Now, women. This column’s for you, so I’m going to keep it simple. Pitch it low. Words of two syllables, max, I promise. You ladies, it seems, have IQs on average five points lower than men’s. Still with me? Sorry for putting in a number, it was inescapable. Damn, that was five syllables. Hang on, syllable is three syllables. I’m confused now. I blame biology and the tiny brain simpering away inside my pretty little head.
Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, is a brave man. In a letter to The Times responding to a lament by Susan Greenfield about the dearth of women in science, the professor came to a stinging conclusion. It’s the stupid genes, stupid.
Women are simply not as clever as men, he wrote. Besides, they have different types of intelligence — men are stronger on reasoning and maths, while women have more verbal intelligence. Thus men are over-represented in the physical sciences and women can make successful newspaper columnists. Gee thanks, Prof.
To judge by the deluge of furious responses from Times readers, women are just a little peeved at the professor’s verdict. Amid the vitriol, however, no one paused to ponder this question: are we more stupid than men? What if the professor is right?
Antonia Senior, continue reading
3 comments:
Interesting article. What do you think? Personally I believe the lack of women in science is much more due to the cultural influence. But I am a woman in a technical field and I have poor empathy and social skills, so maybe I'm just some sort of mutant...
BTW I like the positioning of this post right above the "Paranoia- it's everywhere" one. ;)
I don't think that you have poor social skills , and I agree with you about the cultural influence.
Thanks. :) I guess the one good thing about controversial (and even outlandish) articles like this, is that it gets people thinking about the real reasons, or so one would hope.
Post a Comment