Tag: women

A degree in unicorn riding

Maureen Dowd argues for more female fantasy in education:

Time for a curriculum overhaul. Young men everywhere must be taught, beyond platitudes, that young women are not prey.

Regardless of whether you are a materialist or a dualist, whether you believe Man is driven by his evolved genes or his fallen nature, you should be able to recognize the abject stupidity of Dowd’s plaintive assertion. Young women ARE the prey of young men… in fact they are their primary prey. Dowd might as reasonably call for teaching cats everywhere that birds are not prey.

And the sooner that a young woman learns that she is prey, the better her chances become of avoiding an undesirable fate.

Less work, less pay

This chart on sex self-segregation by the clock shows the primary reason women make less money than men.  They harbor a strong disinclination for work outside of normal working hours.  This is concomitant with the research that has shown women work fewer hours per week on average than men.  The excuse that it is “for the children” doesn’t fully account for the gap since there are only around 35 million American households with children under 18 vs 72 million American women in the labor force.  Moreover, it is a feeble excuse; an employer doesn’t care why a woman isn’t working, if she’s not working then obviously he shouldn’t have to pay her.

Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with women putting their children’s interests ahead of maximizing their income-earning potential.  Putting children before Powerpoint is an excellent choice and in my opinion, more women should work fewer hours and spend more time ensuring the viability of the human race.  The enlightened employer who offers the greatest amount of time flexibility to his female employees will usually find himself benefiting from a higher quality of women willing to work for him.  On the other hand, it is absurd to insist that having children is not a choice, that an employer is to blame for the life choices that his employees happen to make, or that there should be no negative consequences to one’s paycheck when one is working less than other employees.

Let them fend for themselves

Unsurprisingly, some women are upset that most people are inclined to stay out of a domestic dispute, especially if the woman is lower class:

Last night, ABC used hidden cameras and actors to see what regular people would do if they saw an obviously abused woman being harassed by her boyfriend. A lot of regular people failed the test.

Failed the test? I’d say they passed it, assuming that the test is of their intelligence. Only a white knighting gamma or a clueless fool doesn’t know that many women are aficionados of the “let’s you and him fight” game. If I don’t know the couple involved, there is very little chance that I am going to risk injury or jail on behalf of a woman with a taste for the thug life. And since women are so strong and independent these days, why should they expect help from anyone of either sex? I respect the right of women to not only make their own decisions, but also to experience the full consequences of those decisions.

This isn’t to say I have never intervened in a violent situation. If I happen to know the people involved and understand the situation, I will consider escalating the level of violence without warning to bring the situation to a close. An acquaintance once punched his girlfriend in the jaw right in front of me; she was a friend of mine who had previously dated one of my best friends. So, I immediately bounced his face off a nearby brick wall. Twice. However, to be honest, I have to admit that I had always disliked the guy and it is entirely possible that my reaction was less white knightly and more opportunistic.

Anyhow, the point is that you should never get involved in a violent situation unless you intervene without warning and with a conclusive level of violence. Unless the situation CLEARLY and ABSOLUTELY justifies you incapacitating the assailant without warning, stay completely out of it. Don’t posture, don’t lecture, and don’t white knight. It’s not your business and you really don’t want to end up like the Hispanic guy who was killed trying to help a woman who couldn’t even bother to call for help for her rescuer.

This doesn’t mean that one must suffer the interruption to one’s dinner, of course. Etiquette demands that one clear one’s throat, lean over, and say: “My dear man, I could not possibly care less what sort of gorilla sex games the two of you happen to enjoy, but unless this is part of the scheduled dinner theatre, I would be most appreciative if you would throttle your woman outside the premises, thank you very much.”

Whaling and the drama queens

Once victimhood is sanctified, all the attention whores desperately want to be a victim. Hence all the dramatics about near-rape and semi-rape from silly stupid, young women who desperately want to suffer without actually suffering in order to impress their peers.

Sex does not require an annotated request and positive affirmation.  If it did, then the vast majority of sex that has occurred in the history of the human race has been rape.  Men are not mindreaders, so until the human race evolves telepathic communication, “he should have known better” is a risible justification for crying rape.  Or near-rape.  Or semi-rape.

She is certainly free to consider it semi-rape, if she wants.  Just as we are free consider her a silly, stupid, drama queen.  It’s not as if men never scream NO!!!!! inside either, the difference is that men are sufficiently self-aware to realize that they have no one to blame but themselves.  What women call semi-rape is nothing more than what men call beer goggles.

Watch Oprah, mostly

In which a decades-old question is answered:

In her own writings, Mosher was acutely aware of her foresight, and of the possibilities that lay ahead for women once sex became less of a secret and gender less of a burden. “Born into a world of unlimited opportunity, the woman of the rising generation will answer the question of what woman’s real capacities are,” Mosher wrote in 1923. “She will have physical, economic, racial and civic freedom. What will she do with it?”

My suspicion is that the men of my generation and the following one have a far lower opinion of “woman’s real capacities” than the men of Mosher’s generation did. Mostly because we have the advantage of seeing what women have done with the physical, economic, racial, and civic freedom that Mosher anticipated: Twilight, Oprah, Girls Gone Wild, Prohibition/War on Drugs, and the current debt/GDP ratio pretty much covers it.

No amount of male cynicism could possibly have anticipated a post-patriarchal world in which female professors would utilize their astrophysics degrees in order to teach lesbianism in Hindu film as part of a Women’s Studies program. The moment of that fortuitous discovery, for which I will always be deeply grateful to my interlocutor at the time, Mr. John Scalzi, was the precise one at which my loathing for feminism transformed into a genuine appreciation for the vast amount of intrinsic humor it offers. And the more I have learned about the history of feminism, the more I read about the optimistic hopes and dreams of its antecedents and activists, the more amusing its absurd reality has become.

What he said

I’ve told you this before. But the Dark Lord articulated it better:

CR Maxim #57: Never trust a woman’s advice on how to please women. Her advice is designed for alpha men she already finds attractive and from whom she seeks signals of attainability and commitment.

It’s vital to understand that women have pretty bright lines regarding who they find attractive and who they do not. You’re placed in one category or the other in the first five seconds. And while it’s always possible to make yourself less attractive to a woman, there is virtually nothing you can do to make yourself more attractive to a woman except to be seen dating a woman who is more attractive than she is.

No sympathy

Given the present anti-father legal regime, why would any man feel any pity whatsoever for this clueless British mother who signed custody of her son away to her dead husband’s relatives?

Rebecca Jones signed legal papers written in Arabic and witnessed by her dead husband’s family – believing they were about an inheritance for her boy Adam. But instead the documents gave full custody to 77-year-old Mariam Al Madhaiki – who immediately swept the frightened child away from Rebecca and enrolled him in an Islamic school in Qatar. Last week, to Rebecca’s dismay, Sharia judges in the Middle East state THREW OUT her appeal to win him back after a seven-month battle – despite Adam sobbing in court: “I want my mother.”

The judges ruled she can see her son twice a week for just FOUR HOURS, supervised by cops in a room. Now the 43-year-old mum from Sheffield is going to the High Court to try to get justice over what she calls a “kidnap”.

“I was tricked into it. This is completely against the rights of my child and me as his mother,” she said.

So she lost custody of her son. Boo freaking hoo. Precisely how is that any worse than what happens every single day to men who are divorced by their wives, robbed of their children, and stripped of their assets? At least she had the option to NOT sign a contract she couldn’t read in a foreign country and she still gets to see him every week. Moreover, she doesn’t have to foot the bill for his expenses or the lifestyle of her in-laws either.

Notice the tone of the article. Newspapers don’t even bother to report on men losing their children because it happens so often and it is something that many journalists outright support. But if a mother loses custody of her child, then naturally it must be grounds for an international incident.

To be honest, I have zero sympathy for any Western woman who is foolish enough to get romantically involved with an Arab man these days regardless of how the relationship eventually implodes. The difference between Western and Middle Eastern legal and marital norms have been well known for at least two decades now, so there’s no excuse for claiming one didn’t know about them. And of course they all act charmingly modernized at first, it’s not as if anyone was ever likely to get a date riding around on a camel shrieking “death to the infidel!”

Wake up and smell the depression

Some silly and formerly-rich women clearly do not understand the dynamic nature of investments:

Michelle Young was supposed to face her estranged husband Scot in the High Court this week, but has had to postpone the hearing while she finds further funding. For the last three years, the couple has been embroiled in a bitter fight over his alleged multi-million pound fortune which she says he is hiding and he claims he no longer exists.

Last December, Mr Young was ordered by the court to pay his wife £27,500 a month pending their divorce settlement but he has since been declared bankrupt. At their last court appearance, Mrs Young said she was down to her last £13,000 of savings and owes £660,000 in unpaid legal fees.

The guy has been declared bankrupt. The money is gone. Clearly his creditors understand this, so what sort of cretin finds it hard to grasp the concept? You don’t make £400 million without leverage, so it’s not at all hard to figure out where the money went. Profit by the leverage, die by the margin call.

A question for equalitarians

David Stove raises an interesting point:

In the past almost everyone, whether man or woman, learned or unlearned, believed the intellectual capacity of women to be inferior to that of men. Even now this is, I think, the belief of most people in most parts of the world. In this article my main object is simply to remind the reader of what the evidence is, and always was, for this old belief, and of how strong that evidence is.

An opposite belief has become widely current in the last few years, in societies like our own: the belief that the intellectual capacity of women is on the whole equal to that of men. If I could, I would discuss here the reasons for the sudden adoption by many people of this opinion. But I cannot, because I have not been able to find any reasons for it, as distinct from causes of it. The equality-theory (as I will call it) is not embraced on the grounds of any startling facts which have only lately come to light. It is not embraced on the grounds of some old familiar facts which have been misunderstood until lately. It is not embraced, as far as I can see, on any grounds at all, but from mere prejudice and passion. If you ask people, “What evidence is there for the equality-theory?”, you do not get an answer (though you are likely to get other things). Rather, the question is felt to be somehow improper, morally or intellectually, and is thought not to deserve any answer.

I do not know why it should be thought so. The question is a perfectly proper one morally and intellectually, and should not be hard to answer. That men and women have the same intellectual capacity is not, after all, a self-evident proposition, like (say) “7 + 5 = 12” nor is it something just obvious, like (say) the sun’s rising in the east. So if it is rational to believe it, there must be evidence for it: facts which lead to it by good reasoning. But where is that evidence to be found?

I have to admit, this does make me curious. So, here’s a question for the equalitarian readers here. Why do you believe that the intellectual capacity of women is equal to that of men? What evidence has convinced you that this is, in fact, the case? Alternatively, if you happen believe that the intellectual capacity of women is superior to that of men, what evidence has caused you to conclude that men have an inferior intellectual capacity?

I have to admit, I have never, ever understood any aspect of equalitarianism, except of course as a rhetorical and ideological device or legal pretense. There are so many differences between two individuals of identical genetic inheritage that I marvel at the notion that there is even any possibility of material equality between two individuals or two groups of individuals. So, if you do genuinely believe in the intellectual equality of the sexes, here is your opportunity to educate me.

Now, it must be pointed out that a greater intellectual capacity is not necessarily a good thing, either for the individual or for the world around him. The world would have been a much better place had Lenin been born with an IQ of 85, for example. And there is copious evidence that financial success is more reliably achieved by those who do not possess the greatest cognitive capacity. But because it is considered a desirable thing, this tends to pollute the discourse with a whole host of emotional detritus. Nevertheless, the evidence is what it is, regardless of how you, me, or anyone else happens to feel about it.

The Madness Season cometh

The harsh and unforgiving realities of history, economics, sociobiology, mathematics, and socionomics are all pointing firmly to the same conclusion:

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation…. an alpha cock carousel that spins relentlessly until society crumbles under the weight of declining productive native population, rising orc horde populations, and wildings by all those fatherless bastard boys raised by empowered single moms.

It’s all so clear as day and yet our so-called smarties continue jabbering about comparative advantage, relationship complementarity, and immigration-fueled cheap chalupas. It’s funny until the pleasurecrats and statusticians have no gated communities left in which to escape.

And then it’s hilarious.

It is interesting to see how an intelligent observer who has chosen a very different path than I have, personally, professionally, and philosophically, has been noting precisely the same problems at work in the decline of the West. I pay far less attention to the whys and wherefores of the feminist utopia than others who recognize its destructive, dystopian nature, but my background in economics has given me the ability to see how just how fragile is the foundation that momentarily supports it. But the Dark Lord’s choice is to toast marshmallows as Rome burns whereas I prefer to plant seeds in the hope of an eventual rebirth of civilization. Now, nothing goes straight up or straight down; the pre-Greece optimism is a perfect example of Wave 2 optimism that we will see, again and again, amidst the long march to a bottom that will probably not take place for decades, or if we are unfortunate, centuries.

But even if global civilization collapses, pockets of civilization will survive. The Church will survive. God’s grand experiment will continue. That is why I have concluded that despair and nihilism, even the hedonistic nihilism of the sort that the Dark Lord expounds, is not the answer.