Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • “A man’s war uses violence, a woman’s war uses gossip.”—Felicity J. Sharpe

    —“A man’s war uses violence, a woman’s war uses gossip.”—Felicity J. Sharpe

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-09 15:02:00 UTC

  • Romance is for chicks. Fiction is for chicks. Religion is for chicks. Buddhism i

    Romance is for chicks. Fiction is for chicks. Religion is for chicks. Buddhism is for chicks. Relationships are for chicks. Feelings are for chicks.

    War is for men. History is for men. Philosophy is for men. Stoicism is for men. Alliances are for men. Facts are for men.

    Science, Law, and Exchange are for resolving our differences.

    Marriage is the optimum means of compromise.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-09 09:43:00 UTC

  • HINT: ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS ARE LIES, JUST AS ALL RELIGIOUS TERMS ARE LIES. HU

    HINT: ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS ARE LIES, JUST AS ALL RELIGIOUS TERMS ARE LIES. HUMANS SEEK TO ACQUIRE IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY. EVERYTHING ELSE IS POSTURING AND NEGOTIATION.F

    The only thing that differs is our reproductive strategy: Gender, Class, Age, Race.

    Jessa Faya Alexander

    —“How about: Empaths seek connection, Sociopaths seek power; your results may vary”—

    Curt Doolittle

    To experience the feeling of “connection: is a impulsive MEANS to an evolutionary END. That women tend to be incognizant of the ends that they pursue by seeking their emotions is simply to say that they are less human and more animal than men. A sociopath(ends) like an empath(means) can pursue either moral ends or immoral ends. There is no moral difference between immoral sociopaths(ends) and immoral empaths (means). Just as there is no moral difference between moral sociopaths(ends) and moral empaths(means). The difference lies only in animal impulse and lying about, and human reason and telling the truth of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-07 12:22:00 UTC

  • I THINK THIS POST MIGHT BE IMPORTANT – TRY SHARING IT WITH WOMEN. I’ve been gett

    I THINK THIS POST MIGHT BE IMPORTANT – TRY SHARING IT WITH WOMEN.

    I’ve been getting a lot of private messages from women over this post – all with the central theme of ‘yeah… that’s about right’. I’d like to see how it does on the men’s movement sites (I always seek criticism).

    It positions the problem women face, I think correctly. It positions the problem men face, I think correctly. And I think that the combination of birth control, employing too many women in the work force, un-mothering our children, industrializing child care and education, making marriage dissolution easier and more preferable, and undermining the institution of marriage itself has led to catastrophic late age misery, and harmful early age stresses.

    Men must be men if we wish women to be women. Women must be women if we wish men to be men. the only people that benefit from gender neutrality are those who are outside the norms. The only appeal of serving those outside the norms is created by the feeling of fragility we have created by destroying the compromise between the sexes that we call relationships and marriage for the purpose of intergenerational persistence of our lines. By overcompensating for the bottom we have further empowered the top and destroyed the middle.

    But women have a much harder problem: What Men Can They Trust? (Almost none)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 11:02:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux): In the same way Marxism robs worker

    Retweeted Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux):

    In the same way Marxism robs workers of ambition, Feminism robs men and women of love.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 14:01:00 UTC

  • ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST I think we can look at the problem of

    ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST

    I think we can look at the problem of developing high trust social orders with high economic velocity, as an even worse problem for women.

    I mean, women have a smaller number of closer friends who are less divergent in sentiments. Men have a larger number of less close friends who vary more greatly.

    Men speak in ‘facts’ and women speak in experiences. We convey different information. Women speak in synthesis and men speak in compartments. Women’s information is related, and men’s information is isolated.

    Women cannot trust many men easily. (Hence the value of gay men to all women). And they tend to empathically understand only that category of men they are familiar with. And they tend to respond genetically to attraction rather than rationally. JUst as they respond genetically to their offspring rather than to the merits of their offspring.

    Women’s minds are interrupt driven with lots of sensation. Men’s minds are relatively quiet and goal driven with few sensations.

    Women think about dozens or hundreds of different things, and men think of just a few related to their goals – and almost nothing else.

    Men lie to women all the time to increase their chances of getting access to sex with the women or her network of associates.

    If men are weak they cannot build trust with women. if women are weak they cannot be honest with men. The only men a woman can usually trust are those that have no reproductive interest in her: her father and her brothers.

    Men have a much easier time, since if we can trust our mothers, and physically retaliate against our sisters, we simply need women to help us understand other people’s interests.

    And frankly women aren’t that hard. If they are interested in you and not trying just to use you as an ATM just love them, listen to them, and help them when they ask.

    Women will love you back, and more so if you give them lots of small signals that you are ‘thinking of them and their concerns’.

    I have no problem returning to a world where women are our slaves. I have no problem with my sons ruling that world. I have a problem with my daughters returning to that world, and living in it.

    Men need to be taught to love women and limit the damage they can do but not attempt to ‘correct’ how they think. They need to think as they do or they cannot raise families of impulsive unpredictable children.

    Women must be taught that men do not think as they do, should not thing as they do, and if they did, they will be useless to them. (I usually say ‘you need girlfriends for that, not me. I am a man.’).

    If mothers fail to raise a man capable of being a good husband it is their fault. If a father fails to raise a woman capable of being a good wife, it is his fault. These are the only gender-relations we can trust.

    We spend all this time training social nonsense, and pseudoscience, and none of it on how to be a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, a father, and a mother, and even less on being a homemaker, a craftsman, a businessman, and a financier.

    We educated our generations to be nothing more than tax slaves. Seriously. If you critically examine our schooling that’s its purpose.

    Tax slavery.

    What we need is just the opposite.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 14:30:00 UTC

  • WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT. W

    WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT.

    Women are capable of understanding rationality. I believe they require different kinds of education from men to achieve rational perspective.

    The problem for women is finding a man that they can trust to provide the instruction. Usually this comes from experience talking with good fathers and brothers.

    Contemporary education consists merely of exercises in social conformity for women, hence the ease with indoctrinating them with socialist propaganda in university courses.

    In conversations on politics and society, conservative women always speak of the opinions of their father and husband with great frequency, they respect these men highly and thus integrate their perspectives.

    I don’t see the problem as women, the true problem is the feminization of men thus creating a society of weak fathers and husbands/boyfriends who validate the emotions of their daughters and wives/girlfriends instead of correcting them through assertive rational instruction on these topics.

    If we have good fathers, brothers, and husbands, women’s will be rational. Just as if we have good women men will be rational.

    We’ve done the opposite.

    Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 13:59:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY???? EXCELLENT QUESTION! 1) the majority of societ

    Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY????

    EXCELLENT QUESTION!

    1) the majority of societies allowed for polygamy of one sort or another, but the problem is:

    i) women are damned expensive. so few men can afford them.

    ii) most of the time it exists to absorb excess women for home and farm labor because of a shortage of men due to warfare, much like taking in relatives or god-children. WE forget that through most of history, people died a lot.

    iii) because of the nature of women’s characters they tend to form a hierarchy. There is always a ‘first wife’. And women seem to kill one another in polygamous marriages pretty often.

    iv) normies really, really, really, do not like it in their ‘midst’ because it provides a malincentive to men. Flip it around and having a second wife you fuck now and then (or don’t) is different from having a woman in your midst who you fuck instead of your wife. So polygamy is rarely what we assume it would be through our modern senses. It’s either a means of increasing your children so that you can hold together a monarchy, a sign of ostentatious wealth to display your status and power, a means of supplanting household and farm labor, a means of absorbing excess females, or a means of obtaining additional household sex and labor without discrediting your first wife. The mormon thing is an outlier (because there were a lot of mormon women and not many men) but unfortunately it’s our first reference point.

    v) we aren’t poor enough any longer that people prefer that type of arrangement over having their own apartment and ‘fooling around’. In other words, women have a demonstrated preference for not engaging in polygamy. In fact, as far as we know, humans (out of evolutionary necessity) seem to naturally gravitate to serial marriages. And if the law assisted us in that by eliminating the pretense of permanent marriage and eliminating common marital property (using merely powers of attorney for certain affairs) then we might be able to return to serial marriage more easily. And economically and socially and legally it seems the right answer.

    2) it’s still pairing off: There is still a market exchange made. Otherwise it’s slavery.

    3) if it’s an assigned marriage that violates natural law. The purpose of assigned marriage was traditionally to keep property in the family in propertied civilizations, or to preserve and build family networks prior to propertied civilizations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 11:40:00 UTC

  • THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE (nash vs pareto) (important concept) Women are suppos

    THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE

    (nash vs pareto) (important concept)

    Women are supposed to be drawn to socialism. Men are supposed to be drawn to Aristocracy. These are words for the female reproductive strategy and the male reproductive strategy at scale.

    Its when we compromise through markets for marriage, markets for goods and services, markets for commons, and markets for rule, that we achieve the best possible even if it’s not the ideal for each given man or woman.

    Conversely, pursuit of ideals can only occur if we end the compromise between men’s and women’s reproductive strategies.

    Which is what we have been doing for the past century.

    In economic parlance this is the difference between a NATURAL NASH equilibrium that we evolved under, and the UNNATURAL PARETO equilibrium that the socialist state attempts to create through forcible redistribution – violating the contract for compromise between the genders: male and female and the classes: the estates of the realm.

    Paring off into mates (and admittedly cheating now and then) is the optimum evolutionary and social strategy. It creates incentives for the worse performers, and disincentives for greed for the best performers.

    There is a reason we evolved serial monogamy before we developed property and a division of labor, and we evolved monogamy after we developed property and a division of labor.

    That reason is that markets (pairing-off) provide us with the BEST OVERALL solution to our differences in value and ability, even though it doesn’t provide the best solution for either the best or the worst. (and yes, there are bad people that shouldn’t breed).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 09:10:00 UTC

  • RT @charlesmurray: What’s the word when a woman explains something to a man with

    RT @charlesmurray: What’s the word when a woman explains something to a man without being asked? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sweden-mansplaining-hotline-woman-get-to-report-patronising-male-colleagues-a7418491.html

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 02:48:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804880066450784256