“There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.”
– Camille Paglia
(Genius)
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-25 16:09:00 UTC
“[AMERICAN] FEMINISM IS A HATE MOVEMENT”
Not sure I want to go that far. But it’s good propaganda for the men’s rights movement.
I’m a libertarian and I support equal rights FOR EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING. But that isn’t american feminism’s goal. It’s goal is either communism and socialism: that women can appropriate men’s assets via the state. And we even have a woman on our supreme court who supports that view.
But, I don’t see that ‘kinda feminism over here. Feminism means equal legal rights. It means the right to be the most amazing woman you can be. It doesn’t mean ‘we hate men’. In America, at least for Generations 1-3 it means ‘hate men’.
Sad. Very sad. Because feminism destroyed the family in the lower classes. Killed it. And poverty is running at an expanding rate in its wake.
Equal rights are not ‘privileges’ or socialism. That’s just theft.
If you demonstrate a gender bias in the work place you’re an idiot. All people in the market are the color of whatever currency you use.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-24 09:49:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/In-post-modern-gender-studies-is-phallocentric-capitalism-defined-as-a-distinct-economic-and-social-order
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/In-post-modern-gender-studies-is-phallocentric-capitalism-defined-as-a-distinct-economic-and-social-order
LIMITED NUMBER OF WOMEN CEOS AND BOARD MEMBERS
I think we know the answer and have known the answer for years:
1) the distribution of IQ at 130 or higher, which is common threshold in CEO’s and board members, and necessary for marginally competitive advantage means that executive participation by women will max at around 30%. Nature does not produce an equivalent number of marginally different women.
2) board membership is not fun. It is largely hard work. The material is quantitative. And decisions are legal, funancial, political, factional and risky. Appeals to empathy or sympathy are considered rightly to be attemts at deception. Board members usually have little information and what they do have they must treat skepyically. Consensus can be difficult and intractable.
3) Women will not as willingly play the cost of maintaining unpleasant, argumentative factional loyalty as often or as well as men, so they are percieved as less trustworthy partners on a team. Those that do are paired with men they agree with. And that combination seems to be powerful.
4) more men prefer to specialize in abstract rules, and devote their time to one specialization. So more men tend to master what organizations value.
Free from nevessary domestic toil, women dominate the middle of the economy and men the margins, and assortive mating reinforces that distribution. There is no chance it will change and if it did, those companies operation by existing means would rapidly dominate those with less meritocratic orders.
We are only equal under the law in the resolution of disputes over property and even then not universally so – as males will attest in family court.
But we are not equal in ability. Equal in value to others. Equal in status ( mating potential). Nor equal in value to mankind.
Equality is achieveable in kinship matters, but not commercial relations. And commerce under individualism is not kinship outside of a homogenous city state.
Just how it is and must be.
We can bend natures laws but we cannot ignore them.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 04:22:00 UTC
FERTILITY RATE DIFFERENCES.
“…fertility is dysgenic for women and roughly neutral for men by IQ. However, here we see that there is finer pattern behind this when you break it down. What is actually happening is that fertility is highly dysgenic by IQ for liberal men (for whom indeed, the smartest category of such men here – roughly IQ 115+ – about 50% leave no descendants); is slightly dysgenic for moderate men; and is slightly eugenic for conservative men.”
TRANSLATION
“fertility is dysgenic for women” : women produce increasingly less intelligent offspring.”
“Highly dysgenic for liberal men” : Liberal men do not reproduce anywhere near replacement rates.
“Slightly eugenic for conservative men” : conservative males produce more offspring of increasing intelligence.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER
It matters because we live in a democracy. Women vote to increase their reproduction by consequence, to decrease aggregate intelligence. This is not true if we have stable nuclear families that must be self supporting before it’s possible to bear children.
So, the family model is not neutral.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 09:23:00 UTC
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068395MATING PREFERENCES AND BEAUTY
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-13 03:55:00 UTC
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-07/afps-esr071213.phpCREATIVITY IS A GUY THING. JUST IS. AT LEAST ONE GOOD THING LEFT ABOUT BEING MALE. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 09:12:00 UTC
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/on-being-an-attractive-woman-and-being-taken-seriously-in-philosophy.htmlWHAT DOES AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN DO TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND REMAIN FEMININE (IN ANY OCCUPATION) WITHOUT DRESSING ‘DOWN’ or DOWDY?
Other commenters left very strange advice, to what common people on the street would consider a very strange question. 🙂
Confusing separate issues:
1) The rather strange idea that you’re different from any other woman. The fact is, you’re MORE DESIRABLE so you’re going to attract more attention, and more ENTHUSIASTIC attention.
2) Femininity is attractive to males and that won’t stop – if it does, extinction is a possible consequence. 🙂
3) The rather strange idea that you want to SIGNAL femininity to yourself, or to others, but not produce an equivalent RESPONSE.
4) The rather strange idea that the problem is something in society rather than in your understanding and behavior – a strangeness that is pretty common in the feminist movement.
5) What do you SIGNAL to males, in ADDITION to your physical attraction, femininity, and intelligence? Does that include ACCESSIBILITY? AVAILABILITY?
6) How do all the other capable and beautiful and feminine women in the world handle this issue? Do they complain about the fact that if they SIGNAL desirability that they produce the appropriate ACTION in the population?
As an practitioner of economic philosophy, incentives are what we deal with (in addition to prices.) And any micro-economist or behavioral economist would say this: you want X,Y,and Z benefits without paying A,B,and C, costs. In your case, it’s likely that you want to attract attention, including the heightened self image that comes from attracting attention, but you don’t want to pay the cost of rejecting the unwanted attention. (In the extreme interpretation, ethically, this means that you’re a thief, or fraud, so to speak. 🙂
And it isn’t necessary (and it’s probably counter-productive) to ask this question of successful women in business (there are plenty). Or politics (the entertainment industry for unattractive people.) Instead, there are ready research subjects everywhere. If you were to go to high end restaurants and clubs in any major city, on the west coast, but more so in Europe, and certainly in eastern Europe, and ask the attractive female waitresses and bartenders how they deal with SIGNALING femininity, desirability, without signaling accessibility or availability, they’ll tell you – the same craft that women have used since the dawn of time. It’s how you interact with others. You do not need to dress dowdy. You might consider wearing a rock of an engagement ring – fake stone included. You do have to learn how to live as a human being in a world that is unfortunately peopled by human beings. And the honest thing to do in any social circumstance is not to advertise something then say it’s not for sale – so to speak. Or to wish that the world was not peopled by a pair of genders that have competing reproductive strategies because of asymmetry of costs and desires.
But then, trying to commit micro thefts – get discounts as we call it in economics – is as natural a human behavior as being attracted to more fit genes. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 04:48:00 UTC
WHITS SINGLE MOTHER POVERTY STATS
“For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households who were living in poverty with children, surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.”
White crime rates are increasing at about the same rate hispanic crime is decreasing.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 12:30:00 UTC