[0596] 97 Points
└ posted on Monday, 7 July 2014, by Novil
On Sunday, 6 June 2014, I posted the submissions between place 13 and 25 of the Sandra and Woo and Gaia fanart contest 2014. Go check them out!
- Title: The Human Brain: IQ (3)
- Footnote: Ian J. Deary et al. [2007]
- Biology teacher: This graph shows that the distribution of IQ in men has a larger variance than in women. This means that there are significantly more very intelligent men than women.
- Biology teacher: On the other hand this also means… Oh no, it’s the moral police!
- Dorothy Cambridge: GET HIM!
- Teacher: Tell my wife and children that I love them!
- Male activist: 97 points on the privilege-o-meter!
- Female activist: High time to cull him from the herd!
- Principal: Please welcome your new biology teacher, Mrs. Dorothy Um… Cambridge!
- Dorothy Cambridge: Margaret Cavendish! Laura Bassi! Caroline Herschel! Elizabeth Báthory! Ada Lovelace! Marie Curie! Lise Meitner! Emmy Noether! Dorothy Hodgkin! Rosalind Franklin! Ada Yonath!
- Sandra: This will not end well.
![[0596] 97 Points](/comics/2014-07-07-0596-97-points.png "[0596] 97 Points")
You’re confusing feminism, with feminazism. @ Luke:
@ Xezlec:
The “equalism” movement unfortunately misses the point. Feminism means empowering women to reach equality with men rather than putting women above men. You’ve probably seen the image where three people of different heights are trying to watch a game but there’s a high wall in front of them. “Equalism” gives each person an equal-sized stool so only the tallest person can see. Feminism gives each person a different-sized stool so everyone can see. Patriarchy means men are in a higher position than women whether they know it or not, so feminism tries to bring women up to the status of men.
I agree that there are times when some feminists go beyond what’s proper for them to say and that can get annoying, but the movement as a whole tends to keep checks on itself in the long run.
Sometimes those feminists toss around privilege easily, but it’s generally considered more serious, and it’s supposed to be used in appropriate context, not when it’s unrelated.
The reason there are big statistical gaps for gender is that when males are favored it’s because of their gender, but when females are favored it’s generally not. There might be a lot of times when women are favored for their gender, but that’s because cultural sexism makes a distinction between male and female in places where it shouldn’t. Feminism fights against this distinction, and that’s how and why it seeks to elevate women.
When I said privilege manifests when men insert themselves in feminist circles etc., I meant that’s how privilege is often used in context, rather than shouted out in unrelated contexts. I didn’t mean to say this comic was privileged.
Feminist circles tend to get attacked a lot, both by general media and society and by more extreme MRAs and explicit anti-feminists. I would guess that’s why they put their guard up a lot more than they should a lot of the time, plus the usual outrage people get when their position is less popular and not one of the “big players” in politics (e.g., Democrats, Republicans in the U.S.). I’ve actually had a hard time considering whether to sink into my apolitical mindset or to… not be apolitical, considering how little it all seems to matter and how it often just makes me worse off. I only decided to comment because this comic has a special place in my heart. That might be part of why I’m more… timid, I guess.
Bet nobody warned this one about Larisa, though from recent events my money’s actually on Michelle cracking her.
@ doombybbr:
Cold logic without common sense or controlled emotion is deadly.
So many people are dreading the outcome of this arc(?) but I personally believe that it’s going to get an interesting message out. Even if Sandra and Woo has been rather questionable with some things.
I hereby dub the third panel of this strip ‘tumblr.jpeg’
Is this comic mocking those who whine about misandry and those mean ol’ feminists? Or is this comic JOINING those who whine about misandry and those mean ol’ feminists? If it’s supposed to be satire, it’s missing the mark, as it’s essentially identical to several MRA-spawned webcomics: “Oh noes! I dared to speak BioTruths, and now the evil feminazis have marked me for death!!”
Long ass name.
This looks like a job for super feminist woman. Flying through the skies and eleminating sexist everywhere! You wanna sandwich? Go f*ckin make it yourself you lazy waste of matter!!!
And we may find yet another “controversial” comic arc. Well that’s what it looks like.
@ SmartAlec105:
Don’t worry, I saw it too. May be nothing, or perhaps Sandy was more right than she knew.
Finishing that doomed teacher’s statement the tendency for pronounced extremes in mental development among men also means that there are more men of drastically below average intelligence than women. Since extremes on one end or the other are far less common for women statistically speaking it nets a higher average IQ than men as a whole. This does not mean that one gender is smarter than the other, only that one is more prone to extremes while the other has a more stable overall average. That said measurements of raw IQ aren’t actually automatic indications of mental prowess and more to the point anyone who makes assumptions about someone’s intelligence based on gender, race, etc rather than their actual interactions with that person is severely misusing their own potential brainpower and should probably be ashamed of themselves.
Wish We had that… Every teacher’ll be arrested and no school for the rest of the year
@ Byrrn:
Everyone always says that. However, the word feminism itself comes from femininity, which is directly in reference to females.
Whoa, talk about strawman.
@ doombybbr:
Which is what he would have said if they’d let him finish. Which is largely the point here, if I’m not mistaken. Right?
@ Justthisonce:
Say it with me now: “Nooo Truuue Scotsmaaan”
“Misogynist — A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.”
— H.L. Mencken
@ Lightbulb:
Lightbulb, what’s sexist here is you implying that women are doomed to be ‘shorter’ than men. Shouldn’t we aim to help women ‘grow’ to the same ‘height’ as men, rather than giving them a taller stool?
I don’t believe in discrimination. Any discrimination. There is no ‘positive’ discrimination. It can only cause hurt and upset to both parties.
Personally, I think Equalism is a far better movement to get behind, not only because it is pragmatically more likely to attract all genders’ support, but also because it implies that when the genders are more balanced, greater emphasis should be given to men’s problems. Forgive me for being skeptical that ‘Feminism’ would make that a priority even when men’s suffering becomes more equatable to that of women.
Additionally, it has the benefit of rooting out the Feminist-Extremists from the people who truly want gender equality. No more straw men allowed. How does that sound?
Oh hijole
Ah
Anyway my cousin & I have quite similar I.Q.
We are both tall
She went to U.C.L.A.
My family couldn’t afford to send me because I have a lot of siblings and that means a lot of “Sally May” (student loan generic) debt before I rolled on the scene, yet parents combined income is 100k+
Cousin got hired before she graduated.
Lightbulb you don’t have to worry, we solved this in 197X… The issue you might want to address is where if you are above an arbitrary height (or your parents were) you get no stool, regardless of what you see
Because I don’t think feminism wants to give me one in this scenario.
Also, look up “Pilot license scholarship”; this was my dream. If things are as they were in 2007-2009, you should find many organizations that specify only girls ages 16-21 are eligible, one co-ed awarded once annually for ages 16-23, and a couple more co-eds.
Maybe things are better now but too late, I am 24 and airlines pay by seniority. I will never serve society in the way I most desired…
Because I am male
@ SmartAlec105:
A reference to Dolores Umbridge if I had to hazard a guess. Another guess, she isn’t a real feminist, but instead someone who believes all men are inferior.
Just a guess though.
@ Iron Glenn:
While linguistically that is the obvious history of the term, words don’t always mean what their parts or history suggest. I’m discussing what ought to be the common usage of the term. Moreover, while what Lightbulb is saying is somewhat stronger phrased than I would put it (given that I am a wuss who would like to avoid conflict if at all possible and has very mixed feelings on the purview of comedy), many of their (using their as a non-gendered pronoun) arguments ring true. I believe there was also an earlier commenter who went briefly into the history of feminism as compared to equalism, and given the history of the term this linguistic inconsistency doesn’t really make a difference to the meaning of the word. After all, if you look up “feminist” in a dictionary, it does imply woman’s rights, but the definition specifies *equality* to men. Considering the societal starting point, I don’t think that the word nor the concept is unreasonable.
Marie Skłodowska-Curie!
I’m always leery when people cite scientific studies to support their conclusions about differences between men and women, simply because sexism exists. That’s a thing we can agree on, right? That it’s a reasonably widespread phenomenon? I’m going to assume so.
It puts me on guard because sexism is a strong and often unconscious bias, and those wreak HAVOC on experimental results unless you’re a) aware of your bias and b) incredibly, ridiculously careful about blinding your study properly. Heck, the fact that it even occurred to someone to test the difference indicates a bias of SOME kind on their part, whether for or against the idea of inherent differences in gender.
(Putting in my two cents, I’m personally of the opinion that any existing differences between the way men’s brains and women’s brains work are almost entirely due to the social expectations, gender roles, and other attitudes that we’re inundated with from the day that we’re born: all the stuff that says “this is what girls are like” and “this is what boys are like” rather than any ironclad, unchangeable physiological barrier between the sexes. There’s some differences in hormones, yeah, but I’m not convinced that they’re significant enough to explain even a majority of the mental differences between genders.)
@Takashoru:
Positive discrimination has never been intended to be something permanent. It’s a temporary boost: it needs to be around for a while to prevent us from backsliding into a male-dominant society due to unconscious bias against women, but once an even male/female split has been established for long enough that it can stay balanced on its own, the checks can and should be removed. Positive discrimination is there to counterbalance biases that will disappear on their own over time, so of course it’ll be phased out when it’s no longer needed. Give it a generation or two; enough time for the really stubborn sexists to die off.
Also: you like equalism because it implies that when the genders are balanced…we’ll put more emphasis on men’s problems? You mean more general emphasis on the problems of men, rather than more emphasis on the problems of men as compared to the problems of women, right? The wording is a little ambiguous.
Oh, just what we needed. Because this webcomic has been so controversy-free as of late, eh, Novil? (Your comic and everything, but I’d watch the doses a little more if I were you.)
Well feminism does mean centered on females per definition @ Luke:
Alright, hate it if you want, but men *do* have a higher average IQ and a higher variance than women. But it doesn’t matter, because IQ is the single shittiest measure of human intelligence ever created, so why should ANYBODY care? All IQ really says is how well you’ll do in western schools, which is NOT an intelligence-based activity. (Rote memorization requires no intelligence, and I stand by that.) It is also tested in a manner that allows things like upbringing and the current condition of the individual taking it to weigh in entirely too heavily. The same person will show a MASSIVELY different IQ at two different points in their life, and may see a significant decline just a week later because they didn’t get enough sleep or were dehydrated when they took it and didn’t perform as well, and two people who are actually equally intelligent but one from a rich background and another from a poor background will test differently, as will one who started school a year early and one who started a year late, even if they are EXACTLY the same in actual intelligence. The very measure of IQ is outright retarded.
Are there serious mental differences between men and women? YES. FUCK YES. There is no denying it, unless you’re a feminist in which case you could deny women have sex drives if you wanted to. (And they’ve actually done that, by the way. I’m not kidding.) But IQ is a retarded way to measure the mental differences, and the mind is difficult to quantify. You’d be about as well off judging their intelligence by their taste in music. Actually, scratch that, not an apt metaphor. Men would win THAT contest hands down. Uh… Art? Yeah. Taste in art. You’d be about as well off judging their intelligence by their taste in art. And intelligence isn’t the sole factor in mental capability, it’s just one, so if one sex comes out on top there (which I doubt) you can’t claim mental superiority just from that.
The easier thing to verify and quantify are physical differences. Which are very real, and while not *that* large are still significant. Women tend to be shorter than men, they allocate their fat differently, their upper body is narrower and lower body broader, and they have longer legs in proportion to their overall height. This DOES have a practical impact. Women DO have less upper body strength, even for their size, but they also DO have greater flexibility and better control over their extremities as a result of the lower mass in their arms and smaller extremities, and their smaller size is also a benefit to their health, meaning they don’t need as much in the way of resources, they tend to live longer, have better stamina and once again have better control. Now, none of these differences are huge, even the longer lifespan is less than a decade, but the differences are real and they are significant, so how about we all just acknowledge them and move on instead of trying to pretend they don’t exist? Of course not. We can’t just acknowledge that and move on, no. That would make sense, and we can’t have that. Have to pretend that sexual dimorphism is an evil sexist lie invented by the patriarchy, no matter how much evidence is piled up and no matter how readily observable, testable and repeatable it is, and call anyone who admits the obvious a sexist.
Feminism had a purpose long ago. It still should have a purpose today, in third world countries where women really do suffer more than men, and the kind of feminism we had back in the 1940s would be pretty damned handy in those areas now. Modern feminism doesn’t do a fucking thing about that, though. Today it’s busy wasting all its resources, much of it on meaningless nonsense, in developed countries where it’s actually MEN that get the short end of the stick, by a LOT.
Men get longer prison times, no legal recourse against domestic abusers, no legal recourse against harassment, sexual or otherwise, no legal recourse against female rapists, almost no recourse against male rapists, are more likely to be raped (yes, that’s true, prison rape ALONE is over twice all female rape in the US), the possibility of draft should a draft occur, by far worse treatment than women if homosexual, bisexual or transsexual, worse treatment if possessing an unpopular fetish, complete inability to adopt children if single, inferior treatment during divorces, unable to defend against false harassment and rape accusations (the latter is 40% of all rape accusations, another 20% are questionable), inferior treatment by social workers and CPS, especially if single, and considered a lower priority by emergency workers.
Those issues are all absolutely real, and feminists don’t give a flying fuck about them. Why? Because feminists are inherently misandrist. They don’t care about mens issues, and even try to deny they exist. They don’t care one bit about the massive double-standards inherent in western society if they are preferential to women, they never have and they never will. I’m not going to claim that there are no women’s issues that need to be resolved, there are, but men’s issues are many times more numerous AND severe and nobody is doing a DAMNED thing about them. Feminists claiming to be about equality are LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH, because they’ve already got SUPERIORITY and they keep on going without doing a DAMNED thing about actually making the sexes equal.
And you know what? Even if you are only concerned with women, you STILL shouldn’t listen to feminists, because they’re extremely misogynistic too. Sexual harassment laws, for instance, only protect women. What, do you think men don’t get sexually harassed? Or do you just think that men can take it and women can’t? Are you saying women are too sensitive to be subject to sexual harassment but men aren’t? Because, dear feminists, that makes YOU the misogynists. And what about sex? Feminists claim that women don’t have sex drives, can’t enjoy sex, and that any woman that does enjoy sex has been brainwashed to enjoy being “raped”. That is the single most misogynistic thing I have ever heard, hands down, and that’s something actually promoted by feminists. Then there’s the very IDEA of a “patriarchy”, the very idea that the “patriarchy” is a thing that exists in modern society is not only misandrist, but also misogynistic because it claims that women are weak and easily manipulated, and don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them unless it’s what the feminists are saying. Feminists aren’t just the most misandrist people in western society, they’re the most misogynistic people too.
Modern feminism is completely without merit. Even in an environment where feminism could be useful, modern feminism would accomplish nothing. Its very existence distracts from REAL women’s issues and discredits those who actually try to resolve them, making them an active detriment even to their own express purpose. There’s no job that this mentally challenged bunch of hooting sexist yahoos could ever accomplish without causing more damage to everything around them, even their own cause, than it was worth.
@ Byrrn:
NAFALT: Not all feminists are like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM
I’m really disappointed by this one. The “poor men! they are the ones REALLY discriminated, not the women. Women fighting for their rights? They’re nazi!!1!!1!” is third rate bull, it’s just the same as the homophobes saying that allowing the same sex marriage is gonna destroy the society, or the racists saying the same about immigrants’ rights.
I just didn’t expect this from this series, it’s very sad (just as sad that the comments section is reaching “youtube comments” levels of misoginy and sexism…)
@ Byrrn:
In a perfect world, all you would need is the definition, because it would reflect reality.
Unfortunately, we have to go by actions.
I think I get the joke now.
Few are born with a high IQ which is only partly earned by “talent” but mainly comes from good education and encouragement at an early age. The fact that there are more men with a higher IQ than women shows, that there is in fact great inequality between genders, as men generally receive better education and more support than women. Thus they are able to develop freely (and score a higher IQ).
The woman in the comic tackles the right problems in the wrong way.
I just doubt that’s the point the author intended to make.
For everyone who has commented on/is reading this comic:
If you take everything that is wrong about “lack of equality”, and try to impose “equality”, you will inevitably wind up with “different inequality”.
Likewise, if you leave it alone, you already have “inequality”.
Focus on creating a “balance” (and I don’t just mean diametric opposition, which is inequality in disguise), and you will get closer to peace.
Of course, you’ll also upset some ideologues, because they believe that no one is qualified to dictate “balance”. They’d prefer it to just happen while everyone’s having a field day with being a dick to one another, because they believe that is possible.
Really, the effect that the concept of “ideology” has on language really ruins everything we try to say, despite our best intentions.
And everything we try to do because of ideology, “language” has a way of ruining, too.
To my way of thinking, THAT is the inequality we need to bring balance to.
So I guess, let me know when someone’s invented The Matrix.
@ Avian Mosquito:
” Feminists claim that women don’t have sex drives, can’t enjoy sex, and that any woman that does enjoy sex has been brainwashed to enjoy being “raped”.”
First time I’ve seen such claims, sure you haven’t been reading reddit’s anti-feminism rants instead of actual feminist articles? Because feminism fights for the right for women to cherish their sexuality and not be ashamed of it.
It’s kind of ironic reading all the comments here, the ones which claim they’ll support “equalism” but not “feminism”, and then goes on to say how men problems aren’t addressed by feminists at all. If you take a good look at your own comments, you’ll realize that the very “men problems” that you are talking about is precisely what feminism addresses and what is wrong with society – that ‘anything that is not “masculine” is bad. ‘
‘Being raped is not masculine. ‘
‘Being beaten up is not masculine. ‘
‘Not wanting to join the military is not masculine.’
‘You’re a man. Act manly. Don’t be a pussy.’
…and the list goes on. Feminism IS what the name suggests. Celebration and acceptance of femininity. That it’s alright if you’re not what society deems as “masculine”; that being strong is so much more than being aggressive and violent; that femininity is nothing to be punished and ashamed of. …so, what was it again about feminism being a merit-less and bad cause?
THANK. YOU.
After Sinfest and various other places fell to SJW-feminazism and retardation a while ago,
I am extremely glad to see this strip. Thank you so much guys.
Novil wrote:
How about Catherine de Medici (much maligned by the Hugenots, but even so…), or Lucrezia Borgia, or Empress Dowager Cixi, or Empress Anna of Russia, or even Mary I, England’s first queen regnant, AKA “Bloody Mary” (who had to kickstart her reign by rallying support in East Anglia and then marching on London)? I’ll have to see if I can think of any more…
Are Sandra and her clique taking Statistics classes? I wish I had that in my high school (or even middle school)
Lightbulb wrote:
I sort of agree and disagree. Equalism/egalitarianism starts from the premise that men and women are both disadvantaged to reasonably the same amount, and that both sides need to give a little to help everyone get to the top. But this is really not the way the world works. Personally, I don’t care if someone wants to call themselves an equalist instead of a feminist, as long as they actually do something with it other than play it as a card on the internet, but in my experience, equalism is not really about helping anyone. It’s about having a Take That for feminists. Are there thriving equalist communities where people discuss gender issues in modern society? Equalist rallies to protest violence aimed at either women or men? Nope, not that I can find.
Yep. Feminism is attacked and shamed way more than it’s pandered to, so even a relatively harmless expression of anti-feminism (like this comic) does tend to get feminists’ backs up.
Oh, bullshit. Goodbye.
For those who always like to say “Not all feminists are like that” keep in mind this actually happened to Harvard University’s President
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/
It looks like the authors are basing this on the article “Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932”, which is a shame, because the teacher’s statement in the comic and the article in question are at odds. It looks like the research, which is much more carefully stated, is going to be misused in service of a storyline that looks like it’s going to be magnificently tone-deaf on issues of sex and gender.
I remember they had an interesting episode of Mythbusters, a small mini series actually revolving around the battle of the sexes, and it actually offered up some very interesting results.
When it comes to getting things done, women were able to perform more tasks and complete them faster then men via multitasking by a large margin, but men were able to complete singular tasks better at the expense of taking more time.
The most interesting tests though were the ones involving cars…
Turns out the old sterotype about men not asking for directions isnt as accurate as popular belief makes it out to be as men were more likely to ask for directions then women.
This particular stip however reminds me of the parking test quite a bit. Men more often than not scored average, out of 50, around 40 of them scored between a 5 and 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, with women you had around 20 who scored an 8 to 10, but yuo also had around 20 score from 1 to 4 on that same test.
So while more women scored higher than men, you also had more women score lower then men, with men scoring by and large around the median.
This reflects the current strip, women are either really good at something or really bad, while men are around average, neither outperfoming or underperforming.
Makes sense when you think about it, women either have a lot of experience in dealing with something or very little, while men have a little experience in many things but not a great deal of experience at any one thing in the job market.
Why is it that every time it comes to topics about feminists that people start pulling that “all feminists are evil because some are radicals” card? Do they not realize that the earth has a human population of over 7 billion that there are bound to be idiots in every cause? The “all xxx are bad because there are some radicals” excuse don’t work for any argument because that’s just blatant generalizing. If we take this argument and apply it elsewhere, you’ll be lambasted for being seditious. (Imagine the uproar if people argued that all Americans are evil mass-murderers because Bush, hence it’s perfectly fine to bomb America because they’re all no good.)
@ Jack Bauer:
This didn’t actually happen to Lawrence Summers. He received a vote of no confidence from a slight majority of the faculty (nowhere near the same thing as being immediately fired, let alone a forceful, physical removal from office) following both the brouhaha about his remarks as well as a few other controversies that can’t be blamed on oversensitive feminists. He even got a year of paid leave and a subsidized loan out of it! Not to mention that Harvard gave him a professorship after that year.
Let’s not turn this into another McDonalds hot coffee case misconception.
Actually, what the model tells us is that it breaks down at extreme values. A mathematical model is just that: a model. It is not reality. If you map a normal curve to human heights, it is pretty good predictor near the means (5’6″ for women and 5’11” for men in Canada, potentially different in different places), but that model says there should be 2 people in Canada who are 7 feet tall and less than one person 4 feet tall as an adult. There are lots more than that. That tells us that the normal curve model is generally not up to the job at extreme values.
Besides, IQ is actually a pretty subjective test, despite being considered by some as objective and scientific. Generally, a smarter person will score higher on them but fine tuned comparisons are not feasible. The difference between someone scoring 200 and 350 is (at those extreme levels) often about how you were feeling that day. My IQ is generally between 130 and 150, depending on the test, but if I try to take an IQ test in German or Japanese, I would totally tank, as I do not understand those languages well enough.
@ Paeris Kiran:
And Elizabeth Bathory, accused serial killer.
@ Lightbulb:
Its not quite a steotype or a joke in bad taste when you deal with it on a frequent basis however. I know that not all feminist are the hard core stiff necked types, but there are a fair number who are, I work for a few of them and have had to deal with a number of them over the years.
I recall one particular teach I had back in high school who was both a straw feminist and racist. If you were male or white, you were going to have a difficult time in her class, and if you were both, you you in for a rough time. I found out that she was investigated a few years after I graduated and had her teaching license revoked, but it took a long time to build a case against her due to fears of ‘political correctness’ with her being a dual minority (both african american and female).
A fair number of students were held back for a year because of her or graduated with lower GPAs as a result.
I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time I know full well that this comic isnt exactly without standing.
This is NOT natural selection!!!!!
Elisabeth Bathory? The Blood Countess? She who had young virgin girls drained of their blood so she could bathe in it to moisturize and rejuvenate her skin?!?!? This does not bode well for Sandra and Larissa.
@ Lightbulb:
Sorry, Feminism and it’s core ideas are misandric (Patriarchy and rape culture for example) and has been from the start. Look up the white feather campaign.
@ SmartAlec105:
Yes, I think that is what it looks like, being that the new teacher is Delores Umbridge.
It bothers me when people get offended by a statistical fact. It’s like, “how dare that be true!” I’m not saying the fact herein is true, but I’ve seen other cases of this. There is enough racism and sexism around to create stuff out of thin air.
doombybbr wrote:
I think that’s what he was about to say before he got cut off.