No because…

LOL, IT’S FUNNY BECAUSE THERE’S A MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

First you compared ONE girl vs TWO men. Another point that should be made is I.Q is not a measure of how intelligent someone is at a given point but their potential for intelligence. What is more, using IQ to determine intelligence (especially at such a young age) is a remarkably unreliable and difficult process.



From time immemorial, men have outdone women in almost everything, the list of female inventors, writers, scientists, entrepreneurs,doctors, lawyers, award-winning authors and Nobel prize winners pales in comparison to the number of men who have excelled in serious fields.





Men are generally better at survival tactics, since cavemen were the hunters who brought the meat home. They constructed houses and weapons, while women only followed orders. A considerable amount of time has passed but women have not matched men in the fields of construction, civil engineering(all types of engineering , really), video-game acumen, mathematics and invention.



Men, perhaps because of testosterone, are better leaders. Men trust men(comradeship), women trust men but women do not trust each-other(competition, resentment and the conflict between whether it is lady-like to be submissive or assertive) and men do not trust women for fear of competition or rejection.



And since trust is the foundation of almost everything. And backstage performers(women) are hidden and thus hard to trust or reward: Most women are reduced to wallflowers or placard holders.





Bill Gates I.Q was likely had an I.Q of 160 when he was two doesn’t mean he was designing Microsoft by the age of three. That girl will grow up to be very smart but she won’t have an I.Q 400 at the age of twenty. Besides 1 individual doesn’t speak for an entire gender.

Though in contradiction; the entire premise behind this paragraph is that the existence of Bill Gates makes him smarter than every one and stating without evidence that he has an I.Q of 400; when he actually ‘has’ an I.Q of 160.



The concept of women being creators and men being destroyers is entirely cultural – the roles can easily be reversed, and women can easily be as brutal and violent as men at times. To assume that only men are capable of atrocities and violence is entirely flawed logic.



Also, if you want to use the IQ test as a measure of intelligence, why don’t we look at the median IQ scores for each gender? Male on average have 5 more IQ points than women and also people with an IQ score over the the mark considered to classify one as a genius (which is usually 140) are 85 times more likely to be male. This is according to the book Men are better than Women. This does not however say that women are incapable of becoming a genius but rather on average a majority of them are male. The simple fact that you would cling to one female’s IQ score in a sea of men who are of her ranking and superior to is pretty sad. This shows a sign of desperation, the fact that you cling to an anomaly to prove your point. That is the equivalent of me saying that Black people are the richer race because of Tiger Woods and Oprah completely disregarding all the others that own an equal or even greater wealth that are of a different race. The argument just isnt logical.



I find it funny that you would cling to the youngest professor in the United States being a woman. And the fact that she teaches mathematics like that should make us concede that women are just inherently better than men. But in your own argument you concede that men are, on average, better at mathematics so then I dont see your point. Again, it’s just another desperate argument being made because of the lack of substance behind your claim, so you rather cling to an anomaly. If you want to see substance behind my claim you can A-read your own post or B-look at the picture of the mathematics teams of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and you tell me the proportion of Men to the inferior gender.



When you bring up that women are good at being super models which means that they make alot of money for doing nothing. So how in the world does that prove the superiority of women? Again that would be like me saying because a majority of Waltons who gained the WalMart inheritence were males men are better at making more money from doing nothing. And to disprove your already ridiculous claim why don’t we look up how good Bill Gates’ wife is at getting money from bill Gates. How much of his fortune is actually set to go to her after he passes away vs charity? Furthermore If we are going to compare males to females why dont we look at basketball where the minimum NBA salary is more than tripple that of the maximun WNBA slary. Or lets just look at sports in general. Why dont women compete with men? Look at the record for women in any track event and compare it to the 10th best in mens history and tell me 3 catagories where a woman wins and I will concede that women are better.



As far as you saying women are better intelectually. Well again you already concede that men are better at mathematics so im going to make the assumption that it also includdes things such as physics and chemistry. First off I dont buy the argument that women are intelectiually superior. the entire point about multi tasking is flawed. Screwing up several task at one time is not good multi tasking, men go one task at a time so we can achieve desireable results in everything we do. But if I am to accept your point you have only left women the liberal arts field to be smarter in than men. So congratualations you can read and analyze a shakesperean poem (which is written by a man) better than a man. So while we build our society, and try to grasp the origins of the universe, women analyze literature and tell me about something that happened in 1776 that i could find any where on the internet. How is that considered intelectually superior?



As far as male geniuses taking on feminine charecteristics, that argument is an inherent flaw. You state “Male inventor/entrepreneurs/etc create to make up for their natural inability to do so.” WHAT????? This argument makes no sense what so ever. If men have a natural inability to create then how the HECK could do we create aka invent?



As far as the Y chromosome depleting. No scientist knows for sure what is going to happen when the Y chromosome eventually shrinks into non existance or if it will ever become non-existent at all… If something decreases by 1/2 every generation then it never really goes away it just becomes infantecimally small just like the magnetic gravitational pull between two objects, you can only weaken it but never destroy it as long as there is some force. But going back to the original argument about how scientist are still unsure. This is in fact an inexact science so lets not jump to conlcusions here. Remember scientist at one point have said that an apple a day could actually be bad for your health until they retracted their statements. Our information changes with time, so please leave it to the men who are more mathematically and scietifically inclined to figure out what will happen to the male gender while women excel in their liberal arts fields and analyze poetry made by men.



When you talk about females living longer, while that it a valid point, I think that most of us will have had a long and fulfilling life by then.



By the way, when you bring up the point that artificial sperm is being created, read this article. Just let it sink in a bit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1223617/No-men-OR-women-needed-artificial-sperm-eggs-created-time.html



With that being said, one of your reasons is now completely invalid.



Also one tip, use the enter key. Helps for lists.