Women are fucking stupid, and they know it. the .0001% of smart ones are just sophisticated mirror machines...

No
Some of my professors are women with PhDs in physics who helped put together the LIGO data that confirmed detection of gravitational waves
They know more about general relativity than you know about addition and subtraction
The retard here is you, for allowing your own psychological problems and pain to distort your view of the world around you. /r9k/ needs to go and stay go

>hurr you're a woman aren't you
Nope, just not a fucking autist. Talk about books or get the fuck off this board and go back to the misery olympics on your robot board

Not all women, my man. Talk to the average guy and you'll probably hear something about beer, football and boobs.

>beer, football and boobs.

So general patrician discussion?

You're an autist. Not because I think you're a women or a nu-male but for taking this thread serious and actually trying to counter his """""""""argument""""""""

>Uses shame tactic
>>You're a virgin!
>>Who dumped you, faggot?
>>Tell me who hurted your feelings user!
>>If you were a REAL MAN you wouldn't hate women so much!!
>As if doing this didn't directly prove the point.
Lmao.

>I mean of course its true. Just talk to then. DFW meming, college ranking masturbation, shitposts. They are a joke.

Nope.
Hell the best modernist was a woman (just to remind you)

You proving my point with all this butt hurt

>The smartest people in the world have always been men.

Surely this couldn't stem from the fact that for the vast majority of recorded history, women weren't permitted to occupy political, military or academic positions which would allow them to display their intelligence for posterity.

You really think they are smart for being chemists? First of all there are female quotas so right off the bat you know they are only there for being women. Second, the science field is no more technically difficult than machine operation. Your so called PHDs are lab assistants who mimic how smart people interact while performing repetitive functions (like the elephant painter)

Quoth the person who voluntarily elects to spend time on Veeky Forums. We're in no position to talk, bud.

Shame tactics are all women have. When you stop seeing them as individuals and more like an insect hive, you start to see the female psyche for what it is.

i thought i was in Veeky Forums, not summer /r9k/

B-but what about Marie Curie and Ayn Rand?

Wtf i hate men now

Eww. I would never read a book by a woman. It is just a joke when females try to play grown up.

I don't go to some flyover state community college with "quotas" on what professors they hire. They were selected by the physics department for their research output after years of graduate and post-doc published research.
>chemists
So you don't know what LIGO, gravity, or relativity means? But you have a dick, why aren't you smarter than them?
>no more technically difficult than machine operation
If I showed you any of the papers they write a couple times a year you wouldn't understand a single paragraph. They're theorists.

The bottom line here is that you're arguing that you're superior to half of the planet by default because of your genitals. If you think the men you look up to throughout history would admire some bitter frogposter over Virginia Woolf or George Eliot because you have a dick and they don't, you are laughably delusional.

I really hope this entire thread is just bait, but either way it should be deleted and /r9k/ off-topic faggots should be banned

>Beer
Basic social function, a lot of diversity.
>Football
Cornerstone of cultural practice. Teamwork and working against the will of the opposition is a mental and physical task.
>Boobs
Life-giving, nurturing, supple and beautiful.

who said anything about IQ, you twat

how is that relevant

I doubt that these womens research will be of any use in their field. They are playing the system, and that's it.
>If I showed you any of the papers they write a couple times a year you wouldn't understand a single paragraph. They're theorists.
Of course, that is how they got there, by manipulating the gobbledy gook. Everywhere in academia you see it is frauds who can write these kind of papers.
>The bottom line here is that you're arguing that you're superior to half of the planet by default because of your genitals.

I understand how society has been set up to make women feel they are smart, but it is feminism, it is an illusion, while the male mind (humanity itself) is being destroyed.

I've definitely observed that women are generally smarter. In elementary school and high school girls were always more organised, more focused and better at the work. But once adulthood comes around, things level out and a small minority of people, overwhelmingly men, become the geniuses.
It all comes back to the principle that the two genders are complimentary. Much like their physical bodies, they tessellate mentally, socially and economically.

Yes, let us congratulate ourselves on maleness's inherent superiority. Surely none of this stems from our long string of failures with the opposite sex. Truly successful people are those dwell on the inferiority of others, and definitely have no underlying resentment towards them.

i sense some grudge against women. pHDs are no small feat, especially in theoretical physics. you don't give them enough credit, while the other guygives too much.

i imagine that for every genuinely intelligent woman, there are 10 men like her. it's partially genetically driven, but it has more or less to do with our cultural norm. women aren't expected to be smart and competent, because they can get by without. men can not. another major reason is that women simply are not interested in science and such. they enjoy working with people more. from a evolutionary perspective, each gender has its own pros and cons, and it is retarded to make a general rule, when we should look at specialties.
so, are women more stupid? depends how you look at it. in terms of your interests - probably. but because they lack interest, not mental faculties.

> (You)
> I doubt that these womens research will be of any use in their field.

>I understand how society has been set up to make women feel they are smart, but it is feminism, it is an illusion, while the male mind (humanity itself) is being destroyed.
If you had any of this spark of genius you're masturbating about you would be doing something with it. But instead you sit here shitposting, and in a desperate clawing for some kind of validation that you're as smart as you think, you look around for something to connect you with the people you see as great and have found nothing but the fact that both of you have penises.
Do you realize how pathetic this is? This isn't about women at all, this is about you being a sad autist yearning for some kind of validation by shitting on billions of people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Meant to attach this link.

But of course not, we are all the same there is totally no biological difference and different brain wirings! I have graduated gender studies and know my stuff, OP

>Marie Curie
I understand that this board is literally plebbit but not knowing basic history is embarrassing.
>shared Nobel Prize in Physics with her husband Pierre Curie, which means her husband pretty much did all the work and let her have her fun
>Ayn Rand
Nothing good about her.

Got the second highest grade *again*, did you?

I see no difference between this post and /pol/'s "yes goy, go ahead and do X"

So why are women performing better than males in school currently?

>"Shame tactics"
I didn't know you were a girl.

She has a nobel in chemistry too retard.

>her husband totally didn't let her have the fame for that
YeaH mAnE

sauce it, or you're projecting your insecurities

>her second nobel was in a different field and after her husband was dead

They are a more conformist hive mind. Also, male teachers are easier on women (biologically) and female teachers are easier on women (feminism)

I was referring to standardized scores actually... A more concrete proof of my argument and not mere biased speculation (You)

Then you should get off Veeky Forums and go outside

>or you're projecting your insecurities
How am I projecting my insecurities when you're the one defending women even though they always fail? If anything you're the insecure one not admitting your inferiority. Her husband was into radioactivity which is where she found her chemicals for her nobel(How strange).
>in a different field even though sciences back then were way more united and easier
I understand your lack of knowledge.
>why
Because they study it a lot(unlike for example a nerd who just loves the subject and does it naturally) so you end up with males focus on a single field(and for no surprise winning every contest unlike females where you never ever hear anything about them).

>the elephant doing a painting.
what's this? just curious

So what, they can score better on tests, while men turn around and go build amazon.com and tesla. Women are SHIT, why can't you just admit it?

Trained circus trick.

hahahaha holy shit dude ur 16

see

...

it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible, dutiful.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support, which he sees as ''a childish useless submissive woman'' [or whore and he feels betrayed by her]
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

It is almost like They Live. When you attack a woman, something lights up in their programming and they all come together and defend them, even when everything you are saying is 100 % valid.

im not defending them, im just not discrediting them on the whole line, like yourself.
do women fail all the time?
no, just most of the time

see

I have seen too many women destroy men, and they are never held accountable. They are truly, truly an evil species, and they know it too. That is why without fail when you call them out, the 'woman hivemind' gets alerted, and they swarm you to call you names.

This is true. You can even see it in the few women who are extremely intelligent. They are like men trapped in women's bodies, and are masculine in subtle ways.

>im not defending them, im just not discrediting them on the whole line, like yourself.
Yeah and this gets you closer to an end of a civilization. There is nothing wrong with women doing science and lib arts its actually the thing everyone should do but when you see them getting shoehorned everywhere and people who actually deserve the place gets kicked because of gender quotas and them telling you again how great women are when MOST(read not all but 90%+) have never worked a day in their life( housewife, camwhore etc is not a work).

Well, a woman made OP, the biggest faggot of all time, a faggot of such magnitude that he bends the space-time continuum, a faggot whose mere existence turns the entire world into a wholly evil and undesirable place, so I guess the world would have been better off if no woman ever existed, from a purely utilitarian point of view.

there's one fucking chromosome that decides wether you're male or female.

I think you should go to your nearest walmart.Go to their men's restroom (assuming your gender). Look promptly at the Urinal. See that round mint floating there in what looks like residue piss? Go ahead and grab that and place it directly under your tongue. Its the latest progressive trend and everyone is doing it! The real high doesn't kick in until you go look in the mirror. Go ahead take a nice long look. After you have fulfilled your homosexual desires fucking bash your god damn head into the sink repeatedly until the mint under your tongue begins to taste like a black-cock foreskin.

I am a girl and it hurts to read this. You men do not understand us. We don't want to ruin your fun, we just want to be a part of it and have our own fun too.

You're automatically part of the fun. Men will literally do anything for you, up to and including dying in war for you.

You're literally the most privileged thing on the planet, but you still have to whine that someone uses the word "cunt" on television.

I feel like I'm on /r/theredpill and /r/incel

I can get on board with this tbqh senpai

BETABOIES CRYBABIES ARE ASCARED OF WOMEN ON Veeky Forums EDTION

Still not relevant.

maybe men are more likely to be geniuses but if that's true none of those geniuses are you guys

>BETA
Yea even though ALPHA MALES see you as cumrags.

>Women can read Carroll and learn how to program
Fucking wow I'm so impressed. Cosmology in practice is just code monkey bullshit.

That must make you an alpha male then! lol

this thread again, fuck off

Someone got kicked to the curb.

actually, it is

did you drop out of high school or something

WHITE KNIGHTS HAVE INVADED LIT. GTF BACK GO BE AMONGST YOURSELVES.

I'm a college student atm, freshman year

What argument are you trying to make?

There's a good chance we could've (keyword: 'could've', as we aren't) been women? Okay? And?

lmfao. This may be applicable to some men, but intelligent men do not need women, and if they do, I wouldn't consider them intelligent. The work is what pleases them, not the externalized pleasures obtained by chasing women. Women are disposable; the only reason they have any meaning in their lives is due to the possibility they have of having children. You take the average woman's mentality (however, I do not believe all women are like this) and apply it to a man, and he instantly becomes a lesser to his fellow men.

How is dropping out high school an indicator of anything?

probably because even the stupidest mongoloid can get thru high school and if even that is too hard for your delicate constitution you're sort of destined to be a failure

It's not entirely about intelligence. Intelligence is a vague general term. It's about autism.

It's like Paglia said:
>I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. Genius is not checked by social obstacles: it will overcome. Men's egotism, so disgusting in the talentless, is the source of their greatness as a sex. [...] Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species.

That "egotism" is autism. It's the male mind reaching outward and subduing a chunk of the world. Every man has a little impulse generator in him that is always looking for his self-definition ("self-mutilation") in a "project" of some kind. Even seemingly dumb men will often surprise you by having devoted their lives to overhauling old cars or something. Every man has his potential Being outside of himself, and has to seek it in Becoming.

Women have the same basic machinery, but they don't have the same impulse to use it, because their Being is already inside of themselves. All they have to do is wait for a man, a high quality man who has already Become something interesting or noteworthy (whether powerful, rich, famous, or particularly skilled at something) to exchange his hard-fought Being for theirs.

>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends ...
- Schopenhauer

Even if I was arguing with someone, I wouldn't think that they automatically lost the argument because they've never had a formal education. If they have the facts and rationality to back up their claims, then what does it matter?

it's a toxic way to judge someone

"I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.

I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.

Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe."
- Roy Baumeister

this desu

there's one out of 46 chromosomes that decides our sex. what are you even suggesting, that human cognition is homogenic and entirely fixed on the gonosomes, that is 2ish percent of the DNA? or that the dna somehow communicates with itself as it forms human specimen number 21834905 and decides wether it's gonna be a boy or a gril depending on how intelligent it turned out?

because most people who drop out of high school don't usually go on to acquire a basic level of high school tier knowledge about the world.

"Amongst the half-human progenitors of man, and amongst savages, there have been struggles between the males during many generations for the possession of the females. But mere bodily strength and size would do little for victory, unless associated with courage, perseverance, and determined energy. With social animals, the young males have to pass through many a contest before they win a female, and the older males have to retain their females by renewed battles. They have, also, in the case of mankind, to defend their females, as well as their young, from enemies of all kinds, and to hunt for their joint subsistence. But to avoid enemies or to attack them with success, to capture wild animals, and to fashion weapons, requires the aid of the higher mental faculties, namely, observation, reason, invention, or imagination. These various faculties will thus have been continually put to the test and selected during manhood; they will, moreover, have been strengthened by use during this same period of life. Consequently in accordance with the principle often alluded to, we might expect that they would at least tend to be transmitted chiefly to the male offspring at the corresponding period of manhood. ...

These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,--that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty (25. Maudsley, 'Mind and Body,' p. 31.), and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities.

Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen."
- Charles Darwin

No, we cannot agree on this.

Why are there so many misogynists on Veeky Forums?

are you really getting upset about this specifically in a thread that starts with
>Women are fucking stupid ...
and implies only one out of 1000000 is "smart" but even those are just "the elephant doing a painting" give me a fucking break

YES YES YES EXTERMINATE ALL WOMEN

>Posting a picture of a ruling class Jew to prove a point about intelligence

Yeah, I'm sure she hasn't been surrounded by wealthy/smart people her entire life, and has done everything herself.

>they can score better on tests,

redpill on that lie

>I put on my robe and wizard hat

I am surprised and disappointed you guys don't have those pictures saved.

Find me on /r9k/

Better perks imo you just have to be better at the game

Now I feel bad for them. Since it is scientifically proven they are stupid... Imagine knowing that about yourself. My god how could you carry on? knowing that you are stupid, and your only safety is by being protected by a man, or if you are too ugly to find that, by the feminist institutions. you would find your only purpose in life is carrying a child. Imagine how devastating that is for women when they see the SCIENTIFIC FACTS staring them in the face.