Preamble: My views on feminism is summed up by the article succinctly written below. As a man there are popular views held by society that just don’t bide well with me. The evidence is that the resultant view held in society has slowly through time developed issues of gender inequality, misogyny and narcissism, just to name a few, especially aimed at the male part of the equation, especially from a feminist perspective with some men jumping on the bandwagon. We have all now become suspicious of each other. Dating has become more like a job application. Marriage is considered a temporary accommodation that unless the selection criterion is fully met, ends up in litigation. All of us have good and bad points. It’s how we manage these traits as to how successful our relationships will become. Knowing we are half bad and not acting that part of us out would be a starting point. Oh and tons of forgiveness. I would like an encompassing and compassionate stance being taken where there is a discussion from a human perspective…anyways…you can’t compare apples and oranges. How long will the feminist agenda go on for? And lets say that all the feminists got their way…what then? Would they be happier or would there be another onslaught of a different kind? Time will tell. Update 27 Dec 2017: What happens at the point of an argument where a man slaps his woman? Is it because a woman said “Darling honey, would you like to go get some ice-cream and after I’ll make you feel special”? No it’s because the woman, after having nothing else to argue with starts becoming personal. Women are good at that. The man gets mad and as a last resort slaps her, after trying reasonableness. You know the ending. This one of many scenarios not being discussed. Instead, the feminist’s get on the band wagon and start a revolution that ousts men. Them against us. Women violate men as well. The just do it psychologically. It’s what they do! I like women. But all we see in the MSM is the voice of feminists. There is now a backlash against this feminist tirade…and here it is.
1. Cassie Jaye: Why I Stopped Being a Feminist
2. Ted Talk – Cassie Jaye
3. Tucker Carlson being interviewed by Gavin McInnes – frank and honest interview about women
4. Rockefeller’s funded feminism to tax more than half the population and destroy the nuclear family. Disturbing revelation.
Evolution, not sexism, puts us at a disadvantage in the sciences
(added Tuesday 27 Dec 2017)
Helena Cronin – Sat 12 Mar 2005
This caricature has been much on my mind since the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, dared to get biological about women in the natural sciences, engineering and maths. Talking at a closed conference about why so few women occupy top academic jobs in these disciplines, he attempted to probe beyond such familiar issues as childcare, role models, confidence (lack of) and prejudice (lots of). Summers made the modest claim that evolved sex differences, though not the sole reason for this male predominance, are among the reasons that should be considered. Outrage ensued. Not least, would-be feminists got the vapours, exacted apologies, mooted no-confidence motions, demanded resignation, and told the world of their hurt and humiliation.
But, as evolutionary science shows, Summers was right – for three reasons.
First, men, on average, have an advantage in certain quantitative and spatial abilities – particularly intuitive mechanics and “3-D thinking” (mental rotation of three-dimensional objects) – that are key for engineering and maths.
Second, there are, on average, sex differences in dispositions, interests, values. Men are far more competitive, ambitious, status-conscious and single-minded; and they’d rather work with abstract ideas or objects than with humans. Women are more focused on family and other relationships; they have wider interests and prefer not to work in people-free zones. When women leave high-powered jobs to “spend more time with the family”, it’s truth, not euphemism. In the US, even in the top 1% of mathematical ability, only one woman to eight men makes a career in maths, engineering or science; the other seven choose medicine, biology, law or even the humanities – typically, to work with, and help, people.
Third, sex differences exhibit greater male than female variance. Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the mean. But among males, the difference between the most and the least, the best and the worst, can be vast. So, when it comes to science, more men than women will be dunces but more will be geniuses – although the means are close. The maths averages of American teenage boys and girls are not dramatically different; but among the most mathematically gifted there are 13 boys for every girl. Sex differences are crucially about variance as well as means.
Now combine these three factors. Isn’t it unlikely that the distribution of men and women working in science will be identical? And the higher the echelon, the greater will be the preponderance of men – with obvious outcomes for elite institutions such as Harvard.
These differences are not recent or artificial or arbitrary. They have deep evolutionary reasons, which are well understood. Sexual reproduction as we know it began with one sex specialising slightly more in competing for mates and the other slightly more in caring for offspring. This divergence became self-reinforcing, widening over evolutionary time, with natural selection proliferating and amplifying variations on the differences, down the generations, in every sexually reproducing species that has ever existed. Thus, from this slight but fundamental initial asymmetry, flow all the characteristic differences between males and females throughout the living world. Now, 800 million years later, in our species as in all others, these differences pervade what constitutes being male or female, from brains to bodies to behaviour.
A wealth of evidence backs up this view of our evolutionary endowment, ranging from newborns (even at one day old, girls prefer a human face, boys a mechanical mobile) to pathology (females exposed to “male” hormones in the womb are typically “tomboyish” and surpass the female average in spatial skills – and vice versa for males) and children’s play (boys’ games are competitive, big on rules and establishing a winner, girls’ are more cooperative and end in consensus). These and other predictable sex differences are robust across cultures, and throughout history.
So much for Darwinism. What about feminism? Well, how could one be a feminist and not a Darwinian? If feminists want to change the world, they need first to understand it. And, when it comes to sex differences, Darwinian science provides the authoritative understanding.
Indeed, Darwinian insights open up promising avenues for policy. Consider the assumption that women academics are under-represented in science and maths – and the conclusion that prejudice must be to blame. Given what we know from evolutionary biology, that can’t be the whole story. Shouldn’t that knowledge influence feminist demands? If, for instance, fairness can no longer be identified with 50:50 representation, why the mission to equalise numbers – and what sex ratios should we aim for? And if the main evidence for discrimination was an imbalance, what should now be considered as evidence? Indeed, should discrimination occupy so much of the feminist agenda?
Or consider the cognitive differences that disadvantage girls in maths. Shouldn’t we be drawing more – not less – attention to them? How else will interventions be devised that don’t treat girls as default males? Bear in mind that mathematical ability itself is not an evolved ability; maths is far too recent for that. Rather, mathematical talent borrows eclectically from abilities evolved for other purposes. Much of the mathematical advantage of boys lies in spatial abilities for navigation – an area in which females are notoriously weaker; in particular, boys are better than girls at using these innate capacities to turn quantitative relations into diagrams. So why not help girls improve their skills? When males and females (both adults and children) are helped with translating word problems into diagrams, the performance of females improves more than that of males – thus closing some of the gap between the sexes. By contrast, self-confidence in maths, which also favours boys, makes some impact; but it is relatively small. So forget classes in “self-esteem” or “empowerment”. Go for evolutionarily informed teaching in maths classes. Admittedly, more female-friendly maths won’t guarantee more female Nobel prize-winners. But it should enable more girls to realise their potential. And isn’t that what fairness is about?So it is not Darwinian feminists but the anti-Darwinians that should feature in the Batman cartoon. I nominate those Harvard protesters. It is scandalous that educated women should be so profoundly ignorant of scientific and statistical thinking; even more scandalous that, rather than learn, they slam the door and sneak to the media; and more scandalous still that they do this in the name of feminism. It is not sex differences but sexism that is iniquitous. And it is not science but injustice that should be opposed. For how can we forge a fairer world if we lack a proper understanding of how the sexes differ?
Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives. Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).
Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.
62% of unpaid family workers are female. What does this mean? Are we talking about mothers here, or friends and relatives that look after children while the mother works? Here we see the traditional maternal role and the supportive nature of feminine socialization (per John Gray, Ph.D.) being exploited to portray women as victims. The natural and generous act of Grandmother taking care of her grand-kids for her single mother daughter is twisted to fit the feminist need for women to always be victims.
There are women’s issues that I fully acknowledge and support, such as genuine reproductive health (which does NOT include abortion on demand as a “right”) and the reprehensible practice of female circumcision, to name two. The problem with ardent feminists is that they pathologically need all females, and only females, to be victims. Thus, their “research” and “scholarship” and activism will typically be twisted to make the facts support the “truth” they want to see. They will ignore any contrary fact or evidence.
One recent “Freshly Pressed” post entitled “Bad Feminism” by blogger Claire Lehmann decries these ardent, ideological feminists who ignore research and facts as pop feminists. I encourage you to read Lehmann’s rather lucid post.
There are problems with feminism, obviously. These pop feminists–i.e., radical, ideological, gender, or “gynocentric” feminists–pretty much own feminism and the “women’s movement.” (See Christina Hoff Sommer’s, Ph.D., book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women.) Much of the entrenched feminist “research” and “theory” is, in effect or in fact, academic fraud; it acts as disinformation. We don’t known what to believe is true, and it disguises the women who are genuinely in need, as well as those men and children who are genuinely in need.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if something is generally held by feminists to be true, it should be considered a lie until proven otherwise. The indirect feminist reign in the English-speaking world is one of lies and manipulation and control, all of which are hallmarks of narcissism. Feminism as it currently exists has nothing to do with genuine issues of equality and justice.
The sooner it is brought down, the better for us all.
Here is an article from the Independent Newspaper I received this image in an email from someone who knew that I was not a fan of feminism. It shows statistics published for International Women’s Day 2006 by U.K. newspaper The Independent. These statistics appear to show what a terrible lot women in this world face, given the numbers and especially the title: “THIS IS YOUR LIFE (If you are a woman).” The title implies that the article portrays the reality of all women, and that it isn’t a pleasant one.
Those who’ve read the manuscript for my forthcoming book The Mirror know that I recognized the same essential narcissistic personality traits in ardent feminists as those that I lived with for 19 years in the expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits of my ex-wife. To be blunt, ardent feminists suffer from a form of gender narcissism that results in their pathological need for females being victims of males and society to be “true.” These feminists are pathological liars of a specific type.
Let’s take a critical look at some of the statistics, which are obviously feminist influenced.** Context is everything.
A baby girl born in the U.K. will likely live to 81, but if she is born in Swaziland, she is likely to die at 39. This deals with average life expectancies. While sad, a lower life expectancy is to be expected in developing nations. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Country Health System Fact Sheet 2006 – Swaziland,” the life expectancy at birth of a boy (2004) was 36 years and that of girls (2004) was, as advertised, 39 years. Men actually have it worse than women in Swaziland, yet the article deceptively presents the information as women being victims. How can women in Swaziland be used as a proxy for all women? How can you compare female life expectancy rates in the UK and Swaziland, and imply that women are victims in the process?
Women comprise 55% of the world’s population over 60 yrs old and 65% over 80 old. How can women be victims if men die sooner? Common sense would argue the opposite.
70% of the 1.2 billion people living in poverty are women and children. Wow, aren’t we men wicked and uncaring? But why didn’t The Independent compare the number of women living in poverty to the number of men living in poverty? Wouldn’t that have been a relevant comparison? Could it be that nearly as many men as women, if not more, live in poverty?
Women earn less at full-time and part-time jobs than do men. This chestnut has been put to bed in authoritative fashion by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., in one of his excellent books:Here