Badger had several excellent posts last week about a woman named Alyssa Bereznak who very publicly shredded her OKCupid date (Jon Finkel) on the blog Gizmodo. Check out Badger’s posts here and here for the full story, but my sense in reading about the situation was that Bereznak was offended that someone like Finkel considered himself in her league. The Australian edition of her blog post closes with:
…all you world famous nerds out there: Don’t go after two Gawker Media employees and not expect to have a post written about you. We live for this kind of stuff.
As Dave Chappelle would say, she keeps it real!
But as Dave points out, sometimes keeping it real goes wrong.
The internet has had a field day with Bereznak, including Gizmodo Australia and quickmeme. The man she thought wasn’t in her league is a wealthy hedge fund manager. His geeky hobby that so offended her was winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in a card game called magic. Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart pointed out in the comments on Badger’s blog:
He is far more attractive than she is, IMO. Just saying.
Mr. Finkel for his part is playing it cool. In an ask me anything thread on reddit, he wrote:
It’s nice to know the internet has my back, so in total it looks like it was a net positive, though I still feel oddly creeped out by it.
He has even graciously accepted a date request from Playboy model Sara Jean Underwood, but only on his terms:
I would definitely be down to go on a date with her, but not if it’s televised (sorry everyone). Just not my thing.
At the end of the day, Finkel has gone from attractive wealthy hedge fund manager and magic tournament winner, to famous and pre selected attractive wealthy hedge fund manager and magic tournament winner. Meanwhile, Bereznak has gone from unknown intern at tech blog Gizmodo, to infamous bitch with a lazy eye who will potentially publicly shred any man dumb enough to go on a date with her. All of this makes her own words prophetic:
So what did I learn? Google the shit out of your next online date. Like, hardcore.
See Also: More judging the performance.
This one, http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3525a4/#by=sp pretty much sums up my feelings. To create a profile on a dating site (+1 nerd) for the nerdier persuasion (+1 nerd) talking about your nerdy internship position (+1 nerd), but then act surprised that you are hooked up with, gasp, a nerd.
Those ‘nerds’ that you used to make fun of in high school, well, they grew up, made money, and gained confidence. You aged poorly, failed to realize any success, and still think that you are in some way better. Good luck finding less nerdy dudes at the local meat market, with looks like that, you’re going to need it.
I thought Badger’s analysis was fab.
In a way, what she did was like what these women did…turn the man who dared disappoint them or offend their pride into a smoking hole. That Bereznak didn’t hire a pair of white knights to administer the beatdown is irrelevant…because Bereznak apparently thought that the Herd would do the emasculation / emotional beatdown for her.
Thank you for the links, Dalrock. As someone who has been in and out of geek circles most of my life, Bereznak’s shtick was old hat, so the posts were easy to write.
It’s amazing how little she talked about how she actually reacted to Finkel, the person, and how fixated she was on his on-paper social status. She feels truly deceived that he didn’t turn out to be the way she prejudged him based on his occupation. But he’s not, as she put it, “a dweeb in hedge-funders clothing,” he’s a bona fide hedge funder. Amazing how she can’t get past stereotyping – she was clearly expecting a Gordon Gekko/Jim Cramer socially dominant rich guy (a cultural trope to be sure, a lot of banker personalities are rather dweeby. Think Rick Moranis).
I’ll reiterate her sense of entitlement that Finkel “deserved” to get written up and subtly suggesting he was stalking gawker employees (don’t flatter yourselves, girls). Their personal lives, and that of the inadequate men around them, deserve public exhibition. It’s classic Feminism 101 – the personal is political.
It’s also worth noting, as I failed to do in my posts, that the article was cross-posted at Jezebel, so shirley there was some “you go girl” herd-reinforcement as she wrote and edited the piece.
Just goes to show you that even being wildly successful at everything you do in life < being under 30 and having a vagina. Its sad that guys like Finkle have to slum it with people 5 points below them on okcupid just because of hypergamy. If you needed a better example of why you should be a misogynist here you go.
For a quick note Jon made around $400,000 playing Magic the Gathering, and the tournament he played in the weekend after their date netted him $4,000.
@Dalrock
Off topic here. I saw this story and thought you might like to comment on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/juliet-jeske/dating-after-divorce-in-a_b_944133.html
[D: Good link. Not as off topic as you might think. I plan on referencing that in my next post.]
Her SMV can’t be more than a 4, tops…assuming she puts herself together a bit better than she is in the lazy eye picture. He’s clearly at least her level if not higher.
I often wonder about the women who must have rubbished Bill Gates (and others) when they were just nerdy youngsters. I think of one acquaintance of mine who was a little insecure with women. His wife (he married) ran him a dance during their courting, but twenty years later now that he is a millionaire banking vice-president (and the confidence to go with that), the boot is very much on the other foot (as her SMV slightly declines).
I have also noticed generally that women seem to be dismissive of such hobby as a man may have, as if anything less than being successful in work or pedestalising them has any value, (though men often seem to treat other men in much the same way).
My own view of Bereznak is that she is a 4 – (that is to say a little less good looking than ordinary) not really up to the usual Opus standard, I am afraid – so I am surprised Finkel thought it worth dating her. His interview answers are so cool and relaxed. He comes across as an impressive person – that much, though Bereznal failed to see it – is clear.
@ uncleFred
She left her husband because he came out as gay, so it was definitely an appropriate decision on her part (although I’m left wondering how she didn’t know he was gay). Her blog:
http://julietjeske.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/city-of-sluts-the-aftermath/
Opus,
The simple answer is that he is not a natural player, that dating in coastal pressure cooker markets is almost impossible for guys, and that everyone but apex alphas isn’t getting laid enough. If a decent looking hedge fund millionaire and self made man still has to slum on OKcupid with mediocre women then its a tough market out there.
“The simple answer is that he is not a natural player, that dating in coastal pressure cooker markets is almost impossible for guys, and that everyone but apex alphas isn’t getting laid enough.”
I’m in the Midwest. Dating here for guys was only a little bit better than on the coasts when I was in that meat market some years ago. (It can’t be any better now and I am sure it has worsened.) Most women still wanted nothing less than an alpha.. You had to show some dominance and stick to it resolve to have any success at all. If you did not understand that dating and approaching was a numbers game (which most of us did not at all understand), your resolve and confidence very quickly wore down and you were reduced to simpering supplication because you had to “be nice”.
She’s really ugly, and he’s at least good looking, so I can’t imagine why he’d have problems getting dates, although I assume he’s on a dating site because he doesn’t have time for anything else.
She sounds very entitled and out of touch with her own worth, if it’s so easy for her to diss a guy on the Internet, and not only that, but to reveal his identity. I guess she thought she was doing other girls a favor by letting them know who her date was and that they shouldn’t bother dating him.
In any case, I think this should negatively affect her own dating marketability, as perhaps guys will stay away now. I imagine that wasn’t the result she wanted when she went on her quest for juicy writing material.
I agree with the assumption that her very vocal and public “rejection” of this guy was an attempt to bolster her own SMV… much like the elevator atheist chick from a couple of months ago. “I totally shut down this guy who was into me – I am so much better than that.”
There are two different lessons here for two different groups of women.
Women under 30, it’s simple: Don’t be like Alyssa Bereznak. Period. End of story. No matter how much fun your gal pals may be having totally, and often publicly, trashing men, it will come back to haunt them sooner or later. And in the world of social media, on the WWW where nothing ever goes away totally, it will haunt for a long time. You don’t have to be a doormat, frankly most men don’t want that. Just use some basic human decency. Imagine how you’d react to some man who publicly ripped you in this way, and believe it or not, men actually have emotions as well. Enough said.
Women 40 and over who just love to give advice to men about women – take a good, long, stare at Alyssa Bereznak. Bear in mind that there are a lot more women like her out there, especially in the under-30 age group – at the peak of their SMV, steadily eroding their MMV, learning nothing about how to treat other people. This is what many men encounter on a regular, ongoing, basis in their social life. So when you offer up advice that may or may not have been sound 20 – 25 – 30 years ago about “how young women are”, please bear in mind that times have changed, and that women’s attitudes towards men have changed since you were on the single scene. Yes, I’m aware that Not All Women Are Like That, and it’s a good thing, too, but far too many women are like that.
A special PS for those over 40, over 50, etc. women who deny the existence of entitled, special snowflake princesses: Exhibit A is Alyssa Bereznak, in living color. There are many more like her in the US. To continue to deny their existence can only be willful blindness on your part, or a form of lying. Either way, denial of the reality of entitled women is pointless.
“so I can’t imagine why he’d have problems getting dates”
Maybe when your over 40 you will understand what dating is like for men, but its common for even very successful accomplished normal dudes to have trouble dating and have to date down. Alphas really do get all the sex, and even being a wealthy world champion isn’t enough to be alpha.
“although I assume he’s on a dating site because he doesn’t have time for anything else.”
He doesn’t work at a typical hedge fund and has never had a job as far as I know. He likely has a lot of free time, but it would not surprise me if he is introverted and doesn’t like hitting clubs.
Online dating is full of bitches like this, but it also asks much less time and effort investment to get dates compared to hitting on girls live. So the lower level of results is offset by the lower effort required. I even read about a guy who outsourced his online dating to a third world guy who messages girls with stock messages and sets up dates for him. He said it cost $5/date. That is less then a single drink at many bars after happy hour.
“I guess she thought she was doing other girls a favor by letting them know who her date was and that they shouldn’t bother dating him.”
Women hate other women and don’t want to help them. The likely explanation is that rejecting him in this matter provided her with validation and an ego boost. Read the rest of her column and realize that she has dreadfully low self esteem. Her line that she had to be drunk to create a dating profile indicates she knows she is so low value she needs to use the internet to get dates and it disgusts her.
A follow up on women hating other women.
The subtext in this matter is how Gizmodo gets paid, by the “hit”. So all this traffic from the controversy makes them money. The girls editor was also a women, and apparently she encouraged her to write the article. Bereznak is an intern and likely won’t see a cent for all those hits, while the editor will. So Bereznak takes the fall and hit to her reputation while another manipulative women gets paid for it.
Don’t take advice from other women!
I am reasonably certain that the decision to blog trashing the person she met on OKCupid was made before she went on the date. I think she needed a blog topic, and decided that trashing someone she met online would make a good story. Once she had an answer that made him, in her opinion, a good target she did not look further. When she discovered that he was a former world champion, that made him a minor celebrity. At that point she set up a second date specifically to gather more information for her hit piece. She was looking for publicity and she set Finkel up.
She may have underestimated response of his fans and supporters, or she may have been expecting it. Either way she achieved her fifteen minutes of fame/infamy.
@ Chels
I agree that discovering that your spouse is a homosexual is more than sufficient grounds for divorce. I brought the link to Dalrock’s attention because it counters the “life is better after divorce” message that is pounded at women on a daily basis. Some circumstances make staying in a marriage impossible. The fact that it is appropriate or necessary, does not make divorce nor its aftermath any less difficult or painful.
This girl is truly awful.
BBsez had a good post on this I thought.
http://bbsezmore.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/three-strikes-and-youre-out/
My feeling is that this particular guy doesn’t have a shortage of women. He’s an attractive guy with money and he lives in NY. He seems pretty nonplussed.
My guess is he uses okcupid for casual sex/hook ups along with other methods.
The guy who wrote about getting people in the 3rd world to set up dates for him was Tim Ferris it was in his book, the 4 hour working week. iirc he had a competition amongst them.
Chels, I don’t know what the stats but I know one person irl whose husband turned out to be gay. She’s in her 30s. Also, I recall reading that Christa d’Souza (who does some of the blathering type articles in the women’s pages) her first husband was gay. She said he did like shopping but I don’t think there were that many other indicators. She’s early 50s.
chels, I just thought of 2 more people I know irl. A gay friend of mine has in his circle someone who came out post marriage and I have met him. He’s in his 30s. And a man who lives in my parents village with his partner didn’t come out till his 50s when he left his wife after kids grown up. I think he ‘s in 70s now. So whilst probably not a big factor overall (and if I had to guess was on decline?), it’s not impossible/super super rare. The UK is a small place but I really don’t know that many people!
dalrock, not just Sara Jean Underwood but Felicia Day too. Though I notice the former is getting the mentions..poor nice girl Felicia.
LOL!!! That is just inspired!
Okay when I read the story at Badger’s I didn’t see a picture of the girl. I still believe she is indicative of the rudeness of young women now a days. I also can add…SHE (omgosh she is NOT pretty) let a millionaire slip through her hands b/c he plays a “nerd” game??? And by the way I let plenty of high profile men go but b/c of CHARACTER issues not silly hobbies and definitely not after a first date. Maybe she saw he wasn’t into her and decided to do a preemptive strike?? To salvage something of value out of her crushed pride???
What’s not to like about her meaty, oily forehead and prominent cheeks and chin?
It would be like banging Loretta Swit’s dumpier younger sister.
“He’s an attractive guy with money and he lives in NY. ”
It’s just not enough, especially in NYC. If you aren’t Mr. Big or Donald Draper you’re nothing. Such is the life of being a man.
@ tenthring
Maybe when your over 40 you will understand what dating is like for men, but its common for even very successful accomplished normal dudes to have trouble dating and have to date down. Alphas really do get all the sex, and even being a wealthy world champion isn’t enough to be alpha.
That could be true, I’ve been out of the dating market for a long time, and I’m just relieved that I don’t have to go through it, considering the horror stories that I’ve heard from my friends. As well, it’s really not that easy for women either, a lot of my single girl friends say guys are only after one thing.
In her case, I assume she just wanted to be with a “bad boy”, if being a gamer is such a deal breaker for her. This guy was just too good for her, and I’m actually relieved she dismissed him as fast as she did.
Women hate other women and don’t want to help them. The likely explanation is that rejecting him in this matter provided her with validation and an ego boost. Read the rest of her column and realize that she has dreadfully low self esteem. Her line that she had to be drunk to create a dating profile indicates she knows she is so low value she needs to use the internet to get dates and it disgusts her.
So I take it you’ve never heard of http://www.dontdatehimgirl.com? We actually don’t hate each other that much, we may dislike and be in competition with the women that we know, but with random strangers? Not a chance.
I don’t think it’s a case of having low self-esteem, because if it would be, she’d be ecstatic that a guy is even paying attention to her, so she actually has too much self-esteem, and she’s also very entitled.
As well, creating an online profile doesn’t mean that she’s actually blaming herself for not being able to keep a guy, she’s probably shifting the blame on men because she thinks that the men around her are not worthy of her, and that she has a better chance of finding a high quality guy on the Internet (example of hypergamy). Also, she wouldn’t have so many “deal breakers” if she would have low self-esteem.
@ Lily
I don’t have any real life examples, the only cases I’ve heard about are from Oprah which It still shocks me each time I hear people separating because one of them turns out to be gay. I mean I’m sure that they knew before they were married that they’re gay, I just don’t understand why they’d get married to a person of the opposite sex.
There are several providers to whom you can outsource handling your online dating life in NYC. You send them some appealing pictures, talk with them. They set up profiles online for you, handle incoming contact messages, contact women, handle the communication and setup dates according to the client’s schedule. Shortly before the date the client gets an executive summary of the upcoming date to be briefed before the meeting. Many clients are busy executives who are not very good at handling it, don’t want to invest the time, or just think it is not worth paying the opportunity in terms of the effort. Here is one link who discusses it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36926587/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/no-time-date-online-outsource-it/
There, fixed it for ya! Free of charge!
@ greenlander
You do have a point there, as those women I mentioned dismiss the nice guys, and when I point some out, they just say that the guy must be gay, because no one is that nice. I’ve given up on trying to fix them up because it’s not worth it, and as my bf says, there’s a reason why they’re single.
@greenlander: This extract from badgers blog is also revealing
“Every woman I have ever known has said something like this: “I just want a nice guy who will treat me right.” This is partially true. When she says this, what she really means is: she wants a good looking, confident alpha man who will be nice to her, commit to her only, have sex only with her, and treat her right. This is why the manosphere is rife with stories of women who say they want nice, sensitive, caring men; yet they repeatedly date and have sex with “bad boys” or layabouts or thugs. This is because they want a confident man, not a “nice guy”.
Truthfully, can anyone imagine any polite woman announcing in public: “I just want that beautiful drummer up there with the tattoos and the long hair to screw me until I can’t walk, and I bet I can get him for more than a pump & dump”? Certainly, some women act precisely like this, and many more have certainly felt it, wanted it and believed it.
Women say they want stability, predictability and routine. Perhaps women want this most of the time. But they also want their lives laced with excitement, mystery, spontaneity and adventure — and they gravitate to men who can give them a taste of it.”
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/guest-post-the-female-condition/
Chels,
Self esteem is actually the opposite of princess syndrome. Self esteem implies self assurance and the ability to be introspective. Princess syndrome means rejecting men and acting prissy in order to APPEAR, to others and yourself, that your better then them (and thus better then an objective look at yourself).
The biggest boasters are often the ones with the least accomplishments, and the most cocky are often those with the least self confidence. Its all a way of tricking both others and yourself.
@Chels: I guess once some women had the taste of an alpha during a hookup she thinks she has a chance of getting one. So whenever she meets a regular guy she must feel she’s selling herself short.
@ davver
That’s interesting, I never thought about it like that, it does make a lot of sense.
@ RL
And that’s why there are articles about bitter 35+ women complaining they’re still single.
In china the groom’s parents have to pay the majority of the wedding fee although guests are expected to bring red envelopes with money to recover some of the fees. Some bride’s parents also expect a fee paid to them before they agree to the marriage.
TFH, I gather that some guys assume that their high-flying intellect should overcome their anti-game. This is somewhat like a woman assuming her accomplishments will overcome her poor dressing and personal grooming habits.
I have a theory that there are 2 scales 1-10 of “game” for guys and gals. There’s the social preening so emphasized by the Roissy sites, and the actual accomplishments a man can acheive, and to get a real idea of score you multiply one by the other for a 1-100 true score. Zuckerberg might have a 10 in the latter, but his 1 in the former kills him, as an ex-con with masterful game (10 and 1, respectively), has the same overall score of 10. A guy with an 8 game and and a 5 accomplishment will get better women to date/marry. One should always work on both to maximize one’s chances of the ideal spouse, if that’s one’s lifetime goal.
Women’s scale is beauty (including grooming, charm, etc) as one scale and other virtues (generally womanly virtues such as faithfulness, trusting, submissiveness, etc, but different folks may have different strokes here) being the other. Thus the 10 in the first with the 1 in the latter may get to ride the carousel, but her chances of landing a good looking lawyer as a spouse are slim and none. A reasonably good looking girl with good virtues can get a great guy. A knockout with great virtues lands someone like Dr Phil.
Of course, as Vox Day might point out, improving one’s game for either men or women can yield benefits far beyond getting better dates/spouses. I can certainly testify to this, as since I have learned some of these things my career and non-dating social life improved quite a bit…
@TFH: Here is the post http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/why-game-is-worth-more-than-a-billion-dollars/. Anyway, most game advice suggests to get avoid common beta traps rather than applying sophisticated tricks. San Francisco should be good for men, isn’t it?
“That is why I say that an Alpha like George Clooney does not deny merely one women a husband, but perhaps denies 5-10 highly attractive women. He uses up their prime years, and they latter cannot settle for less……”
well his ex wife certainly settled for someone else, as did Mariella Frostrup, but I can’t speak for the others off the top of my head, not very familiar with his exes.
So what might be the net worth of Mr Finkel? He works at a small start-up hedge fund called landscape capital managing $15 millions. This fund has 7 guys: 5 are partners and 2 further employees. Wikipedia states his MTG income at $330K. So what are looking at then? $1-2 million net worth? But maintenance is also quite expensive: even a basic basement flat is at $1-2K month a rent in Manhattan. Any, it doesn’t look excessively rich for NYC.
even a basic basement flat is at $1-2K rent a month in Manhattan. Anyway, he doesn’t look excessively rich within the NYC setting.
No less than Rebecca Watson (!!!!!!) has come out in defense of Jon Finkel. The money quote is:
“After all, it’s not easy fighting to destroy the damaging stereotype that women are shallow bitches who not only won’t date nerdy men but also laugh at what dorks they are behind their backs. That stereotype feeds into the Nice Guy syndrome that infects guys who come to the conclusion that all women only want to date stupid jerks.”
http://skepchick.org/2011/08/jon-finkel-dodged-a-bullet/
Indeed, Rebecca. Especially if the poor dork offers you coffee in the elevator.
[D: Great find. Amazing.]
“San Francisco should be good for men, isn’t it?”
The organic SWPL lifestyle is expensive, for one, so the city selects for a certain class of fellow who can provide the materialistic experience.
@TFH: Inmalafide has a topic on that just now which is about the former white house intern:
– http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/09/08/monica-lewinsky-over-the-hill-right-now-and-looking-for-love/
Dan in Philly,
Good comment.
van Rooinek,
Someone is embarrassed and trying to backtrack.
RL,
He also made some money from poker, but I suspect his net worth is less then $1mil. Still, seems pretty good for a twenty something that never worked a day in his life.
Actually, he is 33. However, I don’t think he never worked unless you don’t count competition preparation. And to get top class at anything you have to spend many hours weekly, often beyond the time investment what is considered as fun if it only were your hobby.
“A special PS for those over 40, over 50, etc. women who deny the existence of entitled, special snowflake princesses: Exhibit A is Alyssa Bereznak, in living color. There are many more like her in the US. To continue to deny their existence can only be willful blindness on your part, or a form of lying. Either way, denial of the reality of entitled women is pointless”
@ AR,
They deny it because many of them are just older versions of Alyssa with better masking skills. Sure, they have matured in some ways and many of them are loving, caring mothers to their kids. But they have no hobbies, never try to learn anything new, don’t manage money well (even in high paying jobs), refuse to exercise, shop uncontrollably, and now have another 20 or so years of wear and tear on the frame.
But if you are a man who even hints that the dating marketplace might not be so kind to them you are SHALLOW! If you are a man that chooses to move on after finding out how little they have to offer you are ripped a new one.
I have always enjoyed being around curious people, no matter what their age. It tells me that they are still open to learning, to experiencing, and to changing their POV. Many of these grown up Alyssas aren’t. They have decided on everything. Including the fact that there are no entitled younger versions of the person they see in the mirror every single day.
No comments on the Chappelle show link?
Do you have a mirror link? It doesn’t work in UK!
[D: Bummer. This link might work there. Or you could search for “When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong – Brenda Johnson”]
Doesn’t work in Canada either.
[D: Here is a youtube clip. Someone held a shaky mini cam and recorded it from TV. I’m guessing by searching the title you can find better that works outside the US.]
Fortunately for them, they have still been able to marry men by proxy through Big Government. Usurious rates of taxation on men of higher productivity ensure that they don’t need an actual man. They get the best of all worlds as they age: they get to eat the fruit of your labor through taxation AND they have their kitties to keep them from being lonely… and they get to do all that while sneering at your betaness.
Lily, I agree with you, I think it’s ridiculous to say that being with an alpha causes a woman not to look for betas. After all, it’s not like she had a relationship with the alpha, and it’s not like she got what she wanted. Look at Elisabetta Cannalis, she knows she wants to get married, and she knows that she wants kids. It’s true that Clooney wasted 2 years of her life, but it’s highly unprobable that she won’t settle for anything less, after all, he disappointed her terribly–they broke up because she knew that he couldn’t offer her what she wanted.
However, look at Jennifer Aniston–she didn’t remarry after Brad Pitt, and there was a story not too long ago that explains why she’s still single, she’s basically looking for perfection, which she isn’t going to find.
I think women’s high expectations are not due to being with alphas (to who they’re no more than pump and dump), it’s because women tend to exaggerate their own worth.
Thanks for the other link, it’s absolutely hilarious, although I feel sorry for the car.
Hey Dalrock. That chick is really not good looking enough to talk trash about anybody.
I wonder what the state of her world would be if she was pleasant and kind.
Look for’ in terms of him being the provider is very different from her being attracted to him. A lot of women settle for a provider, but then have contempt for him.
So you’re basically saying that women simply settle for a man because it’s better than being alone? I would think that after being constantly rejected, one would learn what they’re worth and adjust their expectations. As well, having a successful relationship should be more than enough, and I don’t know what the reasons for contempt would be.
Rather, being married was causing him to give up too much, since other women were throwing themselves at him (knowing full well he was married, of course)
It seems you are not accounting for the possibility that marriage is not a good deal for HIM. He (or other men) do not merely exist to be useful to women.
I know that the laws are completely skewed in favor of women, that it’s a risk to get married and I know that men can get sex outside of marriage. However, is that the only thing men used to get out of marriage? There should be other things that women can offer men; like satisfying his own needs (emotional/physical).
*Because* an alpha slept with her once, and due to the Solipism of the Female Mind, she interprets that to be more than it is. Much like an attractive woman pats a beta male on the arm, and he quickly agrees to pick her up from the airport 40 miles away.
Most women can’t reconcile how they get so much male interest from Facebook and Match.com (that too off of photos that may be 5 years old), yet cannot get a top man to marry them. The notion that there are not enough top men to go around never occurs to them. In fact, a recent survey showed that women on OKCupid rated 80% of the men there as ‘below average’ which itself shows the distorted view of what ‘average’ really means, that women have.
But that’s superficial attention, based solely on one’s appearance, and it’s basically reducing her to a sex object. Most women don’t want that, they want the commitment, and if so, they should base their worth on how many men are interested in giving them that. Otherwise, it’s just pump and dump again.
[D: Lorraine Berry is a good example of this.]
Apparently some folks are math challenged.
$330K per year. Since he is a financial guy let’s assume that he understands how to minimize his taxes. Lets assume that he has a $1.5 million mortgage on his NYC condo. Lets assume, because he hasn’t got a “real” job”, that his rate is not optimal.If we assume he has a $2 million something condo and he has a 1.7 million mortgage he has a monthly mortgage payment around $8000. Sound like a lot? That is $96,000 a year. Oh gosh forgetting the interest deduction on his taxes, he still has $234K. Now he has to pay his property taxes and state and city taxes, but lets get real. All said and done he is going to have to live on a net monthly income of something like $15,000 a month. Now I know that NYC is not cheap, but seriously if you can’t live very well on $15K a month after you pay your taxes and mortgage, you have a very serious problem.
Slice it however you like, but even in NYC $330K is a pretty nice life style.
Does he really win $330K on average per year? I though the 330K is the total overall career income from MTG? And how do you learn about any mortgage payment he has?
BTW his wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Finkel
“So you’re basically saying that women simply settle for a man because it’s better than being alone?”
If we are playing the game that “The plural of anecdote is data”, then yes, I have data that confirms that from real life. I’ve known two women, one via a dating relationship, the other via friendship, that told me they got married because either a) “he met my needs at the time” (per the woman I was dating, speaking of her ex-husband. She was 30, I was 29 when she told me this), or b) my friend who told me that when she was 29 and afraid she’d never get married, she married a USN sailor nearly seven years her JUNIOR, had children with him, and then divorced once she realized perhaps marrying a 22 yr old at age 29 wasn’t the SMARTEST thing she’d ever done. Especially since they appeared to have nothing in common except wanting to have sexual relations (hence the two children).
My wife has at least two examples of women she knows, one family, one friend, who married men who they were either a) not in love with [her friend, told directly to another of my wife’s friends ON THE MORNING OF SAID WOMAN’S WEDDING], or b) uninterested in having children with even though their husband expressed a desire to start a family [wife’s relative]. I also dated another woman who married so her husband would be a barrier between her mother and her. She didn’t want children, and when she married in her early twenties, neither did her husband. Comes their late twenties and her husband saw his friends starting families. Guess what? Seems she didn’t want children at all, they never discussed it, and it strained the marriage to the point they later divorced. Both women my wife told me about divorced as well.
So yes, I’d say it appears that many women settle for a man versus being alone. Much to the man’s detriment.
Total winnings, over the entire time, was $330K. He also made some money playing poker but there are no indications this was more then six figures. The hedge fund is new and hasn’t turned big profits yet.
Chels,
You may have figured out these things, but most women have not. I the actions of average women as evidence.
Re: Bill Gates. He had a long term girlfriend, whom he still sees despite being married to a midlevel manageress. It was written into the prenup that the ex and Bill could hang out annually no questions allowed from wifey.
Bill Gates is a number of things, but I’m not so sure he’s as beta as some make him out to be.
“I mean I’m sure that they knew before they were married that they’re gay, I just don’t understand why they’d get married to a person of the opposite sex.”
I think the first fight my husband and I had was when one of his friend’s wife divorced him because she found out she was lesbian after 10 years of marriage. I told him that it was BS that she knew she was a lesbian and married him without giving him a fair chance to get the marriage and the wedding and possibly the kids. He didn’t liked that. I know it might had been harsh but really I have plenty gay friends all of them told me that they always knew, they hide it for social reasons but they always knew since they had memory of liking anything. I liked guys even before I know what a guy was, so is for me hard to buy that people wakes up one day gay. Thoughts?
PS
Yeah that woman is a dumb rude bitch, but why people are talking about Jon’s money or not? Wouldn’t be worst for him that she would had actually saw the money as a reason to keep dating him? Those things end ugly. He is better off with no “settlers” than with a settler looking for a provider,disguised as a bride, isn’t he?
I just thought of someone else I’ve met irl (though very briefly), the MP Greg Barker left his wife for another man. I’ve linked to the Torygraph so relatively SFW, no doubt the Mail et al would have more sensationalist coverage of it lol. Can’t think of any lesbians off the top of my head, but my feeling is similar to Stephenie’s that they probably always knew, but it’s just a feeling, but perhaps varies between men and women, don’t know.
I think there’s another dynamic here that somewhat bothers me.
“It’s nice to know the internet has my back, so in total it looks like it was a net positive, though I still feel oddly creeped out by it.”
I wonder if that would be true if Mr. Finkel worked as a barista at Starbucks or was currently unemployed and living at home with his parents? Are we fine with his gaming habits because he’s got good looks and a respectable net worth? And do these things contribute to our disdain of Alyssa Bereznak?
I’m sure it has everything to do with getting a date request from a Playboy model.
Alyssa shredded a millionaire, so that increases our disdain for her petty rudeness and average looks and makes her look more like a loser in comparison.
But what if she shredded a minimum wage laborer? A fat pimply wage laborer? Would we still have his back? Would we be as zealous in condemning her behavior relative to those conditions?
Or are we more supportive of rude arrogant females when the male isn’t quite up to snuff?
Sedulous,
I think her behavior is wrong no matter what the case, but her decision is wrong depending on the circumstances. Allow me to explain.
Nobody should be making a post about an internet date and mentioning their real life info unless they tried to rape you or something. That’s wrong whether he is a hobo or the president. I don’t think that is up for debate. It would be wrong if the man did it. In fact, it wouldn’t even have to be a date, if I posted the real life info of someone I talk with on a message board that is wrong as well.
What makes the situation have a double meaning is the fact that there is a princess complex in play as well. She, the female, believes she is too good for him, the male, despite the fact that even a cursory look at their characteristics and accomplishments shows he is a much better human being then her. If she had been smart she would have tried reel in that catch. So there is this whole second level of commentary above her incorrectness of publishing his real name where people criticize her bad dating skills and huge ego. Had he been a loser only the first level of criticism would apply, the added ignorance of her SMV would not be relevant.
so a guy who goes on a date, gets turned down but accepts it with his dignity intact, works an extremely lucrative job requiring intellect and study (I guess), and spends his free time how he wants by playing fantasy RPG themed card games is a beta
but a guy who erases his personality and suppresses his natural human instincts to cater to the rationalization hamster of some shrill harpy STD petri dish is an alpha
and so we are all clear: being a beta is considered a bad thing, we should all want to be alphas
@tenthring
“She, the female, believes she is too good for him, the male, despite the fact that even a cursory look at their characteristics and accomplishments shows he is a much better human being then her. If she had been smart she would have tried reel in that catch.”
I believe she was ignorant about his net worth when she thrashed him. She was making her case SOLELY on his game thing. If he were an ugly, low-level worker drone, and she knew it, she would have probably used that to confirm her superiority over him. Many of us probably would too, that’s my point.
But it turns out he’s worth a few mill and has a relatively high status job, so now she probably feels her judgement was hasty and missed a great opportunity, in addition to the public backlash she’s getting.
Likewise, many of us observers are gloating over her missed opportunity because we’re comparing her status with his, knowing things NOW that she didn’t when she eviscerated him.
But if he were of lower status — an American untouchable — would we still feel that way?
Would a woman sleep with a man who tells her he farts in bed? Would she sleep with him after she found out he was a billionaire?
It’s like we’re all guilty of a kind of relative hypergamy at times.
jso,
The thing is, men need sex. And if he doesn’t screw this harpie, he will have to screw some other harpie, because its a basic biological need. If he didn’t need sex he wouldn’t be arranging dates with mediocre girls on OKcupid.
So if you need sex you might as well be good at getting it. Alphas get sex with little effort, betas have to expend great effort to get sex. Game is about reducing the amount of effort it takes to get sex. If your lucky it may even help you snag the 1 out of 100 women in this country that could make a decent wife, but till then at least it keeps you from going insane with unmet sexual needs. Dropping out of the SMP is not an option because of biology.
>>The stats may not show a marriage strike
Actually, they do. Marriage rate per 1,000 unmarried women has dropped 50% since 1970. And, every year it drops further. See the University of Virginia Marriage Project.
Dalrock has been asked several times to talk to someone who knows math to show him why his statement that he has proved there is no marriage strike is flat wrong at a glance. At this state, as good an MRA as he is otherwise, he has made himself a laughing stock for this impossible claim.
Sedulous,
I don’t know how little she knew, apparently she knew he was a hedge fund guy. And if she googled him she knew he had money. But I digress.
Yes, she would be “correct” to reject him if he was a loser, just not in the way she did (publicly and with scorn). The fact that a man probably in the top 10% of available men didn’t meet yet another mediocre woman’s 427 point checklist simply drives home the point of female hypergamy.
The more common situation would be one where they had equal “status”, but she rejected him because he was a man and she was a woman. Woman deny that happens, but this situation throws that smaller level of hypergamy into overdrive for all to see.
P.S. Did you read that essay she had on objectivism. She comes from a fucked up family. Her father divorced her.
Sedulous,
This wasnt relative hypergamy. She pre screened him for wealth and status. It was when he turned out to be not JUST a hedge fund finance guy, as his profile stated, but had a geeky HOBBY as well, that she went into terminal meltdown. She said this HERSELF in the article. Its hard to ascribe anything more than malice to her actions when her own words are there to damn her forever.
And she certainly wasnt ignorant of his wealth when she went on the second date with him as she stated herself, she googled him. His wiki page, which she mentions, does state his earning just from Magic tournaments at 332k. And he started making that money as a teenager ( minimal expenses). His poker earnings only amount to 71k overall, but hes only played in TWO cash prize tournaments. Finally hes a managing partner in his hedge fund that currently ( and likely this month rapidly increasing ) overseas $15 Million.
She trashed him even after she learned all of this.
But at least in this instance, there will be a reckoning. This woman will NEVER get the opportunity to date even “barista at Starbucks or was currently unemployed and living at home with his parents” man because google will hold this woman accountable for her bitchiness FOREVER.
Since his net worth wasn’t stated on his Wiki page or her blog, I assumed she was unaware of it.
Or he told her about it during their date at the Jeffrey Dahmer show.
Obviously, his game winnings didn’t impress her.
So I guess some women have such an aversion to gaming, that they’ll dump and trash you even when you’re rich.
“….This woman will NEVER get the opportunity to date….because google will hold this woman accountable for her bitchiness FOREVER…..”
Indeed. In her own words:
“So what did I learn? Google the shit out of your next online date. Like, hardcore.”
Amen.
Given the questions about his actual net worth, I’ve changed “millionaire” to “wealthy” in the end of the post.
@Anonymous age 69
This is beyond tedious. I’ve explained this in detail here and here. The marriage rate per 1,000 unmarried women doesn’t tell the whole story, and it is telling a different story than many assume it is. Women who delay marriage increase the denominator of that stat, as do women who divorce and aren’t able to remarry. Most of what the changing metric is picking up is women spending less and less of their adult lives being married. This doesn’t mean that they don’t get married. Women don’t have to stay married to commit divorce theft, they only have to get married and then divorce. The data all shows that this is in fact what is happening.
You see proof of rampant carousel riding followed by divorce theft, and celebrate it as a marriage strike. So be it. I don’t know how to convince you that this isn’t something to celebrate.
I didn’t address his net worth in my posts because it’s not really relevant to Bereznak’s asshattery, nor to my impression of him. His job as a “finance guy” was obviously a turn-on for her in that she thought she’d be meeting a racounteur with a flashy lifestyle.
Her looks are also not particularly relevant, which is why I let commenters address them. Truth be told I don’t find her unattractive, and if I saw her profile (well educated, works at a tech blog) I’d probably contact her thinking she sounded interesting. Would I be in for a surprise when she found out I write Python every now and then.
What’s amazing about her entitled attitude is that she’s so closed-minded that MTG makes him a “dweeb” – as if there are no “finance guys” who like to geek out. It also suggests she doesn’t really know the finance industry, since it’s been steadily infusing quants and geeks for the past three decades, and is living in a SATC-esque fantasy world.
@ TFH
Remember that very few women truly understand cause and effect very well. One of the more politically incorrect truths in this ‘sphere is that the part of a woman’s brain that processes cause and effect is no more developed than that of a 12 year old boy.
Isn’t that quite the exaggeration? I’d like to see proof of that, otherwise, I’ll just ignore it.
@ Stephanie
There’s no way that a gay person doesn’t know they’re gay, there’s no way that s/he realizes this only after marriage. I think the reason they get married is because somehow, they think marriage will make them straight.
@ Sedulous
Probably not, if he was a member of the working class, I don’t think anyone would have cared because they probably would have done the same. I think people reacted to this case as they did because she basically let a millionaire slip away, it’s like losing a winning lottery ticket.
@Sedulous
The initial reaction was from the MTG community because one of their heroes was attacked on a tech blog. It wasn’t a group of dedicated hedge fund fans who came to his aid and set up the meme, for example. Also, I don’t think the post would have been approved had she been going after some no name MTG player. I think the editor approved the post because he was famous (famous enough to have his own wiki page). Before the post, he was famous only as a MTG tournament winner. If she had written this about some unknown barista she had a date with who played MTG but wasn’t known in the community, I think there would have been a risk of a lawsuit, and the blog would have been seen as cruel for picking on some poor unknown guy.
@Dalrock
So a guy has to be somewhat famous before he gets publicly slammed over a couple of dates with a blogger. The (female) editor has to also be impressed enough with the victim to give the go-ahead.
Hmmm, strange thing this hypergamy.
I would think the risk of a lawsuit is greater with the well-known guy IMO.
Dalrock – “…and the blog would have been seen as cruel for picking on some poor unknown guy.”
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. To me, this was more of her (and the editor’s) Dinner For Schmucks effort. To her/them, MTG was roughly equivalent to collecting dead mice, dressing them in costumes, and posing them in dioramas. She/they were betting that the rest of the “guests” would also find this MTG hobby as equally laughable and pathetic and endeavor.
They just bet poorly. Had she dated some “schmuck” who spent his money on some hobby that would be seen more widely as “foolish and useless” (like trying to make the worlds biggest ball of used tape pieces, for instance), then the bit would have played out as hilariously as they had planned it to be – not the future-prospect destroying face-palm that it did.
Bereznak’s failure can be seen as the inability of a Schmuckette to recognize what makes for a prime Schmuck.
“There’s no way that a gay person doesn’t know they’re gay, there’s no way that s/he realizes this only after marriage. I think the reason they get married is because somehow, they think marriage will make them straight.”
Very likely, but I wish they at least say something to their spouses before they sign they paper. I mean the other person should be aware what will happen if it doesn’t work. *lesigh*
We see proof every day.
You’re going to have to do better than anecdotal evidence, that’s completely irrelevant. You stated that in women, cause and effect is as developed as it is in 12 year old boys—prove it, or it can be very easily dismissed. And facts are only facts with statistical proof, and you haven’t provided any.
What percentage of the top 100 Hedge Fund managers are women (zero)? What percentage of CEOs of big corporations are women (3%)?
It has nothing to do with women’s intelligence, it has more to do with sexism and with women having different priorities. We just agreed on a different thread that it’s not possible to be a CEO and also have a family, which isn’t a choice most women are ready to make.
What percentage of the 100 greatest chess players of all time are women, since this is not a strength sport and men and women should compete equally?
Men and women don’t play chess together due to gender segregation at the beginning of the 19th century (aka men didn’t want to play with women). However, women persevered and formed their own chess clubs; the first female chess club was in the Netherlands in 1847. Natalia Pogonina is one of the best chess players in the world. And what about Judit Polgár?
Therefore, women began to play chess much later than men. As welll, women make about 10% of the members of the World Chess Federation’s estimated one million members, 7.6% of 100,456 rated players, and 2% of the top 1,000 players world-wide and that number is steadily increasing, prominent chess coaches predict that number to triple within 5 years. It also has separate titles for women, which were introduced in the 1950 and 1976, and women don’t see their point, but the Federation won’t budge.
Not to mention that the majority of women find chess really boring, and not because they lack the mental abilities. As well, the low numbers of women in chess can be attributed to how parents raise and socialize their sons and their daughters—they don’t encourage their daughters to participate in chess because it’s seen as a male sport, and they also teach their kids that men are inherently superior at chess to men, and you’re definitely proving this point now. They also teach their sons that women are no matches for them, which encourages more gender segregation.
And why don’t men and women play golf together? It’s not like there’s physical power required.
Facts are facts, Chels. Ignoring them because you don’t like reality does not change them.
It’s hilarious that you actually make such a statement, without providing any evidence, which naturally makes your statements hypotheses. And there’s a long, long way from a hypothesis to a fact.
I would bet real money that a randomly selected group of 12-year-old boys would do better at chess than a randomly selected group of adult women.
P.r.o.v.e. i.t. or it’s end of discussion for me.
“Chels says:
Not to mention that the majority of women find chess really boring, and not because they lack the mental abilities.”
Ah, I remember this argument from elementary school – “It’s not that I can’t do it – I just don’t want to!” The lack of ‘interest’ in that sort of strategy game is part of a lesser aptitude.
“Natalia Pogonina is one of the best chess players in the world. And what about Judit Polgár?”
There will always be statistical outliers. The best female sprinters in the world could run the average man into the ground as well – but they can’t compete with the best male sprinters in the world, and if me and TFH were to do a 100m, I’m still putting my money on him (as the random male to my random female).
*I have never heard of the women mentioned, but the only chess player I can name is Bobby Fisher (sp?), so I’m taking your word as to their abilitiies.
“Chels says:
What percentage of the top 100 Hedge Fund managers are women (zero)? What percentage of CEOs of big corporations are women (3%)?
It has nothing to do with women’s intelligence, it has more to do with sexism and with women having different priorities. We just agreed on a different thread that it’s not possible to be a CEO and also have a family, which isn’t a choice most women are ready to make.”
“TFH says:
Oh, that tired old lie”
Actually, I would give a *little* credit here. Given that most CEOs are relatively old (The median age of what I assume is a fairly esteemed list linked below is 54, with only 3 of 500 below 40),
http://www.spencerstuart.com/research/articles/975/
the world of today is not the world that formed the CEOs. A 54-year-old today started working around 1977, and half of the CEOs started before that. Given that men and women were streamed differently in the past, it might have some effect on the number of male/female CEOs today.
That said, there’s a strong gender divide even in the young ones of the AA generation, and I gather hedge fund managers tend to be young and still male, so the evidence bears out even if that is a small mitigating factor in the old CEOs.
“Chels says:
And why don’t men and women play golf together? It’s not like there’s physical power required.”
Not on the same level as some sports, but yes, physical power is required for a drive. That’s why the ‘ladies’ tee’ is well forward on the course.
When women in history started playing in chess has not a stitch to do with why I am good or not good at playing it today.
Didn’t you know? Women can do ANYTHING men can do (and better), but that doesn’t change anything about women’s unique innate abilities!
“The other problem I see with many women is that in attributes where women actually are better then men (seeing subtle social nuances, forming support networks quickly, etc.), they are quick to trumpet their superiority. But in *any* area where men are superior (analytics, strategy, comedy, etc.), all sorts of contortions and filibustering comes in.”
I personally can say that I loved chess since I saw a match when I was 5, I find interesting and stimulating. Yet I suck at it, like terribly.
I can totally see my brain having a barrier after I plan 6 moves, everything becomes hazy. Of course I never have proper training and maybe I can improve with a professional guiding me, but still doesn’t come naturally, like language or creativity. I enjoy playing with my PC and I can win, but this are not done out of planning a move mostly taking advantage of the PC mistakes or/and concentrating in capturing piece by piece to undermine the enemy forces.
Funny enough in real life I can plan ahead for years, currently I have plans till 2020 at least. And see consequences and actions very clearly but I hate making mistakes so I’m very motivated to see my steps. So I think is very likely that cause and consequences mechanism in female and male brain are wired differently with men being better for abstract concepts and women better for social ones.
I also have the suspicion that given that chess and math were created by males, women will have a harder time to learn this things designed by and for the male brain. It would be an interesting experiment if a woman was somehow forced to create math out of necessity and see if she can create mathematics or/and a game that was purely female see if is there a way to abstract numbers for the female brain to work with it, the same way men do, YMMV.
Kai; A weird thing is that female golfers are not even close to male golfers in the least physical part of the game, i.e. putting.
It’s not about women having inferior intelligence. It is about men (on average) and women (on average) having different strengths. It doesn’t mean that an individual woman can’t be atypical for her gender, and it doesn’t mean that no woman possesses those skills, but it does mean that there’s a difference in the average, and it does mean that when you grab a random woman and a random man, you can take a decent (though not certain) guess at the relative skills.
I think of it as bell curves on a graph. Both men and women can be graphed and will have a curve, but in any given skill, the curves will be shifted a little from each other. There’s overlap, but the broad mass of women and the broad mass of men are not at the same point.
In things that tend to be about pure genius, there is the additional factor that in IQ-related matters, men are spread more broadly than women. Their bell curve is wider – there are more male geniuses and more male idiots. So in areas strongly correlated with IQ, I would suggest that looking only to those on the very top might be less effective at giving us a good idea of the average man and woman – but it’s pretty easy to look at the comparative abilities of the masses in the middle as well.
“Lavazza says:
Kai; A weird thing is that female golfers are not even close to male golfers in the least physical part of the game, i.e. putting.”
Interesting. As I find golf horribly boring, I have no idea and will assume your premise.
I could see this being related to the comparative ease with which men and women deal with the physics involved. I suspect women are also less likely to excel in pool, which requires a very similar skill.
“TFH says:
Agreed, but even in the next 10 years, Female CEOs may rise from 5% to maybe 15% or so, but not more. It will *never* approach anything close to 50/50.”
I agree, and wasn’t trying to imply that sexism made up for more than a little of it. I think women with the ability and interest to succeed as a CEO will always be a very small proportion.
I wonder how many women have been promoted above their abilities due to their sex, and whether it’s enough to have a detrimental impact on the performance of female CEOs in general.
I’d like to think that while an unqualified woman might make middle manager, no company would be dumb enough to send her to the top unless she was one of the rare competent, but I’m not sure who is always in control of those decisions.
It’s certainly worse for women to have unqualified females in positions just because they are female who emphasize the lack of abilities in women than it would be to see only a rare small percentage of competent women in charge.
“TFH says:
Kai,
Yes. That is why I say that feminism, far from helping women, has actually drawn much more scrutiny to basic female limitations. Feminist, by loudly demanding that women are equal at a/b/c, actually draw attention to why the results to back up these claims are just not there.
In the old days (or in any non-feminist country today), it is understood what men are good at and what women are good at. Women still carry higher dignity, because there are no fools going around demanding that women are the equals of men in calculus and Chess and running a factory.
Larry Summers was fired as President of Harvard for saying something that was not only true, but could equally have been seen as critical of men as women. He merely said that women are better at some things, and men at others. That is all he said.
Yet, he was fired. But the incident draw attention that might otherwise not have been drawn, and a lot of men gave more thought to how absurd feminism has become. Hence, another example of how feminism actually forces women into situations that make women look *worse* than they ever could have looked in 1946.”
I think it’s even worse when people are pushed into situations where they are likely to fail, making it look even more like all of the group are incompetent, rather than just a rare few doing the job and doing it fine.
I do believe in equality of opportunity – I think that there are *some* women who excel in traditionally male areas, and I see no reason those few should not be able to go for it. I similarly feel that most men being less skilled and interested in the empathetic areas is no reason that a few men shouldn’t be nurses or kindergarten teachers.
My ideal world is one that encourages all people to pursue areas:
a) that interest them,
b) in which they have some aptitude and later show competence
and c) which is of some concrete value (though this is not germane to the discussion here).
That world would see a lot of women staying home with their children, and a lot of women working part-time, and very few women in engineering. And I think that is entirely appropriate.
No-one claims the lack of white representation in the NBA is due to racism – why do brains not have the same differences as bodies?
“There is nothing to ‘create’ with Math. It is a fundamental derivation of the laws of nature. 95% of physics is Math. The gravitational constant of the universe existed long before humans.”
I mean the process of abstraction to understand the nature principles were created by men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
“But why aren’t women devising new board games? Just recently, an Asian man made big bucks by creating a hilarious parody of Monopoly based around ghetto culture, calling it ‘Ghettopoly’. He did the whole thing at home. Why couldn’t a woman do that?”
Good question. I personally had designed some board games, but I haven’t tried to sell them so I have no idea if they are any good and I won first prize for my game at college. Maybe I should try and see if it works or not in the future, I have no idea might be very silly though. We will see.
See, if you would have said what Kai said, that women and men have different strengths, I would have agreed. However, your original statement was that women’s “cause and effect” abilities match those of a 12 year old boy, you’re basically saying that a 12 year old boy is smarter than a woman. And yes, I do take issue with this *rolls eyes*
This is what I meant that I don’t like feminists nor the average MRA. On one side, feminists argue for female superiority, and on the other, you have MRAs arguing for female inferiority, women are basically children, and in some cases, worse than children.
This is also what Doomed Harlot meant when she talked about the sisterhood, and women having power in the public sphere. However, feminists don’t take into consideration that this comes at the cost of having a family. On the other hand, MRAs don’t take into consideration when they argue that women should take on traditional roles, such as being a homemaker, that this makes women seem inferior and to statements such as yours, and they make women seem like they’re unable to achieve much more than that. Remember when I said that I don’t care what feminists/traditionalists say? This is exactly why.
The reason why I stick around here and why I like this blog so much is because I haven’t seen Dalrock remains fairly objective, he doesn’t make statements such as yours, and he seems fairly moderate. If he would start talking about female inferiority, I would be gone the next second.
I don’t have any problem with talking about gender differences, and with saying that men and women have different strengths, but it stops when you start saying that because of those differences, women are children .
“I think being brought up in a culture with less female entitlement actually helped them.”
I think that is true. In those culture any woman that actually succeeds does it because she can, there is not promotions to fill the quota and abide by the law, just hard work and skills to network and socialize probably with both men and women.
In the history of our world exceptional women have always being able to shine, I don’t think a man will stop a competent woman from succeeding, IME if you can walk the walk no man gets in your way and in fact he will mentor you, feminism laws has made many “mediocre” women that otherwise would had become cubicle drones, like 80% of men, get to the top. Not good in the long run me thinks.
“TFH says:
The spatial abilities of men vs. women are not in dispute. Men did have to hunt, after all.
…
Virtually all men in this ‘sphere agree.”
I believe that science (in the form of IQ tests, academic performance, and statistics on economists, scientists, and such) as well as anecdote (in the form of overheard conversations, formal logic classes, and most people’s experiences) agree with you.
But I don’t think ‘all men here agree’ is a relevant part of the data.
What you and your fellow supporters don’t seem to realize when talking about gender differences is that it makes men inferior at the things women are better at.
I can admit that I, as a woman, am inferior to men, in certain things. Can you admit the same? That you, as a man, are inferior to women in certain things?
Somehow, this always slips through the cracks *rolls eyes*
“But why aren’t women devising new board games? Just recently, an Asian man made big bucks by creating a hilarious parody of Monopoly based around ghetto culture, calling it ‘Ghettopoly’. He did the whole thing at home. Why couldn’t a woman do that?”
She did. It was on Dragon’s Den a few years ago, Monopoly like, started off with London (she’d been a taxi driver I think, I remember it was based on the ‘knowledge’). The Dragons didn’t see the potential but it was the top board game at Hamley’s the next Christmas and destinations grew from London to include amongst others, Hogwarts.
I am in a rush but quick google
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6314837.stm</a
“But why aren’t women devising new board games? Just recently, an Asian man made big bucks by creating a hilarious parody of Monopoly based around ghetto culture, calling it ‘Ghettopoly’. He did the whole thing at home. Why couldn’t a woman do that?”
She did. It was on Dragon’s Den a few years ago, Monopoly like, started off with London (she’d been a taxi driver I think, I remember it was based on the ‘knowledge’). The Dragons didn’t see the potential but it was the top board game at Hamley’s the next Christmas and destinations grew from London to include amongst others, Hogwarts.
I am in a rush but quick google
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6314837.stm
“Chels says:
See, if you would have said what Kai said, that women and men have different strengths, I would have agreed. However, your original statement was that women’s “cause and effect” abilities match those of a 12 year old boy, you’re basically saying that a 12 year old boy is smarter than a woman. And yes, I do take issue with this *rolls eyes*”
Men and women have different strengths. And a common strength in men that is fairly uncommon in men is the ability to process complicated cause and effect situations.
By this metric, typical 12-year-old boy is ‘smarter’ than a woman, if ‘smarter’ is solely defined by one’s ability to process the repercussions of an action. If you define ‘smarter’ as anything more than that, then this one statement speaks little to the end determination of relative smarts.
David Stove on “The Intellectual Capacity of Women” is must reading.
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/women.html
“Chels says:
I don’t have any problem with talking about gender differences, and with saying that men and women have different strengths, but it stops when you start saying that because of those differences, women are children .”
Women are not children because they tend to have different strengths than men.
Many modern women act like children because they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and seek to blame anyone and anything they possibly can before accepting any culpability. The way women blame the male conspiracy instead of their own biology suggests an infantile processing capacity.
Men might be vastly more likely to become career strategists, but that doesn’t suggest at all that women can’t be basically capable of registering the consequences of the actions they make in daily life.
The refusal of many women to see those consequences is suggestive of that incapability.
Chels says:
“It has nothing to do with women’s intelligence, it has more to do with sexism and with women having different priorities..”
I don’t believe women’s overall intelligence is at issue here; rather, it is about the understanding of linear cause-and-effect relationships. Study after study supports the idea that men are generally better at this sort of thing than women are. It doesn’t mean that men are smart and women are dumb, it just means their brains are wired differently.
I don’t deny that there have been times in history where sexism truly did keep women down, but those times are almost entirely past in the western world. It doesn’t ring true to blame The Patriarchy for a dearth of women chess champions.
I have to run for now — my 5 year old son wants me to play Battleship with him. He will probably win, that little stinker! 🙂
@TFH
I think it is fair for Chels to ask for hard data. So much disastrous social policy has been formed on anecdote, including the apex fallacy. I doubt anyone has seriously and fairly studied the issue though. There would be a nonzero risk of finding the wrong answer and being banished from the social sciences for life.
“TFH says:
A lot of Game was formed exactly this way. Not everything is measurable (although this is, based on the Hedge Fund/CEO stats), but was the sum total of what a lot of men reported as delivering results, and was heavily peer reviewed and tested.
The sum total of vast male experience here does count, particularly when we also know how relatively few women can introspect honestly about their own psychology, their strengths and weaknesses, etc.”
A number of things aren’t solidly measurable, and in those cases, mass anecdote works as the only data available.
But when something IS solidly measurable, (women’s performance in areas requiring a key skill), it’s at best intellectually lazy to rely on ‘we all agree’ instead of using the data out there (like the stats given).
I mean, all feminists might agree that they don’t need men in their life, but the evidence disproves that. When the evidence exists, and is in agreement with your postulate, the data is better evidence than hearsay.
Heck, we don’t have to listen to women introspect about their own psychology – scientists have studied a lot of that too!
“Dalrock says:
I doubt anyone has seriously and fairly studied the issue though. There would be a nonzero risk of finding the wrong answer and being banished from the social sciences for life.”
It depends on what issue is in question. We might not have any solid studies on purely ‘how do men and women stack up in processing ramifications of an action’, but test scores in critical reasoning and logic problems, and performance in industries requiring these skills give pretty solid data.
“I can admit that I, as a woman, am inferior to men, in certain things. Can you admit the same? That you, as a man, are inferior to women in certain things?”
H. E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS YES.. had to learn this the hard way a few years back from my wife to be honest. Made a ‘date’ with my step daughter one night and due to some extenuating circumstances, my younger stepson wanted to accompany us. I told him no, out of principle, I had made plans with his sister. After both kids had left the room, my wife told me that she would follow whatever I suggested but told me how this would hurt my stepson if I continued with my plan.
Right there I realized that logic doesn’t solve all problems and then I realized just how much women and men are a team and both have skills which are necessary to the family. I took my stepson, and we all had a blast thus proving my wife correct. Hey, it doesn’t make it right that MRA’s say the stuff that they do in most cases, I too applaud Dalrock on his moderate stance. There is a reason why the man is almost at a million views and he hasn’t been online for even two years yet.
Just one thing to keep in mind…please remember that men are attacked and denigrated and told how inferior to women they actually are pretty much every single day. There are many outlets and media support available to women, men do not have the same thing. It has gotten to the point that if you aren’t as aggressive about the benefits of being a man as TFH or others are than no one will see them or care about them…not even if you are a man yourself. Many men don’t even fathom their own self worth…how can they when on Fathers Day you have articles telling fathers that they are useless.
Once more, I will applaud Dalrock on everything he has accomplished here with his site but although it doesn’t excuse some of the more extreme attitudes that some MRA’s exhibit, TFH is nowhere near extreme let me tell you. Men and masculinity is under attack at virtually every single turn almost every day. Being a white man in particular means you where born with a very large bullseye on your back. Just for the record Chels…I’m black so I’m not stating that sitch about whites for any form of sympathy for myself. I’ll say it because the others here can’t, being a white male can mean you have to stomach all sorts of crap because you are seen as being ‘The Ruling Class’. If guys like TFH didn’t state what they did in the manner which they have…I can tell you I personally still would be aimless in this life and have no idea what I as a married man even contributes to society. It’s a shame that it has to come to this to be honest, but this is truth.
How often can you kick a dog before it begins to lash out? Men have to fight just to realize that they aren’t scraps of gum to be scraped off the shoe of life, women are bolstered up at every turn. I’m not telling you to accept it, I’m stating this so you may realize the reality of the situation, and to see where some MRA’s are coming from.
I think there’s a difference between “empirical” and “anecdotal” evidence.
They’re both a form of observation, but anecdotal tends to be informal and represents a smaller sample, while empirical is more formal and covers a broader sample.
An example showing the difference would be as follows:
Empirical:
When staying at a hotel, I usually enter into the lobby and check in at the front desk. Every hotel I’ve stayed at follows this procedure. I won’t say ALL hotels without exception do this, because I haven’t stayed at every hotel in the world — there can always be exceptions. But it would not be wrong to conclude that most or all hotels have some kind of front desk for checking in.
Anecdotal:
If while checking into a hotel, the front desk clerk acts rude towards me, it would be a mistake to assume all or most hotel clerks act this way. Even if I encounter several rude clerks while traveling extensively, it would wrong and unfair to conclude that most or all clerks are rude based on this anecdotal evidence.
As far as I know, there hasn’t been any hard data or scholarly papers published by any major university that support my belief that most hotels have a front desk. Does this make my claim invalid?
Now if I wanted to know the gross receipts of all major hotel chains, individually and combined, then I would need a formal analysis of financial data provided by the hotels. This would be collected, sorted, and studied, with the results published in a formal statement (hard data). I don’t think either empirical or anecdotal evidence would be sufficient to draw any conclusions.
Do I need hard data then, to support my belief that most auto mechanics, engineers and firefighters are men? Or most nurses, elementary school teachers and receptionists are women? Some fields like theater, dance and photography are more equal in male and female participation.
It’s fine to encourage and empower women to pursue math and hard science, I believe in equal opportunity, but not at the expense of men (or boys) being held back. But I think that when the smoke has cleared, you’ll still find men dominating these fields. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal results. Repression and the ever evil “patriarchy” can explain some limitations, but feminists have milked that cow to absurdity. They’re now getting hostile to anyone questioning their crumbling dogma.
I definitely agree that equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcome (nor should it), for various reasons, which does include gender differences and I definitely do not support affirmative action, such as X% of board members must be women.
Omnipitron, I agree with everything you said, and I don’t think you’re being extreme at all. However, I’ve seen some (a lot of) MRAs take innate gender differences and using them to prove all around male superiority, that women are no more than children and that women should be chained to the kitchen.
I have read the story, I have seen the picture of his and the picture of hers. I don’t know how to qualify the whole thing: infuriating, laughable, disgusting. Luckily I don’t live in USA but this sh*t will end up coming to us too. I hope the nerd guy finds a girl worthy of him, not a homely girl with an ugly inside who is five points below her.
Really, something must be done to this female narcissism thing. It is out of control.
“…who is five points below HIM”. Sorry
I’ll say it because the others here can’t, being a white male can mean you have to stomach all sorts of crap because you are seen as being ‘The Ruling Class’. If guys like TFH didn’t state what they did in the manner which they have
You definitely don’t need to convince me of this, I have plenty of stories from my bf and other men that I know. There were also a bunch of articles saying “white males need not apply”, which made my stomach turn, and I found it absolutely disgusting.
How often can you kick a dog before it begins to lash out? Men have to fight just to realize that they aren’t scraps of gum to be scraped off the shoe of life, women are bolstered up at every turn. I’m not telling you to accept it, I’m stating this so you may realize the reality of the situation, and to see where some MRA’s are coming from.
I also agree with this, but there’s no point in making all women your enemies, it won’t take you anywhere and won’t accomplish anything. I think I read an article on “a voice for men” telling men not to make women their enemies, but only feminists. Otherwise, the movement is no better than feminism.
MRAs do not do this to even on-tenth of the degree that feminists try to.
Are we playing oppression olympics now?
Acting like children on many matters does not help this perception.
Definitely, some women do act like children, but that shouldn’t be translated to all women.
Devaluing the important role of the kitchen is among the biggest pieces of misogyny that feminists have inflicted on women.
Plus, it appears that it is OK for men to be chained to a soul-killing job just so that the wife can buy useless things. But a woman having to spend a fraction of that time in the kitchen is apparently too much.
Now you’re twisting my words. I never said that homemakers are not important, in fact, I was arguing against that with DH on another thread. What I meant is that I read a lot of MRAs argue that women should be chained to the kitchen because they’re not capable of anything else, because that’s how far their intelligence will take them.
There’s a huge difference between that and saying that it’s better for the husband, kids and for the whole family if the woman does stay at home, at least for a period of time (which is something I’ve said over and over and over again).
And I also said that it’s much harder to be employed outside the home than it is to be a homemaker so let’s not put words in my mouth.
Chels is a textbook example of female insecurity.
Based on what I’ve personally read, there are a lot of MRAs that have said just that. I will provide said links when you provide links proving that women have the reasoning abilities of a 12 year old boy.
That being said, although we disagree on certain things, I’d say we mostly agree, so there’s really no point in arguing further, which is why I’m going to back down.
I will also say many women will vote for even the most disastrous ideology if it is fashionable (as determined by television), because they don’t think through the ramification of ideas that sound good in theory.
.
Well, this seems to have written with “feminism” in mind. Feminism benefits the male gender. For the alphas, free and varied pussy. For the betas, not having to endure an ungrateful nagging old woman in exchange of mediocre sex once in a blue moon (I have seen this in my own family) so they can play WoW if they want. And for all men, now women come with money (because they work).
.
For women, a net loss. Clearly, they didn’t see the cause and effect:
.
– They didn’t understand that, if they gave the milk for free, men would be less willing to buy the cow. Go figure.
– They didn’t understand that, if they earned more, they would be less men who earned more than them. Go figure.
– They didn’t understand that, if you multiply the workforce per two, real wages would have to be cut in half. Go figure.
– They didn’t understand that telling men are Neandhertal, inferior beings, oppressors for millennia, testosterone-poisoned or pigs was not going to earn men’s sympathy. Go figure.
– They didn’t understand that, if they worked outside the home, they would not able to be with their kids, let alone having regrets for missing these moments. Go figure.
– They didn’t understand that work was toiling, a drudgery and a burden and not a fashionable place to find alphas and to show your last hairdo (à la Cosmopolitan).
.
But it has the prefix “fem-” in front, so it has to benefit women, right? And it was fashionable. Every TV show and women’s magazine marketed feminism to women So they bought it. They were only useful fools that made the bidding of wealthy men that wanted to decrease real wages (“Ms. Magazine” was financed by Rockefeller).
.
Seriously, I was convinced that men’s and women’s intelligence was the same, until I saw how women thought that WORK IS LIBERATION. LOL! Now, I’m convinced that women’s intelligence is low. Roman law was onto something when it declared women “legal minors”. It was a mistake to give women the same rights than men. This foolish decision is in the root of the decline and eventual fall of Western civilization.
Sorry, ladies, but you have proved this with facts.
Further reading: http://wapo.st/9pGwHB
Show me which MRAs said that. Provide actual links (which should be easy since you claim ‘a lot’ say this).
Alcuin, for one:
http://alcuin-constant.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-mans-is-mans.html
Women can have the kitchen and other traditionally-female domains in the house, and men can have the rest.
http://alcuin-constant.blogspot.com/2011/02/dominant-paradigm.html
When will society begin to figure out that women cannot handle public responsibility of any sort, and need to get back to the fucking kitchen, where they belong?
You can find plenty of similar commentary on The Spearhead, and in terms of “more extreme” stuff, a guy named AntiFeministMedia on Reddit claimed that we’ll replace female humans with artificial wombs and sexbots someday, OmegaVirginRevolt has written about a utopia where artificial wombs have enabled men to imprison women in “hunter-gatherer virtual realities” like they really want, and I think you’re already familiar with guys like Bob from Bob’s Truth and MikeeUSA, though to be fair, everyone hates them, including other MRAs. This doesn’t really sound that much less extreme than the whole “male population should be reduced” thing. And even on that front, I’ve heard MRAs make arguments that sound vaguely similar. Angry Harry once wrote a piece on how things would be better if there were approximately 15% more women than men; you can read it here.
This is not even to disagree with any of the above sentiments (although I do, and judging by what you told me earlier about your views on women in the workplace, you are probably closer to my position than theirs), but to point out that they are indeed present in the MRM. I’m not sure what either you (or Chels) would consider “a lot,” but give me some time and I might be able to find some more links to other “extreme” statements.
“I also agree with this, but there’s no point in making all women your enemies, it won’t take you anywhere and won’t accomplish anything. I think I read an article on “a voice for men” telling men not to make women their enemies, but only feminists. Otherwise, the movement is no better than feminism.”
You make a very good point here, however if you agree with my other statement then once more I ask you to consider…ever heard of Catherine Kieu Becker? She was convicted of cutting off her husband’s penis not so long ago. You of course know who Sharon Osbourne is yes? There is a video of her apparently calling this horrific act ‘delightful’ to an audience of women who where laughing at this man’s horrific plight. Only one actress quietly spoke out about the atrocity stating that it wasn’t funny. Is Sharon Osbourne a feminist?
No, neither was most of that audience I’m willing to wager, but what does that fact tell you about not making enemies of all women? The fact is simply this; most women will not speak out against Feminism nor the issues men face. The loudest thing men hear are the crickets chirping from the women’s quarters when men face obviously unfair treatment. More and more men, myself included, have no choice but to take the stance that a woman is either against you or will do nothing for you if faced with feminism unless she proves herself otherwise.
Like I stated before, being under attack constantly will do this to you over time.
Men tried the reasonable approach in the past and all it got them was a slap in the face. Sadly, while it may seem very insulting to hear that most women’s grasp of cause and effect is lagging behind that of men, one simply has to read Dalrock’s posts. Women wonder why guys don’t want to get married anymore, but don’t put two and two together that it’s due to how men are getting treated BY women now. They wonder why there are such a large number of PUA’s or gamers yet haven’t put it together that this is due to the amount of fathers ripped from their families and can no longer raise their young boys. The coup de grace, they argue in the face of indisputable facts. What precisely would happen to a man if he where to argue his position when it was proved completely and utterly wrong?
There was a video on Oprah a while back where a Black academic takes a Feminist to task stating how Feminism will erode the black family in time. The video is linked on the Spearhead’s thread in regards to the death of the black family. This academic was destroying this feminist’s position similar to how D, Kai, TFH, and even yourself utterly demolish hamster driven points from the Feminist’s who visit here. It didn’t make a difference though, and the black family is all but destroyed despite warnings from learned men.
“The other problem I see with many women is that in attributes where women actually are better then men (seeing subtle social nuances, forming support networks quickly, etc.), they are quick to trumpet their superiority. But in *any* area where men are superior (analytics, strategy, comedy, etc.), all sorts of contortions and filibustering comes in.”
I think this is fair. Recently a woman I knew a long time ago (from kindergarten on) died in an accident with her boyfriend. He was a decorated military man, an expert in his field, a dedicated philanthropist, an author, and a lawyer. She was a lawyer, and a divorced mother of two children, very attractive, but my age – almost 40. He was a year or two older. In any case, there were some write ups in local papers and one of the women on FB complained that they’d written so much about him and not enough about her. And everyone knew that behind any successful man, there was an amazing woman – a comment that got a bunch of “likes.” And I thought, “They’d been dating a year or less. He accomplished everything before he met her. She hadn’t made him what he was. Why is there a need to horn in on his accomplishments? She was what she was – a smart, seemingly reasonably successful lawyer, a mother, a pretty, well preserved woman and very beloved friend.”
I feel very at peace with my current “Not setting the world on fire” state. I have no desire to control or manage other people. I like taking care of my family, my house, my garden, raising my son, volunteering, and fostering ties in my neighborhood and community.
Women can be so competitive about their accomplishments and those of their husbands/children. And if you can’t hope to compete, the easiest route is to denigrate or dismiss the legitimacy of others’ accomplishments. I have no interest in gaming, but I wouldn’t dismiss a man because he liked it and was good at it and I certainly wouldn’t slag him off on a website that gets tons of traffic just for kicks or to make myself feel better. No doubt Bereznak has a cadre of female friends telling her “You go, girl!” on FB while pitying her for having to internet date.
As for Chess – I’ve never learned. My son plays; he’s 7. I think I’m smart enough to learn and even to take on my husband who has played for years, but the game doesn’t appeal to me at all. I don’t like games that require you to out think or put one over on your opponent; I find them stressful. Planning 3 or 4 moves into the future isn’t fun for me. I spend my life planning 3 or 4 moves into the future.
Now back up your MRA claim with links, if you can. Or withdraw it.
Hurp backed it up for me (thanks!), do you need more links or shall we call it even?
As well, your argument about not being more female CEOs does not actually back up your original statement which was that women have the reasoning ability of a 12 year old boy. It’s comparing apples to oranges, and ignoring a myriad of other factors; it’s definitely not A=B, which makes your whole position rather simplistic.
We may have agreed on certain things, but your earlier reference to ‘sexism’ and ‘lack of encouragement’ being the reason for women underperforming in highly meritocratic, low-barrier-to-entry fields, might as well have been said by Doomed Harlot.
I didn’t make up that information, I actually researched it, and it was women chess players saying those things, including Judit Polgar. I believe there’s at least a grain of truth in what they’re saying.
As well, that information is from Russian/Hungarian chess players, where feminism is not rampant, which is why I find their position more plausible than I would if it was from a American.
Omnipitron, you definitely have a point, and I agree with what you said.
Of course there is a grain of truth. It simply doesn’t much account for it all. I fully believe that some girls women grew up completely discouraged to go into anything not traditionally female. But there are also girls who grow up pushed away from anything traditionally female – lately, at least enough to equal out.
I also easily believe that discouragement and sexism is a real barrier *in some countries*. But if that’s the case, and those women are *still* the best female chess players in the world, where on earth are the westerners?
And as for the average man or woman, you’re still not accounting for performance in other work industries. Certainly, there are not as many women willing to give up everything else to get ahead, but there are also simply fewer women starting out with the aptitude for certain areas. Mothers today are hardly pushing women away from STEM careers!
Russia is a feminist country and has been since the early twenties. Communism and feminism are firmly entwined; the communists were ardent proponents of women in the workforce, universal education, state nurseries and day care facilities, abortion on demand, etc. Ironically, women in Russia have very little social power relative to men. Communism targeted and destroyed the family and created numerous disincentives for men to participate in the workforce as creativity and risk taking were firmly discouraged. With men trapped in mediocrity and having no hope of breaking free of the nanny state, alcoholism flourished. Thugs and sociopaths rose to the top. Russian women now find that they have little hope of marrying a decent, hardworking man who will remain faithful to them and be a permanent fixture in their children’s lives. This is why you’ve seen Russian women trying to leave Russia in droves, willing to marry Western men they know very little for a chance at the kind of marital relationships American women take completely for granted.
I also easily believe that discouragement and sexism is a real barrier *in some countries*. But if that’s the case, and those women are *still* the best female chess players in the world, where on earth are the westerners?
In those countries, education is very important, so the kids’ parents push them into well paid jobs, such as science/engineering, which is why the gap between women and men in STEM jobs is not as high as in Anglophone countries. It really is about different priorities.
Mothers today are hardly pushing women away from STEM careers!
They’re not pushing them away, but they’re definitely not pushing them towards them. Even in America, there are more Asian women going into STEM careers than American women. Why is that? How many white American parents do you know that push their kids towards becoming an engineer/doctor/dentist/etc? I know a few, but they’re immigrants from Europe. I don’t know any “real” Canadian doing the same. However, I also know a lot of Chinese/Indian parents pushing their kids towards those careers. It all comes down to parents have different priorities and having the “as long as they’re happy, they can do whatever they want” mentality.
Russia is a feminist country and has been since the early twenties. Communism and feminism are firmly entwined; the communists were ardent proponents of women in the workforce, universal education, state nurseries and day care facilities, abortion on demand, etc. Ironically, women in Russia have very little social power relative to men. Communism targeted and destroyed the family and created numerous disincentives for men to participate in the workforce as creativity and risk taking were firmly discouraged. With men trapped in mediocrity and having no hope of breaking free of the nanny state, alcoholism flourished. Thugs and sociopaths rose to the top. Russian women now find that they have little hope of marrying a decent, hardworking man who will remain faithful to them and be a permanent fixture in their children’s lives. This is why you’ve seen Russian women trying to leave Russia in droves, willing to marry Western men they know very little for a chance at the kind of marital relationships American women take completely for granted.
So your definition of feminism is women working outside the home? As well, communists are against abortion, they definitely do not support abortion on demand. Communism doesn’t target the family at all, they actually support a strong family, but they must keep a strong hold on their population, which is why creativity/risk taking were discouraged. As long as the family does what they’re told and doesn’t challenge their position, communists don’t really care.
You’re definitely taking a strong view against Russian men by saying they’re not decent or hard working. I’ve known a lot of Russian men, and they’re definitely hard working, they’re definitely family men, and they’re definitely not the abusers that you make them as.
Russian women want to marry American men only because they’re financially better off than Russian men, and because according to the women, American men are less “patriarchic” than Russian men.
Grerp, after some research, I take back my statements about communism being against abortion, like you said, they do support abortion on demand.
However, my statements about Russian men stand.
Soviet women had on average 8 abortions in their lifetimes, paid for, in full, by their communist government.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12317076
Romania under Ceausescu discouraged abortion, criminalized it, in fact, and forced women to give birth. That was a country-specific initiative.
Look, I majored in Russia in college, I lived in Russia. I’ve had a number of Russian friends. I’ve known decent, kind, hardworking, Russian men. But Russian society is not giving incentives to young men to be decent, kind, or striving. Who has all the power in Russia? Mafia thugs, Beeg Beezniss, and Soviet apparatchiks who knew how to remake themselves into resource thieves. Those men build their huge houses in Sparrow Hills and gate out the masses. Those men surround themselves with a bevy of beautiful, very young girls and use them like hankies. Those men cover themselves in bling and have Dima and Vanya open all doors first before they walk through.
When the Soviets pushed women in the workforce, shoved their children into day cares, guaranteed 100% employment but terrible wages and no opportunity to make more through hard work or creativity, drove the price of basic, bland food staples like bread, potatoes, and flour down below market prices, legalized abortion, legalized divorce, etc., they replaced men as head of household. Men with no authority and no hope to better themselves or show what they can do, back away from responsibility. Not all men, but a large percentage. There’s nothing in it for them.
Are the Russian family men you know living in America or in Russia? Because when I lived in Russia, a significant percentage of them roamed the streets at night smoking and drinking with their friends while their wives cleaned up the supper they made and helped their kids with their homework and put them to bed.
Comparisons to the American Black community can definitely be made. This is the reality of government created matriarchy for women.
Grerp, all of those things have to do with communism, they oppressed the entire population for their own personal gain. There’s nothing for no one in Communism, not just men, it’s for the elite. However, it is a stretch to take this and to make it seem like Russian men are somewhat lacking.
The Russian men that I know are recent immigrants to Canada, and I’d say they’re just as good as Canadian men, they work hard, they care for their families, and they came to Canada so they can offer their families a better life.
a significant percentage of them roamed the streets at night smoking and drinking with their friends while their wives cleaned up the supper they made and helped their kids with their homework and put them to bed.
That’s funny, I know plenty of Canadian men that do the same, as I’m sure you know plenty of American men that also do that.
The whole Russian mail order bride is because Russian women see American men as their ticket out of poverty, not because they’re any better.
I’ll say it again, Russian men are no better or worse than North American men; only their circumstances are different.
This is the reality of government created matriarchy for women.
What matriarchy? Russia is a matriarchy?? Seriously? A country led by men, with no women in politics, promoting the interests of the male elite, is a matriarchy??
Here’s a link that explains how Russian men are, and it fits perfectly with what I personally know:
http://www.russian-language-for-lovers.com/how-russian-men.html
Yes, that is how Russian men treat women they are interested in sexually. They don’t spend a lot of time offering an arm up to the tiny arthritic babushka who’s attempting to board the bus, however. And they are content – or were, back when I lived there in the 90’s – to let these same old women do heavy manual labor like snow shoveling in the winter. And many of them are pretty handy, too – a result of having no consumer economy for 70 or so years.
As far as the quality of the Russian men you know – well, the best and the brightest will get out of a situation that is not working. Do you think middle class blacks are still living in the city of Detroit. Not on your life or, rather, theirs. The blacks still living in Detroit are the ones knee-deep in corruption, not bright enough to understand there are better options, unwilling to move because of laziness or sheer cussedness, as well as a handful of ideologues and some bullet-ridden quadriplegics.
Russian families are female run, full stop. Russian politics are a farce.
It’s incredible that Chels tries to discuss how Russian life is with grerp, when grerp has lived in Russia and Chels hasn’t. The only data Chels has for Russian men is some immigrants and a link to “Russian language for lovers”.
It reminds me how European men usually claim to know more about Latin America than me. My experience in Latin America: I have lived there for 11 years (in several countries). Their experience in Latin America: they have a cousin that has been for two weeks in an international resort in Dominican Republic, drinking pina coladas and without going out from the resort (everything included). But they wanted to give me lessons about Latin America to me. Incredible.
No, Nobody, that’s not what I’m trying to do. What I’m trying to say is that Russian men are no better or worse than American men. And really, how many men have you seen give up their seat for an old lady in America? In Toronto, where I live, I can count them on my fingers and they were all immigrants. And is that how you measure the caliber of a man?
I really don’t like this whole “Russian men are a bunch of losers” message that she’s sending. And I’m allowed to talk about my own experience because there’s a huge Russian community where I live, and I also work with a couple.
But Chels, immigrants are not representative of the culture of a country. I know a lot about immigrants, because
a) I have lived for years in countries where immigration is a way of life.
b) I have lived for one year in USA and I was in circle of immigrants.
Immigrants are the people more hardworking and with more initiative. If they weren’t so, they wouldn’t leave everything to go to other country to be work slaves (immigrants are always work slaves because they do the worse-paid jobs so they can work a lot).
I remember when I had a private company and I needed a secretary. I was recommended a young woman by friends. The woman came and told me that she was not willing to go out from the office to do things (for example, send a document to another company). I did this every time and I was the boss. When I asked why she was so reluctant to go out, she told me that her boyfriend sent her some dollars from America so she could prefer to be doing nothing than to work. And she did. All day alone in the house instead of working.
The boyfriend was a hardworking man. She was a lazy parasite. The immigrants are the best people. You cannot judge a country from immigrants.
I have been in Russia, but only two weeks. It was very depressing. Men drinking vodka in parks ALONE until becoming numb. It was not a happy drinking but a very sad one. But I don’t try to be an expert on Russia (although I have read a lot of books about it). Grerp knows better.
(I forgot to say that immigrats grab things from the new country culture. Mexican-American are not 100% Mexican but they have a mix of Mexican and American culture. You can’t judge a country from their immigrants)
It’s funny how it only works one way—immigrants are hard working? That must be due to the culture of their adopted country. Immigrants slack around on welfare? That must be due to their inherent laziness and they must be send back!
I am not saying Russian men are all losers or that they are intrinsically better or worse than American men. I am saying that people respond to incentives and that that the incentives and messages given to young men in Russia make them less likely to sign up for long-term, monogamous marriage to Russian women, or,increasingly, marriage at all. Russian women are responding to their tanking value in the sexual/marriage marketplace by trying to marry Western men in droves. It is, in fact, very similar to what American black women are experiencing:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/09/02/2011-09-02_why_black_women_are_justifiably_bitter_the_bleak_relationship_picture_for_africa.html
Do you think that Russian women would be willing to leave their families, their culture, and the language and traditions all behind because their men are just a little too patriarchal? No. Communism was a destruction machine for masculinity. The men it didn’t outright kill (and it killed tens of millions of men), it unmanned by destroying ownership, crushing creativity, incentive, risk taking, and resistance. And without those qualities, they were rendered unattractive to their own women. Thus, the tanked and still tanking birth rate.
Russia has amazing potential, human and otherwise, all crushed under the boot of stifling liberalism.
Chels,
RE: men giving up their seat to women.
I was raised a gentleman and my reflex is to give up my seat to a women…BUT…the rampant persecution of men in all aspects of American (western) culture has forced me to reconsider.
I will treat ladies like ladies, but the average American slut, with her tattoos, foul mouth, and attitude, can stand…just like a man!
The women of the west have the men they asked for…if not specifically, then by their demeanor.
Chels. You are talking about two different things.
1. I have said that immigrants are more hardworking than their compatriots. If they weren’t more hardworking, they would stay at home, as their compatriots who live in poverty.
2. About welfare, the reasoning (which I do not share) is that they are less hardworking than Americans.
Your reasoning is a fallacy. 1 is not contradictory with 2 as you say. I do not share 2, but let’s assume that it’s true for the sake of argument. Then, we will have this (“>” means “more hardworking than”):
Americans > Immigrants > People who remain in the home country and do not bother to emigrate.
As you see, there is no contradiction.
This has been a very interesting thread, to which I can frankly add nothing save to say that on a recent BBC radio programme on the subject of Games, the two guests, which included a Chess Journalist, were asked why it was that Women were not very good at Chess. It was pointed out that women had always played Chess, but the most successful female chess player in the world was ranked only 19th. The two contributors (both men) were clearly embarrassed to mention this. (Would a woman have been embarrassed to trumpet Female Superiority had the figures been reversed, I wonder?).
I am only adding to the thread however because I wanted to ask a question, which is: At 03.56 TFH makes two factual statements that 1. Women are better at observing social nuance and 2. Better at Forming Networks. For sake of the arguement I will accept 2. as true – they are certainly more instantly though perhaps superficially friendly – but I am more interested in 1. How do we know women are better at social nuance? Perhaps there have been studies showing this, but I would not have thought (speaking from my observation) that women are better at that. The fact that they fitness test a lot, makes it perhaps more difficult to determine, but the rubbish I have heard from women pontificating (say) as to how I might be feeling about them or how I am going to act in the future seems to knows no bounds. They are very certain about things but fail to see the true picture or else fantasize meaning where there is none. Perhaps, as I say it is just me.
And really, how many men have you seen give up their seat for an old lady in America? In Toronto, where I live, I can count them on my fingers and they were all immigrants. And is that how you measure the caliber of a man?
Men in American used to be quite solicitous of older women and help them if they needed physical assistance – before feminism. Now, as Buck notes, they are “equal” – what’s the point? They can do it themselves. And better than men, right?
What I was trying to say was that that, yes, Russian men do do that “Let me escort you,” thing and bring women flowers – when they want to get into a girl’s pants. Which is pretty much standard male behavior, right? The website you pointed to made it seem like they were innately super chivalrous which is NOT the case.
TFH
Alcuin is one, so is Spearhead (look at the comments on certain threads) and the MGTOW forum that was taken down is another one. I don’t have time to go through my Internet’s history, but as I come across them, I will point them out to you.
As well, I never denied women’s lack of success in certain fields is due to gender differences, but all I said is that it’s not the only cause. Instead of being A=D as you make it to be, it’s more like A+B+C=D
Get the difference?
Well, like I mentioned you can find a lot of the same sentiments being espoused in the spearhead commentary, like this one at November 1, 2010 at 21:34 from MGTOW (he wasn’t being tongue-in-cheek, the poster is quite frank elsewhere about his belief in the absolute inferiority of women in all respects) along with Jabberwochie’s comment at November 12, 2009 at 08:35 on how the kitchen is most suited to the female’s biological instincts, but those are comments, not posts. In terms of posts, let’s see what I can come up with…
There’s this article from the aforementioned Angry Harry (you can’t possibly say he’s not a “well known” MRA, I’ve heard people call him the “father of the Men’s Rights Movement”) that explicitly says “back to the kitchen they must go.”
OneSTDV’s view of a desirable patriarchy, in his own admission, is one in which women are banished back to the kitchen. He is sincere and not facetious about this, as you can see in this entry. While Mr. STDV is known for his writings on other things such as race, he’s well-known in the manosphere and indeed draws criticism from MRAs for not being “pro-masculine” *enough.*
That alone ought to go a long way towards proving my point, sir. If calling for a return to patriarchy is still not enough to keep MRAs from calling you a mangina or a white knight, it stands to reason that the MRM in general is perhaps less “moderate” or “measured” and so on, than you seem to make it out to be.
(This is not to white-knight for Chels, I don’t know who she is and don’t particularly care for her one way or the other. My interest is more in critiquing the MRM–I tend to be harsh on it for the same reason Roissy tends to be harsh on libertarians, i,e we often hold our ideological comrades to a higher standard than our foes).
tfh nothing to say on the boardgame thing? Not even an acknowledgement? You just completely made something up and when countered ignore it?
You also keep mentioning George Clooney as if he’s some sort of leader of MGTOW despite the fact that he himself has already been married. What sort of calculations would you put towards marriage people like George Clooney ‘denying’ as you say 5 women a husband? Have you done any calculations on this MGTOW movement compared to say the effect on either the 1st or 2nd world war?
Re chefs, it’s a macho culture, mainly for people who are not academic and long hours and physically hard. It is not a career which most parents would encourage daughters to go into.
Angela Hartnett is a top chef but she is unmarried and without children and that was a tradeoff that she made. A lot of women wouldn’t be prepared to do that.
Otoh, my guess is the majority of cookbook writers are women and perhaps someone like Delia Smith has had more of an impact on the world than Gordon Ramsay? (or Angela Harnett but at least she’s not cluttering up my television with a ridiculous ego – I’d rather eat a meal prepared by either of them than Delia Smith but I really think she’s had more of an impact on the world).
Banking is an area which is not the same, long hours in the office are not like a professional kitchen. Certain parts of it are, e.g. the old London Stock exchange and commodities market, most men wouldn’t be able to handle the atmosphere. But women in banking tend to go into fund management rather than say trading.
I just googled hedge funds and women and this article claims ‘hedge funds run by women delivered nearly double the investment performance of those managed by men.’
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2009/12/its_generally_k.html
btw, re stocks generally, looks like robots are considered more suitable than either men or women.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/networking/3302464/algorithmic-stock-trading-rapidly-replacing-humans-warns-government-paper/
Another point about Chels:
We do not have to get her to agree with us for the male viewpoint to triumph. We just need to be able to overwhelm her childish arguments and assertions.
The only reason that feminism ever took hold to the degree that it did is because men used to believe in it as well. Slowly but surely, men are rejecting feminist complaints and grievances.
What will these princesses do then? What never seems to get through the thick, childish skulls of the feminists is that they cannot use snark and criticism as their primary tactics. But since most of feminism requires one to reject reason, they cannot appeal to reason either.
One by one, men are taking the red pill and seeing the truth. The truth, once seen, will not be ignored.
Chels – I used to accept arguments like yours, and at one time in my life would have defended you and your opinions. I’ve seen the truth though, and now I see what deluded children many feminists are, I understand their secret dislike/distrust of men, and will never go back.
I look forward to continued losses for the feminist grrrl-power camp, and will relish every single setback that happens to feminism. Feminism has peaked, and will probably slide into minor relevance within our lifetimes.
Please, feminists, DON’T CHANGE – if you changed it would take much of the pleasure out of watching your eventual political defeat. Don’t deprive me of my schadenfreude by showing some sense now.
Well Jack you can argue for all around male superiority all you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
And calling my arguments childish, hinting that I dislike/distrust men, that I’m insecure/jealous, saying that I’m a feminist, etc is just shaming language.
If it’s that hard for you to admit that men are not better at absolutely everything, then you’re the one with the problem and with the insecurity issues.
What bothers me is not that Bereznak decided that the date was a disaster, etc. I’ve certainly decided on the basis of one date (and sometimes in the first few seconds) that there’s no future.
What bothers me is that she published a piece identifying Finkel. His asking her out does not constitute permission to do that. I’m not talking about legalities here; I’m talking about simple decency. I’ve told people and posted things on the internet about less than satisfactory dates, but I never identified the woman, nor even gave enough information that would have enabled somebody to identify her.
I have seen things posted on the internet by women who have dated me and not liked the experience, recognized them as being about me, and not been offended. I am, however, extremely offended at what Bereznak did, even though it seems to have helped Finkel somewhat and harmed her considerably.
‘When are you people going to learn that using anecdotes instead of data does nothing to improve the reputation of women as suitably attached to hard realities?’
Leaving aside ‘you people’, read back. You mentioned *one* man who invented a game like monopoly and said no woman had done this. I countered what you said because I happened to remembered this. You then making this claim about anecdote is rather rich in the circumstances.
Nothing to do with changing the subject. You said this
‘Just recently, an Asian man made big bucks by creating a hilarious parody of Monopoly based around ghetto culture, calling it ‘Ghettopoly’. He did the whole thing at home. Why couldn’t a woman do that?’
I countered this with an example of a woman who did. I never made any comment about sexism in the boardgame industry.
I haven’t said anything about chess (except for a childhood membership of a chess club till I got to an age where I stopped because it wasn’t ‘cool’, but that is hardly relevant is it) because I don’t know anything about it. I tend not to speak about stuff I don’t know anything about.
@jack
We do not have to get her to agree with us for the male viewpoint to triumph. We just need to be able to overwhelm her childish arguments and assertions.
.
No, it’s easier than that. We only need not to marry them.
.
With the marriage in a historical low and decreasing, they can think they have “won” the argument (that is, not because they are right, because they resort to cheap logic and shaming language – you hate women!). But they only have won their loneliness.
.
Men’s saying the words women want to hear does not mean that they agree with women.
.
For each MRA who is writing here that women don’t process cause and effect, there are 1000 men out there who will tell women “Of course, women are as intelligent as men or more”. Then, when they are having a beer with the buddies, they will say “y’know, pal, women are crazy. They are fucking insane”.
.
For each MRA who is venting here, there are 1000 men who will tell you: “You know, American women are the best”. Then, they will stay single or marry a foreign woman.
.
Men have concluded that talking with women is a meaningless activity. Women don’t want to hear our opinions. They only want to hear their own opinions told by our mouths. So the majority of men say that, while thinking otherwise. The men writing here are a minority.
.
So you see all these “fabulous” women in their thirties and forties, lonely with cats, telling: “I don’t understand how I ended up single. Everybody told me that I was so fabulous”. Yes, everybody told you so. But this does not mean that they thought so.
.
So in the end, we don’t need to “win” the argument. Not marrying them is enough.
Speaking of anecdote, you keep mentioning this one guy George Clooney as an example of men ‘denying’ multiple women husbands in this MGTOW movement.
Have you got any projections of what impact this MGTOW movement has? I’m interested as my granny’s got friends who didn’t get married linked to the vast amounts of men wiped out by the 2nd world war so I’m interested to know what my daughter/granddaughters romantic prospects in life are.
I think you mentioned this George Clooney denying 5 or 6 women (though I can think of at least 2 of his exes including his ex wife who went onto marry and have a child/children with someone else but I don’t keep a close eye on this celeb stuff but I’m presuming you know for certain or you wouldn’t have put numbers to it). So if that’s his no & he’s your supreme alpha I guess one could make a guesstimate on the average man & make a financial model fairly easily.
‘Just recently, an Asian man made big bucks by creating a hilarious parody of Monopoly based around ghetto culture, calling it ‘Ghettopoly’. He did the whole thing at home. Why couldn’t a woman do that?’
Bad example. Even a chump can design a game. How about that?
Women go to college for the last decades. But ,during the last five decades have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences, 8 percent in literature and 0 percent in economics. You could claim oppression, but Jews (who were sent to the gas chambers and that’s real oppression) have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.
Yes, there are always excuses and rationalization. The patriarchy, oppression, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. The monastery was a center of culture in the Middle Ages. The nunnery didn’t produce anything of culture. Since the Stone Age, midwifery didn’t experience a progress until men were allowed to enter that field (which was taboo for men until the XVII century).
Jews and African-American were subject of real oppression (they were killed, they were made slaves). Nothing close happened with women. As a comedian said: “Voting for Obama? Voting for Hillary Clinton? Who was more oppressed: white women or black men. Black men were whipped for looking at white women. White women were not whipped for looking at black men”. The thing about women’s oppression is BS. Men went to war to keep women safe.
But “oppression” is an excuse to avoid facing a truth that is opposed to one’s ideology. Two centuries from now, if feminism still exists, the differences between men and woman will still be attributed to oppression, even if they have been two centuries of affirmative action. The advantage about oppression is that it is the perfect excuse. You can’t disprove it.
Have you got any projections of what impact this MGTOW movement has? I’m interested to know what my daughter/granddaughters romantic prospects in life are.
.
To know, women’s future prospects you can’t limit yourself to MGTOW. Men under the current statu quo have four options:
.
1) Follow the current statu quo and marry an American woman (the majority but declining)
2) Marry a foreign woman/expat (the second option in popularity and growing)
3) Using women for short-term relationship: PUA, affairs, relationships of one or two years without marriage (the third option and growing).
4) Rejecting women altogether, that is, MGTOW (tiny buy growing).
.
The only option that is decreasing is 1). I don’t think they are good statistics (because you have to distinguish between American and foreign women).
2), 3) and 4) mean the same for American women: spinsterhood. And the funny thing is that women are producing these options when shunning betas to pursue alphas. Betas can turn to foreign women or grown used to be single (3 and 4).
But if someone has statistics I would love to know.
imnobody I think something must have gone wrong in your quoting of mine as you missed out my reference to the 2nd world war, which is rather odd as when I wrote it it was in the middle of the bit that you quoted (usually if one is deliberately missing something out, one puts …s in so other people don’t get the wrong idea).
(I just mentioned 2nd world war as it’s been on my mind recently due to something to do with my granny, of course at least in the UK, the ‘great war’ now known as the 1st world war most likely killed more men off)
Imnobody,
What’s your point and with who are you arguing now? I already said that there are differences between the genders, contributing to being more male inventors than females.
According to the bell curve, there are more men in both the left and the right side of the curve, and there are more women in the middle than men, although the IQ difference between the genders is relatively small (3-5 points).
And Lily, there’s no point in arguing because until wome are 50% of all inventors, we’re still going to be considered stupid *rolls eyes*
The bell curve basically says that although most women are of average intelligence, there are more stupid men than women but there are also more male geniuses.
“with who are you arguing now?”
.
I am not arguing with you Chels. I was arguing with you about Russian people, when you claimed to know more about Russian people than grerp, who has lived in Russia. Laughable. And linking a web about “Russian language for lovers” as a “proof”, this was rich.
.
It is impossible to argue with people like you, who are not only ignorant (we all are ignorant of something) but they want to know more than the knowledgeable. A person like this won’t accept any argument. So why bother?
.
As with Lily, I was taking your “arguments” as an excuse to make some points. Not for you (and I don’t expect to answer me, this is why I didn’t address you). But for the other readers. I was only bored, that’s all, and I wanted to practice my English a bit (the main reason why I write here).
.
These discussions never end so it is better to take them as a fun exercise. At the end of the day, nothing will change because somebody has said something here. The world will keep its course: that is, less marriages for American women. But it won’t be because of nothing that has been said here. And nothing said here will keep this from happening. But there are worse ways to waste one’s time than learning the most important language in the world.
And Lily, there’s no point in arguing because until wome are 50% of all inventors, we’re still going to be considered stupid *rolls eyes*
Women will never be 50% of inventors or invent 50% of new things. This is because inventors (and composers and great artists/musicians/philosophers/theologians/etc.) come from that infinitesimal portion of the population – the super brilliant. And very, very few women exist on that far end of the spectrum. Very few men either, for that matter. Inventing also often involves risk taking and bucking the trend, which women do far less than men as well.
Women just aren’t men. If we celebrated what we do well and celebrated what men do well with men, we would all be happier. But, no, we just want to be men while simultaneously slagging off men for being men.
Grerp, I realize that, have you read my post above talking about the bell curve? That’s just a fact, but that doesn’t mean we’re stupid.
As well, I never said anything about women wanting to be men, it seems that the men here are the ones deriding women for not being men.
Nobody, I assume that Grerp lived in Russia around 20 years ago, seeing as she’s approaching 40. Not only that, but she lived in a specific part of the country and she didn’t specify for how long she lived there. Nevertheless, lots of things changed since then, as I’m sure that Russian people haven’t stagnated.
As well, I can definitely counter her experience with my own, seeing that I know a lot of Russian people, I’m friends and I work with them. You can say that my experience is limited since these are immigrants, but then so is her experience, unless she lived in every single Russian city, and if she lived there for a significant time period.
I stopped arguing with her because it is an Americanism to believe that their country is better than all others.
No, I think that the men here – many of them, at least – deride women for being difficult, entitled, demanding, ungrateful, and arrogant, and for slagging off men while simultaneously wanting to be men.
A certain percentage of any population are malcontents and misanthropes and will never be satisfied or happy. You find these on the internet too. But in general, I think men like and like to be around women who are kind, happy, cheerful, hardworking, gracious, and appreciative. In fact, men often cut women a lot more slack than women cut men. Men don’t ask women to be much more than pleasant to be around (and pretty, if possible).
Grerp, yup, you’re definitely right.
I stopped arguing with her because it is an Americanism to believe that their country is better than all others.
For the record, I do not believe America is better than all other countries. In fact, I believe America (and Americans) as it now exists has some severe problems and weaknesses that probably will not be overcome.
Yes, I lived in Russia in the mid-90’s, a decade and a half ago. But as imnobody pointed out I lived in Russia. Yes, it has changed, drastically, but I’ve been following those changes too, and they’ve fit in with what I’ve observed about human behavior and male/female relationships. I know it’s a stretch, but I believe that, just maybe, I’m not an idiot, and I could be right on this one thing.
I stopped arguing because, really, what is the point?
grerp
But in general, I think men like and like to be around women who are kind, happy, cheerful, hardworking, gracious, and appreciative. In fact, men often cut women a lot more slack than women cut men. Men don’t ask women to be much more than pleasant to be around (and pretty, if possible).
And yet, and yet, the simple requirement to be pleasant, to not be argumentative, complaining endlessly, or angry all the time and generally just a poor companion to spend time with — this requirement is too much for many women to live with. Not just young women, either. Evidently it is more important for some women to be endlessly contentious, than to be content. I’m not referring to fitness tests per se, I’m referring to some deep seated need to be – unhappy.
It’s as if some women decide that if they can’t be happy, deleriously happy, all the time, then they will by golly take control of their life, and be unhappy all the time.
“Women will never be 50% of inventors or invent 50% of new things. This is because inventors (and composers and great artists/musicians/philosophers/theologians/etc.) come from that infinitesimal portion of the population – the super brilliant. And very, very few women exist on that far end of the spectrum. Very few men either, for that matter. Inventing also often involves risk taking and bucking the trend, which women do far less than men as well.
Women just aren’t men. If we celebrated what we do well and celebrated what men do well with men, we would all be happier. But, no, we just want to be men while simultaneously slagging off men for being men.”
Yes, I don’t know where this all got derailed, but you nailed. At the apex, the top fraction of 1%, men will dominate. Amongst the rest of the population men and women aren’t that different in terms of ability.
Good post Dalrock. What a twit she was.
Russian politics are a farce.
My mother is Russian and she agrees with you grerp. I was even nodding at a couple of things you were writing about Russia.
grerp wrote:
Yes, I lived in Russia in the mid-90′s, a decade and a half ago. But as imnobody pointed out I lived in Russia. Yes, it has changed, drastically, but I’ve been following those changes too, and they’ve fit in with what I’ve observed about human behavior and male/female relationships. I know it’s a stretch, but I believe that, just maybe, I’m not an idiot, and I could be right on this one thing.
I remember reading an article about Robert Heinlein visiting the Soviet Union in the 1960s. He concluded from the numbers of people he saw in public areas that they weren’t reproducing themselves. Russia may be a different place from when you lived there but I agree with you. Some social and demographic trends are too long-term and too unmistakable to be dismissed.
hurp wrote:
OneSTDV’s view of a desirable patriarchy, in his own admission, is one in which women are banished back to the kitchen. He is sincere and not facetious about this, as you can see in this entry. While Mr. STDV is known for his writings on other things such as race, he’s well-known in the manosphere and indeed draws criticism from MRAs for not being “pro-masculine” *enough.
That alone ought to go a long way towards proving my point, sir. If calling for a return to patriarchy is still not enough to keep MRAs from calling you a mangina or a white knight, it stands to reason that the MRM in general is perhaps less “moderate” or “measured” and so on, than you seem to make it out to be.
No it shouldn’t. OneSTDV has publicly stated his dislike of MRAs and their agenda. If MRAs criticize him, that’s a far more likely reason than them not being moderate enough.
At the apex, the top fraction of 1%, men will dominate. Amongst the rest of the population men and women aren’t that different in terms of ability.
.
BS. Even at the rest of the population, most mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists and managers are men (or men are better in these positions). If you want to something done, give it to a man. When something requires ability, a man is better.
.
Women, for example, dominate teaching (because it is one of the worse-paid jobs so men don’t want to work in it), but the best teachers, the best pedagogues, most university teachers (except in Women’s Studies), even with affirmative action, quotas, etc. are men.
.
In Sweden they have tried to make the perfect feminist society. Men are emasculated from childhood. Women are entitled to all kind of benefits. Result: women lag behind men in almost everything. There are less female managers in Sweden than in USA.
.
Even with all the establishment of the Democratic Party behind her, even with more money than her opponent, even with a last name who was recognized and loved for all Democrats, even with being the winning runner, Hillary Clinton (and her mostly female campaingn team, with Patti Solis and others) was unable to beat an unknown senator called Barack Obama (and his mostly male campaign team).
.
I remember how Carly Fiorina’s designation as HP’s CEO was cheered by the feminists. Lastly, women were equal to men in the big corporations! (as if one CEO was the same than hundreds of male CEOs). After Carly almost ends with HP, she was fired and the company’s stock jumped on news of Fiorina’s departure (if you want, I have the link). If she were a male, she would have faded into obscurity. We would never had known anything about Carly Fiorina. Since she is a female, she presented to a candidacy to the Senate, which she lost.
.
So no, it’s not only the 1%. You can’t hide reality.
OneSTDV strikes me as a typical irritating beta smartass, just like that other blogger called Simon Grey. We all know one, don’t we? They flaunt their supposedly superior intelligence, regularly engage in supposedly witty sarcasm and are very quick to judge and dismiss the viewpoints and experiences of others. Just think of any time in your life when you faced some sort of crisis or problem. There was always at least one arrogant smartass guy who trivialized your grievances, told you that he’d have dealt with it differently and explained to you that all of it is your fault because you’re an idiot.
Well, OneSTDV appears to be such a character. He seems to be a part of a small cohort of male online voices who regularly shit on MRAs. They enjoy doing this for two reasons.
1. It’s fashionable to do. It just is. Pretty much all societies are based on gynonormativity and gynocentrism and as a result they are populated predominantly by average idiots who accept such ideological foundations: Feminist women, traditionalist women, traditionalist men (all of them are female supremacists), men with daughters, you name it. All of them are hostile to the MRM because it questions these foundations. Therefore one of the ways you can present yourself as more acceptable in the eyes of the majority is by shitting on MRAs. This is one of the few methods beta chumps can employ to gain the acceptance of women. So they do it.
2. I suspect these beta guys are utterly terrified of learning the truth about women’s nature. They probably know subconsciously that they couldn’t deal with that psychologically. They are already too invested in the idea that women are fundamentally good, they are the fantastic helpmates of men etc. They are afraid of the truth. The only way they know to deal with this is to shit on anyone who presents this truth.
I swear, all these opponents of the MRM are such idiots they give me a headache. “But…but…MGTOW is harmful to society”, they say. Who the hell cares about society, you dumbasses? Western civilization has already abandoned men (no, it didn’t happen the other way around), victimizing and marginalizing them in every conceivable way. Are you actually going to argue that men have some sort of moral obligation to save it? The great majority of Western population is already doing everything they can to dismantle their civilization. Should sane men become cannon fodder in a struggle to save this bunch from themselves?
“MGTOW is never going to be popular among rank-and-file men”. Well, so what? Lots and lots of men are hopeless beta chumps enslaved to their hindbrain force imploring them to throw each other under the bus for women and white-knight for them. They couldn’t recognize the truth of PUAs and MRAs even if it hit them in the head like a stick. MGTOW is for the wise ones willing to see the light.
“MRAs aren’t offering practical political solutions to society’s problems”. Yes, because they aren’t any and won’t be any. Were there any practical solutions to the problems of the Western Roman Empire and USSR? Of course not. Why should anyone make sacrifices to correct a society in terminal decline? Again, why do we still accept the notion that only men can be responsible for correcting social problems, risking everything they have in the process, of course? Fuck that. Go your own way – or, as Roissy says, stay at the poolside.
“MRAs are misogynists”. Who cares? It’s a matter of personal choice and experience. Again, why do you care? Let’s just be honest about one thing: misogyny is irrelevant. It should never concern us. It will never become a social problem, regardless of how widespread it becomes. Evo psych explains this. There’s simply no relevant hindbrain force behind it. Men throw each other under the bus for women all the time. In contrast, misandry is a huge problem, is immeasurably more widespread than misogyny, and has massive female hindbrain force behind it (Team Vagina and all that). Therefore anyone regularly complaining about misogyny is either an idiot or a liar.
“I support the patriarchy. Who don’t you MRAs kiss my ass?” Idiot, do you even realize you can be a white knight and a supporter of the patriarchy at the same time? Have you ever noticed that mainstream traditionalism is female supremacism, just as feminism is? Wise MRAs realize that both the patriarchy and feminism are shams, based on lies peddled to average dumb men. Traditionalist SAHMs and their male minions will, of course, tell you that “patriarchy is meant to benefit the average man”. Bullshit. It’s designed to protect the interest of women and children in social stability and prosperity, at the expense of the average man, whom it reduces to cannon fodder wage slave.
Chels:
I disagree that it is an “Americanism” to believe that one’s own country is better than all others. It is simply objectively true that the U.S. is better, despite all our problems. Were this not true, why were Cuban boat people risking their lives to get here? Why is it that people all over the world are clamoring to immigrate here? How many people are beating down the doors of Laos, or Vietnam, or Russia, or the Congo? How many want to leave the U.S. and emigrate to Kuala Lumpur?
Living in the United States and the quality of life in all respects other than male-female relations is better than living everywhere else. Capitalism and freedom are objectively better by every metric than socialism and central government control. More people die under socialism and totalitarianism than under capitalist regimes. This is simply a fact.
The USSR and the Soviet bloc was a freedom choked shithole. Post-Soviet Russia isn’t much better.
Well, okay, we can disregard OneSTDV if he’s more of a race blogger than an MRA. In reference to Alcuin, however, he is *undoubtedly* an MRA, he considers himself one (“As an MRA…”). Now, I’ll accept noting that he’s not a “well-known” MRA, but as far as I can tell he can’t possibly fall outside a broad or narrow definition of “MRA,” he calls himself one.
But that’s nitpicking, for the purposes of argument let’s say he doesn’t count. Okay, then, what about the aforementioned Angry Harry, who has been called “The Father of the Men’s Rights Movement?” You can also find a lot of that sort of sentiment at menarebetterthanwomen.com, such as here in this forum post, or on the site generally, just look up “kitchen” on its search function and you’ll see what I mean. Granted, though, this is sort of a humor site (though I’ve met a couple of people who took it seriously), so perhaps you could disregard it.
However, after searching around a bit, one thing I’ve found is that many MRAs do indeed seem hostile to the idea of keeping women “chained to the kitchen.” This is because…they believe women ruin the kitchen and homemaking, much like they ruin everything else. I don’t say this to be snarky, but I don’t really see how this speaks to the ‘moderation’ of the MRM. The belief that women are completely inferior to men in every respect, including in regards to “the kitchen,” and thus they ought to have no place anywhere in society, is *more* extreme than the belief that their only place is in the kitchen. Yes, you may be right, you can’t find very many MRAs aside from “religious conservatives” like Alcuin who are all about women going back to the kitchen, but this is because the more prevalent belief is even farther out there. I point for the second time towards the utopias envisioned by AntiFeministMedia and Omega Virgin Revolt, in which women have been (either literally or effectively) “phased out” by artificial wombs, in an almost mirror-image of the crazy feminist “utopias” in which men have been replaced by sperm banks. The reason the whole “chained to the kitchen” thing isn’t that common among MRAs is that a more popular meme in the movement is even more “extreme”–that women are entirely useless, and that they shouldn’t be chained to the kitchen or the bedroom, they should be entirely absent and replaced by artificial wombs and servant/nanny androids (this guy is savethemales over at PMAFT’s place, you’ve probably seen him there before–I had a debate with him once over whether or not the collapse of Western civilization would be a good thing for men) in the kitchen and nursery. And once again, there’s Angry Harry, a *very* well-known and influential MRA, advocating for women to outnumber men by 15%, which is arguably both extreme *and* misandric.
Now, after reading Hollenhund’s comment, I am critiquing the MRM not because I’m a feminist or traditionalist, nor because I “oppose” it, and not even because I’m particularly concerned about “misogyny.” I simply think that highlighting and discussing the more ‘extreme’ ideas present in the MRM can help us form better alternatives, especially when some of those ‘extreme’ sentiments are arguably misandric, as Angry Harry’s “women should outnumber men” might be. If, as Hollenhund says, the collapse of Western civilization is something to look forward to (I don’t agree with this, for the record), fantasies about servant androids and growing boys in vats isn’t going to be very useful either. I see this sort of discussion as helping the fight against misandry, not advocating for it.
@detinnui32, may I ask you how many countries have you lived besides USA? I have lived in three continents (including USA) and I think I have grounds for comparison.
.
“Living in the United States and the quality of life in all respects other than male-female relations is better than living everywhere else.”
.
This could be true some decades ago (I don’t know: I didn’t live in that age). But it’s not true now. You said quality of life in all respects but:
– If quality of life means “food”, Europe wins hands down.
– If quality of life means “work”, European people work far less SO
– If quality of life means “free time”, in Europe you can have more time for your family, for your friends and your hobbies. In America, it’s work, work, work, drive, drive, drive, buy, buy, buy.
– If quality of life means “culture”, American people are notable for their ignorance. It’s not only that they don’t know anything about the rest of the world. It’s that they don’t know much about America either. The last Obama-McCain campaign I could see that the average European knew
more about the campaign issues that the average American (and was in their own country!!)
– If quality of life means “beautiful women”, in Europe we don’t have land whales.
– If quality of life means “quality of personal relationships”, in Europe you can have a real conversation without everybody checking their iPhone.
– If quality of life means “good architecture”, Europe wins hands down.
– If quality of life means “health system”, I have experienced two surgeries this year. I pay only about $50 of health insurance a month for the government. Can you say the same? A woman of a friend of mine lives in USA and she’s still paying her gaving birth to her 5-year-old kid. In Europe is free.
– If quality of life means “money”, USA has more money. Alexander Hamilton wrote in his memories that in the “pursuit of happiness” phrase, “happiness” meant “money”.
Big deal. Things are more expensive in America. When I was teacher in America, I earned twice as much as a teacher in Europe. But in Europe I could save and in America I couldn’t save anything. And when I’m dead, all my money will stay in this world.
Were this not true, why were Cuban boat people risking their lives to get here?
In Europe, we have more immigrants risking their lives to get there. So we win too in this statistic.
If you compare “American expats in Europe” and “European expats in America”, you can be sure that the latter are more fed up with USA than the former with Europe.
So yes, if quality of life means working as a slave to buy sh*t you don’t need, YOU ARE THE NUMBER ONE
imnobody
If quality of life means “health system”, I have experienced two surgeries this year. I pay only about $50 of health insurance a month for the government. Can you say the same? A woman of a friend of mine lives in USA and she’s still paying her gaving birth to her 5-year-old kid. In Europe is free.
I love this argument…your entire life you will get taxed at 60% or more, you pay a VAT on everything another 8-18%, a magazine is $8, a cup of coffee $5…bey hey, my depends are “free”.
HEY DUMMY…that’s not free!
I’m 50, my total lifetime medical expenditures do not amount to $10,000. Am I blessed with good health, yes, but if I lived in Europe the taxes forced from me at gunpoint to pay for someone elses medical expenses would have been well over $200,000 at the Euro tax rate of 60%…This difference ( at least $190,000) is the reason middle class Americans can afford large cars, houses, etc…dummy!
America is not a landmass, it is an idea…freedom…and freedom means the risk of failure. Europeans traded freedom for “security” and if you look at Greece and the riots…this is what happens when freeloaders get cut off from the teet. The problem with socialism is you will eventually run out of other peoples money!
Hurp wrote:
I point for the second time towards the utopias envisioned by AntiFeministMedia and Omega Virgin Revolt, in which women have been (either literally or effectively) “phased out” by artificial wombs, in an almost mirror-image of the crazy feminist “utopias” in which men have been replaced by sperm banks.
I haven’t looked at AntiFeministMedia’s blog but I contributed to that particular thread in Omega’s blog. His virtual reality ‘prison’ was a thought experiment in how well women would get along without male aid and technology. The short answer is that they wouldn’t. The entire thrust of his blog is him wanting women to leave him alone (and he would do the same for them). I’m not really sure why you’re bringing him up except to try and equate him (dishonestly IMO) to extremists such as Valerie Solanas, who wanted to wipe the Earth of men.
(this guy is savethemales over at PMAFT’s place, you’ve probably seen him there before–
I had a debate with him once before – he strikes me as a harmless nut. If you think that a guy who believes that UFOs are from alien civilizations represents the mainstream of the MRM, I have nothing more to say.
And once again, there’s Angry Harry, a *very* well-known and influential MRA, advocating for women to outnumber men by 15%, which is arguably both extreme *and* misandric.
Angry Harry’s goal is to change the ratio of sexual supply and demand in favor of men. His method is too inefficient and would require a level of social engineering that’s completely infeasible. There are other far more realistic ways to accomplish his goals.
I simply think that highlighting and discussing the more ‘extreme’ ideas present in the MRM can help us form better alternatives, especially when some of those ‘extreme’ sentiments are arguably misandric, as Angry Harry’s “women should outnumber men” might be.
Oh yes, that’s why you’re a Satan’s advocate (like Roissy with respect to his alleged libertarian “brothers”), you do it to help the MRM. Roissy has applied his skewer to plenty of other groups he has ideologically nothing in common with. I have yet to see you write anything else besides critiques that try and paint the MRM as no better than the feminists.
Höllenhund wrote about OneSTDV:
I suspect these beta guys are utterly terrified of learning the truth about women’s nature. They probably know subconsciously that they couldn’t deal with that psychologically.
I remember reading a comment that OneSTDV made concerning Sharon Osbourne’s hilarity over Catherine Kieu removing her husband’s penis. He seemed quite shaken, almost as if his worldview about women were cracking.
“At the apex, the top fraction of 1%, men will dominate. Amongst the rest of the population men and women aren’t that different in terms of ability”.
imnobody wrote:
BS. Even at the rest of the population, most mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists and managers are men (or men are better in these positions). If you want to something done, give it to a man. When something requires ability, a man is better.
That’s been my experience in software development. Female programmers will faithfully carry out a solution that someone else has mapped out for them. But I’ve never seen them “think outside the box” and combine several ideas to come up with something novel. Not once. I’ve concluded that there’s simply a deep-seated mental gulf between men and women, even if they have the same job description.
You see this in everyday life. Who comes to tow your car if you have an accident or fixes it if there’s a problem? And what’s the gender breakdown of truckers, plumbers, and construction workers? The idea that sex differences only manifest themselves in the tail ends of the normal distribution has no basis in reality. It sounds like some canard cooked up to make feminists feel better about themselves.
“I have yet to see you write anything else besides critiques that try and paint the MRM as no better than the feminists.”
Well, I’m not sure if this would be getting too far off-topic, so if our host Dalrock wishes me to stop I’ll happily do so, but what, exactly, would you like me to write to prove I’m not a “feminist sympathizer?” I pretty much agree with the FRS’ stance on anonymity for men accused of rape, I think the divertion of stimulus funds away from “male-dominated” areas to women is stupid, and there are a bunch of other MRA issues/standpoints with which I agree. I got a wordpress account a while ago that’s completely empty (I found I’ve never been much for blogging–maybe I’ll start later, but not now), but if you want me to give an opinion or analysis I have which is “MRA-esque,” I could do so, assuming our host doesn’t have a problem with it.
“BS. Even at the rest of the population, most mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists and managers are men (or men are better in these positions). If you want to something done, give it to a man. When something requires ability, a man is better.”
People go into STEM because its boring but pays well. Since women don’t need money to mate, they aren’t going to do boring jobs just to gain access to mating possibilities. This is a difference in motivation, not ability.
At the apex there is a genuine difference in ability, because the X chromosome has been pushed like hell to reach the apex. This difference in ability doesn’t apply to most of the population. Women can do a lot of things if making a man do it isn’t an option.
davver wrote:
People go into STEM because its boring but pays well.
I’m in a STEM field and consider it anything but “boring”. Very little beats the satisfaction with coming up with a solution to a difficult technical problem. So speak for yourself when you talk about how uninteresting STEM is.
Since women don’t need money to mate, they aren’t going to do boring jobs just to gain access to mating possibilities.
Then why do women abound in specialties like paralegal, administrative assistant, Human Resources, and data entry? Women seem to do well in “gatherer” types of positions which do the same thing over and over again but aren’t very taxing. Men excel at “hunter” jobs where they have to solve real-world problems and take on demanding challenges.
At the apex there is a genuine difference in ability, because the X chromosome has been pushed like hell to reach the apex.
Would you mind explaining what the hell that means? Men’s Y chromosome has efffects on genes in autosomal chromosomes as well as the X chromosome.
This difference in ability doesn’t apply to most of the population. Women can do a lot of things if making a man do it isn’t an option.
Doesn’t come close to matching my experience or the real-world you see around you everyday. When you come up with something that amounts to more than your wishful thinking, let me know.
“Even female math and science performance in high school lags that of men, and not just in the US, but in every country.”
TFH when you make these broad statements you really ought to substantiate.
(btw just read today in passing that John Travolta’s wife and mother of his children is one of George Clooney’s exes)
Beyond the apex, this is incorrect.
It is not correct in the UK and it is not correct in Sweden at least.
It’s easier to monitor in the UK due to our many single sex schools, I am not just talking about just the private schools I mentioned previously, but as an example of the top girls state schools Tiffin (which has a related boy only schools which it usually outperforms) has specialist maths status.
‘Women can do a lot of things if making a man do it isn’t an option.’
A lot of the early computer programmers were women because it was boring repetitive stuff and men didn’t want to do it, Ada Lovelace wasn’t an exception.
Hurp wrote:
, but what, exactly, would you like me to write to prove I’m not a “feminist sympathizer?”
It would help if you took a well-thought-out pro-male position and stuck to it. Your Devil’s Advocate argumentation style comes off too much like a fighter who takes a swing at you but then fights like he’s got a light bulb up his nether duct. It’s amusing for a while but gets old when he keeps coming back for more.
Lily,
It also didn’t pay that well or have many options for advancement, so smart men don’t want to bother with it. Lots of ugly women get boring routine jobs because they can’t get a man, or got a mediocre man.
TFH,
Women don’t need start ups or high salary, so why would that be a metric to judge them by.
If their own men got conquered you would think they would want the genes of superior men who did the conquering.
Well, I’ll confess that personally, I find the “Devil’s Advocate” position to be the most entertaining to take; sure, it’s easy to take positions which nearly everybody in your given audience would agree with with, but it’s not much fun to have a debate when the other side is already on yours. Still, I do have to admit most people might not agree, and once again, if our host is getting tired of this as well, I’ll gladly stop. That said, in terms of a “well-thought-out pro-male position,” how would this do: I not only believe that male-female differences are, to a sizable degree, innate; I believe that one of these differences is a male advantage in spatial reasoning and similar skills which would lead them to dominate the top echelons of STEM fields, and I therefore oppose government-mandated affirmative action to fill those fields with women. The same applies to other personality traits (physical strength, competitiveness, assertiveness, etc.) that apply to other predominantly male fields like the construction work you mention or the hedge fund/technology startup points TFH mentioned. I hope this position is sufficiently well-thought-out and pro-male to qualify? It is one example of a position I sincerely believe and I would be able to maintain and stick to quite easily while still maintaining my contrarian/”devil’s advocate” positions that there is indeed a sizable amount of “extremism” within the MRM and that men possess an advantage in the “productive” fields you mention, but the advantage, while sizable, is not so great that there’s no overlap whatsoever between male and female ability in that regard.
If that doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable, at least simply taken at face value in and of itself, I can continue to expound on the points above and respond to your above comments. However, if the above example of a pro-male position I hold is not well-thought out enough or pro-male enough, then I suppose I must shrug my shoulders and apologize to you and our host for wasting your time. Either way, cheers for indulging me over the course of this thread.
Ray Manta,
Yes, its boring. I mainly see losers in STEM. People who are good looking, have charisma, and come from good families choose other more interesting fields to go into. These losers, not able to excel at fun things try to excel at the one boring thing they are good at. People I know with both the intelligence, charisma, and means to succeed in STEM and non-STEM fields rarely choose STEM. Its basically a field for middle and upper middle class nerds and immigrants with bad English.
Ugly women that can’t snag a man that can provide for them to stay at home get boring jobs that ask very little of them mentally. I.E. they try to provide for the man’s shortcomings in the least demanding way possible.
Yes I mixed up X and Y.
TFH:
“Heh. Tons of women are lawyers and MBAs.”
It’s not even close to the men. IB and BIGLAW are overwhelmingly male.
“It IS ability. Even female math and science performance in high school lags that of men, and not just in the US, but in every country.”
Funny how it doesn’t really exist in childhood though, but shows up later when people start getting horny. Its also funny how their verbal ability and “g” scores stay high, which implies to me they just aren’t taking math as seriously. As Barbie puts it, “math is hard.”
OneSTDV like the rest of the White Nationalists are completely useless for fighting misandry. There’s a thread at IMF that illustrates this perfectly. Showing the similarities between black men being lynched in the South, many of whom were lynched based on a forerunner to the modern false rape industry, to the situation of men right now gets a response of “LEFTIST TALKING POINTS!!!” from white nationalist, PA. The rest of his comments make it clear that PA is fine with misandry as long as the source is a white woman.
In other words, white nationalists do nothing about misandry at all.
Davver wrote:
Yes, its boring.
You lack the mental capacity to make such a judgement. I might as well expect a tone-deaf person to critique the quality of music.
People who are good looking, have charisma, and come from good families choose other more interesting fields to go into.
Note the emphasis on appearance and glamor in the above statement. You epitomize the worst of the female mindset with its emphasis on surface appearance.
These losers, not able to excel at fun things
Again, one person’s fun thing may be another’s poison. I get a real sense of satisfaction out of building products that are useful to other people. It’s far preferable to me to an occupation such as civil law, which largely transfers money from one pocket to another.
try to excel at the one boring thing they are good at.
Heres a lineup of “losers”. Just off the top of my head:
Larry Wall. Inventor of Perl.
Tim Berners-Lee. Invented the modern Internet
Thomas Crapper. Inventor of the flush toilet. This unglamorous device may have saved more lives than anything else.
Norman Borlaug. Father of the “green revolution”.
All of them have excelled by converting their ideas into real-world results. This is something far beyond your ability to ever comprehend. To you these guys would be “losers” because they may lack the superficial charm that gets your panties wet. Please explain why I should have anything but contempt for your viewpoint.
Yes I mixed up X and Y.
You’re mixed up, period. Try getting an education before you spout off about male and female genetic differences.
STEM careers are *boring*? And what on earth do you do for a living?
For people with the aptitude and the skillset, such careers are usually quite enjoyable. Maybe you don’t have the brain for it, but it hardly means it’s the dregs of the population.
Even if it isn’t a career you’d ever desire to do yourself, deriding the entire area that makes your modern life possible and comfortable is ridiculous.
Strange that the people who keep the world running aren’t usually in it for looks and glamour…
TFH,
“If anything, STEM is a lot less boring than paralegals, HR, nursing, etc.”
STEM requires effort. HR, nursing and paralegals does not. You put in your 8 hours and don’t do any real work and go home. Boring + effort = shitty.
“they are about 44% of JDs.”
JDs = BIGLAW? If you don’t graduate from a top law school and go to work for a top Manhattan law firm in a management track position your nobody. Do you really think some sucker women getting JDs from U of Phoenix and then spending their life unemployed or underemployed makes a point?
“You lack the mental capacity to make such a judgement.”
Ray Manta,
I have an IQ of 140, with an education and career to match. But if you’re a genius with a nobel prize I’ll defer.
“You epitomize the worst of the female mindset with its emphasis on surface appearance.”
Except I’m a guy, and I’m speaking about the male mindset. Men with options don’t choose STEM. Men for whom STEM is their best shot at gaining status, resources, and mates choose STEM.
“Please explain why I should have anything but contempt for your viewpoint.”
Because you might learn something. These people you list are like the highlight real of STEM. You want to know what the average STEM employee looks like, an under appreciated Dilbert writing code in a cubicle somewhere.
People with options choose better careers. The best can make it at truly fun things like showbiz, sports, writing, etc. The second tier becomes investment bankers or lawyers where they make 5-10 times what STEM workers make even though their work isn’t as hard. The final tier of people sufficiently to the right of the bell curve is people who go into STEM either because they lack charisma, are super introverted, or lack the family/social connections to get into better career tracks. The rest is lumpen proletariat and assorted mediocre middle classes.
Every person I’ve met with the means to go into STEM or a more exciting field has always chosen the more exciting field. STEM is for people with sufficiently high IQs that can’t do the more glamorous and rewarding jobs. As in all fields a few people get lucky and make it big, but your average IBer is better off then your average STEM worker by a long shot.
Just a Euro-zone update.
Mrs is in “free medical” Canada for a work thing. She stopped by the hotel lounge for a cocktail…$16 for a glass of wine, $14 for a bottle of Bud…OMG!!!!
My local watering hole sells Bud for $1.50, Wine $4.00…
But hey, the Canadians get their jock itch powder “free”.
TFH,
I reject your assertion that I should not distinguish between IB/BIGLAW and generic shitty school MBA/JD. The relevant question is what the highest status profession for a given ability level is. The people doing low level MBA/JD work are so much lower in ability then people in IB/BIGLAW or STEM that its not a valid comparison, they are worse then both. However, someone with the IQ to do STEM has the IQ to do IB/BIGLAW. So why don’t they, given that its the superior profession? Usually because they are nerdy losers with low charisma, and the charisma floor demanded of IB/BIGLAW is too high so they go into STEM where its lower. And there are a few cases where they just don’t have the connections. But the statement stands, everyone I know that has the IQ, charisma, and background to make it in IB/BIGLAW does so over STEM.
davver wrote:
Ray Manta,
I have an IQ of 140,
If you’re telling the truth (I have no assurance of that), that puts you well over 2 standard deviations above the mean.
with an education and career to match.
There are educated fools. Some don’t even know the difference between an X and a Y chromosome. So what kind of education and career do you have?
But if you’re a genius with a nobel prize I’ll defer.
For what it’s worth, my own IQ has consistently tested above 140. No, I’m not a Nobel prize winner, but I’m a solid, productive software developer earning a very good income. I hope I haven’t disappointed you with my lackluster resume.
Except I’m a guy,
Why do you argue like a girl then? All your talk about glamor and “fun” has a very flaky and feminine vibe about it.
and I’m speaking about the male mindset.
You don’t seem to have a clue about the male mindset.
Men with options don’t choose STEM. Men for whom STEM is their best shot at gaining status, resources, and mates choose STEM
If there’s any truth to that, it’s very counterproductive to society as a whole. Those jobs create wealth and improve life for everyone. The “fun” careers you idolize don’t do any of the above.
Their other problem is their extreme competitiveness – only a few can make it and even then, their time is very limited. For example, less than 2000 men play for the NFL and their post NFL lives have a tendency to be less than impressive.
The second tier becomes investment bankers or lawyers where they make 5-10 times what STEM workers make even though their work isn’t as hard.
You are very naive, I think. To make full partner requires huge levels of dedication and regular 60-90 hour weeks. Many can’t hack it and burn out. Law also isn’t as lucrative a field as it used to be. The same is true for investment banking. My current job is 40 hours where I work some overtime. Unless you thoroughly enjoy living in your office, eating Chinese takout, and poring over turgid legal documents law is not my idea of a satisfying career.
Career counseler Marty Nemko explains it better than I can what the pitfalls of a “glamorous” career are and also weighs in on lawyering as a profession. One strategy I like of his is trading grunge for glamor – jobs that aren’t considered high status often make up for it with better average pay and more reasonable working conditions.
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/do-what-you-love-and-starve_id1380
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/status-is-false-god_id1391
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/should-you-be-lawyer_id1303
Everyone I know who actually hopes to accomplish something or contribute (rather than seek glamour) has picked a STEM career over finance or law.
It’s not just about IQ. Two people with equally high IQs might have very different ways of using their brain. Plenty of smart people might find business interesting, and find success there. Many smart people with technical skills do well (for themselves and society) in STEM.
But now we know what you base your preference on. STEM is boring because you actually have to work, and it is not as *glamourous* as some other options. Wow.
———————————-
If you’re paying $14 for a bottle of beer, that’s not Canada – that’s a ridiculous hotel lounge.
Whether one considers Western Europe or the United States a ‘better’ place to live depends on your priorities. Not everyone’s are the same.
But I think it can be solidly agreed that either is vastly better to live in than any of much of the world that is trying so hard to move to either (depending on point of origin).
To be fair–and genuinely not playing “devil’s advocate” here–don’t STEM fields entail some of their own measures of tedium and frustration? I’m not davver, as far as I’m concerned if you really are a successful software developer (and an MMA/outdoorsman, from what you told me in another thread) you’ll get no shortage of respect from me. But in terms of how fun your job may be, as satisfying as it is to solve a difficult problem or produce something useful, surely there are times when it’s not so rewarding. I mean, don’t you get frustrated if a particular problem is being really troublesome and you can’t solve it after repeated attempts, and aren’t there days when you have to spend hours grinding out tedious but important code? Again, this is not to be contrarian, I’m not in a STEM field but admire those who are, and am actually curious.
“If there’s any truth to that, it’s very counterproductive to society as a whole. Those jobs create wealth and improve life for everyone. The “fun” careers you idolize don’t do any of the above.”
“Everyone I know who actually hopes to accomplish something or contribute (rather than seek glamour) has picked a STEM career over finance or law.”
What is good for society or a contribution is irrelevant. People do what is best for themselves and then rationalize it later. If you talk to nearly anyone, down to the lowliest employee, they will say “I like my job.” Because the alternative is facing up to the fact that your a loser, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a loser. What matters is actions, actions speak louder then words. And when it comes to actions people with the option to pursue high status non-STEM fields and STEM fields overwhelmingly choose non-STEM. If you don’t like that run for president and change the incentives, but as long as they remain as they are the best and the brightest will seek the highest possible rewards in non-STEM fields while STEM remains largely nerdy losers who couldn’t do better working mediocre boring jobs for mediocre upper middle class salaries.
@ TFH and Others
With regard to the small percentage of females among chefs. The primary reason that most chefs are male is because the commercial kitchen is a very harsh and dangerous workplace. It is also extremely demanding work, spent on your feet for very long hours every shift. It is also unrelentingly competitive. Most people who become chefs spend years working in this environment before they establish themselves and either amass their own resources or demonstrate sufficient skills to acquire investors. It is physically more demanding than many heavy manufacturing assembly line jobs, with longer hours, and far higher quality standards.
While there are individual exceptions, the physical requirements make most women unsuitable for the work.
@Lily
Early programming was very different when the earliest computers were created. They were analog devices, and the activity then called programming involved recabling the computer to perform the next set of calculations. It bore no relationship to what the term now refers.
That said there were a couple of pioneer women. One whose name escapes me, developed the first floating point support. Regardless of gender, quality programming is a very difficult activity and demands a rather unique skill set. It is more than just intelligence, or a type of thinking. My anecdotal experience encompasses several hundred programmers in many different disciplines over more than four decades. There were very few women in this field when I started, and they were for the most part far better than average. I attribute this to the fact that there was no effort to push women in to these fields in college, and only those with a lot of talent and desire ended up pursuing careers in computers. Then the field exploded and every college and tech school offered degrees in computers. Men and women flooded in, graduated, and got jobs. If you were breathing and could spell computer you could get hired. In the end men outnumbered women about three to one. While the average male programmer was clearly better than the average female programmer, the very best women and men were pretty equal in skill and productivity. In that select group, perhaps 50 people, men out number women about six to one.
Based on my life experience, and a broad data set, I have formed the opinion that the intangible mental attribute that makes someone a programmer occurs more frequently, and perhaps more strongly, in men than women.
TruthRing wrote:
What is good for society or a contribution is irrelevant.
So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to be a thief or a confidence man?
If you talk to nearly anyone, down to the lowliest employee, they will say “I like my job.” Because the alternative is facing up to the fact that your a loser, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a loser.
When you get to the point where you start defining individuals whose income, intelligence, and productivity is in the top percentiles as “losers”, it’s pretty clear you have a very dysfunctional idea of what a loser is.
If you don’t like that run for president and change the incentives,
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but even the president can’t do anything about irreversible brain damage. Think of what happened to Terri Schiavo. ;-).
Hurp wrote:
To be fair–and genuinely not playing “devil’s advocate” here–don’t STEM fields entail some of their own measures of tedium and frustration?
They sure do. I’m not trying to say it’s all sweetness and light – part of the job description is simply putting your nose to the grindstone and getting the ugly but necessary details right. But Davver’s broad definition of STEM types as “losers’ simply because they do work he doesn’t enjoy and isn’t considered as high-status as law and investment baking is obtuse. Let’s take a look at the balance sheet of my STEM specialty (software engineering) vs. the law career he would favor.
Education – SE Possible to be self-educated. Have to be willing to keep up with technological advances.
Education – Law Forget about being self-educated. Graduating from a top school is extremely important. Law changes frequently so have to be willing to keep up.
Income -SE Low 6 figures attainable
Income – Law High 6 figures attainable by full partners
Hours – SE Varies. Unpaid overtime is fairly common but not to the level of an attorney.
Hours – Law 60-90 hours weekly are par for the course for those on the partner track.
Value to society – SE Builds things useful for others. Generates wealth.
Value to society – Law Some lawyers are needed, but there are too many. Wealth isn’t generated but transferred in a zero-sum game.
Glamor/status – SE. Generally respected, but not generally considered to be a “glamorous” profession. Some narrow exceptions may apply, such as startup founders and celebrity “rock-star” developers.
Glamor/status – Law. Lots of TV shows about lawyers. Often give a misleading idea of what a lawyer’s job is really like.
These are generalizations of course, but overall I give the nod to S.E, if you’re good and specialize in an area that’s not overly crowded (which is what I do).
“So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to be a thief or a confidence man?”
On a mass scale, morality is irrelevant. Individuals can make moral choices, but if a system is messed up there is always going to be someone just like you that will fill the void. By and large this means most people are libertine because they understand the futility of morality. People are mainly driven by their id and evolutionary impulses, they use morality as a way of rationalizing those impulses. The # of people for whom considered morality has guided their actions in conflict with their base impulses are so small as to be meaningless in this discussion, and to social policy in general.
“When you get to the point where you start defining individuals whose income, intelligence, and productivity is in the top percentiles as “losers”, it’s pretty clear you have a very dysfunctional idea of what a loser is.”
From high up all the people down there look like ants, its hard to tell the big ants from the small ants.
Education – Outside of programming you can’t really be self educated. You have to go to a good school to get a job somewhere. Even if your going to do a technology start up going to a top university to find co-founders, get the prestige to acquire capital, and build connections is a good idea (Zuck and Gates went to Harvard for awhile).
Education – Your point is? Graduating from a top school gets you on track for life. Law doesn’t change that much and older lawyers are well respected, often moving away from the nitty gritty to manage relationships. In programming if you aren’t up to date with the latest program your useless.
Income – Great, have fun working till your 65.
Income – High six figures seems a little low for partner in BIGLAW. But I know IB better so maybe I’m wrong. Point is you can retire in five years and have your whole life too look forward to in complete freedom.
Hours – SE Varies. Unpaid overtime is fairly common but not to the level of an attorney.
Hours – Yeah, but the work isn’t as hard, a lot of it is facetime and socializing. Hours aren’t the hard part of a job, boredom is. I can spent 80 hours a week working on interesting things. The point if you get to retire super early.
Value to society – Doesn’t matter.
Value to society – Doesn’t matter.
Glamor/status – We’ve got a whole article here about how even if a nerd is a millionaire he is still a nerd that gets shot down by ugly girls on okcupid.
Glamor/status – You know what’s great about law, you can actually talk about your job and people want to hear what you have to say, because its interesting. Do you have long conversations with chicks about C++ coding.
STEM fields absolutely include some boring drudgework. ANY field does. Sometimes it’s in the field, and entry-level jobs are created to take up most of the boring stuff, while in other fields there tends to be a bit in any job. Very few jobs are always fun all the time.
A person who would make a great programmer would hate law and do poorly. A person who would make a great lawyer couldn’t program to save his life. Different people have different aptitudes – that doesn’t make one better.
Programmers can discuss computer languages together as well as lawyers can discuss cases.
No-one wants to hear a lawyer talk about his work beyond the broad concepts.
As for our ‘nerd’ here, he’s a reasonably successful finance guy – isn’t that where you were saying the glamour lay?
I don’t expect anyone to be able to convince you that anyone who doesn’t have the same interests, abilities, and ineptitudes as you isn’t worthless – and why bother? You’ve demonstrated your priorities. The people who make your life possible aren’t really sitting around crying for your approval either. Enjoy your money. I’ll stick with appreciating those who actually do something.
As for the ‘interesting’ factor in law, there’s a lot of former lawyers around the internet these days explaining why they left and suggesting young people don’t consider law since it’s horribly boring and worthless..
ugh. please excuse the grammar above, and I’ll start proofreading better.
I would question Ray Manta’s suggestion of self-education.
In many IT professions, it’s possible to self-educate, though you need to be pretty exceptional to get in the door without a degree. Software engineering would be in that category, as it’s not really ‘engineering’ in the usual sense. Engineering requires a specific education and professional designation to find any work, and doctors require a long specific schooling process. Most science also requires a fairly long time in university, with the exception of the geosciences which afford a comfortable living on a bachelor’s.
I don’t think the fact that you need to go to school for it is a strike against, but I think it’s unhelpful to use the possibility in a single area which is not indicative of most of the STEM fields.
Kai,
“former lawyers around the internet these days explaining why they left and suggesting young people don’t consider law”
Law school is a scam if you don’t go to a top school. Doesn’t change my point. So is CS at your local community college.
“No-one wants to hear a lawyer talk about his work beyond the broad concepts.”
And nobody even wants to hear the broad concepts of programming. They just want their shit to work. People actually want to hear about interesting cases.
“As for our ‘nerd’ here, he’s a reasonably successful finance guy – isn’t that where you were saying the glamour lay?”
He made his money playing MtG, and now he is trying to be a quant. Far from your typical IBer.
“I don’t expect anyone to be able to convince you that anyone who doesn’t have the same interests, abilities, and ineptitude as you isn’t worthless – and why bother?”
They aren’t worthless, but they are clearly lower status. They get fewer of the things they want in life, and generally have lives that aren’t as fun.
“The people who make your life possible aren’t really sitting around crying for your approval either.”
Aren’t they. Nerds want to be cool, they wish they could be cool. But they aren’t. I don’t care about nerds approval and I’m getting rich off all the value they create without doing anything. Sounds like they are a bunch of weak suckers.
“Enjoy your money.”
And status, women, social life, and better opportunities for my children.
“I’ll stick with appreciating those who actually do something.”
Your appreciate won’t get them the things they want in life.
tenthring wrote:
On a mass scale, morality is irrelevant.
If you seriously believe that, you’re beyond stupid. What keeps you from being mugged and set on fire when you walk out the door? Morality. It’s the glue that holds societies together and if you think otherwise, book a one-way ticket to Liberia or the Congo and stay there. You can interact to your heart’s desire with people with no morality or expectation of it.
Law school is a scam if you don’t go to a top school.
Good of you to acknowledge that. And it’s a perfectly valid reason for choosing a different career.
Doesn’t change my point. So is CS at your local community college.
You can actually get a very decent education at a community college, and at a very reasonable price. The instructors there aren’t tenured, and their primary agenda is to teach, not publish or perish.
Education – Your point is? Graduating from a top school gets you on track for life.
So does being born to wealthy parents. So does founding a successful startup. So can winning the lottery. Your point is?
Outside of programming you can’t really be self educated.
I fail to see this as anything but a plus in favor of programming. There may be no such thing as a pure meritocracy, but a low barrier to entry is definitely a step in the right direction.
In programming if you aren’t up to date with the latest program your useless.
A programmer with the basics down pat can bring himself up to speed within weeks with a new technology. For example, I don’t work with Python much but have extensive experience with Perl. If I had to work on a project that required Python it wouldn’t require much more than an extended weekend to become decently productive. And within the month I’d be zipping out code like nobody’s business.
Income – High six figures seems a little low for partner in BIGLAW
Whatever. There’s incredible competition, very few make it, and the hours you have to put in to make partner are brutal. Not really sure why you think that the collateral damage doesn’t matter. I suppose you think they’re all “losers” and not worthy of your attention.
Law doesn’t change that much
It changes enough and it more than makes up for that by requiring locale-based certification. Just because you’re certified by the BAR in New Jersey doesn’t give you the right to practice in NY. There are also many specialties and its difficult to competently handle more than one. I’d be a lot more comfortable moving from web programming to the Android than switching from Real Estate to family or habeas corpus law.
Kai wrote:
I would question Ray Manta’s suggestion of self-education.
Just a clarification – I didn’t mean to say that self-education is the optimal path, simply that it’s possible for programming/software engineering, For a field like law, it would never happen.
And yes, for other STEM specialties such as mechanical or civil engineering, you definitely should have formal training.
In many IT professions, it’s possible to self-educate,
The majority of software developers I’m acquainted have a college degree, but not in computer science. One who I was acquainted with had his degree in anthropology. But most of the time I see them cross over from something that’s more closely related. Those who have engineering or statistics degrees are fairly common.
Software engineering would be in that category, as it’s not really ‘engineering’ in the usual sense.
I know that, and don’t particularly like the term. It’s more of a craft with some engineering principles thrown in.
I was just trying to say that using software engineering as the STEM example was unfair, since it’s the exception.
It seems to me that it’s more and more difficult to get your resume looked at without a degree, but if you can get someone to take a chance so you can prove yourself, you can still do well in programming and related fields.
I think it’s because that area is so aptitude-focused. People who are good at programming are so because they are good at technical problem solving. As such, they usually become good at it through playing with it – not being taught theory. Anyone who is going to make a great programmer already has much of what he needs, and school can just give him a place to hone it. If he’s motivated, he can generally get there without school just fine. The same would go for why it’s not difficult for a competent programmer to pick up new languages. When the mind is there, it just needs to be shown the translation, and given a little time to play with the new format.
“What keeps you from being mugged and set on fire when you walk out the door?”
The police. The fact that it isn’t in most people’s self interest is not to behave in such a matter, because of various societal incentives.
“Good of you to acknowledge that. And it’s a perfectly valid reason for choosing a different career. ”
Or you could just get into a top school. You know, being a winner and all.
“You can actually get a very decent education at a community college”
lols
“So does being born to wealthy parents. So does founding a successful startup. So can winning the lottery. Your point is? ”
Being born to wealthy parents nearly assures you will succeed if you have an IQ > 100 and put in minimal effort. By contrast, startups and the lottery are long shots.
“I fail to see this as anything but a plus in favor of programming.”
Programming is the best STEM field, assuming you work for yourself. The point is that all the other STEM stuff, like engineering or science, can’t be self taught and doesn’t lend as well to self employment.
“A programmer with the basics down pat can bring himself up to speed within weeks with a new technology.”
So you have to keep working your but off and learning new code your whole life, while most IB or BIGLAW, assuming they have retired to a yacht, spend most of there day having lunches with executives, networking on golf courses, and generally having a fun relaxing time.
The last two aren’t worth a reply.
STEM is a second class citizen. Most people who go into stem are nerds from not well connected families. Because they never had an offer to join the club they make up shit like, “I like working on interesting problems,” to justify the fact that they are lower status and have less satisfying lives.
Morality when you’ve never been faced with a genuine moral choice is cheap. Its one thing to say you’d turn down a dump truck full of money if it was driven up to your house, its another to actually turn it down when its sitting on the curb.
To the notion that you can self educate to become a programmer. In some sense that is true of almost any discipline. On can “read for the law” pass the bar and become a lawyer. One can pick up a book on the language of your choice and teach yourself to program.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth I studied computer science and computer engineering at one of the top three programs in the nation. They were not interested in teaching me how to program. We learned to program by completing the programming necessary to accomplish the projects that used the concepts we needed to learn. In those days languages were not sufficiently standardized and it was assumed that when we got a job somewhere the company would teach us the language or languages that we would use in our work. That said by the time I graduated I was proficient in twelve different computer languages and assemblers. Some of the languages were under development. As a student I actually helped to create the first of a new generation of languages. The world was different then and the theories on where computer languages should go was heavily debated, both in universities and in industry. Various computer companies developed their own proprietary computer languages specific to their hardware architecture. My education was intended to allow me to fill many different roles in industry not just to program computers. In hindsight it accomplished this very well. There is simply noway that I could have prepared myself as well through self education.
As for getting an excellent education in these fields at a community college. Simply put – NO.
In school, I competed against the best and brightest from around the world. This was not a ivy league school, if you had the grades and test scores you could attend. While I’m sure that a generous alum could pull some strings and get his son or daughter admitted, that was rare. If you did not make the grades you were told to leave. My classes included europeans, asians, middle easterners, and aussies. There were also people from various industries who were sent back to expand their education on their employers dime. The retreads were the toughest competition. They had to get maintain at least a 3.5 (out of 4.0) to get paid. They were all generally ten years out of college. They had access to the resources at their companies. Most of them were already working in these fields already. They generally teamed together and already had years of experience slicing up a project for implementation. The faculty were all doing research and were among the best available. You’ll not find that environment at a community college.
Sadly, I’m told that the computer disciplines no longer draw the best. The best minds end now up in bio-engineering and similar fields. Fields that are young where novel approaches can create huge breakthroughs.
Oh and as far as compensation. The amount of wealth that was created during the computer revolution was so vast that many “gumby programmers” are now millionaires. Apple, Apollo, Oracle, DEC, Ti, Compaq, Microsoft, DG and dozens of others made secretaries wealthy. If you were talented, worked your tail off, and were in the mainstream of what a company created, you could make enough to retire in short period of time. The were hundreds of spin offs, that started, grew and died. But many of the failures while they lived generated a huge amount of money.
When you create something, unlike a lawyer, you have to opportunity to fill a need that magnifies the productivity of others. That can be of great value and you can reap those rewards.
tenthring wrote:
The police.
They almost always get there after the fact. Even in America. And when they don’t, they have a habit of doing what they did in Columbine and just wait until the bad guys run out of bullets.
The fact that it isn’t in most people’s self interest is not to behave in such a matter, because of various societal incentives.
The biggest “social incentive” around is that most people, most of the time, consider it immoral to do those things. If you believe the police can enforce Western-style law and order on a populace determined to misbehave, you are very naive. Look no further in Mexico if you want an example. You have drug lords beheading judges and police who oppose them.
Time to face up to the fact that you’re very dependent on the morality and goodwill of the people around you Mr. “Morality is Irrelevant”. Even if you’re an immoral freeloader yourself. Which you appear to be.
Being born to wealthy parents nearly assures you will succeed if you have an IQ > 100 and put in minimal effort. By contrast, startups and the lottery are long shots.
So is Biglaw.
So you have to keep working your but off and learning new code your whole life,
It’s actually very engaging and absorbing. Not that I expect you to understand that.
while most IB or BIGLAW, assuming they have retired to a yacht, spend most of there day having lunches with executives, networking on golf courses, and generally having a fun relaxing time.
Would bore me to tears personally, but if that’s what floats your boat. You do have nerd counterparts to that, such as Yahoo Store founder Paul Graham. He seems to spend most of his time now updating his website and developing his pet programming language (Arc). He’s wealthy, so he doesn’t have to do any more coding than he wants to.
The last two aren’t worth a reply.
Translation : They’re absolutely true but you won’t admit it.
uncleFred says:
As for getting an excellent education in these fields at a community college. Simply put – NO.
Career counselor Marty Nemko would disagree with you. I’ve already posted urls to some of his articles in this thread. If you go to his website, you’ll find he has the following to say:
(1) The conventional college track tends to be an overpriced, overrated ripoff. Despite the constantly rising tuition, they still haven’t moved beyond the outdated teaching method of packing huge numbers of students in an auditorium.
(2) In the 21st century, it makes far less sense to front-load all of your education in your early years.
(3) There’s no solid evidence that a conventional 4-year degree has any more value than two years at a community college followed by a transfer, even though it’s a lot less expensive.
(4) Alternative education resources, much of them online, are beginning to challenge conventional education sources. They’re also far more economical.
I went the conventional college + grad school route myself, but my postgrad experience tends to agree with his observations. One of the very best classes I ever took was one at a community college. It was one semester long and only cost a few hundred dollars. And the instructor was top-notch.
In school, I competed against the best and brightest from around the world.
High-quality peers can certainly be helpful in getting an education. But that was then, this is now. The Internet is awash with ways to network and conference with people. And alternative ways of meeting and collaborating with people exist, either through interest groups or trade associations.
Your advice is also a bit more applicable to the best and brightest than to the lower 95%. If you’re not so ambitious and just want a decent education and a good career, community colleges can be a very good choice.
Regarding self-education – you can teach yourself pretty much anything if you learn well that way, but you can’t self-educate *and then get a job* in many fields.
I think that programming is going that way as well. Unless you start your own company, it gets less and less easy to get hired without a degree no matter how great you are.
Most other industries won’t even consider a degree-less resume.
Can you really just study and pass the bar in the states? I didn’t think it worked that way anywhere any more.
Kai wrote:
I think that programming is going that way as well. Unless you start your own company, it gets less and less easy to get hired without a degree no matter how great you are.
I’m not convinced there’s more of a trend in that direction than ever before. Employers want some type of indicator that who they’re hiring can do the job. Since aptitude and IQ tests have fallen in disfavor, it was their habit of using a degree as a very imperfect marker that a hiree was smart enough.
Assuming for argument’s sake that you’re correct, online and/or community college education resources are becoming a better and better bet. Cisco academies have been around for many years and you have newcomers such as Western Governor’s university where you can do all your education online. You can also become certified in many specialities by passing exams such as Sun Certified Java Programmer.
It’s always possible to start your own company and even if you do fairly conventional contract work, it may make sense to market yourself as an independent business owner.
If I were going to practice law in the States, I wouldn’t even try to “self-educate” in a state that allowed it. It may be possible in principle but there are too many forces arrayed against it.
“If you believe the police can enforce Western-style law and order on a populace determined to misbehave, you are very naive. Look no further in Mexico if you want an example.”
The populace isn’t determined to misbehave, it wants to get the best possible life it can and for most people, those without the power to make the rules, the best route its to follow the rules those with power put in place. Thus middle class drones do better then underclass revolters, and the underclass revolters can be kept in line.
“So is Biglaw.”
No, once you are on the career track you are basically set most of the time.
“It’s actually very engaging and absorbing. Not that I expect you to understand that. ”
People who have to do things to survive convince themselves its not so bad.
“Would bore me to tears personally, but if that’s what floats your boat. You do have nerd counterparts to that, such as Yahoo Store founder Paul Graham. He seems to spend most of his time now updating his website and developing his pet programming language (Arc). He’s wealthy, so he doesn’t have to do any more coding than he wants to.”
I talk about investing and follow the market, as a hobby. I don’t have to anymore. You have to go to a place and do what somebody tells you, or maybe you’ve upgraded to doing what a client tells you. Either way, you aren’t the boss of your own time. You do the shit other people don’t want to do in exchange for their money, the people with the money are in charge.
“Translation : They’re absolutely true but you won’t admit it.”
It means exactly what it means.
TenthRing wrote:
People who have to do things to survive convince themselves its not so bad.
Well, that’s great, you don’t believe me when you say I like what I’m doing. It’s kinda mutual – I don’t believe your implications that you’re living the life of Riley as a Biglaw partner. My strong belief is backed up by the accounts I’ve read of attorneys in Biglaw. If they’re not directly working on a case, they still have to go out, make rain, and schmooze. And yes, that is working . But I’m sure you believe that you really enjoy kissing someone’s ass since people who have to do things to survive convince themselves it’s not so bad.
If you’re doing a 4-hour work week like Tim Ferriss and can tell me that’s the norm for people in your ‘career’, I’ll stand corrected. Otherwise, you’re just wasting time with further posts.
Ray Manta,
People who get rich can retire before they are old farts. You get rich in IB and BIGLAW quick. You work till your old as a Dilbert STEM.
Also, schmoozing is more fun then writing code. Most people like to party, drink, golf, and have fun in their spare time. The vast majority of people don’t spend their time coding as a hobby. Have you seen those people that work on open source or edit wikipedia. My God they look like ugly losers. Some people don’t have better options for how to spend their time because they are low status.
So, are you retired yet? Yes or no? Or are you doing Tim Ferriss’s 4-hour workweek? Yes or no?
BTW, here’s a quote from collegeconfidential.com about BIGLAW partnerships. I doesn’t seem to quite match the picture you paint.
My H practiced for just over 20 years with a ‘biglaw’ firm prior to moving to a GC position with a client. His hours as a partner were just as long, and he worked just as hard, as he did as an associate. This is the case with many longtime partners we know at large firms in NYC, D.C., and Toronto. I don’t know one senior partner who is able to leave the office at 5:00 ANY day, let alone every day! There’s an old saying in the legal community that practicing law is like a pie eating contest. When you ‘win’ a partnership, the prize is more pie!
Pingback: Overselectivity And Anti-Game: Like Oil And Water « Chateau Heartiste
I like to have fun in my spare time, but drinking and golfing don’t constitute ‘fun’ for me.
I think there is some amount of introvert/extrovert difference. Apparently, you are a classic extrovert, and love spending time with large groups of people. You probably get a charge out of schmoozing, and love to spend your free time drinking with lots of people.
For introverts, what you consider fun is hell. There are plenty of people who are quite happy to spend their time working with their code and not with other people, or at least not with many. For an introvert, the ‘fun’ work you describe would be a horrible draining job.
While it is true that not many people like to code in their spare time, a large number of skilled programmers do enjoy that – because their interests are simply different than yours, difficult as that may be for you to grasp.
I know I’m late to this, but I’ve been away at work with no internet access.
I understand that most people tend to assume that others work roughly as they do, but it’s impressive how far you seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend that not everyone is interested in or motivated by the same things.
I knew there was a reason why the Magic playing kids at high school hid away. It must have severely hampered their ability to get a date with the nerdy girls.
Very surprised some on here are giving this girl a 5 – that is very generous. She is a 2, tops, in the looks department. When taking her crap disposition and loathsome personality she a zero. What a skank! If I shagged her she would easily be the ugliest broad I ever boned.
‘But what if she shredded a minimum wage laborer? A fat pimply wage laborer? ‘
We’d never hear about it, it does nothing for her ego to shred someone she can’t pretend to be better than.
Chels babbled:
Again, that whole total lack of empathy thing again. The economy in Canada has been hit by America’s devastation. Now, it’s not as bad, and I know that a media offensive has been launched to declare how many, many empty jobs there are and how Canada NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDSSSS more cheap labor imported.
Still, it’s interesting to see this, ah, woman, continue to push for more immigrants to further destroy Canadian men’s meager current prospects.
Why? Cause she doesn’t care at all about how much damage she does to Canadian men’s job prospects. It isn’t even on her radar.
Admittedly, a lot of men who feel their jobs are safe are exactly like her. You even have oldster Tea-Partiers saying “Let him die”. I swear, this is pure comedy gold here.
“For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”
Won’t that be fun. And yes, the liquidation of the old is pretty much inevitable at this point.
Still, it’s interesting to see this, ah, woman, continue to push for more immigrants to further destroy Canadian men’s meager current prospects.
Why? Cause she doesn’t care at all about how much damage she does to Canadian men’s job prospects. It isn’t even on her radar.
lololol It’s not like it’s only men coming, it’s also women, so instead of North American men having to go to various countries and spend money to get a foreign wife since Western women are all skanks, foreign women are brought right to you…Consider it a favor 😉
Of course the female competition is a concern for you, “woman”. You’ve made your position on the importation of FEMALE competition also quite clear. You hate it. And men won’t benefit anyway. Can’t really shut you up on that point.
IMBRA for female competition, and “Women like options” on the male side. Yes, yes, it’s all pretty clear.
Wow, I didn’t actually take your comment seriously just because of how ridiculous it is; like I have any control over mass immigration. As well, it is you who is concerned about male competition since you got all dramatic about immigrant men coming to steal your jobs *rolls eyes*
Like I said numerous times, I’m not particularly concerned about female competition since I’m not in the market looking and I wouldn’t be interested in the men going after foreign women anyway.
Of course I’m concerned, because I’m not a unbelievably stupid. Whether or not I “beat” them or not(and I always did at work), my wages are lowered a measurable amount by the presence of indentured sevants as competition. More “real man” sewage. Of course, there are other very serious issues with regards to mass importation. Like the government deliberately favoring it’s newly imported darlings over me and mine. Again, you are not just a “woman” but a dumb “woman” suffering from the delusion that this can all be fixed by “marrying a big enough alpha”. Cause you and your daughters are just so unimaginably special and precious they will always be able to do that.
Susan Walsh, and unbelievable b***** became an “MRA” (not really) when her daughter ran into problems in college involving diminishing alpha resources and their tendency to no longer play the game totally in the woman’s favor. It was all very sad I imagine. Did you know Susan may have pushed her first boyfriend into killing himself? She at least gave it a good shot. Did her best, and that’s all anyone can ask.
And from where exactly did you get that I support mass immigration? All I said was that the Russian men I know are hard-working, and that’s the truth; I would be a liar if I said otherwise.
I actually don’t support affirmative action or mass immigration, I know its faults, and it’s not just that it’s more competition for jobs, but that it’s also starting to threaten the native population–it’s a huge problem when the majority becomes the minority as it can be seen in the US, parts of Europe and parts of Canada–Toronto is the perfect example of this.
As well, I’m not familiar with Susan Walsh, but if what you say is true, then it’s just a tragedy, and she’s a hypocrite.
Speaking of Russian men, and being a Canadian of Slavic decent myself, I have a lot of contact with recent immigrant men. You should hear their impression of Canadian white women. It isn’t flattering, and I agree with them. Mostly they mention how manly they behave. White Canadian women are the worst of the worst when it comes to entitled, crass, classless, uncouth femi-whore western skanks. And I mean ALL of them, I’ve dated across the spectrum of white Canadian women from all walks of life. Unbearably self-centred, humourless, boring, superficial fakes. Worst in the western world. I rate American white women slightly higher but not much. Also UK women because at least they understand irony.
The woman who is the subject of this post is a typical loathsome white woman. I wouldn’t look twice at her, and I’m surprised anyone else did.
You should hear their impression of Canadian white women. It isn’t flattering, and I agree with them. Mostly they mention how manly they behave. White Canadian women are the worst of the worst when it comes to entitled, crass, classless, uncouth femi-whore western skanks. And I mean ALL of them, I’ve dated across the spectrum of white Canadian women from all walks of life. Unbearably self-centred, humourless, boring, superficial fakes. Worst in the western world. I rate American white women slightly higher but not much. Also UK women because at least they understand irony.
Yeah, my bf is European too, and that’s what he also says about WASP Canadian women. But then he says the same about WASP women in general, be it American/British/Australian/Canadian.
The problem is not that women in the west behave manly. I am myself married to a woman who is rather manly. The problem of modern western women is that they are behaving manly in the way their screwed feministic view of men makes them believe men are.
I am a man who believes that “a man has to do what a man has to do” and I am happy to be married with a woman who is manly in the way that she believes “a woman has to do what a woman has to do”.
And that does not necessarily means that she takes care of the child and the household, but that who stick to her word.
Ha, Chels I hope the irony isn’t lost on essentially being his white Canadian whore until a Real Woman comes along he will dump you for.
Ha, Chels I hope the irony isn’t lost on essentially being his white Canadian whore until a Real Woman comes along he will dump you for.
There’s no irony, since I’m not WASP myself. However, there’s plenty of stupidity on your side.
Spin hamster spin!!!
Pingback: Evidently I’ve hit a nerve! | Dalrock
Pingback: SMP searching costs and the unmourned death of courtship. | Dalrock
Pingback: Flake On Girls (FOG) Week – The Outcomes | 3rd Millenium Men