Is this why there are so few great women in history?
could it be that they're simply inferior?
>>2152344
This feels true, is this a meme graph?
>>2152344
Because women are sub-huMAN
>>2152401
There's tons of studies reproducing these results, just like men having greater variability in height or upper body strength
>>2152401
>is this a meme graph
>no source
>no sample size or SD mentioned
>no mention of actual IQ test used or population it was drawn from
>perfect median overlap
You tell me.
>>2152351
This really isn't an answer. I'm not saying your answer is wrong but you don't seem to desire an actual explanation and would probably get frustrated if somebody asked you to define inferiority.
>>2152344
Differing interests and/or by necessity with how the family unit has historically been structured.
>>2152344
They physiologically don't have the mindset to become leaders, conquerors or warriors. Just how it should be.
Plus, every society in history is orientated in a way that gives Men "privilege". So often the first born son is selected as a monarch, or males are expected to be generals and soldiers. But this is based on innate inclinations for the genders, men are often masculine, and women are often feminine, and their roles in society reflect this.
IQ is not measure of greatness. Do you think that Messi is a mathematical genius? Do you think that Picasso could hold a candle to his contemporary physicists? Nay, says I. There must be another measure, which separates men from women, in which women are far, far inferior than simply IQ. Until science steps up, I simply call this magnanimity or great-soul-ness, or simply greatness.
>tfw grl and just want a home to live in and get brutally fucked everyday by my hard working husband while I fix him supper
>have to go college and major in literature and make pretend I give a damn so I can get a job all I care about is shoes and makeup
i didn't ask for this feel