Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b08d0e43&srid=u4QvTRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.

    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off).

    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.

    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.

    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, caretaking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.

    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).

    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and subraces. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.

    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) unloyal to the tribe.

    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.

    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.

    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 09:43:00 UTC

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • “What I’ve interpreted by reading Curt Doolittle’s posts so far regarding Race a

    —“What I’ve interpreted by reading Curt Doolittle’s posts so far regarding Race and IQ. The average IQ of a certain race represents more of an population make up. What portion of a certain race of people possess agency, thus seeking liberty or sovereignty. Aka how much of them can make into the “aristocratic” class. The West(whites), through their strategy(law and culture) effectively culled the lower tier(less beneficial to a cooperative society)gene pool, enough so that they were able to make enough progress to dominate the entire globe. The other races simply didn’t have the chance to do so, hence the difference in average IQ.”— Liu Gx

    Liu Gx : Well, that’s the idea, yes. In addition:

    1) Any group can cull its lower classes through various means – and transcend their median/average IQ. And nationalism will encourage (force) that to occur, while globalism and ‘tolerance’ creates permanent parasitic classes that can eventually overwhelm the aristocratic classes (the curse of

    agrarianism).

    2) Immigration is a MULTIPLIER ON DAMAGES if we look at average iQ and the consequences of decline in average IQ.

    3) Ashkenazi verbal ability, aggression and clannishness, Han spatial ability and conscientiousness, white balance spatial/verbal and creativity and lack of clannishness, african athleticism, extroversion and verbal weakness will always differentiate the groups because these seem to be material differences evident at the extremes.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-24 07:31:00 UTC

  • Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women. Me, Keith Pres

    Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women.

    Me, Keith Preston, Sean Gabb

    Of course this conversation degenerates quickly to ‘arguing what I understand rather than arguing the subject matter’.

    I give my usual:

    Enfranchisement is good, assuming that those with different interests have different houses, and that houses reflect demonstrated ability to contribute – not some artificial ‘right’ – so that the houses constitute a market between the classes.

    I can’t summarize via this point:

    That assuming the family continues to fall apart, and assuming that women retain the franchise, that the trend of single women and single mothers will increase, and that this group will increasingly vote asymmetrically, forming, for all intents and purposes a block, which will continue to determine the direction of policy over that of men, and that policy will continue leftward.

    I can’t make these points:

    – It makes use of information across the classes. This is a good thing.

    – Enfranchisement increases political discourse – and that is not a good thing. Because it is largely a pursuit of power over others. And for every positive attempt at seizure of power we must produce a negative attempt to prevent seizure of power. Whereas under the monarchies all effort must be achieved through market (non-state) means. So, Enfranchisement creates opportunity for political status and power by immoral means, distracting people from opportunity and status by moral means.

    – Enfranchisement destroys civic society – the private production of commons.

    KEITH PRESTON chimes in. Keith is well read. (very) Argues what he understands. Relied upon wisdom literature, rather than empirical data. I agree with it because it corresponds with the data. Smart guy.

    SEAN GABB (UK) Argues what he understands, by shifting the question from what were the consequences of women voting, to what would happen if we took away their vote.

    Sean brings up these points:

    – We would get lying politicians anyway. True. Irrelevant, because we would get lying politicians who sought to bring different issues to play.

    – No one is going to change whether women have the vote. True. Irrelevant, that is not what we were asked to discuss. If we were asked to discuss how we remove women from the vote I wouldn’t participate in the conversation.

    – We are seeing a rightward move anyway. True. Irrelevant, (a) since this shift is due to the return of islamism from its 100 year old defeat (after 1400 years of defeating the west consistently). And the question is, had we chosen a different method of enfranchisement, it’s not clear we would be in this position in the first place; and (b) men voting (at least in america) this circumstance would never have occurred. Which is a purely empirical question. (c) I acknowledge that british men are feminized more so than american men and that the data on british elections shows that. It does not show that in america.

    – You americans got a ‘trump’. and he’s not legitimate. (bizarre) False. Irrelevant. Legitimacy is a moral claim, not a scientific one. As we say, the purpose of political power is power. Once one has power and can act upon it, moral opinion has no bearing. only the institutional imitations on that power do.

    – Women voting or not wouldn’t have changed much. (bizarre) False. Because the accumulated presentation of candidates for office, selection of candidates for office, policies that were put forward, over the past 100 years, in the states, would have dramatically shifted many of our elections, since the past century has largely consisted of policies under which parties auction off privileges (rents). I mean, the entire socio, economic, and political, and consequently, worldwide power shifts that have occurred by the enfranchisement of women in the USA are profound, and most of the propaganda (puritan anglos, and jews in general) has been a catastrophe for western civilization. Education, the academy, family, policy, propaganda … all these changes occur because of women enfranchised. How do you price that? You don’t ‘wave it away’ by saying islamic invasion disproves it….

    While Sean is talking I search JSTOR, Pew and SSRN for gender differences in voting patterns. Find the material I’m looking for. But I realize this is a waste of my time. We are not having an adult discussion of empirical evidence, incentives, and institutional means. We are not trash talking for the sake of humor. We are instead talking nonsense.

    This is why I am increasingly reluctant to have unstructured conversations. You wanna ‘talk stupid shit’ then you’re welcome to. But I don’t have an interest in correcting people who say stupid things any more than I have to already, in the context of my work.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 08:34:00 UTC

  • Women are the Problem. Domestically and Internationally

      Understand. There is only one international problem: the size of the underclass population – under say, 100. That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100. Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote? So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve. Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

  • Women are the Problem. Domestically and Internationally

      Understand. There is only one international problem: the size of the underclass population – under say, 100. That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100. Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote? So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve. Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

  • What Lesson Do Our Women Teach Us?

    WHAT LESSON DO OUR WOMEN TEACH US? We live In a world where we have worked hard to ensure that women were no longer stolen for sex, offspring, and labor. A world where women were no longer stolen for slaves, prostitution, and labor. A world where women were no longer sold for sex, labor, and reproduction by their fathers to increase kin, relations, property. A world where women were merely married to men of their own volition in exchange for sex, labor, and reproduction. A world where women are freed of all labor except child-bearing. A world where women need no longer even choose a man to own them, their sex, their labor and their reproduction with some promise of longevity; fear a man they will be sold to for the same with some hope of longevity. Where they will not be captured and sold for the same, regardless of their longevity – only their replacement cost. And where they are stolen, for sex, and labor, regardless of their burdensome offspring. And it is in this world we have made our women turn against us. Within one generation of obtaining the vote women raised arms through the proxy of government, against us, and all we have built. What lesson do our women teach us?

  • What Lesson Do Our Women Teach Us?

    WHAT LESSON DO OUR WOMEN TEACH US? We live In a world where we have worked hard to ensure that women were no longer stolen for sex, offspring, and labor. A world where women were no longer stolen for slaves, prostitution, and labor. A world where women were no longer sold for sex, labor, and reproduction by their fathers to increase kin, relations, property. A world where women were merely married to men of their own volition in exchange for sex, labor, and reproduction. A world where women are freed of all labor except child-bearing. A world where women need no longer even choose a man to own them, their sex, their labor and their reproduction with some promise of longevity; fear a man they will be sold to for the same with some hope of longevity. Where they will not be captured and sold for the same, regardless of their longevity – only their replacement cost. And where they are stolen, for sex, and labor, regardless of their burdensome offspring. And it is in this world we have made our women turn against us. Within one generation of obtaining the vote women raised arms through the proxy of government, against us, and all we have built. What lesson do our women teach us?

  • The Post-Love Civilization?

    THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION? Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, the need to survive, and sometimes if not often – erotic attraction. The ‘family’ was much closer to a ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ – multiple generations of many family relationships few commercial relationships, and where marrigae meant joining a family (or uniting families). Love as we think of it, as something more than Eros, but as finding the right person – the kindred spirit – was a 12th century invention of the Troubadores. It was made possible by sufficient wealth from the rise of trade, that we could think in such terms. The marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, erotic attraction – but now we added compatibility to that list. During this period we saw the rise of the traditional, nuclear and absllute nuclear families, where increasing mixing of families, and greater independence of families, but still multiple generations in the majority. In the 1970’s because of contraception and because of the employability of women, and because of the vast post-war wealth, the vast increase in labor-saving home appliances, and the corresponding poverty of the undeveloped world (pre-consumer-capitalist world), westerner’s changed again such that marriage was now primarily a matter of friendship and sex, and only remotely important for reproductive, economic, survival, and security reasons. Coupled with easy movement and migration this led to the marriage being the ONLY source of familial relationships or the dominant source. And people became lonely. Alone. Disenfranchised. Alienated. Capitalism was just the beginning. Feminism was the end. And the only restoration is the familial corporation at all levels. Because this model we have chosen is hyper consumptive and suicidal.