In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

I’ll Get Back In The Kitchen Right Quick

Lauren

I was going to try and write something remotely serious about the recent research that asserts men are, biologically, slightly smarter than women, and how racist and misogynist research brings the wingnuts out in droves to defend, well, eugenicists, but this happened instead.

Jesse: ugh. this “men are naturally smarter than women” study is bringing out the morons on the right. again.

Lauren: i’ll turn off the computer and get back to the kitchen
Lauren: IQ scores have been raising so much every year for 50 years that our grandparents shouldn’t have been able to hold jobs

Jesse: there’s also the minor problem that IQ is about as much of an approximation of intelligence as an SAT – it’s got a lot more to do with cultural exposure than actual intellect.

Lauren: i wouldn’t know anything about that
Lauren: you’re so much smarter
Lauren: i’ll just sit in a corner over here and wait for you to say something intelligent about it

Jesse: it’s okay – just lay back and look pretty.

Lauren: i’m trying, i’m trying

Jesse: no books in bed!
Jesse: unless they’re cosmo.

Lauren: do you think i look fat in this brain?

Jesse: no, no, you look fine. i’ve had bigger, though.

Lauren: *ahem*
Lauren: no comment

[Instant Messaging slightly edited for coherence]

Amanda should be pleased to know that despite yet another swipe at her intelligence, the brain to body ratio is larger in mice than men.

20 thoughts on I’ll Get Back In The Kitchen Right Quick

  3. Does anyone have a link to the actual study? I’d like to check their statistics, if my tiny little brain can understand them…Quite apart from the obvious biases inherent in IQ testing, a five point difference sounds more like noise than signal to me.

  4. Let’s just say men are smarter. It wouldn’t make a difference, because whatever IQ points a man may have over a woman are lost to his drive for sex. It’s a wash. So, we’re equal after all.

  6. Why is the BBC writing about articles that haven’t been published yet? For that matter, why is the BJP letting them get info on an article it isn’t ready to publish yet? Articles are supposed to come out in the peer reviewed press before they are discussed in the lay press, not the other way around. Generally, the only exception to this rule is if the data is so earth shattering and potentially important that it needs to be spread as quickly as possible. Even if the study is completely right and men’s IQs are, on average, higher, did we need to know that right now as opposed to later in the year?

  7. A quick search of medline/pre-medline (articles that are not yet officially published) failed to find the Lynn article under discussion, but did show an interesting trend: Lynn has written a number of articles on differences in IQ between different races and genders. Somehow, when he does the study, there is always a difference and it always seems to favor white males. When other people do similar studies, they are often negative (no difference between groups, at least on whole scale IQ). Hmm…what could that mean?

  8. My favorite quote, from the response to the BBC News article:

    I don’t think men are more intelligent than women on average. However, from personal experience I would say that the distribution of intelligence in men is more extreme, that is to say, there are more exceptionally clever men than women, but there are also more exceptionally stupid men than women.

  10. The worst thing about this study is that a lady can’t argue over it with a man. Because you know..

    It’s sort of like the old “You’re so argumentative!”

    “No I’m not!”

    “See?”

  11. so, do they control for gay? I’m pretty sure being a big homo makes you smarter, too.
    I mean, think about the sheer density of gays in art and literature, and it turns into a tautology:
    you’ve gotta be a genius to be an artistic genius, or a brilliant writer
    art and writing people are faggy, that’s why the jocks in high school beat them up
    ergo, gay people are smart

    so obviously, if we’re going to structure society, gays should be on top. I, for one, welcome our homosexual overlords, and would like to inform them that I don’t have a gag reflex.

    I feel sorry for you ladies. what happens when the patriarchy no longer needs you as sex objects? you’ll have to actually have brains and opinions to be worthwhile.

  12. Chris, you flatter me. I am only too happy to have the wrong people on my team. The right people are…boring. I don’t want to be in heaven if it’s a bunch of angels singing. I’ll be in hell with Hunter Thompson, dancing to rock music and breaking our mothers’ hearts.

    I’m already ready for hell. My heat tolerance is abnormally high.

  13. Pingback: The Republic of T.

  15. Amanda, speaking as a person who lives in North Dakota, I know for a FACT that hell is cold. So, you should probably work on the lower end tolerance as well 😀

    (Crazy Texans…everyone else knows to get OUT of the sun).

  16. [Instant Messaging slightly edited for coherence]

    Edited for coherence? I think that calls for more than “slightly.”

  18. You must be in the same section of hell where Dante put Judas, Antigone. Doesn’t that make you feel special?

    I think hanggliders might rather like the section where being he stuck the people who were too lustful.

  19. I’m having the same argument on a blog I write for too. One commentor has gone so far as to argue that women’s lower IQ is “proof” that the glass ceiling doesn’t exist — that women don’t become CEOs of companies because our IQs are too low. Sigh. How do you argue with that sort of nonsense? Pointing out the facts doesn’t seem to have any effect whatsoever.

  20. You know, the evil heat this week is proof positive that Bush’s little photo ops outside are sheer bullshit. I go out in this heat, but I’m ill-tempered and hate air conditioning. Spoiled rich boy Bushie is not about to venture outside in this heat.

Comments are currently closed.