Because genius is a form of extreme masculinity, it is impossible that woman, no matter how biologically close to man, will be able to achieve this higher state of consciousness, which is already impossibly rare among males.

So how does one recognizes genius? In principle, exposure is essentially the only mean available. Since it cannot be explained, it has to be revealed from first hand account, but that of course requires a nurturing of one's individual ego, which can only occur in isolation (Tarkovsky) . Because all genius is consciousness, we need to define what "unconsciousness" means. Weininger does this by introducing the idea of the "henid", which can be defined as "an unclarified, sub-conscious feeling

theabsolute.net/ottow/henid.html
A vague, unformed, foggy or confused idea. A disorganized, undifferentiated thought. A proto-thought.".

He offers the following example:

"I made a note, half mechanically, of a page in a botanical work from which later on I was going to make an extract. Something was in my mind in henid form. What I thought, how I thought it, what was then knocking at the door of my consciousness, I could not remember a minute afterwards, in spite of the hardest effort. I take this case as a typical example of a henid."

And again:

"A common example from what has happened to all of us may serve to illustrate what a henid is. I may have a definite wish to say something particular, and then something distracts me, and the "it" I wanted to say or think has gone. Later on, by some process of association, the "it" is quite suddenly reproduced, and I know at once that it was what was on my tongue, but, so to speak, in a more perfect stage of development."

In short, without individual consciousness, all thoughts exist in henid form. This explains the superficiality and general falseness of women through out their various "pretend" activities. Since they have no true understanding of things, everything for them has an emotional value and nothing more. A work of art is said to exist in henid form when it is accused of being all "style", with no substance, the latter being defined by the specific form of consciousness which exist when the henid has developed from proto to concrete thought. The greatest civilizations are those which, thanks to their greater incidence of genius have managed to develop a large number of thoughts related to the problems of human existence (art, morality, conduct ect.) from an henid to an elevated state of consciousness. All avant-garde is a glorification of the henid, as is post-modern ideology in general, which is a direct negation there can be any other state of understanding besides the henid in the first place.

All this ranting and then we see what you really think about women.

A society is not divided into two parts according to gender.

I agree with you on some things but let's be fair here. I can't honestly look at the figure and come to the conclusion that is evidence of downgrading men. It's evidence that a lot of programs in University appeal to women more than men and it's also evidence men are more likely to take up trades (because we like that sh*t man) than study in school. But is that "downgrading" men or placing too much importance on........f*ck, I dunno.....dumb sh*t? Yah feel what I'm askin?

As far as intelligence tests? Pfft!!! Intelligence tests are made to test some types of intelligence areas and often at the expense of testing other areas of intellect. As long as the questions are purely objective then I have no qualms with a test but let's remember they go in and out of fashion.

@ kondzior, I'm really not sure where to start in responding to your latest stream of consciousness. The best I can say is that if your aim is to argue for the innate intellectual superiority of males, it ain't working pal.