I cannot mock them as hard as they mock themselves.
GO-GO WHITE PRIVILEGE!
If only we had a general metric of this intelligence.
I cannot mock them as hard as they mock themselves.
If only we had a general metric of this intelligence.
That is one interesting social experiment.
To state the obvious.
Misogynistic men only trust other men with their money.
It’s wrong but they have every right, because it’s their money.
The Chinese rent white men for their privilege.
Studies have shown competence is assumed where it is undeserved.
Blame stock images IDK.
Such men consistently over-estimate their competence.
Surely it’s the arrogance effect? In the modern world we call this vice a virtue.
“a natural tendency to overrate their past performance on maths tasks by 30 per cent”
It’s terrifying how many men rate themselves as good at maths and then I have to explain 12yo level shit.
This finding is old. There are also far more compulsive liars in the male group, which somewhat explains it. In their minimizing terms, this is bluffing, like lying on a CV (illegal).
These people are the reason we blind exams. These people.
Like Is she flirting? studies all over again. Men don’t really do meta-cognition, by comparison.
This is why we have all the psychometrics. Either you can do it or GTFO.
The masculine traits are the capitalist ones: taking risks, being rude or arrogant, stepping on others, ruthless ambition, Crusaderism, many that are probably antisocial if not tempered by other stuff.
“A meta-analysis of 45 studies of leadership styles showed that women tend to exhibit many of the character traits associated with effective leadership — such as effective communication, a tendency to empower subordinates, and creative problem solving — and are more likely to adopt effective leadership styles than men.”
They’re selecting the cocky guy who relies on underlings to do his work for him. No wonder so many companies are tanking. Everyone, male or female, hates them. They’re drains, they parasite off the productive. A minority in every group or company do the bulk of the work, remember.
The problem is seeing masculinity as successful without anything to back it up on the project.
We need to upgrade our primal brain that says this man is leading us into battle.
Another part of the problem is seeing everything as gendered.
So there’s no Scientists trying to make the world a better place. Yay!
There’s male scientists trying to make the world a better place.
OK, everyone else go home and fuck the cure for cancer?
Like, what do you hope to achieve here? Rah-rahing your pompoms for part of the group?
Why do they have to do that? Ruin everything?
Supposedly, accounting for this bias statistically (with mathematical models and quotas) makes companies more efficient and meritocratic.
“Quotas can work to weed out incompetent men.”
Everyone should be overjoyed by that.
Less stupid people with power, who cares if they have a banana or fig down there?
You’d have to be really insecure to identify strongly with someone who shares a single pair of chromosomes.
HBR has noted incompetent men being promoted on the basis of bravado is an issue for companies.
Bravado and popularity over actual performance metrics.
“The new study’s authors reasoned that men especially might devalue the evidence because it threatens the legitimacy of their status in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Men might also be critical because of prior beliefs that gender bias is not a problem in STEM.”
But they’re proving any bias by believing that female competence is a fairytale.
Those women take exactly the same exams.
Oh, it hurts their ego? Broflakes.
“Men rated the research quality of the abstract less favorably than did women in both samples. This gender gap was especially large for STEM faculty, potentially suggesting that evidence of bias might threaten men in STEM seeking to retain their status.”
“When reading these results, a male scientist might think, “oh my gosh…if we’re going to fix this equality issue, that almost necessarily means that there’s going to be fewer opportunities for men,” said Ian Handley, lead author of the new PNAS paper and associate professor of psychology at Montana State. Handley suggested that discounting evidence more likely reflects a subtle, unconscious process than overt sexism.”
Read Freud, there’s no subtle.
They just lie about it.
The depressing thing is that STEM helps everyone and there’s literally a shortage of talent.
We can’t afford to lose any talent.
People who took it for the money though, can fuck right off.
“This mixed literature tempers the paper’s claims about strong gender bias. But obviously, the paper’s central goal was not to systematically review literature on gender bias, but rather to present studies of reactions to evidence of bias.”
“Based on the best current data, remaining challenges include sexual harassment, bias in teaching evaluations and science mentoring, and gender stereotypes about innate genius and creativity.”
That last one is part of the Genius Famine.
Women can’t be the ‘crazy’ sex and also suddenly the less creative one when studies show they’re linked.
“The new PNAS study shows that men, on average, are less likely to believe this evidence of gender bias where it exists. And that’s a concern, considering men are the current majority of STEM professors. But it’s also a concern if the evidence of gender bias is overhyped. Overhyped claims could make these fields unattractive to women or even make people less likely to believe evidence of bias when it does exist.”
Be honest in science, the musical.
Historically, it’s doubtful.
Diversity+Proximity = War
“But our mission to build a stronger, fairer Britain goes further. For while the obvious injustices often receive a lot of attention – after all, politicians have been talking the language of social justice and social mobility for years – the everyday injustices that ordinary working class families feel are too often overlooked.”
“So when you see others prospering while you are not; when you try to raise your concerns but they fall on deaf ears; when you feel locked out of the political and social discourse and feel no one is on your side, resentments grow, and the divisions that we see around us – between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation; between the wealth of London and the rest of the country; between the rich, the successful and the powerful, and their fellow citizens – become entrenched.”
Wait until you tell them the bad news on retirement and the NHS, in ‘humanitarian crisis‘ because mysteriously, we have too many newcomers using it. In a country with sub-replacement fertility, they aren’t coming from here… and they won’t stay here when the gibs stop flowing. They’ll leave, going ‘home’ as they call it, and take a net loss from this country with them. With remittance, the gap would be vast. These people are leeches on their home nation too, that is why they were forced to leave. Stop caring about being called ‘racist’ by traitors selling us out to NGOs unless you want to become the British Merkel.
The system wasn’t designed for this, and WILL break if the flow of r-types breeding at African levels don’t slow their roll. Children are not cash dispensers from the taxpayer.
We have bigamy laws, we should NOT be paying for multiple ‘wives’ aka breeding sows. Look up Calhoun’s rats, they overbreed and end up like Africa, perma-war mass-rape too many men, not enough war to cull them Africa.
Entitlements only exist for a surplus economy (unlikely with the average national IQs of the people being let in) and many of the takers did not pay into the system, neither did their family because they weren’t here, they are ‘entitled’ to nothing. Such people are chancers, locusts who consume until the seed crop is lost and you can grow no more. Don’t give mansions in London (or any social housing in London, it’s a privilege to live there) to people who deliberately produced 8-10 children they couldn’t afford. Don’t go easy on crime, punishments protect the People and it’ll be seen as a weakness.
Nothing will redpill left-wing Millennial voters to conservatism faster than realizing they won’t get the things upper generations got easily (full NHS coverage, to retire full stop, a good economy where there isn’t foreign competition or factories going overseas, cheap housing to expand into, no terrorism or gang violence or Sharia patrols harassing women).
“From tackling the increasing lack of affordability in housing, fixing broken markets to help with the cost of living, and building a great meritocracy where every child has the opportunity of a good school place, we will act across every layer of society to restore the fairness that is the bedrock of the social solidarity that makes our nation strong.”
Family formation etc are particular generational problems I hope she addresses, it’s important for the economy too, many responsible people are putting it off cos they just can’t afford it.
You can’t have nationalism without national loyalty and it’s a typical conservative error to assume that anyone living in this country and profiting from it, is primarily loyal to this country.
Civic nationalism. The Alt Lite’s tactic of denying biology (HBD differences) and history (war and invasion and colonization). Will it go far enough?
I invoke broken clock. Exceptional case of the feminists hitting on something true.
The most misogynistic men I ever met IRL claimed to be male feminists.
They think it’s an excuse to speak about/treat women however they like (worse, always worse).
Despite taking the same exams and studying in the same fields and working in the same industry, STEM, the oh-so rational men take a wholly subjective view of their female peers.
As in, they don’t see them as peers at all.
In spite of the years of proof in the exact same system.
The researchers found that male students systematically overestimated the knowledge of the men in their classes in comparison with the women. Moreover, as the academic term progressed, the men’s faulty appraisal of their classmates’ abilities increased despite clear evidence of the women’s superior class performance. In every biology class examined, a man was considered the most renowned student — even when a woman had far better grades. In contrast, the female students surveyed did not show bias, accurately evaluating their fellow students based on performance. After studying the attitudes of these future scientists, the researchers concluded, “The chilly environment for women [in the sciences] may not be going away anytime soon.”
Nobody is rational. Humans are not machines.
That men even claim that, seriously, shows they aren’t.
And machines would be meritocratic anyway.
Surely judging your peers requires EQ and SQ, female attributes? They only consider this ‘logical’ because it’s quantifiable. Slight bias in the method there.
The funding gap is totally real too. Even with taxpayer funds (!!!).
In a 2014 survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, Harris Poll found that young men were less open to accepting women leaders than older men were. Only 41% of Millennial men were comfortable with women engineers, compared to 65% of men 65 or older. Likewise, only 43% of Millennial men were comfortable with women being U.S. senators, compared to 64% of Americans overall. (The numbers were 39% versus 61% for women being CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and 35% versus 57% for president of the United States.)
Yeah the older ones are real men with nothing to prove.
If someone wants to contribute, that’s a good thing.
Get over yourself.
I love how they also claim to be superior to dead women.
How insecure have you gotta be to try and one-up a corpse?
The worst are non-STEM losers, with no idea what the industry is like, who go on about STEM. No better than the non-STEM feminists with their mewling. Totally ignorant.
“Whereas three-quarters of Millennial women anticipate that their careers will be at least as important as their partners,” they reported, “half the men in their generation expect that their own careers will take priority.”
You need two incomes, numbskull. And what if she earns more?
And what’s wrong with being the primary caregiver?
Taken together, this body of research should dispel any notion that Millennial men “see women as equals.”
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing actually. This study gets that wrong. These types have always existed but they’re the maladapted SES dregs. They project their passivity, bitchiness, weakness and incompetence onto all women. Blind to its manifestation in themselves, naturally.
The men who can’t get with the 21st century labour requirements will simply die alone.
Historically, men are almost always genetic suicides anyway.
If they can’t be meritocrats, who would see merit in building a life with them?
You have to be on the same team once married, telling a woman regardless of need that she has to give up her career to make you feel like Draper (and the fictive 50s lifestyle) will end in one place – the divorce court.
That type of lifestyle was never possible, it was a small slice of post-war prosperity paid for by the blood of your countrymen, and they say we womenfolk buy into false advertising realities…
Obviously men and women aren’t the same, but for most tasks they are roughly equal in capability, especially the high-estrogen diet modern male.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think this claim in particular is ruining the manosphere. This post will be logic and science-heavy. For satirical reasons, and because I’m a little troll at heart with the other chanfags, I’m largely going to use resources written by men. Deny that, bitches!
Fake MGTOW still reading this:
I’m seeing this picked up increasingly by the sort of insecure moron who couldn’t invent a new form of toaster with a gun to his head. I would own them at robot wars. You can tell they don’t have a job in science (no, IT doesn’t count, tons of Indian women work in it ffs) and have never been to a single conference with their bitchy attitude. Example;
You know they’re desperate to prove how edgy they are when virginTOW is in their screen-name, Tyler Durden would be more original, or Mr Robot now I guess. MGTOW is being beset by the same sort of loser that drowned Reddit and Atheistkult, with the equivalent male virulence of SJWs to anything exposed to their entryism, and it’s no wonder the movement is now drowning under their dead weight. What’s the rule here from Greene’s Power book you need to heed?
It was written by a man so you should pay attention.
Aaron Clarey, another man, was right about these types (for those who don’t know to whom I refer);
They’re beta-omega bitches who feel the need to put women down to feel like men. That’s weak, it’s the reverse of what the feminists do. You shouldn’t need women for your ego as a real MGTOW at all, this is simply an inversion of the pedestal idea. You’re no less needy and I don’t like bullies full stop, feminist or virginTOW. Your sex, like your race, sexuality, whatever, is never a Free Pass. #meritocracyftw
Disclaimer for the whiners: yes, I know the feminist programmes are annoying. Insulting. Patronising. Unfair. They also don’t work, even in Norway. So it hardly matters, realistically. Remember, most women aren’t feminists (by self-report). We won’t do something we don’t want to (like take up extra maths classes). Don’t accept the feminist frame that what they want is what most women want. They don’t speak for us. That’s their Big Lie. Don’t hand them authority by treating them like one (vague TLP reference).
On the other hand, don’t excuse them. Don’t blame phrenology (you’re so scientific) for their dispute of agency, they have a choice to be bitches. They want that excuse, you’re handing them a victim card to play against you. And if you were up on your neuroscience, you’d see that while women have fewer brain cells, thanks to our smaller overall body size btw the ratio balances out, we have more connections. Guess what corresponds better to intelligence?
Synaptic plasticity of connections. So pipe the fuck down on that front.
It would be just as specious as claiming women are superior because we have more absolute DNA material. (We do, the Y chromosome has decidedly less and is smaller than X). We have this for the evolutionary purpose of carrying children of both sexes. Group differences don’t make you better as an individual. This is basic statistics. You might have an average male IQ, but that doesn’t mean you’re smarter than every woman you’ll ever meet. Statistically, that would be implausible. Individual differences conflict more than group level because the variance is higher. Since a man invented IQ (Binet) I assume you’d take the prospect seriously.
While on the topic of scientist misogyny, most of STEM isn’t. Modern STEM. You aren’t being cool by claiming something as the common opinion (women>suck) that anyone in the industry knows is a MSM lie, it’s as bad as fake gamer girls. Feminazis have finally turned on the Valley, all those Asian and Jewish boys, to try and score some of that sweet sweet VC money. They’ve failed, on the whole. Laughably failed.
Historical scientists usually had a single bad experience they allowed to colour their lives (e.g. Kant Kant Kant Kant Kant and KANT – talk to women). They were high on a personality trait called Psychoticism, good for their work but awful for their personal life, so it didn’t go well for them and they never tried again (source on genius written by two men, doubleplusgood).
Playing Subject Monopoly is petty. “They” have that subject, “we” have this. It’s the Robber’s Cave false opposition all over again (famous study by a man involving all boys). At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean anything. We’re all working to improve society, and that helps everyone. It’s a social good, it cannot be selective. My monarch is a woman, it doesn’t mean I had anything to do with that. Tesla was a man, the men reading this had nothing to do with that. Have icons for certain, but sex isn’t like race, there isn’t enough genetic connection throughout the group as a whole to claim kinship to accomplishment (HBD reference, check out Jayman, who is yes, a man).
Role call anyway. Subject Monopoly. You feel lucky?
Composers. – Male. The greats were pretty much all male. You win that round, I was discussing composers on a bus once with all-female music students and everyone agreed. As you can imagine, no one present was offended nor a feminist.
Does that make you feel better? It shouldn’t. Modern music is shit (see example comment above). Relative quality isn’t the same realm as absolute greatness.
Exploration – Male. Women usually weren’t allowed out of the house without an escort when places remained for the picking but sure, I’ll let you have that one. But the Vikings got there first, by thousands of years, and half of those were women (they traveled as one unit, look it up, archaeology and history). Are you descended from Vikings? I am. Does this mean I have more claim to that success than you, likely American man? Identity politics by sex is a bust whoever is doing it. By race, with a level of genetic relatedness to claim ingroup status (male science!) it might be supportable, still a big May-Be.
Still, so what? Does that improve the life of any man reading this? Inspiration shouldn’t be used in place of your own accomplishment or ambition (see fandom crazies). That’s co-dependent bullshit. It’s an excuse to do nothing with your own life.
Research … about even. Scientists? Well, until about a century ago women couldn’t get degrees. But still, women now dominate in biology and medicine, which the manosphere complains about, although there are fewer high IQ women than men for sample availability reasons, but also because of this more low IQ men than women. Feeling especially stupid because the male sex contains more retards?
The modern average researcher is Asian. By simple data, they far outnumber us crackers. The average MGTOW is a middle class spoiled white bitch. You have less in common with him (HBD, genetics) than you do the women in your country you complain about.
Men are better in physics and materials, aka the Harder Sciences instead of Life Science. This is a fair, gendered difference. Ok….
I’m waiting to see how playing to a sex’s strengths for the common good of society is somehow a bad thing? When the manosphere claims that is the Way Things Should Be. (See the Is/Ought guillotine, by a man). Women in the more caring, nurturing roles? Men in the more technical, mathey ones? It’s almost like they’re suggesting women should be blocked from all roles of responsibility, but we already have a shortage of doctors and scientists in the West (Asia outnumbering us again) and if you’re ill, dying in A&E, would you really reject the assistance of a doctor based on her sex? Would you do the same to a black man? Or would you just want a Doctor, any Doctor, now-now-now? That’s the weird thing about positions of responsibility, they are also positions of trust. The tort of law, the duty of care, which sex do you trust to be more caring when your life is on the line?
If your argument to do this female career block is Muh Meritocracy, I’ve already told you why that’s BS. Were you smart enough to see it? If we tightened the requirements based purely on merit, men would suffer more than women. Because more men are retarded from the original population group and hence, by that logic, blocked from professions, than women.
There would be more female scientists and more female doctors, purely based on the starting numbers from IQ.
You didn’t think this through, did you?
Now I get to the meat of this argument, the crux that really pisses me off: Invention. It’s a subject most people (and the manosphere) don’t understand because they believe MSM and Hollywood. They’ve probably never met a real inventor (not Hamburger Headphones types) in their entire lives, yet still feel qualified to discuss the group. I was actually discussing inventors with Henry Dampier in private once (yes, he’s a man, cool guy) and he knows a lot of them, without quoting him without his permission, his opinion was favourable and he appreciated the variety within the occupation (realistic, not the crazy hair crazy men film trope based on Einstein, not really an inventor either). Ask yourself, redpills, how this MSM lie conflicts with the real field full of real people you’re insulting, some of which blog here or know people who blog here (hi!) in the reactosphere.
When did you ever see a film about a female inventor? How many have you seen about male inventors? Compared to the fair hypothetical assumptions prior to evidence of a 50/50 split, or a biased one of 25/75, there’s something odd going on here (and we all know Hollywood is run by Jewish men, they admit it). We certainly know there are high IQ women in existence, it is possible and they must exist. Yet they aren’t in the media, it doesn’t fit Narrative (Einstein was a Jew, remember, his position in Hollywood tropes is no accident). Since the MGTOWER commentator wanted ancient examples, Hypatia is the best, estimated (by men) to have an IQ over 200, a true polymath. She was raised that way deliberately – by her father. This suggests the sexes are highly plastic in their epigenetic potential. Isn’t the manosphere begging for more geniuses? Would they reject the World’s Greatest Genius if they turned out to have a cracking pair of tits too? How would that not constitute actual, real misogyny? Does that polymathy of Hypatia make a random feminist smarter, or you, individual male readers, dumber? Of course fucking not. Cut it out. That’s magical thinking. I won’t tolerate that in a discussion on science.
Opposite example for fairness: Ada Lovelace was a smart cookie. No doubt. High IQ. But most of ‘her’ accomplishments were actually those of Babbage, she was the PR for his ideas, that’s why he hired her, yet the feminists are doing the exact same thing with the sexes inverted: rejecting the Great Computer Genius – because penis envy. Don’t be like the feminists, please. You don’t need to put anyone down for something they couldn’t help e.g. sex, which is determined exclusively by the fathers btw. Lovelace frequently discussed Babbage’s work with credit for example, don’t turn on her either, one of the people trying to contribute to the world we all have to live in. Focus on the correct enemy, the people who lie, the talentless, the professional whiners.
The same people in the manosphere who shout down Edison (a man) will demand all male invention is sublime and perfect in the next breath, if it means they can put down a whole sex in the breath afterward (women, actual misogyny). I don’t use the word lightly, it’s the whole 100% group without factual basis (in fact opposed to it) yet they think they’re being subtle! It’s that obvious, it’s becoming common and it reeks of keyboard alpha weakness and confirmation bias. It’s 100%, completely obvious to neutral outsiders what they’re doing, and that’s why normal people (including men who smell BS) are being turned off the manosphere recently. IMHO.
I could list Male Inventors versus Female, but that’s a red herring. It doesn’t account for qualification, expense, historical prominence, legend, scale, lives changed, just general quality. It’s a similar problem in the patent system at the moment and the world law (inc EU) is gearing toward changes intended to assess objective quality. Superficial comparisons like that go for the fame whores instead, like Edison. Who also hired women and wrote his name on their inventions too, since we’re so useless…
I could take the easy ironic potshot and remind you that without Hedy Lamarr the porn star (cracking pair of tits) you wouldn’t have this WiFi to bitch about how women are incapable of invention.
And the Allies might have lost WW2 because the Nazis were ahead on signal science prior.
These are facts.
You know what I think bugs them, the fake MGTOWs? In the realm of speculation here, admittedly.
– Equality of opportunity.
They honestly believed that women were inferior on all flanks thanks to MSM erasure, so when the outcomes began to even out from proof, they felt personally insecure. Like the men returning from war and seeing their replacements in the munitions factories, the world didn’t end. They were replaceable. After the Hell of war, they realized their work was disposable as their lives. Women already have the innate capacity to create life so womb envy might factor in their desperation to the claim of machine-creation ownership, as if innate to their sex, as well (hey, I mentioned penis envy above, it logically follows if one exists, so must the other).
I’ll leave you by one crucial example to refute this fallacious claim. Really, it’s irrefutable without being logically incoherent aka lying.
Who is the Greatest Modern Inventor?
Say it aloud.
A lot of you said Tesla. Correct.
I assume you mean Nikola?
It’s rumoured that Albert Einstein was once asked, “How does it feel to be the smartest man alive?”, he responded, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”
This is a fair assumption and I believe it myself.
After all, Hedy’s work required electricity.
But what the manosphere and MGTOW overlap never asks, to cover this truth, is what Nikola Tesla himself thought.
The same man who thought that women, innately, without the corrupting influence of society, were superior to men?
“I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.”
“This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior….
His prediction is coming true. These weak manboys I’ve covered before are threatened by equality of opportunity, by more competition on the professional playing field, in the same way ugly men are threatened by the open sexual marketplace, where the women rush the best men, when previously Patriarchy would have guaranteed them sex – with a wife.
By keeping that larger, smarter (on average, see Doctor outcome) group from the meritocratic opportunity of the marketplace, they selfishly help themselves individually – at the expense of freedom (individual human/woman), self-actualization (psychological) and the common social good of the progress that competition brings otherwise (making them liars when they call for this improvement in STEM and ask whine it isn’t happening fast enough).
It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women.
Through countless generations, from the very beginning, the social subservience of women resulted naturally in the partial atrophy or at least the hereditary suspension of mental qualities which we now know the female sex to be endowed with no less than men.
But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent [DS: set by men] and startle civilization with their progress.”
Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that part. #bluepillpussies
Nor WHY. Why did he think this way about women, psychologically? He took no wife, no lovers. It must’ve been earlier than that. Childhood, from social learning theory. In Victorian times?! Who was this creature?!! The role model, the proof of concept (real POC, real MVP represent). Where did the genes come from, for his vital visualization skills?
The reason little Nikola went into invention in the first place? The reason we know his name now? Who encouraged him? Who raised him? Who he modelled himself after? If you read his autobiography, My Inventions, you’ll know. A fellow inventor, in his mind, the best inventor: his mother.
That’s right, a woman!
Going by his own, male account. I’ll post a few choice quotes by Tesla about Mama Tesla just to drive home the point: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/quotes-by-nikola-tesla-on-mama-tesla/
When you hear these false excuses, claims that
Your idol says you’re wrong.
Don’t be a little bitch about it. Bitch is a verb as well as a noun.
Takehome: Read books on a niche subject before claiming to know diddly squat about it.
I’ll leave you with a quote about the woman, when it comes to claiming what you’ve no right to;
My mother understood human nature better and never chided. She knew that a man cannot be saved from his own foolishness or vice by someone else’s efforts or protests, but only by the use of his own will.
It’s alright, I won’t rub your nose in it. Then I’d be as petty as you.
Please just learn from this and quit lying.
When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.
Feminists know when something smells fishy.
….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.
…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….
Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.
…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.
These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).
It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.
Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?
Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.
This girl is dumb.
Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).
We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.
Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.
False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View at Medium.com
Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).
Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.
We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….
FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.
In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gQjjZsLE5u0J:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06152.pd+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
And it does link to a very recent briefing paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all…
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/58/58.pdf which reads;
It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.
It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: https://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/house-of-lords-select-committe-inquiry-on-women-on-boards-written-evidence-submitted/ who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.”
It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….
Back to the dumb girl…
…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).
The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..
All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.
…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …
These people will never be happy.
…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …
They have no money.
But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.
…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …
Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.
Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.
…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..
See what I mean?
…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …
You made your bed, motherfuckers.
…Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there’s strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you’re not the first to feel that way.…
As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating “supposedly superior intellects,” “eliminating the weak,” “paralyzing the hope of reform,” jeopardizing “the doctrine of brotherhood,” and undermining “the sympathetic activities of a civilized society.”
Social Darwinism aka Meritocracy
The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals…..
As the song goes, we have all the time, in the world….
Science goes in one direction.
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.
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.