Well, that's what follows from Professor Greenfield's observations.

All in all, therefore, women seem to function less 'mindfully' than men, or, putting it less euphemistically, less 'intelligently'.

Statistically speaking.

it is men who are the focused, the possessed, and the obsessed

In addition, it cannot have escaped even the most ardent feminist's notice that it is men who are the focused, the possessed, and the obsessed. It is men who push forward the boundaries of science, music, technology and art. It is men who build great cities and great religions.

It is men who tinker well into the night, studying and prising apart the boundaries of even the most obscure and intractable. 

I knew one man who spent six years studying locust legs. 

Not locusts.

Locust LEGS! 

FOR SIX YEARS! 

And he is probably still at it.

I knew another man who was a mathematician and who struggled daily, FOR YEARS, with some obscure problem in which only one other person in the entire world seemed to have any interest - and it wasn't me.

Just look at any science programme on TV and notice the 'workers' labouring in the various scientific fields. The 'experts'. The ones who sneak into their laboratories even on Christmas Day to skulk around engines, chemicals, computers or insects. The ones who spend hour upon hour, year upon year, squashed into their little rooms to study the contents of test-tubes or tissues. The ones who wander into the most hostile and desolate parts of the planet to scrub around for clues, artefacts and ideas.

They are mostly men.

It is men who lead, explore, push forward and calculate. 

the intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women,

And, to the extent that intelligence is based on factors in the environment, as opposed to genetics, or based upon learning and studying, as opposed to 'emotionalising' (and, so, losing 'mind') then the intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women, throughout their lives - because, statistically speaking, they choose to take on more of the intelligent-provoking 'environment', and they interact with it in much more of an objective and emotionless way (i.e. with more 'mind'). 

When it comes to intelligence, men have got what it takes. They drive in straight lines, they focus their attention, they do not multitask, they obsess, and they do not spend so much time emotionalising. 

And they actually increase their intelligence by doing such things.

And the whole species benefits from their pursuits.

Statistically speaking, men are taller than women. Not much, but significantly so. The picture below is of some men and women. Some of the women are actually taller than some of the men.

But now look at the next picture.

The very same men and women have fallen in love, and they have partnered each other. They are so happy. But, notice that EVERY SINGLE man is TALLER than EVERY SINGLE woman.

And the same thing happens with intelligence. Just as it is that women, statistically speaking, prefer men who are taller than them, and richer than them, and socially higher up the ladder than them, so it is that they prefer men who are more intelligent than them. 

Not only do women admit to this last aspect, recent research also shows that most women believe that their partners are more intelligent than them.

And they are!

The situation is exactly the same as for Picture B. Simply think of intelligence instead of height. All the women in this picture have chosen partners who are 'more intelligent' than them, even though it is true that, statistically speaking, across the whole population, there are millions of women who are more intelligent than millions of men.

And until such time as women CHOOSE partners who are less than, or equal to, themselves in terms of intelligence, the statement that 'men are more intelligent than women' will remain true even when looking at the issue as it relates to partnerships between men and women. 

men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.

Putting this another way: When it comes to looking at men and women as they function within their relationships, men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.

But, of course, we all know this instinctively. 

We just cannot say so.

But it is clear that both men and women CHOOSE things to be this way - statistically speaking.

As Germaine Greer puts it, "Women are not valued for their intelligence."

Well, Yes, they are. But they are not loved for it, nor are they found attractive as a result of it - statistically speaking.

In her book, Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia said that, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still all be living in grass huts."

She has a point, because if women had, indeed, been the dominant gender, then they would have used their influence to promote further 'emotionalising', and the result would have been less achievement with regard to developing other things. 

Like wheels.

And this, of course, partly explains why the educational systems in the west are currently failing so miserably to produce high standards in their pupils. There is too much emotionalising going on, and not enough thinking; i.e. not enough 'mind'.

And, in the past, those little societies that spent their time emotionalising, instead of creating, inventing and progressing, had no chance in evolutionary terms. They lost the battle long ago. The men were killed and the women were carried away. And they no longer exist. They have been statistically washed away.

Camille Paglia also said that, "Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials. 

But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper. 

Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures. 

I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. 

. . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species." 

Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole. They work at it. They strive for it. They value it. They are loved for it. They are wanted for it. 

And the mental environments in which they choose to spend their time definitely develop their talents even further. 

That is, they give much more time to their 'minds'.

And this is mostly why women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, will never be able to compete successfully with men intellectually and nor, therefore, in any task or job which requires intellectual endeavour.

Finally, not only do men develop their intelligence by CHOOSING to engage more so in activities that enhance it - as opposed to emotionalising - (and so, to the extent that the environment affects intelligence then it will do so more for men than it will for women) but it is also the case that, thanks to the Y chromosome, the genetic variability of men is greater than that of women, so spreading the range of their intelligence more widely. The consequence is that at the bottom range of intelligence there will be found to be far more men than women, and in the top range the SAME will be true. 

Further, and for the same reason, both the highest and the lowest intelligence levels of men are more extreme than are those of women.

at the high-flier levels, women haven't got a hope of competing with men

And the upshot of all this is that at the high-flier levels, women haven't got a hope of competing with men either in terms of their number or in terms of their achievements - unless, of course, the men are deliberately handicapped in some way.

Thus, there is not so much of a glass ceiling created by sex-discriminatory men holding back the realisation of statistical parity between men and women in the higher echelons of the world, the women's relative lack of success in these lofty places is far more due to the choices that they make and their less-variable genetic makeup.

Neither of which is the fault of men.