Such a mind numbing, racist, sexist statement is really hard
to find a place to even begin to understand or critique. We must first
remember the role played by the huge race/sex gap of 234 GRE
points between Asian men and black women, which just recently, in spite of
all the media hooplah [which they claim WE should not ever trust at face value]
about the "narrowing of the gender gap", jumped by another 33 points, to 267.
It proves that their mental acuity is just not at the level required
for them to even comprehend much less analyze what these tests and data mean. Only those who score at the higher
end understand it, and it's not possible for them to impart this intelligence or
knowledge to someone with a GRE quantitative score of 386, or 267 points lower.
The most honest study of intelligence would be to start with a
clean slate "designed to yield no sex differences", without the pre-determined
agenda of narrowing the "gender gap", with no understanding or knowledge of
exactly what the gap is. It would NOT be honest or valid to design a test
which starts with the subjective and sexist goal of proving "equality" between
sexes, and then claiming some empty unproven success, while ignoring ALL other data.
After decades of being taught that the sexes are "equal" in
intelligence based on such biased "research", American women [and many American men
actually believe it in spite of 100% data to the contrary.
I would like to understand more about what his motivation is for
Standardized tests like SAT for example have shown consistently for
decades that the sex gap between the sexes of ALL of the races is exactly
the same--and this is a far better measurement of intelligence than
Wechsler's manipulated and mangled and massaged data. Many of these
tests have also been politicized, but because industry tends to seek the
best college graduates and universities tend to seek the best high school
graduates, test scores can be twisted a bit less often than "IQ tests"
administered by a government which has lost sight of its job. In other
words, there is honor amongst thieves.
"Lynn's results are a fluke"? What a silly girlie statement.
Professor Lynn has spent decades researching numerous sources and reached
conclusions which NO honest mathematician or scientist or engineer or
physicist can dispute, or would want to dispute. He's taken plenty of
barbs just being HONEST, so why would he MISREPRESENT his findings anyway to
INCREASE the flow of insults?
If they really don't "trust" his data, which shows the IQ's of 185 nations,
all they need to do is use their simple keyboard connected to the internet
to open any number of international tests which VALIDATE every single point
on his data, like PISA or TIMSS.
Of course what they don't like, based on the following statement, is that
there are 94 nations with IQ's of 84 or lower, that most of these nations
are black African nations, that two dozen black African nations have IQ's
lower than 70 [considered borderline retarded by psychologists], and that
two African nations have IQ's of 59:
> Lynn's studies make the news
> because he's sort of a one-man show of bunk
science - after all,
> the same guy who claims that African-Americans have higher iqs than
> Africans because they have Caucasian genes that make them smarter.
What? American Whites score lower than their counterparts in
Europe, so why would we not believe that American blacks score lower than
their counterparts in Africa?
Actually I too question the notion that mixing a black with an IQ of 59
with an Asian with an IQ of 106 would produce offspring any smarter than the
black. But he's correct that "African-Americans" do have more
genes than Africans. From what I've witnessed, though, that's made
them stupider, not smarter, suggesting that an IQ of 59 might actually be a
- You don't see Africans burning down their OWN cities like
"African-Americans" burnt down Detroit and East Lost Angeles, do you?
- The murder rate in the US cities dominated by blacks is ten fold
higher than in any city of Africa.
These are things that suggest some kind of mental problem, if not mental
Exactly how big is the "gender gap" within different races?
Each year, for decades now, more than a quarter of a million college
graduates have taken the Graduate Record Exam hoping to get into graduate
school, and EACH year this gender gap is EXACTLY the same as that reported
by Professor Lynn. The gap between sexes is 74 points for Other Hispanic and Other, 72
points for White, 66 points for Asian and Mexican, 56 points for Puerto
Rican, and 42 points for black. How big is that? While there's
not an exact one to one correspondence between GRE scores and PISA scores, they're
based on the same type of scale and are roughly equivalent. The gap
between the US and Mexico is 68 PISA math points, smaller than the 72 GRE point
gap between White men and White women. Considering that this
represents a four fold difference in per capita income ($12,000 vs. $48,000)
this simply cannot be discounted as an insignificant difference.
Israel scores 78 points lower than
Belgium and 72 points higher than Columbia, very significant race gaps, and
smaller than the gender gaps.
Each year more than 1 million high school graduates take the SAT test,
and again the gender gap within each race is consistent.
Howard Wainer analyzed the SAT math scores and college grades for 47,000
math majors and found an IDENTICAL gap, except that he also discovered why
it is that so many educators think that men and women are "equal"--women who
get As have identical math skills of men who get Cs, and women who get Bs
have identical math skills of men who get Ds. Most significantly,
women who get Cs have significantly lower math skills than men who flunk,
who get Fs, meaning that the letter grade given to women is three letter
grades higher than that given to men with the same skills.
Also significant are the 13,050 boys who scored higher than ALL the girls
but still received an A, the same letter grade given to girls who scored up
to 251 points lower.
"... a 1995 study on a population similar to Lynn's, done by scientists at the Flinders University of South Australia and published in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology
... found no difference between males and females"
With this voluminous data right at her fingertips, why oh why did
Beth Skwarecki accept at face value an obscure study from lower Slobovia
(actually lower South Australia), without even mentioning why she trusted
this over Professor Lynn's data, TIMSS, PISA, SAT, GRE, IAEP, NAEP, ACT; or
even what the sample size was, or what was
meant by "equal", or which TRAIT it considers "equal", or what the
methodology was, or who was tested or studied, or if it included only Aboriginies. Most likely she doesn't even know this because she never
bothered to check it out, the key to which is her statement "a population
similar to Lynn's". In order to achieve this, the "study" would
have had to examine the IQ's of the entire globe, because this is the main
focus and result of Professor Lynn's research.
She accepted it as correct for only one reason: it fits her predetermined
bias, and she doesn't have the intellect to grasp just how limited her
The 68 PISA Math point gap between the U.S. (474) and Mexico (406)
corresponds with an 11 point gap in IQ, about 6.2 PISA points per IQ point.
The 80 TIMSS Math point gap between the U.S. (504) and Jordan (424) also
corresponds with an 11 point gap in IQ, about 7.3 TIMSS math points per IQ
point. So the 72 point GRE quantitative gap between White men and
White men has a strong probability of being in the range of 9.9 to
11.6 IQ points, and the lowest gap between sexes, 42 points, the one between
black men (446) and black women (404), has a strong probability of being in
the range of 5.8 and 6.8 IQ points.
To further verify this hypothesis, let's look at other tests, like TIMSS
taken by half a million students each year in 45 countries around the world and compare the race and sex gaps to the GRE gaps.
At the 15 year old level, the largest gap in TIMSS math was in Korea, at 17,
in the same range as the average PISA gap of 11 and the NAEP gap of 2 for 15
year olds. But by the 18 year old level, or the 12th grade in the US,
this gap skyrockets. The gap in regular math in Norway is 54, in
advanced math in Austria is 80, in science in Norway is 54, in physics in
Switzerland is 83. Some very significant gaps between countries are
not that large. For example, the gap between the US and Japan is only
64 points and the gap between the US and Lebanon is only 71 points.
Pretty obvious, isn't it? This tells us that the GRE sex gap
between White men and White women in the US is almost identical to the TIMSS
sex gap in a variety of mental skills between White men and White women in
Austria, Switzerland, and Norway, ancestors to many of us.
Even though the amount by which boys scored higher than girls at the 8th
grade level was small, in every TIMSS country but two it increased
*dramatically* by the 12th grade.
The result was that our boys scored higher than only 4 countries, Kuwait,
S. Africa, Colombia, and Iran, and our girls scored DEAD last, 1
point lower than both Colombia and S. Africa, 53 points lower than our boys,
239 points lower than girls in Singapore, and 307 points lower than boys in
> Mad Science:
Deconstructing Bunk Reporting in Five Easy Steps
> By Beth Skwarecki
> *Beth Skwarecki majored in biology but ended up as a
programmer and a
> writer. She lives in Ithaca, New York.
> Bitch Magazine --Spring Issue
> British scientists have uncovered the truth behind one of modern
> greatest mysteries: why little girls play with pink toys. Is it because
> toy companies flood whole store aisles with the color? Or because
> well-meaning relatives shower girl babies with pink blankets and clothing?
> Nope. According to the men in lab coats, it's purely biological.
> Apparently, women are hardwired to like pink because our cavewoman
> foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the
> trees while their husbands were out hunting. Later, women needed to notice
> red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. And why do men like blue?
> Because it's the color of the sky.
> This evolutionary just-so story takes up three pages of a 2007 issue of
> Current Biology. To back up the assertion that pink is a universal girly
> preference worth examining, the authors refer to a 1985 study finding that
> little girls use more pink and red crayons in their drawings than little
> boys do.
> Dig further, however, and the story completely falls apart.
> British women do prefer pink, but the author's claim of a "robust,
> cross-cultural sex difference" turns out to be neither. The scientists
> compared British natives with Chinese immigrants to Britain, and glossed
> over the differences. For example: The girliest color in the British
> results, a purplish-pink, was in fact the Chinese men's favorite.
> Nowhere do scientific findings get more mangled than when they're about
> the differences between men and women. According to the
> women aren't just biologically hardwired to prefer pink to blue. We're
> also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace, cry in the
> boardroom, and have both lower iqs and less of a sense of humor than men.
> Some misleading stories come from bad
science, where the
> conclusions aren't supported by their own data. Others are well-conducted
> studies whose conclusions mutate upon contact with the mainstream media.
> Newspapers and websites are prone to playing fast and loose with their
> reports on studies, often neglecting to reveal salient facts about a
> study's sample group or methodology.
> The fact is that
science articles aren't designed to be read by
> non-scientists. College and grad students in the sciences are trained in
> how to do it: They review papers and discuss them in journal clubs; learn
> how to question methodologies (Is that sample really big enough? Was that
> the right test to use?); and learn how to be critical of authors'
> interpretations (Do the results really mean what they say they mean?).
> Students also know to look at context for each study, looking up previous
> papers on the subject, reviewing the authors' previous work, and searching
> out any evidence of bias that might color a study's findings.
> Journalists looking for a quick story, however, do little such
> And in an age where news sites, wire services, and blogs pick up stories
> with lightning-fast speed, bad research gets around. When London's Sunday
> Times reported on a 2007 study claiming that men get dumber in the
> presence of blond women, the paper got the name of the journal wrong,
> citing the Journal of Experimental Psychology rather than the Journal of
> Experimental Social Psychology. Nearly every subsequent news article
> repeated the error because they were content to simply reword the Times'
> version of the story rather than finding and discussing the study itself.
> The Times reported that blond-exposed subjects "mimic the unconscious
> stereotype of the dumb blonde." But that's not exactly what the study
> tested. Rather, subjects - most of them female - fared slightly worse on
> online trivia quizzes after rating hair color (is she a blond, brunet, or
> redhead?) on pictures of beauty queens. You could just as easily say that
> beauty queens make people dumb, or photos of dazzling smiles make people
> dumb. It seems this study made the news mostly because it could be
> illustrated with photos of Marilyn Monroe and filled out with dopey quotes
> from blond models and actresses, as well as blond jokes from the Times
> Ben Goldacre, who writes the "Bad Science" column for
the UK's Guardian,
> speculates that science
stories come in three varieties: the wacky story,
> the breakthrough story, and the scare story. Most widely reported studies
> on gender seem to fall into the wacky category - the supposed innate
> preference for pink is one of them - and their media strength is that they
> tend to support existing stereotypes of women, reassuring readers that
> social stereotypes do, in fact, reflect reality.
> We can't put all the blame on mainstream media, of course. Scientists
> part of the same culture as the rest of us, and they too have biases that
> shape their hypotheses and interpretations. The scientific community can
> also be as fad-driven as popular culture, creating a climate in which many
> researchers simultaneously geek out over one specific theory while
> competing ideas get lost or abandoned. So let's learn how to read between
> the lines of these dubious articles. Next time you see an article
> reporting that women are happiest when they're picking up their man's
> dirty socks, try asking these questions:
> 1. DO THE CONCLUSIONS FIT A LITTLE TOO WELL WITH CULTURAL STEREOTYPES?
> Science has the
capacity to surprise and amaze us, but sometimes it's more
> satisfying when you can jump up and say, "Yes! I knew it all along!" Which
> is why articles touting the awesomeness of traditional gender roles are an
> evergreen subject in the
> A 2007 study from the American Society for Cancer Research journal
> Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention titled "Physical activity and
> breast-cancer risk" found fame in such headlines as the BBC's "Housework
> cuts breast-cancer risk." That's not to mention the 2006 study on
> housework and cancer in Canadian women, the 2005 study on housework and
> cancer in Chinese women, or the 2004 study ... you get the idea. [See
> "Home Is Where the Cardio Is," Bitch no. 27]
> The reality? Being physically active seems to help prevent cancer, and
> researchers behind the recent studies have been counting housework as
> physical activity. Housework, sports, and active jobs all had significant
> effects in reducing cancer risk, and the authors think the key may be
> frequent, low-impact exercise.
> An author on several of these studies, Christine Friedenreich, told the
> Calgary Herald that in past studies, researchers counted jobs like
> construction work as physical activity, but not housework - and it turns
> out that domestic tasks are, duh, hard work.
> This means that many women are getting more exercise than they (or
> doctors) had realized. That should be good news for them - but instead,
> the message imparted by the news reports is, "Get back into the kitchen!
> That's all the exercise you need!"
> It's worth noting that one of the study's sponsors, Cancer Research UK,
> answered questions about the 2006 study on its website, pointing out that
> for many of the older women in the study group, housework was their
> primary form of exercise. The organization went on to address charges of
> sexism directly, making sure to mention a related 2006 study that found
> housework cuts the risk of bowel cancer for both men and women,
> concluding, "There's absolutely no excuse for men to dodge the dusting!"
> 2. DOES THE STUDY AGREE WITH THE HEADLINE?
> Behind every junk-science
headline is a scientific journal article.
> Sometimes the university or organization that was home to the study sends
> out a press release to mainstream outlets, hoping for attention; other
> times, journalists simply scan the abstracts of academic journals for
> newsworthy fodder. Chances are a story will make the papers if it's got
> some kind of hook - weird (like the idea that housework has curative
> properties), controversial (like claims that men are smarter than women),
> can be illustrated with bikini babes (like the dumb-blond study), etc.
> Especially for online news outlets, these hooks are valuable because they
> make good linkbait: the kind of thing they hope you'll forward to friends
> or post on your blog.
> The London Times probably hadn't read the full study titled "Prejudice
> against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions ofgender-role
> congruity in leadership" when they summarized it under the headline
> "Office Queen Bees Hold Back Women's Careers" in a 2006 article. The
> paper's charge - that "women bosses are significantly more likely than men
> to discriminate against female employees" - may indeed have surprised the
> study's authors.
> The actual study went something like this: Participants weren't put in
> boss's role, but an observer's. They read a purposely vague description of
> a manager who was being considered for promotion and were asked to imagine
> how qualified the candidate was, and whether he or she was likely to
> succeed. The study made a number of interesting points that the Times
> could easily have reported on - for instance, that female managers were
> judged to have both very masculine and very feminine traits, possibly in
> an attempt to reconcile theirgenderwith the traditionally
> masculine-associated role of leadership.
> Both the male and female participants were optimistic about the male
> manager's success, but not about the woman's (except when she worked in a
> female-dominated industry). Sounds pretty realistic, right? The
> researchers thought so too. They write, "Participants' predictions about
> the [female] candidate's future salary ... mirrored the fact that women
> earn less money in the same position [than] men do in real life." So where
> are those "queen bees" that the Times so gleefully name-checked? Exactly.
> It's not difficult to track down the
science behind the
story. Look for
> the names of the researchers, the journal their work appeared in, and (if
> you're lucky) the title of the article. Type whatever info you've got into
> Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.com),
and soon you'll be looking at an
> abstract for the paper. Scientific journals are usually locked behind
> paywalls, unfortunately, so you may need to call upon a pal at a
> university for access to the entire study.
> 3. CAN YOU SPOT THE DOUBLE STANDARD?
> Whether it's lions fathering all the cubs in their pride, or human
> getting a pass for cheating on their girlfriends, males sleeping around
> rarely make the news - it's the natural order, after all - unless the
> article is happily touting the genetic advantages a male gets from
> spreading his dna around.
> But when female cheetahs were found to do the same by a Zoological
> of London study, the study's words about "promiscuous" felines were
> quickly outnumbered in Google's index by the phrase, "cheetahs are sluts!"
> Study author Dada Gottelli was quoted thus: "Mating with more than one
> male poses a serious threat to females, increasing the risk of exposure to
> parasites and diseases. Females also have to travel over large distances
> to find new mates, making them more vulnerable to predation." Sounds like
> a cheetah-specific version of certain sex-ed curricula: Don't sleep
> around, girls, or you'll catch lots of diseases and the male cheetahs
> won't respect you in the morning. Male cheetahs, however, aren't
> "promiscuous" - they're creating a healthier gene pool.
> Not too surprising, then, that most of the coverage glossed over the
> evolutionary benefit of promiscuity for both male and female cheetahs:
> Multiple cubs by multiple cub daddies increases the likelihood of genetic
> diversity - a definite positive for a threatened species. Furthermore, the
> study noted that the rates of infanticide in cheetahs are much lower than
> in other big-cat populations, likely because male competitors don't know
> which offspring might be theirs. But why let the facts slow down a good
> In a human example of a double-standard story, women were found to be
> "worse oglers" than men, according to the Sydney Morning Herald summary of
> a study published in the journal Hormones and Behavior. (The Herald
> inexplicably illustrated its story with headshots of Sharon Stone and Mr.
> Bean). What does that even mean, you ask? When researchers showed "sexual
> stimuli" (read: Internet porn) to heterosexual men and women, they
> expected women to look more at faces and men to look more at genitals. The
> newspaper reported that, in fact, "almost the reverse was true."
> Actually, the study says that men looked at women's faces more than
> did, and men and women looked with equal frequency at the pictured
> genitals; women who weren't on oral contraceptives looked slightly more.
> So where did that headline come from?
> The study authors didn't originate the "worse oglers" language; they
> warn in the study that they can't say why subjects' gazes lingered where
> they did, or whether they were turned on as they looked. So it's not fair
> to say that the study was about "ogling," a word that suggests that
> looking is lustful and perhaps inappropriate.
> To say that women are "worse" at ogling, we have to believe, first,
> ogling is bad, and second, that men do it at some normal, baseline level
> that women are exceeding. The judgmental language makes it sound like
> women in the study were indulging a bad habit. Right there in the headline
> is the double standard: If men ogle, it's normal, but when women do it,
> they're "worse."
> 4. IS THERE ANOTHER CONCLUSION THAT WOULD BE JUST AS VALID?
> Sometimes a news story is an accurate representation of the scientists'
> conclusions, but the scientists' conclusions don't follow their results.
> Take this 2005 BBC headline: "Men Cleverer Than Women." The study, at the
> time of the headline yet to be published in the British Journal of
> Psychology, claims that as iq scores rise, thegendergapwidens, with 5.5
> men for every woman scoring at the "genius" level of 155 or higher on iq
> tests. That's all the evidence the authors (one of whom, Richard Lynn, has
> published similar studies on racial differences in iq) give to support
> their claim.
> But there is another, equally powerful explanation that's been
> for years before this study came along: iq tests - which don't measure
> intelligence directly, but try to approximate it - have a wealth ofgender,
racial, and cultural biases.
> In a 2000 survey of sex differences in intelligence called "The Smarter
> Sex: A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Intelligence," in the
> Educational Psychology Review, Diane Halpern and Mary LaMay write that
> Lynn's approach "rests on the belief that the test of intelligence is
> really measuring what psychologists mean by intelligence, and that it is
> doing so in a way that will yield a fair assessment for males and females
> - two assumptions that may not be justified."
> Statistically, men do outperform women on certain types of questions,
> the reverse is also true; test designers use this fact to calibrate iq
> tests, balancing male-biased with female-biased questions so that men and
> women average the same scores on the same test. Addressing Lynn's research
> directly, Halpern and LaMay say, "Using data from tests that are designed
> to yield no sex differences to argue for a difference is psychometric
> nonsense." Either the tests were miscalibrated (and thus biased) or Lynn's
> results are a fluke: Probably the latter, since other studies (like a 1995
> study on a population similar to Lynn's, done by scientists at the
> Flinders University of South Australia and published in the British
> Journal of Clinical Psychology) found no difference between males and
> So why even report the latest study from this obviously biased
> Perhaps it's reassuring to believe that sexism isn't sexism, it's
> that the status quo reflects some kind of natural order; and that anyone
> who claims otherwise is a whiner. Or perhaps Lynn's studies make the news
> because he's sort of a one-man show of bunk
science - after all,
> the same guy who claims that African-Americans have higher iqs than
> Africans because they have Caucasian genes that make them smarter.
> Then there are the stories that point the finger at feminism for a
> of historical incidents and ills. The 2007 Boston Globe story titled
> "Stone Age Feminism? Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals' end"
> is one of these.
> The supporting study, authored by archaeologists Steven Kuhn and Mary
> Stiner, turned on the hypothesis that Neanderthal women participated in
> hunting alongside Neanderthal men. The dangers of hunting - among them,
> getting stomped and gored by various beasts - along with the fact that
> many cavegals' lives were cut short before they could produce baby
> Neanderthals, meant that the breeding population dwindled and the species
> died out.
> But the evidence for this "stone age feminism" wasn't evidence at all.
> hypothesis that the women hunted alongside the men was developed because
> the study's authors found no clues suggesting that Neanderthal women were,
> well, homemakers - no grinding stones and bone needles that would signal a
> traditional division of labor in the species. So is it possible that male
> and female Neanderthals hunted together successfully, and the species
> dwindled for some other, totally unrelated reason? And, for that matter,
> why not hypothesize that coed hunting parties actually contributed to the
> Neanderthals' longevity? More than 100,000 years of existence is nothing
> to sneeze at, after all. Why jump to the conclusion that feminism ruins
> everything? Ah, yes: because it's a story that will sell papers.
> 5. IS THE STUDY EVEN
> In his "Bad Science"
column, Goldacre reminds us that so-called studies
> may not have studied anything at all. A hair-removal cream company once
> asked Goldacre to come up with a formula calculating which celebrity had
> the sexiest walk. "We know what results we want to achieve," they told
> him, naming celebrities with shapely legs whose high-ranking walks could
> move units of their product.
> When Goldacre refused, another scientist supplied the company with a
> formula, thinking it would be used as a joke. The company's press release
> became an article in the Telegraph, crediting a nonexistent "team of
> Cambridge mathematicians" and with no mention of the so-called study's
> actual source.
> Lesson learned: If you can't find the source article, it may not
> In another example of non-science,
BBC News studiously reported in late
> 2007 that humor "comes from testosterone." The article? Based on a British
> Medical Journal study recording the casual responses of passers-by to a
> unicyclist. The article notes that little boys had more "aggressive"
> responses to the unicyclist (trying to knock him over) and young men made
> the most jokes - typically an unimaginative variant of "Lost your wheel?"
> - with elderly men's jokes being less hostile ("Does it crush your
> bollocks, mate?"). The article also featured a graphic showing the ebb of
> testosterone in men over time; since young men have the most testosterone
> and made the greatest number of jokes, the author concludes, testosterone
> must be the source of humor.
> If all you read was the BBC piece, you might think that there's a
> of professors somewhere in England taking this theory seriously. In fact,
> the deliberately hilarious study was published in the BMJ's Christmas
> issue, famous for its joke articles. (A study from the previous year was
> titled "Surgeons are taller and more handsome than physicians" and used a
> photo of George Clooney as a control.)
> The fact that the BBC didn't pick up on the joke speaks volumes about
> mainstream media's unceasing appetite for gendered potshots. How many of
> us would really be surprised to see a "legitimate" report linking
> testosterone and humor? Would it look anything like the 2005 report from
> Stirling and St. Andrews universities in the UK that claims testosterone
> causes women to be "career-driven" like men? The humbling take-home
> message from these studies is that traditionally masculine traits still
> belong to men - even when women share them.
> Although there is an element of humor in how wrong the news media can
> science, the trend
isn't a harmless one. While plenty of smart people
> question biased headlines of all stripes, casual readers - particularly
> young ones - are likely to skim the stories and tuck them away in the
> pocket of their brains where stereotypes are kept. It's bad enough when we
> see images of women as passive, petty, dumb, or slutty in fiction or
> advertisements, but stereotypes that come with the lofty stamp of
> have the air of being, well, factual.
> After all, if women are biologically wired to be weak or catty or dumb
> humorless, then there's nothing wrong with writing consistently airheaded
> female movie and tv characters, dismissing women in positions of power as
> "bitches" or "too emotional," or claiming that institutional sexism
> doesn't exist, women just aren't smart enough to be ceos, grand masters,
> or surgeons. These studies reassure people that media images reflect
> reality, that society reflects biology, and that nothing can or should be
> Perhaps we should just take solace in one final study, released by the
> American Psychological Association in 2005 but picked up by very few
> mainstream sources. The title? "Men and women found more similar than
> portrayed in popular media."
They are DIFFERENT.
They are VERY DIFFERENT.
Celebrate the HUGE DIFFERENCES because it will ALWAYS BE.