See how coy you're being? Aurini specifically excluded men from his comment; in his thinking, much less men must be "incredibly stupid" than women.

I wasn't coy at all if you don't take that quote out of context.

Most people are incredibly stupid, and quite useless. Women are people. QED.

Are women in my social circle generally less intelligent than the men in them? Yes, because women have lower IQ variance and I don't generally stick around with the left half of the Gaussian.

If you need it spelled out:

Men have greater IQ variance and I don't hang out with men on the left side of the bell curve. If anything I spend more time socializing with women than men and am perhaps even less selective. Quite clearly yes the women I run into in my daily life will tend to be less intelligent and competent than the men, simply because of these factors.

And yes among the extremely capable subset of the entire population (not my social circle) there will be more men than women.

And as that's absurd for any reasonable value of "incredibly stupid" (men of IQ>140 might indeed far outnumber women, but, had he meant that, he would probably be calling himself, most of LW and most scientists stupid)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Humans are not very good at thinking. Ever heard that quote about John von Neumann?

"only he was fully awake."--Eugene Wigner

Spend some time with 140+ people, you will soon see that you and I and most of humanity are incredibly stupid.

why, it must've been meant solely as a mean-spirited, irresponsible insult.

But yes the way it was phrased it probably was a stylistic move to lower women's status.

Likewise, if women always physically assaulted men when they considered it to be reasonable self-defense, and so did men when they felt that they're defending themselves fron an aggressive woman, much more men would get hit by women than vice versa. But that's unacceptable, he'd say; bitches can't do this to me whenever something gets into their brain tubes!

This is a straw man.