@SatanLucy
Proof?
The most intelligent people I know are women. That’s not to say women are smarter than men, pretty sure the sexes are about equal. It’s just that it’s hard to tell when you never leave your house
Proof?
The most intelligent people I know are women. That’s not to say women are smarter than men, pretty sure the sexes are about equal. It’s just that it’s hard to tell when you never leave your house
You need proof that women have smaller brains than men?
I don’t particularly care about this topic since it’s been beaten half to death by Jordan Peterson et al for the past, what, 8 years? Guess some people didn’t get the memo.
Women and men are basically as intelligent. There is less variability in female intelligence (probably other traits as well) than male. So there are fewer very stupid and fewer very smart women than men, which about checks out.
Women and men are basically as intelligent
Not really. In fact, most of the things women argue for are retarded.
There’s many studies that show mean IQ is identical in men and women.
https://www.riotiq.com/articles/advanced-topics-and-research/do-males-and-females-have-the-same-distribution-of-iq-scores-
The only difference is the variability.
IQ doesnt really mean anything. A lot of people with high IQ who never did anything useful. In fact, more educated women or with higher IQ make worse decisions for society. IQ simply doesnt measure goal-driven intelligence, and many sports based on decision making show that women are inferior in decision making to men.
IQ doesnt really mean anything.
My IQ is about 140.
Checks. Out.
We can also observe women in more intellectual competitions such as chess, where women perform much worse at higher levels.
Aren't chess tournaments separated by gender typically? I don't know much about the chess world other than the names of a few prolific modern players.
World tournament is open to all, but top 100 players are almost all men.
Interesting. A quick google search showed me that there's a World Chess Championship and a Women's World Chess Championship, though. What tournament are you referring to specifically?
There is probably a one legged, nymphomaniacal lesbian chess championship...And a gay one too...And trans...Either/or vestite or sexual...And many more sub-versions.....Humans love championships.
Kings and Queens and notoriously aberrant Bishops (Especially Roman Catholic), Knights that are never straight movers, always kinked, (Public School education) Castles/Rooks swing both ways and all that black and white porn.
There is probably a one legged, nymphomaniacal lesbian chess championship...And a gay one too...And trans...Either/or vestite or sexual...And many more sub-versions.....Humans love championships.
Chess is fundamentally trans; it's a gender fluid game because a male pawn can become a queen...that's why MAGA folks don't play chess.
Kings and Queens and notoriously aberrant Bishops (Especially Roman Catholic), Knights that are never straight movers, always kinked, (Public School education) Castles/Rooks swing both ways and all that black and white porn.
OK, OK, I was just kidding, it's IQ of course, MAGA folks don't actually play chess because they can't comprehend any game more complicated than tic-tac-toe.
What tournament are you referring to specifically?
Elo in chess, and not a tournament with women only, obviously.
Yes, women frequently play against men in chess
. Most chess tournaments are "open," meaning players of any gender compete together. While there are separate women-only tournaments designed to encourage female participation, women can and do compete in the open section, including top-level tournaments.
Judit Polgár, widely considered the strongest female chess player in history, achieved a peak Elo rating of 2735 in 2005, ranking 8th in the world. She is the only woman to surpass the 2700 rating barrier and reach the top 10 in the world. She has been inactive in official classical competition since 2015, holding a final rating of 2675.
Hou Yifan: The next highest-rated female player with a peak of 2686 (March 2015), making her the second highest-rated woman in history.
Other Elite Performers: Other top-rated women include Maia Chiburdanidze (peak 2560), Susan Polgar (peak 2577), and current top players like Aleksandra Goryachkina, who have also crossed the 2600 level.
The highest FIDE Elo ratings in chess history are topped by Magnus Carlsen (2882) and Garry Kasparov (2851). While modern rankings fluctuate, these all-time peak records represent the highest performance levels in elite chess.
Top 10 Highest Peak Classical Elo Ratings
As of March 2026, Magnus Carlsen remains the world's top-rated classical chess player (approx. 2840 Elo), followed by Hikaru Nakamura and Fabiano Caruana. The top 10 is dominated by elite talents like Arjun Erigaisi, Alireza Firouzja, and young stars, with top ratings clustered above 2750+.
Here are the top 10 classical chess players with the highest Elo ratings, based on recent 2026 data:
I wouldnt call myself a misogynist. I just think women are only valued for their body, and sometimes also cooking skills and parenting skills, tho not often. their main value remains being a baby factory.
I wouldnt call myself a misogynist. I just think [insert super misogynistic statement].
Lmao, this has got to be satire.
Did you choose the bear?
Most women would choose rapists or abusers men over a bear. A lot of women stay in abusive relationships. I am yet to see a woman stay in relationship with a bear.
I'm sure there are plenty of bears out there who would be happy to comfort you in your distress. It's not hard to find them, just go to grindr.
the ratio of men to women is about 1:1.
So yes, in society without polygamy, women can either accept all men or they can remain single.
But women have a further disadvantage because they prefer older men, and men generally prefer women under the age 25.
So when women start setting "standards" to exclude some men, they are merely guaranteeing a significant portion of women remains lonely as well.
Because if there are 10 men and 10 women, if 10 women make standard to exclude 50% of men, then 10 women are competing for 5 men.
And if woman keeps waiting and competing, she expires at age 25.
Lmfao.
But women have a further disadvantage because they prefer older men, and men generally prefer women under the age 25.
This data is factored by both gender and country. I think women over the age of 25 are doing just fine.
inb4 "not talking about marriage, just physical attraction" - I'd link you the required pages that show that older women lovers are eating good, but I'd get banned so fast it's not even funny.
Not to mention your entire argument excludes the whole concept of LGBTQ+ relationships.
Not to mention your entire argument excludes the whole concept of LGBTQ+ relationships.
Irrelevant small percentage of society.
In many nations, a trend can be observed of people waiting longer until they marry. In such countries as Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Estonia, the average marriage age is over 30.
Yeah, but if you wait until 30, you will be lonely until 30, and so will your potential boyfriend.
And older women over 30 actually also experience a lot of loneliness because they expired. I personally wouldnt date woman over age 25 because thats just too old.
I'd link you the required pages that show that older women lovers are eating good
I think you are actually confused about standards in a lot of men. Performance itself doesnt matter. Men dont actually prefer woman doing anything. In fact, its the looks which matter. Actions dont matter, not even sexual actions. Once you are 60, men wont be interested in you probably in most cases, irrelevant of what actions you can perform. Because its all about looks, not actions.
Why am I entertaining this?
Irrelevant small percentage of society.
Let me quote you again real fast:
So yes, in society without polygamy, women can either accept all men or they can remain single.
Emphasis my own.
The entire premise is resting on a false dichotomy. Not to mention it's relying on a world view that isn't actually reflective of reality.
Yeah, but if you wait until 30, you will be lonely until 30, and so will your potential boyfriend.
And older women over 30 actually also experience a lot of loneliness because they expired.
Which is consistent across multiple studies.
Performance itself doesnt matter. Men dont actually prefer woman doing anything. In fact, its the looks which matter. Actions dont matter, not even sexual actions.
Great way to tell me that you're only interaction with actual romantic relationships is looking at porn without telling me that you're only interaction with actual romantic relationships is looking at porn.
Actually, that can't be true either - women do things in porn. So this is actually just coming from nowhere? Lil bro, go outside and touch grass.
And I'll address the most concerning comment, as well.
I personally wouldnt date woman over age 25 because thats just too old
Okay, Leo. I'd ask you what the youngest you'd date, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that.
The entire premise is resting on a false dichotomy
It's not really a false dichotomy.
If there are 10 women and 10 men, either each woman gets one man, or someone is left alone.
Gay relationships don't affect this because gays are small percentage of society.
Waiting until 30 means a significant portion of men are left alone until 30 as well, but this doesn't even negate that standards women use still excludes men, irrelevant what age they start dating.
You spam a bunch of links which have no any relevance to my argument. I don't see a point in responding to them.
I'd ask you what the youngest you'd date, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that
The youngest I would date is 18, because women aren't worthy to go to prison for.
If I was dating younger than 18, I would be lying that she is worthy of years in prison, which she is really not.
The only way not to go to prison when dating under 18 is if you don't do anything sexual, and then you are basically just friends and it isn't even dating.
And again, I am not a misogynist.
I think women should have a choice in life to live as they want.
I just see them only being useful to society as baby factories.
But if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, fine, she can get education instead or even a job.
It is of course bad for society when women choose to stop being baby factories, but I can't really say society itself is any good, so maybe women who refuse to be mothers are correct.
So I am not a misogynist. I am merely neutral on the question of what is a role of woman in society, to be a mother or to just be whatever she wants to be or whatever boss at job tells her to be.
I'm gonna have an aneurism...
It's not really a false dichotomy.
If there are 10 women and 10 men, either each woman gets one man, or someone is left alone.
That's literally not how the world works. Polyamory exists. LGTBQ+ couples exist. Regardless of how big or small the percentage is, the fact that there are more choices than just the two you are presenting means that your argument is relying on a false dichotomy.
You spam a bunch of links which have no any relevance to my argument. I don't see a point in responding to them.
You LITERALLY SAID in post #113, that
Yeah, but if you wait until 30, you will be lonely until 30, and so will your potential boyfriend.
And older women over 30 actually also experience a lot of loneliness because they expired.
I provided you with multiple studies that show that people who are single, especially women and double-especially older women, are likely single because they want to be. No loneliness present. But sure, keep shifting the goalposts.
The only way not to go to prison when dating under 18 is if you don't do anything sexual
That's...somehow even more disturbing. Are you willing to go on record saying that a romantic relationship between someone who is over 18 and someone who is under 18 is socially acceptable so long as it's asexual?
Also, the cognitive dissonance in this post is crazy.
And again, I am not a misogynist. (Questionable)
I think women should have a choice in life to live as they want. (Cool)
I just see them only being useful to society as baby factories. (Extremely misogynistic)
But if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, fine, she can get education instead or even a job. (Cool)
It is of course bad for society when women choose to stop being baby factories (Extremely misogynistic), but I can't really say society itself is any good, so maybe women who refuse to be mothers are correct. (Just weird)
Polyamory exists. LGTBQ+ couples exist
That's why I said "when we exclude those". Also, those are still irrelevant. If women have standards which exclude many men, it still means many straight men will be lonely, and then also many women unless they share desirable men.
You simply can't have excluding standards without excluding anyone.
are likely single because they want to be
We are not dealing with what is likely. That is literally irrelevant to point. It's like me saying 1 out of 10 men can't get a relationship, and you respond with "most can". It is irrelevant to what I said.
That's...somehow even more disturbing. Are you willing to go on record saying that a romantic relationship between someone who is over 18 and someone who is under 18 is socially acceptable so long as it's asexual?
I never said anything about being socially acceptable.
I said it isn't worthy to even seek such relationships.