>>4799016 lb

>Cleetus

Why play into anti-white "redneck" slanders to make a point?

If you want to debunk anon's opinion, do so with evidence, not ad hominem. There is plenty of evidence that the sexes think differently. Until recently, it was common wisdom that wammins weren't as well suited to executive functions. Historically, they were banned from it. Besides the muh equality Marxist premise of the day, what evidence is there that anon's point about not wanting menopausal women running everything is unfounded?

I would say we have anecdotal evidence that, since Sarah Sanders is killing it, KellyAnne too, some women can rock exec. functions. What evidence do we have beyond the anecdotal/exceptional tho? To address larger trends? I would say any honest assessment points to historical understandings as correct, that women in general aren't as well suited to executive/combat functions as men. And rather than pretend this isn't so, we ought to be asking how it is that traditional feminine roles got so stigmatized and fucked up when they used to confer dignity and be a necessary pillar in societal functioning.

Don't want to cause a slide or divisionfag, just don't like leaving kneejerk Marxist assumptions unchallenged. IMO part of what we're here to do is to throw cold water on all that bs.

>>4799325

Yeah but who gives the prizes and on what basis? At best, she's the smartest among other non-whites, bc of the heavy anti-white bias in this stuff. And latinx avg. IQ a little more than 10 pts lower than white.

>>4799133, >>4799325, >>4799365

This anon was training as a scientist in Cal in the late 80's/early 90's. We had a card-carrying La Raza activist in the lab who was clearly dumber than everyone else, but more than made up for it with pride & entitlement. Because I was newer (and a generally naive autist) I had to cover for her, do all her DNA sequencing, etc. Was like this everywhere I worked, esp. in Academia. It was understood that you cover for the token non-whites otherwise you're racist, not a team player. If you're a supervisor, you don't dare give them an honest review. Everyone just looks the other way and hopes that when you've paid enough dues you'll just be left alone to do your thing, that someone else will be put on token-babysitter duty. Meanwhile, we all roll our eyes when the tokens get full Professor here or there, and know that their research will be total crap unless they have a wunderkind grad student propping them up or an overseer feeding them the knowledge. I can think of only 2 hispanics, her and one other, out of hundreds I've worked with in biotech. Most were white, and after the H1B influx, Chinese, Korean, Japanese or high-caste Indian. IQ bell curves are a real thing.

And I'm not meaning to hate on anyone or say only whites are decent or valuable. Lotta wonderful non-white ppl in my life. Just saying that IQ matters in areas where being a highly technical problem solver matters, and affirmative action in these areas is foolish at best and dangerous at worst. Remember that bridge in Florida that collapsed last year bc engineering group was all women Latinas? Not a coincidence.

>>4799663

>Wow, what a long argumentum ad hominem. She's stupid because she's a latina. Got it.

You clearly didn't read it. I gave one example of her incompetency by referencing one of the techniques that most non-biotech ppl know about: DNA sequencing. I said she couldn't even do her own, it was an embarrassment. A senior grad student in a Molecular Biology lab and you have to have the Undergrad volunteer do it for you? Nowhere did I say I just assumed she was incompetent bc she was Latina, I said her demonstrated incompetence was understood by all my colleagues as something we had to pretend didn't exist bc she was Latina. Big difference.

>>4799685, >>4799708

Was like a Kafka or Orwell novel. Total mindfuck.