Are Women Smarter Then Men?

I often wonder if, generally speaking, women are smarter than men, and for any number of reasons. But I don't actually think that "intelligence" can be measured, as if it were grains of sand that can be counted or quantified by weight. In the same way that not all calories are made or used the same way, with those from fat operating differently from those from protein or carbohydrates, so not all knowledge is the same either. In fact, most of what we tend to define as knowledge - like scientific racism, for example - is actually elaborately designed systems of profound ignorance.

To believe we can actually measure intelligence, then, simply assumes both that all knowledge is equal, and that knowledge itself only accrues in one direction, like time. It also assumes that intelligence  only ever accrues in a way that we can accurately quantify and reduce to a mere number, using a system of measurement. 

And we assume all of this, even though: 1) today we know that there is no such thing as fixed genetic or innate ability, and that environment determines practically everything. And 2) we also know almost nothing about how the mind, or even consciousness itself, actually works, or where it even resides.  Hell, we're still struggling to understand the human brain!

So, since I don't think we are smart enough to actually understand our own mind, let alone design a system to measure it accurately despite our near total ignorance of how it even works, what I am saying is that the true difference between women and men is that the former tends to be far more dynamic and elastic in their thinking, while the latter tends to value more static systems of thinking, like those offered by conservatism and religion.

Women, who may develop a greater degree of emotional intelligence to men because of the status they have been subordinated to by prevailing cultures over thousands of years, have had to be more dynamic in their thinking as a result, with their subordination inclining them instinctively toward a desire for greater freedom, and thus a break with the traditions of the past.

Institutional religions, in contrast, which claim to be the "light of the world," have been dominated mostly by men who seem mostly interested in leading women back to their station, as if women were sheep who had strayed too far from the flock, or domesticated farm animals who had broken free from their barn. Why else do you think women have been for so long excluded from the highest positions of teaching and power in most religions? 

Men who think themselves smarter than women, on the other hand, appear to have a preference for tradition. And mostly because those traditions have always shown a preference for them.  

Men favor tradition, in other words, because the only evidence they have for believing they are smarter than women, is the dominance they have always enjoyed throughout most of recorded history. And that's not only why they can't see what an utter disaster history has truly been with them at the helm, but also why men think so highly of "the good old days," and devote themselves to the veneration and necromancy of the ideas of the dead, as if it were a religion that all men must practice to "prove" their masculinity.

For them, the future is a seductress of deception, daring us with new knowledge, perspectives, and ideas, while the past  is as  fixed as the North Star and as sturdy as a cross, upon which has always hung anyone who dares to question the status quo.  The "real man" sees John Wayne as a hero and Walt Whitman as a heretic; one he worships like Jesus Christ and the other he fears like the devil.