Warning: food for thought.
I was deeply dissatisfied with my final post of the year and figured I’d slapdash together something that is more intellectually stimulating, in a similar vein. It’s only mildly controversial if you’re interested in labels over substance.
“When women act like women, they are accused of being inferior. When women act like human beings, they are accused of behaving like men.”
Does that sound like a healthy civilization with any longevity?
What happened to all the meritocratic arguments to incentivize contributions in capitalist theory?
So we can accept racial differences and class differences and national differences and age differences but sex differences you can prove in a scanner or under a microscope are evil (well if God made…) and we must all be the same (the male standard is also shit) in misery and behavioural equality, the neuroscience be damned? Is that the world you want, putting power trip fantasies aside?
No society with catch 22s will survive, let alone thrive.
There must be two paths: to do, and to not do. There must be clear praise and condemnation and no blurring between those paths. No muddying the waters or blurring it for certain people. Either a thing is right or wrong, unless you are a moral relativist and then you believe in neither, for they’re absolute concepts.
The logic between sexes must be consistent also, it is no more right for a woman to steal than a man (Ten Commandments shout-out). It is no more moral for a man to assault, as they do, mathematically. Naturalistic fallacy is not an excuse, we are all biological and still retain the human quality of impulse control.
At the least, we ought.
We can uplift both sexes in a society without oppressing anyone. The technology exists now, where most of us can probably live in leisure most of the week. If we discussed it and developed it, i.e., cooperated together for mutual betterment! Where did you get the idea oppression has limits? It can’t be historical… Wealth is the hard cap but aside from that, men won’t be spared the same societal factors women would live under.
e.g. Employed singles of either sex still pay for the living of feckless breeders and the spawn without limit.
Misogyny is prominent when rich men wish to evade their intrasexual responsibilities and do so by blaming the women.
You can’t appreciate your fellows? Well, we don’t have a future then. Darwin always wins, darlings. Think of the tribe, we are not atomized, lonely individuals like the 20th century tries to force down our throats.
Where it exists, oppression spreads. Sadists work that way. It’s a betrayal whoever is on the receiving end, these circumstances predate our birth. Nobody living is fully responsible for this system, another red herring.
If we spent a little of our time wasted on the Third World that doesn’t want to change on improving our own lot, imagine what could be achieved. Immigration and multiculturalism are a deliberate ruse to throw off our resources, especially time, into establishing what used to be a norm. We’re stuck playing catch-up and tempers fray, stressed we lash out at the in-group, worsening our collective condition. It is no coincidence we replaced child labour with female. The economy will take its pound of flesh, I suggest we do robots instead of adult people. Society cannot ever again be ignorant of the female potential exemplified around the 1940s but bursting in brief lights long before. Can we afford to turn away our own kin for something minor as not being exactly like the current leaders, who, by the way, are clearly doing such a bang-up job of running things, aren’t they? /s
Do the foolish deserve to fail in any good society? How to deal with their complaints?
Failing men (and women) will complain about it. They’ll say the competition is wrong.
Obviously they will, never before have the dregs had such a loud voice. Nobody else has time to protest that much or write such long blog posts. ~glances at viewer and nods~ The antisocial and envious must be constrained from infecting everyone else like the emotional vampires they are.
They live better than Henry the Bloody Eighth. Prisoners do too. We are the grandiose brats of modern history. To compare farther back is sickening.
Again, there is no need to ban the un-competitive, they simply fall away in a fair contest. It’s obscure to claim a barrier, arbitrarily, in equal opportunity theory, either they misunderstand it or argue in bad faith.
Good for whites, bad for whites, you all say? We have a word for it, prosocial or antisocial. Use the proper terms, the Left will not. Accuracy is our strong suit.
If you only read male philosophers, sorry, but you haven’t read the subject. This isn’t like novels where they’re basically all the same, you get a pass on that for preference. Still, I didn’t skip out on male poets because that would’ve been sexist, you should be fascinated to hear the other side of humanity to which you may never belong. Unless a person really can change their sex? ….Thought not.
Violent crime statistics. MRI studies of psychopathy. Appeal to history (which cannot be demonstrated when called upon, because it never existed in fact, it was a helpful societal myth from around the Enlightenment era). Concepts like Patriarchy are unfalsifiable both ways. However, when I see Husband Selling like they’re subhuman chattel, I might believe in a Matriarchy. If you whine, do it with a smidgen of self-awareness?
Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud and a little bit of Nietzsche.
If you had a loving wife and children, you wouldn’t feel the need to rage at wombs.
Do you want us to try equally hard (effort) or are we allowed to be lazy, pick ONE.
Don’t give us shit for doing as you asked us to…?
That left-side of the bell curve… we all have stories, men don’t really think twice about it though. The sexual prevalence of obnoxious people doesn’t strike them, which is convenient and annoying.
Maybe we need studies.
They don’t even notice the abundance of Men Doing Stupid Shit stories in the newspapers, it’s like a goldfish noticing water. You don’t get to pin a badge on your chest reading Accomplished because you have a Y-chromosome. Arrogance is a male quality in all the myths for a reason, men over-estimate themselves in studies vastly more frequently. Arrogance is not esteem, far from it, nowadays it’s called narcissism. Men need to be the slightly simpler sex, because otherwise they’d have never taken the stupid risks to survive once kicked out of the tribe at the time they hit majority age (otherwise incestuous rape with female relations was a possibility, plus they needed to find a mate by travelling to other local tribes and passing their tests). Shall we bring back that rite of passage, if we want strong men again? You can’t have strength of character without the fatally high stakes that turn boys into men. Courage and stupidity are blurred but while shouting about the former, they literally deny the latter…. which rather suffices to prove our point.
Relevant so included. The mediocre ones are easier to control/rescue from life-risking stupidity that ends up ruining your whole family along with their misplaced sense of arrogance. Other men used to check them in youth but that isn’t happening soon. Average evolved as a sexual preference.
Original form of “the map is not the territory”.
It’s strange they’ll go on about Rand but only the economics and ignore De Beauvoir’s existentialism.
By strange I mean completely intellectually dishonest.
Arguments from bad faith, a certain moral cowardice common in young men at present.
Maybe some slice of laziness where they assume there’s nothing worth reading, but recall, they aren’t misogynists, somehow…
Well, if that prejudiced disdain of anything female isn’t a misogynist, what is?
She pre-empted Dawkin’s Selfish Gene: “Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying.” If you care so much for truth, why not credit? It’s also a sweeping condemnation of hedonism.
If quoting a woman makes you feel insecure, women aren’t the weaker sex.
A little on metrics before I go.
Once the priming effect and other systemic, proven problems in all academic testing are accounted for, women are beginning to score objectively better than men on the blind-marked IQ test.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. HBD doesn’t tell you what you like, it tells you what is possible.
The narrow definitions of IQ have never been legitimate, and this goes for verbal, for instance, that women score better on overall. It’s a global metric of all-round functioning as ‘g’ or invalid to be counted as the theoretical construct.
IQ is originally a learning ability test and since learning requires obedient following of instructions, you would expect women to do better on it. Learning is feminine-oriented, as an activity. It isn’t a marker of human superiority the way America has tried to make a genius idolatry a form of hero worship over Hollywood. There are no ‘celebrities for smart people’, scientism is old. The Hollywood people actually have to do something – other than exist?
Paper genius is bullshit. They sell the official piece of paper to ditzy parents.
However, IQ and other metrics correlate to life outcomes, it is useful scientifically.
Identification (with celebrities) should inspire you to act, not live vicariously like a stage Mom but claiming involvement in the glamours of STEM work (anyone can get involved, go clean test tubes).
Wilson: “And a second very big question is, since, women are as intelligent as men, or more so, why did feminism take so long, historically, to get started?”
That one is easy, compulsory schooling about 150 years ago, universities places about 60-80 years ago, in living memory women were forbidden from competing fairly. He goes on to make the classic error of assuming men haven’t changed too. They don’t try at school, porn is a distraction during school years and schools are mixed when evidence says that reduces scores. A blend of exam and coursework is best, not to avoid favour – although this too – but because the more metrics of knowledge, the better the qualification in the market.
And isn’t that the point? These aren’t vanity academics.
Boys were pulled off the farms in the middle ages in the first schools, same boom of intellectual achievement happened then too… since it pre-empts the mythical Enlightenment time period, atheists do not wish to discuss that priests might’ve done something right, to the collective denial of male work ethic and social mobility. The middle class sprang up and families were liberated.
Simone on the decline:
“Whatever the country, capitalist or socialist, man was everywhere crushed by technology, made a stranger to his own work, imprisoned, forced into stupidity. The evil all arose from the fact that he had increased his needs rather than limited them; . . . As long as fresh needs continued to be created, so new frustrations would come into being. When had the decline begun?
The day knowledge was preferred to wisdom and mere usefulness to beauty. . . . Only a moral revolution – not a social or political revolution – only a moral revolution would lead man back to his lost truth.”
You don’t read this stuff, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Remember the original feminists objected to the idea that former slaves would be treated better than them, relatives of the men drafting the laws with demonstrable intellect and accomplishments. It has a history soaked in race realism. We can pick and choose the structures from history that suited us best then and apply now. Nobody is doing this. The scientific approach. Machiavelli would be disappointed.
I hope Odin brings you plenty of shiny Asian-produced crap this year.
It’ll break by February, much like my patience on the topics that are life/death to conceited white people. We are all human and all flawed and all riding in the same, sinking boat.
This is a post I’m proud of.
“Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth.” Sartre, her lover.