Tag: women

Mailvox: women in science

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen if you put a selection of intelligent, not very attractive women in amongst the biggest collection of gamma males in the known universe:

I’m a STEM worker, at a research lab. Lots of females have come through here. Increasingly more over the years. I have to say that most of them are coasters. Let’s face it, I’m dealing with a LOT of socially challenged men here. This is NERD CENTRAL.

The girls are VERY adept at getting the guys to do the heavy lifting for them. And, they are even more adept at establishing social networks beyond the ken of anything your standard issue STEM male could possibly comprehend.

This has led to some very interesting situations.

But, on the whole, the women in my 17-year history with this lab have caused FAR more problems than they have solved.

Of course, there is the odd exception, when you find a female scientist or engineer who is an absolute treasure. They DO exist.

But they represent a very small percentage of the women coming through here. And the chaos caused by all the other women makes one wonder if they are worth it.

Sad to say. VERY sad to say. C’mon we WANT HOT SEXY BABES WORKING HERE! WE ARE A LEGION OF GEEKS!

First, these women are naturally going to be inclined to make up for lost time in enjoying their high relative SMV for the first time in their lives. Second, it’s going to be the cheerleader/geek homework scenario writ large. Third, women are going to take over and rule the administration and HR, and promptly steer the organizations in the direction that happens to be of interest to them, which may or may not have anything to do with either a) science, or, b) the nominal purpose of the organization.

And it will happen every single time. No amount of education or professional training trumps the socio-sexual hierarchy.

The primary contribution any woman can make for science is to stay completely out of it. No matter how good she is, no matter how smart she is, she cannot possibly compensate for the complete devastation and distraction she is going to leave in her wake over the course of her career among the socially and sexually hapless gammas who might have otherwise happily spent decades slaving away in the laboratories.

Reacting to the rage

Life is too short to put up with angry women:

As women hit menopause, they tend to get observably unhappier and angrier. However, Western society no longer permits men to keep middle-aged female anger under control any more than it permits them to restrain young female promiscuity.

Two observations. First, it’s clearly not psychologically healthy behavior: I get heart palpitations and shake. Then I open my mouth without engaging my brain. I shout and use foul language I regret afterwards. It takes me a couple of hours before I can calm down.’

Second, it is milquetoast men who are enabling the self-destructive behavior. As mild-mannered as Jo is volatile, he’s found that the best thing to do is to walk away and let the tantrum burn itself out.

The reason for the behavior is that this is what the unrestrained female psyche looks like.

I used to believe that women civilized men. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that it is more the other way around. Men civilize women, while women incentivize men to pursue civilization.

Western civilization is not compatible with the unrestrained female psyche or the unrestrained male psyche. It requires discipline and a mutually beneficial partnership between the sexes. African culture is the result of the unrestrained female psyche. Arab culture is the result of the unrestrained male psyche.

In any event, it is important for men to understand that repeated conflict-avoidance in the name of smoothing out the relationship is a strategy for failure. Conflict is a necessary aspect of discipline.

Remember, women NEVER LIE about rape

I cannot believe this. I am LITERALLY shaking with rage right now. This woman was RAPED and yet neither her husband nor the police believe her. WOMEN NEVER LIE ABOUT RAPE!

Police say a young woman has lodged a formal complaint that she has been raped – by a Pokemon. She told officers that she had been sexually assaulted by a giant Pokemon in her apartment in the Russian capital city of Moscow.

The married woman, whose name has not been released, had reportedly been playing Pokemon GO before she fell asleep. She claimed that she woke up to find a huge Pokemon lying on top of her body and says it was raping her.

The woman says the Pokemon disappeared when she jumped out of bed – but says the Pokemon GO app on her phone could still detect the same virtual character’s presence on her bed.

She woke up her husband to tell her what had happened who told police officers that he did not believe her and told her to see a psychiatrist. Russian news website Bloknot reports that the police did not believe her either.

If you don’t believe that Pokemon rape is real, you are part of the problem. Pokemon is rape culture.

The myth of female achievement

It’s a little embarrassing when one’s knowledge doesn’t even rise to the level of Wikipedia. While I knew she had a male “co-pilot”, (and assumed that he’d done the takeoff and landing), I had no idea that Amelia Earheart didn’t actually do any flying in her trip across the Atlantic in her landmark “flight”.

After Lindbergh’s amazing feat he was an instant hero.  What he attempted was so astounding that before he even landed there were huge crowds gathered at the intended landing field outside Paris, waiting to see if this unknown airmail pilot from America could pull it off:

    The airfield was not marked on his map and Lindbergh knew only that it was some seven miles northeast of the city. He initially mistook the airfield for some large industrial complex with bright lights spreading out in all directions. The lights were, in fact, the headlights of tens of thousands of cars all driven by eager spectators now caught in “the largest traffic jam in Parisian history.”[55]

    A crowd estimated at 150,000 spectators stormed the field, dragged Lindbergh out of the cockpit, and literally carried him around above their heads for “nearly half an hour”.

This was just the crowd that gathered to see if he could pull it off.  Lindbergh had no radio on board so all the crowd knew was that he had taken off 33 hours prior and was intending to land at that airfield.  After he landed he was an instant worldwide sensation.

    The adulation and celebration of Lindbergh that emerged after the solo Atlantic flight were unprecedented. People were “behaving as though Lindbergh had walked on water, not flown over it.”[64]:17…

    Within a year of his flight, a quarter of Americans (an estimated 30 million) personally saw Lindbergh and the Spirit of St. Louis.[76]

For feminists the idea of a man receiving this much praise and attention was unbearable.  All of the attention given to “Lucky Lindy” created a frantic search for a woman who could be named “Lady Lindy”. This was not a race to see which woman would be the first to prove her mettle, it was a race to change the subject and mark aviation as a feminine space.  This is why all that mattered was that a woman ride in an airplane across the Atlantic, so long as she looked the part.

It is rather remarkable how long women’s “achievements” have been little more than the equivalent of little sister attempting to keep up with big brother. I mean, one would think that at least occasionally a woman would come up with the idea of trying to do something that no one has done before, but apparently imitating men – or even pretending to imitate men – is more important to these Hultgreen-Curie candidates than actually doing anything new.

I’m no Freudian and I think most of his theories are obvious nonsense, but the Hultgreen-Curie types do lend a modicum of credibility to his penis envy hypothesis.

Learning to talk

As a general rule, it’s a terrible mistake to take your lead on communication from actresses:

“Woman in a Meeting” is a language of its own.

It should not be, but it is. You will think that you have stated the case simply and effectively, and everyone else will wonder why you were so Terrifyingly Angry. Instead, you have to translate. You start with your thought, then you figure out how to say it as though you were offering a groveling apology for an unspecified error. (In fact, as Sloane Crosley pointed out in an essay earlier this year, the time you are most likely to say “I’m sorry” is the time when you feel that you, personally, have just been grievously wronged. Not vice versa.)

To illustrate this difficulty, I have taken the liberty of translating some famous sentences into the phrases a woman would have to use to say them during a meeting not to be perceived as angry, threatening or (gasp!) bitchy.

“Give me liberty, or give me death.”
Woman in a Meeting: “Dave, if I could, I could just — I just really feel like if we had liberty it would be terrific, and the alternative would just be awful, you know? That’s just how it strikes me. I don’t know.”

“I have a dream today!”
Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, I just had this idea — it’s probably crazy, but — look, just as long as we’re throwing things out here — I had sort of an idea or vision about maybe the future?”

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, Mikhail, if I could? Didn’t mean to cut you off there. Can we agree that this wall maybe isn’t quite doing what it should be doing? Just looking at everything everyone’s been saying, it seems like we could consider removing it. Possibly. I don’t know, what does the room feel?”

As with most erroneous conclusions, the fault is in the assumptions. “You will think that you have stated the case simply and effectively” is where the problem is. Where the writer, and the actress before her, are wrong is in believing that their feelings about how they have stated the case are conclusive.

In all communication, the primary responsibility lies with the person talking, not the person being addressed. If people regularly misinterpret you, the fault is almost always your fault, not theirs. If women “speaking their opinion” are often perceived as angry, then, assuming they are not angry, it is obvious they are inadvertently or unconsciously sending out signals that are easily misinterpreted as anger.

The problem, I suspect, is that many women have zero self-confidence. That’s why about 50 percent of all individual female products are sold on the basis of claims that they will improve the buyer’s confidence. (The other half concern divulging the secret of an envied woman’s success in looking prettier than the buyer.) And what most people lacking in self-confidence do when they are trying to state their opinion or speak up for themselves is either a) apologize in advance in the manner demonstrated above or b) overcompensate and come off as angry.

It’s absurd to say that women are speaking in this way out of fear of being perceived as Terrifyingly Angry, they are doing so because they are Ridiculously Insecure.

The fact is that if you have to steel yourself and work yourself up to simply stating your opinion, or worse, do so just to cite a straightforward fact, you are almost always going to come off badly. Your behavior and expression will not be consistent with your message. Most of these women who think they are just stating the case simply and effectively would be shocked if they saw a video of themselves doing it and saw their furrowed brows, angry facial expressions, and heard how their voices were raised as if in anger.

Compounding the problem is that the natural solipsism of women combines with that lack of self-confidence so they make it all about themselves. Note how many “I” references there are in the three examples above: nearly four per example. Just to be clear, the normal male response to this rambling “I just feel that I think I should be able to express what I feel is the right thing to do” is “who the fuck cares?”

Women are also more inclined than men to see criticism of an idea they have expressed as personal criticism and react angrily to it. Does someone telling you “that’s a stupid idea” make you angry and feel personally attacked? Well, then you probably ARE angry and your speech and facial expressions accurately reflect that.

Now, I’ve been in more than a few business meetings with women, and certainly some have spoken in a way that I would describe as “Oh Sweet Darwin, get to the fucking point before we evolve into a new species and all of this becomes irrelevant”. But plenty of them speak normally, without either anger or apology, and I’ve noticed that those tend to be the more competent women. No drama, no theatrics, no uptalk, just normal, straightforward communication.

Just talk. It’s not that hard. Stop couching and overcompensating and trying to frame, and foreshadow, and pre-convince, and talk. If you think X, say “I think X.” That’s it. That’s all you have to do. You don’t have to apologize for it or get upset if someone comes back with “I think X is stupid, I think Y.” You think what you think. They think what they think. It’s not a sin or a crime to disagree.

Accountability is abuse

A female officer learns the hard way that holding women accountable is “hostile, unprofessional and abusive”:

A Marine officer who led the service’s only all-female recruit battalion was fired amid complaints of a toxic leadership environment — but her supporters say she was only trying to make the unit better by holding women to tougher standards.

Lt. Col. Kate Germano, the former commanding officer of 4th Recruit Training Battalion at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, was found to be “hostile, unprofessional and abusive,” according to a command investigation obtained by Marine Corps Times. She was relieved for cause on June 30 by Brig. Gen. Terry Williams, Parris Island’s commanding general.

But officers who served with her say she was a blunt reformer who spearheaded efforts to improve recruit training regardless of gender, and that a vocal minority in the battalion undercut her achievements. Germano’s tactics, for example, dramatically improved range qualification rates for female recruits.

The ensuing controversy, some say, provides a glimpse into an ongoing struggle to establish equal standards for male and female Marines at the Corps’ East Coast recruit depot. Now Germano is petitioning lawmakers for redress, saying she was treated unjustly by base leadership. Germano declined to provide additional details about those efforts, due to concerns about protected communications to Congress.

Williams cited a poor command climate and the loss of trust and confidence in Germano’s ability to serve in command, according to a statement that was provided to Marine Corps Times. The command investigation, completed June 25 and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, states that Germano displayed “toxic leadership” by publicly berating and showing contempt for subordinates, bullying Marines and singling them out for under-performance.

On one occasion, the investigation found, she made comments during a sexual assault prevention brief that female Marines interpreted as victim-blaming, leading some to testify that it would make them feel less comfortable reporting a sexual assault within the command.

Germano also “reinforced gender bias and stereotypes” in the minds of her Marines by telling them on several occasions that male Marines would not take orders from them and would see them as inferior if they could not meet men’s physical standards, the investigation found.

Women seem to be very, very uncomfortable with the idea that if you are inferior, you will be regarded as inferior. Apparently the idea is that as long as no one actually refers to someone’s objective inferiority at something, as long as everyone pretends not to notice the inferiority, that magically makes the inferiority disappear.

It’s ridiculous. They’re fucking cargo cultists.

There shouldn’t be female Marines in the first place. But as long as there are, it sounds like Germano is the kind they should want. Unfortunately, it sounds like her expectations of accountability are too masculine for today’s emasculated Corps.

Prediction, the USA is going to be in for some serious military shocks in the relatively near future. Forget the logistical, equipment, and technological advantages, this is not how a first-class military force is maintained.

The bitter harvest of feminism

Cadders explains it in the comments at Alpha Game:

Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

These are genuine threat points for men in the modern world that didn’t exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that’s over now.

So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.

And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.

But you do not need to read ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness’ to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one – not in a group – to get the REAL story. The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don’t give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell, ANY decent man, went.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women.

The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.

And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all – indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.

The time has come to reap the harvest of feminism, and for women the fruit will be bitterest of all.

It’s pretty simple, women. Either abandon feminism or abandon all hope of being wives and mothers. Because men will not abide feminism and you cannot force us to accept it. 70 years of a totalitarian government could not make communism work. And no amount of resorting to State force is going to make a feminist society viable.

Sexism 6x worse than racism

No doubt this disparity in criminal sentencing will be of DEEP concern to our friendly neighborhood SJWs:

After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, “men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do,” and “[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.” This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.

It seems to me that a smart criminal should have the good sense to reduce his risk ratio by finding a woman to be his fall gal.

Saddle up, black knights

There is an easy target of opportunity just waiting to be routed. Destroy those evil women’s-only spaces under a rainbow-colored flag:

A Midland County woman’s gym membership was canceled after she refused to stop telling fellow gym members “a man” was using the woman’s locker room. Yvette Cormier said the incident occurred Saturday, Feb. 28, when she entered the women’s locker room at the Planet Fitness location at 701 Joe Mann Boulevard in Midland.

“I was blocked, because a man was standing there,” Cormier said. “It freaked me out because, why is a man in here?”

Cormier said an employee at the front desk told her that the individual identifies as a woman. After taking her complaints to Planet Fitness’ corporate office, Cormier said she was told that the gym was a “no judgement zone” and they would not tell the individual in question to stay out of the women’s locker room. The person has not been identified.

The slogan “Judgement Free Zone” is regularly used by Planet Fitness.

A statement released by McCall Gosselin, public relations director for Planet Fitness, states that members can use the locker room corresponding with their personal gender identity.

Cormier disagrees with the policy and feels it’s a safety issue.

According to Cormier, she returned to the gym each day between Monday and Thursday. While there, Cormier said she told women in the locker room about the individual she observed in the bathroom the weekend before.

Cormier said she then got a call from Planet Fitness’ corporate office telling her that she was violating their “no judgement” policy. She says they asked if she was going to stop talking to other women in the locker room and she said she would not. Cormier said the representative told her she was no longer welcome at the gym.

The only way men are going to get their spaces back is by demonstrating the lunacy of equalitarianism. If your gym has a “no judgement” policy, tell them you identify as a woman and start using the women’s changing room. Walk around naked and take your time in the steam room and the sauna.

It shouldn’t take too many examples like this to cause women to revolt against feminism and equalitarianism.

Mother up

Society doesn’t need you getting a degree in Communications or Business or Peruvian Basket-weaving. It doesn’t need you getting a STEM degree or learning to program so you can compete with cheap H1B imports from India. Society doesn’t need you working at a local/state/federal government job in order to feed your four cats. Society doesn’t need you “finding yourself” by jumping on the ALPHA carousel for ten years, then jumping off and trying to stick the landing with BETA in the three-year fertility window you’ve left yourself. Society doesn’t need you trying to prove you’re just as good as a low-performing, ineffectual man. Society needs you to be a) a woman, b) a wife, and c) a mother.

Back in 2004 the never-married rate for 25-29 year old White women was
just under 37%, a number which remained roughly the same from
2002-2005.  Now less than half of all White women in their late 20s have
ever married.

When I first started charting this
the most recent data was from 2009.  At the time, I didn’t see
compelling data backing up the notion that men were on a marriage
strike.  I’m still not convinced
that a “marriage strike” describes what we are seeing, but with five
years of additional data it is obvious that we are undergoing a
significant change in marriage patterns.

That whole shiny secular equalitarian society that the feminists assured you was right around the corner isn’t real; it is less real and less functional than the It’s A Small World ride at Disneyland. You’re not going to be president, you’re not going to be an astronaut, and no one needs you to be a soldier, a fireman, or a policeman.

Your future family needs you to be what you were created to be. A mother. And women know it, or so many of them wouldn’t be zonked out of their greying gourds on psychotropic drugs in order to mask their dissatisfaction living life as ersatz men. The disease known as “women’s rights” is literally killing women.

The math simply doesn’t work. I know it’s hard, Barbie, but run the damn numbers if you don’t believe me. How are 0.75 male college graduates going to marry every female college graduate? Considering that men tend to prefer to marry less educated women, there isn’t even one potential husband for every two of you. And if you think those of us who are married and have children are going to tell our children to support your saggy barren asses in old age, well, think again. The world of equalitarian feminism is a nightmare world for women, a world of loneliness, drugs, deprivation, and solitary death.

It’s time to stop pushing young women into college, stop pushing them into pretending that they’re going to have careers, stop encouraging them to jump on the carousel, and start telling them to mother up.