Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Girls "Dominate" National Competition

Congratulations to Janelle Schlossberger and Amanda Harinoff, seniors at John F. Kennedy High School in Plainview, N.Y., who won the team grand prize in the Seimens Math and Science Competition.

There personal effort to excel should be recognized and lauded.

But the socialist engineering and spin behind this particular story is a bit nauseating.

First of all, have a look at the headline published for this story:

Girls Dominate the Siemens Competition

Yay! It's another celebration for the feminists! Girls DOMINATE!

Than we read the actual comments of the winners themselves:

"Women lag far behind men in professional math, science, and computer fields, an issue that became the subject of renewed debate in 2005 when then Harvard President Lawrence Summers suggested the lack of top female scientists may stem in part from biological differences between men and women. Jain vehemently disagrees, but acknowledges with some annoyance that "the guy-to-girl ratio in math and science competitions is absolutely ridiculous. It's usually seven or eight guys to one girl." The results of this year's Siemens Competition may signify that more girls are "finally stepping up to the plate and are more than capable," Jain says. "And I'm proud to be a part of that."

The issue was NEVER "are women capable." This was the gist of Lawrence Summers was not "women are biologically incapable" but that gender differences mean women are A LOT LESS LIKELY to be INTERESTED in pursuing math and science careers!!!

And that still holds true!

If these girls had not been raised by two highly-educated scientists to begin with (as the article points out), chances are they would be much more interested in the typical interests of the average American Teenage girl - social networking, dating, celebrity worship, fashion etc.

Just because they are the exception to the rule does not mean the rule is wrong!

Nevertheless, the statistics are in, and the results are undeniable: the further feminization of the school systems, and as more and more boys drop out of the educational system, the more we really will see females "Dominate" every aspect of the educational fields.

They have already surpassed males in attendance and graduation at college.

So when will the feminists finally look at the numbers and realize they "achieved equality?"


Because it never was about equality. It has always been the agenda to promote female supremacy.


Anonymous said...

I wouldn't do them with your dick dude.

As an MRA, I take back my right to speak of women as pieces of meat, just like women speak of men as sperm donors and wallets waiting to be plundered by the judicious use of feminine wiles.

Rob Fedders said...

Hi HL,

Actually the Larry Summers argument WAS that women are incapable... and it is scientifically proven by IQ Tests.

In the levels of IQ, men and women AVERAGE virtually the same IQ's across the population - as in, both sexes AVERAGE at 100IQ.

But, when you get to 132IQ plus (the top 2%), men start to outnumber women significantly. Get into Genius IQ's (145 plus), and men totally dominate women, and the higher you go in IQ, the more that the curve goes upwards to being virtually all males - I don't remember the ratios anymore, but it is past 10 to 1, I believe - but only when you get into the top 1/2 of 1% of the population.

However, the same is also true on the Low IQ/Dumb scale. Get two deviations off the norm in the downward direction - ie 70IQ and lower, and men start to equally outnumber women in the same numbers as they do on the high IQ scale. It makes the "averages" equal, but both the extremely dim and the extremely intelligent fringes are TOTALLY dominated by males.

This is what Larry Summers was trying to say - quite correctly, and scientifically studied and proven... and that the courses that the feminists were complaining about being male dominated, were courses that chased after extremely High IQ individuals - ie. Nuclear Physics. In fact, most of those kinds of studies won't even look at you if your IQ is not higher than 132... so, Larry Summers argument was that it would only make sense that, since males vastly outnumber females on the outer extremities of IQ, that the kinds of courses which demanded high IQ students would naturally be dominated by males - WITHOUT discrimination.

The American Psychological Association has been doing all kinds of things trying to alter IQ tests to disadvantage males, lol - take the IQ test on their site, check your score, then press the back button until you get back to the menu where you can resubmit by checking you are female instead of male... and you will gain 6IQ points just for losing your balls. But, even on the real IQ tests they have been trying to disadvantage males by changing the "weighting" of various categories. For example, they continue to give reading comprehension greater points (female strength) while diminishing math and logical questions (male) in their prospective weightings to the overall score - AND EVEN SO, the males still trounce the women in the high IQ range.

That's the facts. Science proved it as soundly as it was proven that the earth is round.

Anonymous said...

It's not only scientifically proven, it answers the one question that doesn't get asked enough - why ARE there males? Why bother having two sexes if they are genetically equal and equally capable? If the only difference between the sexes was the shape of genitals, what's the point of there being any difference at all - one sex would have been enough.

There's only one explanation that answers it for me. The male's role is to be genetically diverse. The female role is to carry the stock-standard, tried-and-true genes of the species, and mix it with the variety of genetic material of the male that she responds most positively to.

Following on from the distribution of intelligence that Rob F described, the same pattern also holds for criminality and violence.
Our jails are full of men not because men are inherently more criminal or violent, but because as one looks at the distribution of violent and criminal behaviours, men are over-represented at both extremes. That is, men outnumber women as extreme offenders, but they also outnumber women as honest and principled.

And yet we are discriminated against in courts on the strength of our greater numbers amongst the violent, with no recognition that we are also more likely to be telling the truth in a dispute!

This is the one argument that destroys the whole feminist platform of lies and prejudice about 'the beast that is man'.

They daren't admit it, no matter how easily verified. Their claim for equality in representation in any field would have to be abandonned (even though it is common knowledge that men excel at the extremes in nearly everything, from strength and endurance to cooking and interior decorating). Their claim to be the more caring and responsible sex would be void. They are just more clustered around the norm than we are.

I suspect the smarter ones know this, and that is why Larry Summers was speaking heresy. His thinking is deadly to feminism and will be shutdown for as long as they can get away with it, or until natural modes of reproduction are abandoned, as is emerging with new laws that allow women to be impregnated without male participation.

Rob Case

tba said...

The more I read crap like this, the more I'm beginning to believe that women(feminists, at least) have a SERIOUS case of PENIS ENVY and an INFERIORITY COMPLEX.

Why the hell does it matter if there aren't enough women in math and science? There are both benefits AND drawbacks to super high intelligence. On the one hand you are smart, put on the other hand you are socially awkward and cannot relate to others- ESPECIALLY with women and those with average IQ's. Just look at the average geek in HS. Or watch "Beauty and the Geek".

I totally agree with Rob Fedders and Anonymous: Men simply dominate BOTH extremes. But I ALSO agree with Hawiian Libertarian: women just AREN'T INTERESTED- even the high IQ women.

The greatest example of this is MARILYN vos SAVANT. I will quote from a book I have at home called "Greatness: Who Makes History and Why" by Dean Kieth Simonton on page 223.

"...[A] formidable IQ promises nothing, and a subgenius IQ is still an exploitable resource. As a final proof, let us look at the highest IQ score offered....That belongs to Marilyn Jarvik(nee Vos Savant). According to the Guinness Book of World Records, hers is the top score EVER [228 points]. When she was 10 years old, she received the HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCORE for 23-year olds. And when later she took the test for admission to the Mega Society, she became its TOP-MOST SCORER. Psychometrically, she is the BRIGHTEST and the BEST of our species.
So what is she doing with her stratospheric cortex? She writes a Sunday magazine column called "Ask Marilyn," in which she gives answers to written inquiries that aim at stumping her genius. I am not trying to belittle her intelligence when I say that you may not need an IQ as high as hers to write her column. Hence, until she wins a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize for her efforts, we may have no option other than to conclude that she is an underachiever. She perhaps has the most "test smarts" of anyone in a nation approaching 300 million people. Among her compatriots, Marilyn's IQ is almost 60 points higher than that claimed by Nobel laureate Linus Pauling. But she has yet to match her intellectual inferior in the annals of history."

(caps emphasis are mine)

There you have it. A woman who has the highest IQ EVER at 228 and she is one of only 300+ qualified to be a member of the Mega Society (minimum 176 IQ). For Mensa, you only need an IQ of 132- and around 6 million people qualify. And DESPITE this intelligence she is writing columns for Parade Magazine. I read her columns every time I pick up the Sunday papers.

Think about ALL of the biologists, physicists, mathmeticians, etc who have had MUCH lower IQ and yet have had an impact on science. Not only that, think of all of the leaders, philosophers, educators, inventors, etc who have lower IQ's than her and yet they CHANGED history.

Marilyn vos Savan is EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE that women aren't interested in math or science EVEN IF they are smart enough.

tba said...


yep. I've noticed this EXACT phenomen, as well. I used to always wonder why all the gretest cooks, fashion designers, and hair dressers were MEN. Gay men are PROOF that men could probably do a better job at being women than womean are. Hell, they are MORE FEMININE than the average female today, too.

Uncharted Thoughts said...

This is the type of shit that pisses me off.

If women wanted to be in scientific fields, they would do it. Why do these fucking feminists insist on forcing there beliefs on others?

I haven't met a single women, not one, who is interested in science. Talk to a women about the tensile strength of steel and see what happens, her eyes will glaze over and she'll change the subject to her favorite bar to drink at.

They of course want high paying jobs with an important title.

VoodooJock said...

If you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bullshit.

Such is the mantra of the News Media.

Hawaiian Libertarian said...

Great stuff Rob...glad to see you're still around even if you're not blogging anymore!

TBA - That Marilyn Von Savant example is the PERFECT example of what I was talking about!

The highest tested IQ of a female in America...and she writes a column for a newspaper!

Underachiever indeed! And I do like to read her column as well...but that is still a great point.

johnny five said...

a little bit off topic, but have you seen this story? (i don't know how you couldn't have seen it, honestly, but i'm waiting to see you blog about it)

for once, this is so absurd that even a website promoting the 'grrrrrrls can do ANYTHING' viewpoint agrees with us!

it remains to be seen what people will actually do about this.

Uncharted Thoughts said...

I went to that grrrrls can do anything website.

What a scam!
All she is doing is selling T-Shirts.
She puts a picture of various male dominated fields with a stick figure women doing it, and the caption 'girls can do it' or something and sells em to these half baked retards.

Grrrls can do anything...but objective critical thought, jeez.

Sociopathic Revelation said...

I find it intriguing that the woman possessing the highest IQ---which is in dispute, BTW, she wrote a book in 1993 where she was criticized for not completely understanding mathematical concepts, such as imaginary numbers.

While he wasn't the first to attempt it, her husband invented the Jarvik 7 artificial heart, and also is creating the Jarvik 2000 ventricular assist device. His IQ is lower than hers, apparently.

But what does that tell you?

Anonymous said...

There's a couple of points that interest me from this.

1) Let's say she is the most intelligent being on the planet. Because she chooses to blouse around writing an agony aunt column instead of synthesizing fusion power out of old car tyres, her super-intelligent example tells us that achievement isn't as important as doing what you like doing. I like this conclusion.

2) There are a number of idiot-savants who can calculate cube roots in their heads and tell you what the weather was like every single day of their lives. Some can instantly recite the most complex piano pieces after hearing it only once. It doesn't seem too ridiculous to me that some could also ace IQ tests. I've done some of those tests where they show sequences of odd-looking shapes, then ask which shape comes next. Sometimes I can't figure out what the basis of the pattern is, but I get a vibe for which shape is the right one, and often it's right. I have no idea why. This would score me a higher IQ than I really have. There may well be people of any range of IQs who can do this on a more regular basis.

Rob Case

R said...

I agree with Rob Case she's smart enough to know that sacrificing her life especially her most youthful years, and end up a spinster, in the pursuit of achievement does not lead to happiness.

People who pursue achievement especially in hard scientific fields do so for a reason, either they do so because they love it and it fascinates them or because they want the status and reward that such achievement brings. Many times its both.

tba said...

Rob an r, I FULLY agree that it is STUPID to go into a field that isn't your passion. It is EQUALLY stupid for someone to become a scientist only because they are smart, just as it is stupid for a guy to become a basketball player simply because the 7 feet tall.

But the point of the vos Savant example is to show that many women DO have the intelligence to be successful in science and math but they don't care about it, yet feminists want to attribute the lack of femaale scientists, engineers, and mathmeticians to discrimination, which is aa bold faced LIE.

choice of occupation is also true with regards to the lack of women CEO' the "wage gap". Not every woman wants to become a CEO not every woman wants to do what is necessary to become wealthy WITHOUT the help of Affirmative Action laws.

R said...


Oh of course I agree, feminist will always find a way to spin this to try and benefit them in someway.

eyes wide open said...

I read on other websites that Marilyn's IQ is a complete and utter fabrication. The test that was administered to her was age appropriate for a 10 year old and then extrapolated to the proportional IQ she would have if she were 23 years old. Anyone who knows anything about science knows that is a ridiculous idea. IQ tests are not reliable to begin with. How on earth are they going to justify extrapolating out her IQ "score" to what it would be if she were 13 years older? The answer is: they can't. It's an intentional fabrication. It's an obvious lie and distortion by feminists and their duped sympathizers. She is routinely compared to her intellectual superiors and betters such as Einstein and Linus Pauling. The extent that feminists are willing to lie is astounding. The claim is that she is actually smarter than her male superiors. The way Parade Magazine supports this gross distortion is by repeatedly printing her falsified credentials. The thing to realize is that after she her score was extrapolated to "what it would be if she were 23yrs old" and the score was decided by fiat to be a high IQ number of 228, then the test was CHANGED. Why change the test? You know the answer without me spelling it out for you. They changed the test so that no male would come in and take the same test and beat her by a country mile. Which is exactly what would happen and would have happened instantly and routinely. Feminist coup. The feminist propaganda scored a massive win with no regard for the truth. My very own mother regularly pointed to Marylin as a some sign of how women are equal or superior in intelligence to men. I had to listen to her gloat the feminist dream all because lies were presented as facts. I am nearly forty and it took until tonight, doing research on the web, to find out the truth about the deception. Feminists need to have the life crushed out of them for their deceptions.