Link: Overselling Patriarchy

It isn’t the All Man dominate All Womankind scenario the feminists try to paint, it’s a complex system of traditional social exchanges for the mutual benefit of most, if not all. The people who go with the SJW Woman’s-Only Apocalypse view aren’t selling Patriarchy at all, much like atheists who try to flaunt it as an anti-belief belief system. Oxymorons. There’s a reason we conceive government as a man and justice as a woman. Both sexes are needed to bring balance to the Force, whether you think it’s divine or evolution.

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/03/overselling-patriarchy.html#more

A portion of the Alt Right continues to believe in these ad hoc virtues. And many of these ad hoc virtues are true, just not true enough to justify Patriarchy. Let us look at few examples:

Women are so much less rational than men that, for the good of society, they should be denied all political and economic power.

Don’t be such a drama queen! I agree that, on average, men have slightly more logical minds than women. Researchers are divided on the existence of gender differences in intelligence, but even those who support the notion that men are smarter find that the gap is no more than 5 IQ points.

My God the man knows his stuff.

Such a pleasant change.

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

So what? Is the plan to confine all social and political power to the smartest 1%? Then why discriminate based on sex? Why not just ask prospective voters to take an IQ test or solve a Sudoku puzzle?

Bravo and good tidings

That would a meritocracy, Sir. They don’t want that. They want to punch down as males, terrified of other men, and in their mind, that means rhetorically punching down at women. They’re a male supremacy movement as vapid as the feminists. Besides, they’re the first to complain women succeeding in any form of academia are useless in the real-world, and IQ is an academic measure of intellect. It has little real-world value, few billionaires and businessmen would score well. Like any test, it implicitly tests for the ability to sit down, shut up, passively take in information and regurgitate it. I don’t think we require that in more political leaders, thank you.

Discrimination based on anything other than merit is wrong. They’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Merit is such a flexible metric it applies to any situation.

It is true that men are over-represented at both the high- and low-ends of cognitive ability, but again, the difference is nothing compared to the racial gap.

hallelujah

That’s all I ever wanted on this topic, a simple admission of the comparative data. Yes, there are sex differences, I’m first to admit, but those are as nothing compared to race, as you’d logically presume since autosomes outnumber sex chromosomes. I’ve heard people trying to pass themselves off as Alt Right deny this evidence as a terrible case of racism (really, just like the SJWs). The male/female divide can be accounted for by error or chance. The racial divide is so crystal cut (localized evolution ftw), that if you don’t believe in it, you cannot have understood the data. Pointing and shrieking about the exceptions like a White Knight is an error too, because group patterns don’t apply to individual cases. Judging individuals based on group membership conclusively is doomed from the start, it isn’t open-minded or scientific. But when women (like myself) tried to point out that it is, for instance, merely possible for a random woman to be high IQ (because the data says so) I got shouted down, when I was pointing out a logical fallacy and the fact outliers exist. Anyone making conclusive value judgements (and being the closed-minded type of judgemental) about a huge group with such wide variance is an idiot. Prejudice is useful for limited predictions, for groups, and they’re never conclusive, however, when you have case-specific information, that is primary and the rest of the group is meaningless, unless you’re a literal bigot and see the nominal group as something inherently shameful (sex, race, pick a poison to harp about), whatever merit (or other dominant factor) you claim to care about.

I would quote more but I’d feel bad keeping the traffic.
As for intellectual curiosity, it’s almost impossible to define. What most people assume, the learning of random facts as a mode of procrastination, is not it. It’s a trade-off between curiosity and perseverance. Like an RPG, nobody has maxed out all their levels.

Some comments intelligently go into the SJW (Cultural Marxist) tactic of Divide and Conquer. If you wanted to weaken and kill white men (Western Civ’s Patriarchs) who would you divide him against? His women of course! And then he’ll commit cultural (women hold the moral standard) and genetic suicide! Total obliteration. Accusations of White Knighting are common but nobody is saying to defend the outgroup, it defines ingroup in genetic terms (for life, mother AND father, and a future) rather than lesser identity politics (distractions). You don’t have to defend anyone, but everybody will remember the male cowards, who they are and they won’t be flooded by offers once this is over, put it that way. Men used to wish for moments to prove their valour and today’s Metrosexual Male Chickens–ts scurry away like Pajama Boys as if taking a punch is a fate worse than death. Women are attracted to men who protect them, as they keep reminding us yet refusing to act upon, saying it’s …weak (how Orwellian, strength is weak). Arm the women then, if you’re too scared to perform your precious gender role, and we might have a hope in Hell of defending ourselves.

This comment was gold and I reproduce it in full hoping the author will forgive me.

No no, this is all wrong – we’re supposed to blame girls for all of our problems. It wasn’t the jews who ruined us, it was the mean ol’ girls, including those yet to be born. Some people don’t know this, but George Soros is actually a white girl in an elaborate disguise. Tim Wise is also a mean ol’ white girl. All of the great villains and traitors of Western history were actually white girls, like Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Morganthau and Lazar Kaganovich. Hollywood, the porn industry, and global finance are all in the tight grip of these horrible white girls. Clearly, the men of every race should unite and stand as one against white girls. We should join forces with turks, negroes, chinamen, jews, hindus and homosexuals against these infernal white girls.

There have been some suggestions that we follow our own cultural traditions with regard to gender roles and relations. These people have gone so far as to suggest that we show kindness toward women, and that we should protect them from rape and abuse by foreigners. These people are called white knights and cock-blockers. Anglo-Saxon culture is especially white-knighty and we should discard it for the much better traditions of sub-saharan Africa. Africans know a woman’s place: to be a beast of burden, duh! Negroes are such alpha-males, they know what life is all about – muh dick.

As we all know, young white girls are notorious time-travelers; they like to slip into time machines and travel back to the 1960’s where they conspire with radical feminists to destabilize Western culture. It’s only logical, therefore, that we hold these treacherous time-travelers responsible for the damage that feminism has caused. And don’t do anything stupid like fall in love with a pretty girl, marry her and make a bunch of cherubic little blue-eyed babies. That’s beta-male stuff. No, if you have to deal with beastly females, make sure it’s an oriental; unlike mean ol’ white girls, these chinese types don’t have any feministy hangups and will gratefully accept sexual advances from any quarter, the way it should be.

The key feminists and SJWs aren’t white, they’re Jewish.
Will the ever-logical ‘men’ admit this? Nope. It requires decisive action, that’s too masculine for them.
Continue to deny the data, and be comfy in your little safe space where wimminz are the evil. I think those misogynists are so virulent because the (naturally more attractive) white women reject them.

Inferior v Superior People

Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

They are anti-evolution, in my opinion. Especially the evolution of humans (a SPECIES, not a ‘race’) and our psyche. They want the power of an adult with none of the responsibilities, an intellectualized infantilisation exercise. ( narcissist r-types: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/where-modern-r-amygdalae-meet-ancient-k-amygdalae/ ) They are calling for a cull, a genocide on a racial level (beige people) but on an intellectual, emotional plane as well. Giftedness genocide, I think of it, much like mass immigration is a form of cultural cuckoldry, they wish to use humanity as the melting pot and petri dish for their ideology, they’re more authoritarian than Hitler. They are naïve enough of biological determinism (they refuse it exists, honestly, ask them) to expect humans are tabula rasa and can be totally rewritten. They don’t want to simply kill people (#killallmen) they wish to do something far worse – strip us of our humanity and individuality. Evolved differences? Let’s scrub those nasty things away with science! and play God. #Frankenstein

Communists fail when they misunderstand human motivation. Reaction formation, idiots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment Behavioural psychology, conditioning, feedback and response loops IN THE BRAIN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy#Narcissists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

One of the most common examples is a woman who is envious of another’s beauty, such as in the fairy tale “Snow White“, in which the Queen is envious of Snow White’s youth and beauty, and seeks to kill the young woman in order to once again be the “fairest of them all”. ~ anti-feminism propaganda before it was a thing

Human value is relative to the competition. In bowing to the Third World from fake white guilt, the Original Sin of Whiteness, they become the slaves to the people outcompeting them for those plum jobs, even in STEM. They are losers whining about the need for a social species to rank by hierarchy because in each category they fail.

As I said in a ROQ article, social justice is anti-social revenge.

“Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful.” ~ Mason Cooley

They have what used to be called vainglory, and it is futile. It attempts to bring down others by falsely boosting the self. Identity politics.

On the other hand, I’m still pissed off with Cappy for this one he did while I was off demurely sipping tea –

Psychology has 3 problems

1. liars are allowed to push their politics i.e. feminist psychology, really. It exists. We acknowledge the problem and are presently pulling out the SJW weeds. http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/5/504.abstract

2. aimless idiots are allowed in and prefer soft course material over brutal reality aka science. (I believe this is the bone of contention).

3. anything claiming to be psychology is considered it. Most of the present material is a liberal art but it’s tarring the real scientists with that brush to say it’s a stupid subject when there are highly scientific branches vital to an aging population (neurology, gerontology) and our technological needs (computational neuroscience, possibly AGI).

The Rosy View bias on meritocracy

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/10/the-rosy-view-bias.html
Full;

How much does merit contribute to success? A rosy view is that success is mostly due to merit, while a dark view is that success is mostly not due to merit, but instead due to what we see as illicit factors, such as luck, looks, wit, wealth, race, gender, politics, etc.

Over a lifetime people gain data on the relation between success and merit. And one data point stands out most in their minds: the relation between their own success and merit. Since most people see themselves as being pretty meritorious, the sign of this data point depends mostly on their personal success. Successful people see a rosy view, that success and merit are strongly related. Unsuccessful people see a dark view, that success and merit are only weakly related.

No waste of space, lazy parasite ever likes to be called that.
Ego.

In addition, successful people tend to know other successful people, and people tend to think their associates are also meritorious. So the other data points around people tend to confirm their own data point. The net result is that older people tend to have more data on the relation between merit and success, with successful people seeing a rosy view, and unsuccessful people seeing a darker view.

No such thing as equality of outcomes unless under fascism.

Since the distribution of success is quite skewed, most older people see a darker view. However, that dark majority doesn’t get heard much. Most of the people who are heard, such as reporters, authors, artists, professors, managers, etc., see rosy views, as they tend to be both older and successful.

Or nobody likes to read about failure, you have nothing to learn from those people.

Also, most people prefer to look successful, and so they prefer to look like they’ve seen a rosy view. Even if they haven’t, at least not yet. And a good way to look like you believe something is to actually believe it, even if your evidence doesn’t support it so much.

In sum, we expect the people we hear to be biased toward saying and believing a rosy view of the relation between success and merit. Of course that might be good for the world, if a realistic view would lead to too much envy and conflict. But it would still be a biased view.

We have that realistic negative view and all it does is cause societal unrest. Stupid kids thinking they’ll be the next big thing on reality TV because it’s always been their dream. I dunno about you, but dreams aren’t a proper foundation for a life, they are by definition unrealistic. People are not equal to their imagination, which can defy the laws of physics.

Added 11p: Of course if they can find a way to rationalize it, we expect everyone to be inclined to favor a view where merit is a big cause of people reaching up to the success level where they are, but non-merit is a relatively bigger cause of people reaching the higher levels above them. When there are many success ladders we expect people to see merit as a big cause of success on their ladder (up to their point), but as less a cause of success on other ladders.

I disagree with the idea what success doesn’t require merit. From childhood until retirement, we have testing systems in place which select for merit, and merits are accorded (or denied) on those bases.

Or to be comical, the old quote that success comes down to luck, ask any failure.

The 21st century is a meritocracy, there are no limits on opportunity, if you’re good enough for the job. You cannot be a doctor if you’re terrible on anatomy, an engineer if you can’t do maths or an artist if you can’t hold a bru-, bad example. There are sound reasons for these requirements, each occupation sets its limits for practical and communal reasons, like a club, and it’s a good thing everyone cannot do all things (diversity) because of decision paralysis and how it takes all kinds to make a world (until the robots come in and replace saliva-abundant fast food workers). If you can dream it you can do it might seem like a nice line for kids, but it sets them up for disappointment or even suicidal depression in the real world because there are limits on human ability and they’ll never drop the false belief, believing they are the failures instead. Those human limits exist beyond society, and civilization, so to blame those things for the failings is deliberately erroneous.

Pop culture example: the first round of X Factor. If the TV show, and society, didn’t exist, they would still be bad singers. Any excuse to the contrary on the grounds of ‘discrimination’ is irrelevant, they discriminate based on the ability to carry a tune.