Why Schopenhauer’s observations on women remain relevant today

Schopenhauer’s essay on women validates two significant axioms regarding our species: Grow as we might, we can’t escape our nature; and that women have changed very little over the centuries. Let’s discuss some of his observations.

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word.

I don’t agree with this as I believe that men and women should be held up to the same moral standard. Christianity and Islam both hold women up to the same moral standard as men. In Islam, women are subjected to the same religious obligations as their menfolk (Prayers, fasting, reading the Quran ect) whereas in Christianity, Christ often referred to the righteous behaviour of women as a model for others to follow (Luke 21).

Having said this I think Schopenhauer is partially correct, that as a group, women display certain childish traits. The modern woman is petulant, narcissistic, solipsistic, and possessing a massive sense of self entitlement. She thinks that flouting the conventions of a feminized society is a sign of strength, the latter being supplemented by the nanny state. Her narcissism is grounded upon an exaggerated sense of self worth which is shaped by a never ending stream of positive reinforcement she receives from society (Girl power, you go girl, girl guides, ect). Boys are expected to man up whereas women suckle on this reinforcement all their lives. Women aren’t expected to take responsibility for their actions either and anybody who suggests otherwise is a victim blamer. Observe the dearth of female engineers? That’s patriarchy’s fault. What about the lack of non feminist female intellectuals? That’s patriarchy’s fault too. The childish modern woman thrives on an external locus of control. Matt Forney once wrote that women view masculine privileges in the same manner as children view adult prerogatives: freedom without responsibility. He astutely argues that feminism is essentially ideological childishness.

On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness…So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.”

I think Schopenhauer is spot on here as I have always believed that women do not possess the capacity to bifurcate right from wrong in the same measure as men. I spent half my childhood in Dubai growing up around sharks and one of my second cousins is the most amoral man I know. He’s worth more than $20 million today (my conservative estimate) and amassed his fortune during Dubai’s real estate bubble. Yet to his credit he seems to be keenly aware of his own amorality and makes no attempt to justify his MO. This sense of awareness is what’s lacking in women. A woman who steals a man’s children and vacations on child support has herself genuinely convinced that SHE is the victim; and ”patriarchal” society is too afraid to tell her any different. That women lack awareness pertaining to matters of fairness is apparent by their ignorance of sexist double standards in their favour. To paraphrase Bay Area Guy, far from fighting the power, women and their feminist handlers have become the power.

That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.

Are women subservient by nature? I believe this is true from an evolutionary point of view as testosterone enables greater risk taking which in turn yields resources. As the nurturer of our species, women take fewer risks and tend to be herd minded. That women are herd minded and subservient can be deduced from their mindless consumption habits. Men manufacture fashion and pop culture trends, ring the Pavlovian bell (advertizing), and women follow their nature and dutifully consume. When elite controlled universities command women to abandon family and children in favour of a paycheck, women dutifully obey.

Furthermore, during one of our conversations Bay Area Guy observed that women seemed relatively unconcerned with NSA surveillance and the loss of civil liberties in comparison with men. Feminist fruitcake Autumn Whitefield Madrano reasons that the “male gaze” has desensitized women to surveillance:

“I’m trying to think of how I’d process the news that our “for the people, by the people” government can invade our privacy anytime it damn well pleases, if I hadn’t ever internalized the sensation of being observed. I imagine I’d be more surprised, for starters, but I also wonder if I’m asking the wrong question here.”

I take it that deep down even she realizes how daft this theory this is as she then writes:

“I’m not saying that just because women might be used to being watched by men means that we’re inherently blasé about being watched by governmental bodies; in fact, I’m guessing some women are more outraged than they would be if they were male, even if they’re not directly connecting that outrage with womanhood. (Also, I don’t believe the male gaze to be wholly responsible for my indifferent reaction here; it’s just the one that’s relevant.)”

As a conservative, I tend to reason with common sense and this is what my common sense tells me: that as the physically weaker sex, women are far more concerned with security than men would be. As I’ve written before, for men, freedom is defined as minimal state interference. For women, and feminists in particular, freedom is all about the bloated nanny state that dispenses handouts. It’s impossible to love big government while remaining anti-surveillance. So what have we learned from all this? Primarily 3 things:

  • Women aren’t entirely economically independent, feminists have shifted their dependance away from husbands and family and onto the state.
  • Women aren’t any less subservient today, feminists have shifted their subservience away from husbands and families and onto the Corporate elite.
  • Women aren’t any less concerned with security, feminists have shifted that need away from men and onto the state.

Schopenhauer’s essay on women remains relevant today and even contains an element of urgency in light of current trends. His observations may serve as a beacon for those trying to navigate the fog of a feminized society.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in conservative values, Feminism, Western Values and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Why Schopenhauer’s observations on women remain relevant today

  1. Bay Area Guy says:

    Excellent post, Dota. I’ve always found the concept of the “male gaze” to be profoundly idiotic, even by feminist standards.

    Apparently, men enjoy looking at physically attractive women and judge women based on their looks. Somebody alert the press!

    • Dota says:

      It’s madness. Our governments base policies on the fictitious and anti empirical theories of these fruit cakes. Feminism is truly a mental illness and as an ideology so disconnected from reality, that it serves no practical purpose.

  2. Todd Lewis says:

    Proof of Schopenhauer’s warning can be seen in ancient Sparta.

    “Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator’s hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier’s life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.”

    Aristotle’s Politics Book II, Chapter 9.

    • Dota says:

      Very interesting stuff Todd. Kevin Macdonald has often said that one of the distinguishing characteristics of western civ is the higher standing of women. I never made it very far into Aristotle’s politics, but I think I should revisit.

      The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.

      Interesting, in what way?

  3. Todd Lewis says:

    Good question.

    Aristotle was complaining that when women rule men they are braggarts in peace, and cowards in war. If women lead men than in war, given that they are easily spooked and frightened the defense of the city falls to pieces. For Aristotle a women should be orderly and ruled by her husband. In Sparta the husbands were ruled by their wives.The Spartan women developed the habits of licentiousness and braggadocio, these traits while a nuisance in peace were a military disaster in war. In short while the Spartan man was under the laws the Spartan woman was not. In a well ordered city both sexes must be under the law. For inevitably half the city is out of control, that is the unlawful half.

    I found this explanation in “Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle” by Peter Simpson, pages 113-15

    • guerrer0 says:

      “Men manufacture fashion and pop culture trends”
      I myself admit that women can be sometimes very emotional and childish therefore I have know more annoying women with those traits than men, I myself sometimes am emotional and childish, dunno if as a bisexual man I have some feminine traits, however I as a bit Feminist I think women also produce a good share of popular culture, give credit where is due. In the West we could have the example of the authors of Harry Potter or Hunger Games and not being that impressed because Western societies being Feminists encourage women, however even in patriarchal countries such as Korea, women can’t help to show their talent, an example of such power are the female writers of the last 2 Korean TV series hits overseas.
      – The Heirs: Due to its star-studded cast and writer Kim Eun-sook (who previously wrote Lovers in Paris, Secret Garden and A Gentleman’s Dignity), international broadcasting rights have been sold to 13 countries. Notably, it had the highest selling price in Japan among all the 2013 Korean dramas. selling publication rights in Japan and other parts of Asia, Europe, the Americas, and more of a total of 13 countries… [Heirs] has a hot response both domestically and internationally.
      -My Love from the Star had an impact on Korean fashion, with clothes, accessories and make-up products worn by Jun Ji-hyun seeing an “unprecedented” surge in orders. It also placed first as “Korea’s most favorite program” in a poll conducted by Gallup Korea in February 2014, with 11.5 percent of the votes. Besides high viewership ratings in South Korea, the series also proved to be successful in China, where it became the most expensive Korean drama sold as of February 2014. It also became one of the most viewed streaming shows on Chinese platform iqiyi, where it was streamed more than 14.5 billion times from December 2013 to February 2014. The series struck up a craze for chimaek (chicken and maekju), a popular Korean snack of chicken and beer, which is the favorite snack of the female protagonist. Despite declining chicken consumption in China due to fear of H7N9 bird flu, fried chicken restaurants in cities saw an increase in orders since the running of the show. TV professionals in China have likewise weighed in on the Korean drama’s positive reception in their country. In an op-ed piece published by the China Daily, writer Xiao Lixin attributed its success to “great innovations in South Korean TV productions in terms of themes and narrative patterns,” praising the plot as “logical and fast-paced” interspersed with “whimsy and romantic punch lines,” and that “high-speed photography and computer-generated effects” helped “create a lifelike visual impact.” Yu Zheng, another writer, found My Love from the Star worthy of being studied, and thought the plot was “simple but has tension. A good combination of outdoor and indoor scenes.” Variety show director Pang Bo remarked that the makers of the series paid attention to technical details even in the shortest scenes involving special effects. Chinese celebrities such as Zhao Wei and Gao Yuanyuan also followed and actively posted about the series on Weibo, boosting its popularity.

      • Dota says:

        It’s true that women can contribute to (as opposed to merely consume) pop culture, but then, is pop culture really something worth bragging about?

      • Lee Min Ho says:

        To me yes 🙂 I freaking consume and enjoy pop culture than almost anything else. I spend great time also watching and interacting with the latest trends on Twitter, Youtube and Google News. On a emotional level it impact me more than the last scientific discovery and such things that are definitely male dominated.

  4. Aditya Vivek Barot says:

    I’m sorry for doing this (again): but you’ve made a material error in your thesis:

    I don’t think you know enough about religion which is understandable given your background.

    First and foremost, women are not required to pray five times a day because they are considered too weak, mentally and physically, for the same. Women are not allowed to pray with men. Not only are they segregated, they are placed behind them to demonstrate subservience.

    Islam expressly places women at a lower value than men. A woman’s testimony is worth half the testimony of a man. A woman cannot divorce her husband unless he (a) commits apostasy or (b) compares her to his mother.

    Women have fewer inheritance rights. I cannot recall the convoluted succession structure but I know they are only considered after the rights of the male issue have been secured.

    • Dota says:

      Women are required to pray 5 times a day except during that time of the month.

      Women are not allowed to pray with men. Not only are they segregated, they are placed behind them to demonstrate subservience.

      Praying behind has nothing to do with subservience but keeping women out of men’s sight to prevent objectification. According to Islamic tradition, when Moses escorted Jethro’s daughter home, she walked behind him out of her own free will. I don’t much care for that reasoning but that is how it is. Attributing a hostile intention to every commandment does not make you an expert on Islam either. What you’ve said up there is basically textbook Robert Spencer 101. If you’re going to critique Islam, do it properly

      • Aditya Vivek Barot says:

        Please gimme a break. Not one goddamn Muslim I know can even read the Koran. Their Imams tell them to stand in the back because they’re women and that’s where they belong.

        I don’t do Spencer-esque Literary and Theological critiques because they’re unnecessary. India has a (barely) 50% literacy rate and Indian Muslims have a less than 50% literacy rate which is worse among women. And you expect them to red the Koran?

        Gimme a break!

        And, since you’re the expert , please explain the verse and the Hadith that state that it is better for women to pray at home since they will excite lust among men at prayers. Does that sound like a religion that treats women equally one that views them, primarily, as sex-objects (and, unconsciously, themselves as unrestrained sex-fiends)?

        Typical blather. Please don’t bother responding since I have neither the time nor the energy to split hairs with sub-basement pseudo-Talmudic “scholars.”

      • Dota says:

        India’s literacy rate is actually around 74% and has been so since 2011. I have neither the time nor energy to split hairs with pseudo religious scholars who can’t even get basic facts right.

      • coward says:

        Please gimme a break. Not one goddamn Muslim I know can even read the Koran. Their Imams tell them to stand in the back because they’re women and that’s where they belong.
        Kind of reminds you of Roman Catholicism before Gutenberg 🙂

      • Dota says:

        Kind of reminds you of Roman Catholicism before Gutenberg

        Even before Gutenberg, the Church did its part in furthering education. I’ll repost what I’d written on Robert’s blog a while ago:

        The myth of the dark ages has been repeatedly regurgitated by the Jew media to the point of it being accepted at face value by well meaning people. We’re told that after the roman empire collapsed Europe suddenly sank under the sea only to emerge during the Renaissance. This is nonsense. There was plenty of learning going on in Europe and while the Church stifled some of it, it sustained scholarship in other areas. When Cambridge was established by Henry III the pope blessed the institution with a Papal bull. Bishop Hugh Balsham founded Cambridge’s first college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge). The University as we know it was shaped by the Catholic church even though the concept itself went back to Plato. Scholars believe that the modern graduate gown and cap have its roots in the middle ages. Where the Church went, literacy went. Christians were able to survive roman persecution precisely because they were the most literate sect in the empire. They were able to defeat other Christian sects (gnostics, Jewish Christians, Marconians ect) because they were highly literate and their literacy enabled them to challenge other doctrines while maintaining the integrity of their own. This love of literacy would eventually diffuse its way down to the general public.

        In France, Charlemagne appealed to the Church for help in setting up free public education. Cathedrals had schools attached to them which taught students latin, rhetoric and logic. The University of Paris had a papal charter I believe as did a large number of medieval universities. So much for the church suppressing education. You will probably point out that there were no sciences being taught, but guess what? Even Abbasid schools dated to the same era taught grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Same curriculum as in Christendom. The Church also functioned as a well fare institution dispensing wealth to certain groups such as widows. This instilled a sense of common good in the European mind unlike India where caste made fraternity not only impossible, but also sinful.

        In Eastern Europe, like the Russian city of Novgorod, literacy was quite high as commenter Wade pointed out last year. Scandinavia I believe standardized its alphabet so that the Bible could be translated and printed. The very concept of the masters degree was formulated by the Catholic church where one had the authority to teach anywhere in the world (ius ubique docendi). Clearly while the Church suppressed learning in some fields it also created the cultural infrastructure which buttressed higher forms of scholarship in the centuries to come. The Renaissance did not just come out of nowhere, it was the climax of centuries of intellectual and scholarly undercurrents that were alive in the middle ages. It is senseless to compartmentalize history by ignoring the thread of continuity.

  5. Coward, can you please give me an email addy? The old email addy is bouncing. Want to talk to you about something. Either that or email me to the addy on the Contact page.

    • coward says:

      Sure. What about? My old email is shadydawgcoward@gmail.com, but you can contact me at cowardsmith123@gmail.com

      • Coward says:

        Hey Robert, you try so hard to be hip and cool with your abbreviations like “addy” for address, “GTFO” for get the fuck out, “IRL” for in real life, and your Facebook. You are a real progressive fellow who keeps up with the younger generation, aren’t you?

      • In my heart of hearts, I will always be 20 years old. 🙂

      • coward says:

        In your skin, hair and veins though, you will continue to age.
        Why the hell do you hate psychopaths so much? Recently you have been posting about Bill Gates and all them other psychopaths and just denigrating them for being manipulative and stuff. Why not come to the dark side Lindsay?

  6. The Church in the “Dark Ages” is not, perhaps, the most apt comparison.

    The Bible wasn’t that important during that time or even during the High Middle Ages (circa. 12th Cent. A.D.) which makes sense when you learn that people took Mass once, maybe twice, a year (In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World It Made – Norman F. Cantor). Also, the Bible was written in a dialect which was all but forgotten by the time the Christianization of the West had been accomplished (circa. 9th Cent. A.D.). In fact, Latin was falling out of favor as far back as 3rd Cent. A.D. as a direct consequence of the irruptions of the Northern Tribes (Northmen=Norsemen=Norman) in the Western Empire. The common man, who couldn’t even read or write in his own tongue can, and should, be forgiven for not knowing a very complex, complicated and rigorous “dead” language. Furthermore, there is no mandate to read the Bible. It is sufficient for the Pastor to administer the same in the standard-sermon format to his flock.

    Islam actually mandates reading the Koran. It has the illiterate barbarian’s reverence for the written word which is readily evident upon skimming through its pages and admiring the calligraphy that went into its preparation. If you’ve ever met a truly illiterate man, then you’ll know what I mean. My father used to impress his illiterate mobster clients with his Law Reports telling them that, yes, he had indeed read them all.

    A lot of my wealthier friends had Ustaads tutoring them in Arabic. All of them treated it the way any red-blooded boy treats homework. I know just the one who paid attention and he is a fanatic who, undoubtedly, will end up in GITMO shortly. Will do him a world of good too.

    When even most Arabs cannot read or write Arabic, what hope is there for the rest? Also, the Koranic Arabic is very difficult. Written Arabic is, generally speaking, very difficult. From what I have been lead to understand, each dialect is almost like a language. An Iraqi cannot understand a Moroccan even though both, allegedly, speak “Arabic.” This is a real life example.

    Why would a people who seem to revere writing and who are mandated to read their “holy” book not bother? Who knows? And who cares. I came here to get away from them. Insh’llah, I will achieve that objective.

    • Dota says:

      Also, the Bible was written in a dialect which was all but forgotten by the time the Christianization of the West had been accomplished (circa. 9th Cent. A.D.). In fact, Latin was falling out of favor as far back as 3rd Cent. A.D.

      Not sure if I’ve understood you correctly, but the bible wasn’t written in Latin. The New Testament was written in Greek by hellenized Jews and the old Testament was translated into Greek as well (The Septugint). Greek was the working language of the Roman empire.

      When even most Arabs cannot read or write Arabic, what hope is there for the rest?

      Arab literacy rates don’t seem that bad so I’m not sure what your point is.

      An Iraqi cannot understand a Moroccan even though both, allegedly, speak “Arabic.” This is a real life example.

      Not from my experience, and I spent half my childhood in Dubai. Not that this has anything to do with anything but I’m just pointing out that it’s not true.

  7. Bay Area Guy says:

    Relevant to Dota’s article.

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/tuthmosis/2014/03/9-old-school-ways-for-a-woman-to-become-more-attractive-to-men/

    I’m not interested so much in the article itself as I am in the outraged female reactions to the article. Note that Tuthmosis never said that women must do these things or that they have an obligation to always look pretty and be feminine. He’s merely saying that if they want to make themselves more attractive to men, then they ought to put in some effort to be more feminine and nurturing.

    But to hear the outraged female commenters tell it, he’s forcing women to be subservient to men, and that women serving men is “sexist” and degrading. “I’m a strong woman, I don’t need to look pretty for you if I don’t want to! I should just be able to do as I please and not have to please you!”

    The very idea that women might have to change their behavior or improve themselves in order to become more attractive is complete anathema to modern women today, especially those of the feminist persuasion. It’s as if they genuinely believe that they deserve cookies just for existing.

    What do you think women would say about a man who was shy, lacked social skills, dressed like shit, was short and pudgy, had no passions or ambitions in life, and spent all his free time playing video games?

    They wouldn’t hesitate to find that man repulsive and unattractive. Both men and women alike would tell that man that he must improve himself, hit the gym, develop better confidence and social skills, be interesting and passionate, etc.

    Yet men having a much smaller list of demands for what they want in a woman is considered sexist, degrading, and imperious.

    These women seem to labor under the delusion that being a man is all fun without responsibility. They think that asking women to change themselves is too much, but seem to have no idea of all the hard work and dedication to self-improvement that men must undergo in order to make themselves more attractive. It really is a form of ideological childishness. Read the comments if you have the stomach for leftist delusion.

    • Dota says:

      I read the article and the appalling comments. Schopenhauer is still right.

      • Coward says:

        Do you think women will like me better if I stop bragging about the size of my weapon? I mean, I’m being serious, women find it interesting when I expose my huge….package, but they tend to think I am crazy. Should I stop flashing and braggin about the size of my junk? Would it help? I mean, I consider myself very ambitious and I can manipulate people into liking me, but I think women may tend to be creeped out. I thought my exposing my genitalia would help me get women but I guess not. I am also a fairly attractive dude, as literally hundreds of girls have told me, and very manipulative and can control a conversation in an instant. Red hair, and very clear cut features with a very rough and metallic jawline, cheekbones, etc. Very masculine.

  8. Coward says:

    Women are sort of a attention hungry demon. The more attention you feed them, the more they are attracted to you, and they do not care you shitty you treat them as long as you inflate their ego and tell them all sorts of good stuff. Narcissism is the Achilles heel of a wymminz. Just tell them that they are interesting, smart, awesome, fun, etc and they will pledge their loyalty to you like a radical Islamist to Allah.

  9. Beatrix says:

    Eh, I don’t know.
    In my career I’ve dealt with more women from different cultures than either of you (BAG & Dota) will ever even lay eyes on.
    What has struck me is that the majority of women are at least ‘average’ in intelligence. I don’t think there’s much evolutionary impetus for ‘below average’ intelligence in women nor ‘above average’ intelligence in women. (That being said I often wonder if ‘average intelligence’ is even enough for a person & their offspring to survive in our modern complex society.) A woman of ‘average’ intelligence is just smart enough to care for a child to at least puberty – she’ll be smart enough to realize her ‘limitations’ & dependence on her mate. A woman with ‘below average’ intelligence would be a disaster for both her mate & their ill-fated offspring. A woman with ‘above average’ intelligence, well, she’ll either be a miserably bored & possibly troublesome parent & mate or she’ll most likely find a way out of any ‘breeding’ relationship.
    On the other hand I’ve met many absolutely brilliant, highly intelligent men. However, the majority of men (at least 51%) I’ve met in my life are barely ‘average’ or definitely ‘below average’ in intelligence. I’d reckon that evolutionary impetus plays a part here also, it doesn’t take many males to impregnate a fairly large population of reproductive age females (applies to humans just as it does to chimps & cattle). Human male infants just aren’t as physically strong nor bright (responsive to stimulus) as human female infants, & although there are more human male infants conceived than females (a small but significant percentage) they are often out numbered by females by puberty. (The number of human males in ratio to females continues to drop well into young adulthood). I don’t think that ‘evolution’ found it necessary for very many human males to survive to sexual maturity- hence the lower intelligence in the majority of human males & the weaker constitution of male infants.
    Anyhow, I know I’m weird. A woman with an analytical mind is a freak. I apologize for any typos or other errors, I am ‘babysitting’ my youngest son’s latest veterinary projects (13 feral kittens) whom are climbing all over me & the keyboard. I guess that makes me a grandma?

    • Dota says:

      A study from 2012 or so demonstrated that men on average have a 3 point advantage over women in g tests. That being said, I don’t agree with Schopenhauer assessment that women possess “defective intellects.” Rather, the shortage of female intellectuals has more to do with women’s herd mentality which precludes curiosity (essential for any intellectual endeavour). I don’t even think 3 points is actually significant, but then, I did fail statistics twice 🙂

      • Beatrix says:

        I think ‘on average’ might be still the problem though.
        I don’t have much faith in any IQ tests in determining much beyond how well someone takes a test either.
        Do women (mostly) have a ‘herd mentality’?
        I’ve seen a lot of research suggesting women tend to be able to work better in a group than men.
        That has NOT been my experience.
        I’ve found it far easier to manage & achieve a set of goals with a team of men than ANY team of solely women I’ve ever worked with.
        The ‘herd mentality’ may be applicable in female social cliques/hierarchies or other more nebulous feminine entities.
        As far as ‘precluding curiosity’……. hmmmm….I’d have to think about that one.
        I tend to prefer women who are creative & make things (other than & in addition to babies) which require curiosity. Maybe that’s my bias again?

  10. Todd Lewis says:

    ” I believe this is true from an evolutionary point of view as testosterone enables greater risk taking which in turn yields resources.”

    I have seen appeals made to evolution before to validate or invalidate this or that proposition. Evolutionary Psychology seeks to make this method ‘scientific.’ Given that I have seen these kinds of arguments here I thought I should mention that these are not arguments, but performance of the Genetic Fallacy.

    see:
    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

    To prove that women are herd minded, one does not look into their biological past and psychoanalyze them, but make other kinds of observations and judgments. For example the observations of Spartan women by Aristotle. So next time you are someone you know is citing evolutionary development as evidence for this or that position remember you or they are performing the Genetic Fallacy.

    • coward says:

      But the majority of women do behave in such a way, as opposed to the majority of men. We are generalizing the majority, not the exceptions. For example, Blacks are on average 10-15 IQ points lower than Whites. Now there are Blacks with 130 IQs, but the majority of them do not. So it is okay to say that from an intellectual persepective, Blacks are dumber than Whites (I hate sugarcoating). Same with women, the majority of them are less testosterone fueled and ridktaking than men. Now some of them may turn out like Boudica, but most of them are like Jane Doe.

      • Todd Lewis says:

        I’m not saying they don’t, I’m saying that evolutionary explanations don’t prove it.

      • coward says:

        Yes they do. Sexual dimorphism regulated our evolution give men an average of 7-8 times more testosterone than women. Testosterone makes one more adventurous, risktaking, aggressive, dominant, and demanding. Women are by nature subservient and submissive. This is true, and there is no other theory that fits.

      • Dota says:

        I’m with Coward on this one. I don’t see how the genetic fallacy applies because I don’t see why evolution is such a bad source. Generalizing isn’t necessarily bad for without it we’d be unable to make any observations/hypothesis at all. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be mindful of the exceptions and account for their interests when formulating policy.

      • coward says:

        The problem with modern thoughts of logic is that they incorporate senseless fallacies they call logic. For example, we all know that flying spaghetti monsters with planet sized cocks dont exist. But according to the universal negative, we can never say it is false, since we can never be omnipresent to know if it does or doesnt. So therefore a flying spaghetti monster may exist. See how stupid modern schools of logic are?

  11. Todd Lewis says:

    “On the other hand I’ve met many absolutely brilliant, highly intelligent men. However, the majority of men (at least 51%) I’ve met in my life are barely ‘average’ or definitely ‘below average’ in intelligence.”

    This is the fallacy of the hasty generalization, as well as the genetic fallacy. I won’t get into the genetic fallacy here, since I already dealt with it above. Have you seen a relevant percentage of global male population to much such an assessment? I can guarantee you that 100-150 years ago when men, and women for that matter. were actually educated and as a result men had a much higher average intelligence. For example just read the letters to home from the front-lines written by high-school educated blue coats in the American Civil War.

    You’re judging the lack of male initiative or intelligence by a very small sample size and a sample size that is living in a toxic anti-male society. Sure males will fail if they are prevented from succeeding and penalized for being males and repeatedly mocked for being male. Women wouldn’t do much better in the same situation. This creates a false standard women ‘appear’ to be more competent than men because they graduate in greater numbers from college. This and other standards are irrelevant women are given preferential treatment in college and the work place so they are “to big to fail” if you will and there has been a lot of grade inflation and watering down of curriculum since the days of Greek and Latin class. And in those days men did far better than women.

    • Beatrix says:

      “You’re judging the lack of male initiative or intelligence by a very small sample size and a sample size that is living in a toxic anti-male society.”
      Excuse you.
      And what SOCIETY do you THINK I am living in and or have lived for the past 20 yrs?
      You’re making a LOT of ASSumptions yourself, Mr Lewis.
      Just one ‘flawed’ ASSumption can lead you to some very hasty generalizations & right down that primrose path of raze & ruin.
      I’ll give you a hint-
      I’ve spent the last 20 yrs of my life as an researcher for UNICEF.
      I have not lived in the US for the last 23 yrs.
      I also mentor PhD & MD/PhD candidates WORLDWIDE.
      In the US educational system I will agree there is unfortunately more of an emphasis put on BS like unearned ‘self esteem’ at the cost of learning actual knowledge or even practical skills.
      But in other countries? T’ain’t necessarily so.
      Same goes for your little “living in a toxic anti-male society’. Unless you know where I live – do not ASSume it is in a ‘toxic anti-male society’. I might just start to believe you are one of the aforementioned ‘below average’ intelligence males. One of the glories of the internet is that you can meet folks from ALLL over the world!

      Careful now, Mr Lewis, let’s not tumble into that ‘fallacy of the hasty generalization’ you find so distasteful.
      Don’t fly into one of those MRA hissy fits & make the mistake of ASSuming I’m a dreaded feminist either.

      From someone who cares,
      Beatrix

      • Todd Lewis says:

        “And what SOCIETY do you THINK I am living in and or have lived for the past 20 yrs?
        You’re making a LOT of ASSumptions yourself, Mr Lewis.
        Just one ‘flawed’ ASSumption can lead you to some very hasty generalizations & right down that primrose path of raze & ruin.
        I’ll give you a hint-
        I’ve spent the last 20 yrs of my life as an researcher for UNICEF.
        I have not lived in the US for the last 23 yrs.
        I also mentor PhD & MD/PhD candidates WORLDWIDE.
        In the US educational system I will agree there is unfortunately more of an emphasis put on BS like unearned ‘self esteem’ at the cost of learning actual knowledge or even practical skills.
        But in other countries? T’ain’t necessarily so.
        Same goes for your little “living in a toxic anti-male society’. Unless you know where I live – do not ASSume it is in a ‘toxic anti-male society’. I might just start to believe you are one of the aforementioned ‘below average’ intelligence males. One of the glories of the internet is that you can meet folks from ALLL over the world!”

        How to respond to this screed. Maybe you should learn to keep your lunch down. You are a wonderful example of Schopenhauer’s point; since your are totally lacking in an operational knowledge of logic. Rational discourse is impossible with most women since they fly of the handle at well reasoned and logical arguments, with typical emotionally driven fallacies.

        “You’re making a LOT of ASSumptions yourself, Mr Lewis.
        Just one ‘flawed’ ASSumption can lead you to some very hasty generalizations & right down that primrose path of raze & ruin.”

        This is the fallacy of shifting the blame. Even if everything you said is true, it does not invalid my claims. Maybe your are unable to refute them, which is more than likely, given your third grade playground response.

        “I’ve spent the last 20 yrs of my life as an researcher for UNICEF.
        I’ve spent the last 20 yrs of my life as an researcher for UNICEF.
        I have not lived in the US for the last 23 yrs.
        I also mentor PhD & MD/PhD candidates WORLDWIDE.”

        Big whup, I was talking about all of recorded human history, thats four thousand years, so 4K vs 20 years what do you think is more reliable? My sample size is human history whats yours? Twenty years?

        “But in other countries? T’ain’t necessarily so.”

        In Europe probably same as here if not worse (Sweden comes to mind), in Asia and other places maybe, maybe not.

        “ASSume it is in a ‘toxic anti-male society’.”

        You think globalism is not anti-male, maybe you should crawl out of the rock you have been living under for 20 years.

        “I might just start to believe you are one of the aforementioned ‘below average’ intelligence males.”

        Said the FemiNazi who responds like a third grader to rational logical arguments. Your argument is the example of the ad homenim which shows your mental paucity.

        “Don’t fly into one of those MRA hissy fits & make the mistake of ASSuming I’m a dreaded feminist either.”
        Said the FemiNazi flying into a hissy fit.

        “I’m a dreaded feminist either.”
        Where did I say your were?

        You are obviously a troll.

        Why not respond to Cowards claims here:

        “If it were up to me, women would have their voting and independence rights removed. The Industrail Revolution, Columbian Exploration, Renaissiance, etc all happed in a male-dominated society. If it were up to me, women would be forced to marry, be subservient to men, and interracial breeding would be punidhable by death. I mean, you simply cannot deny that back in the day when all this was true that dociety fared well better. You can try to suggest a more progressive approach all you want with yohr Paleoconservatism, but allowing minorities to integrate with us and giving women equal rights were not characteristics of ojr glorious society from 1800-1950. It is remarkable that the giving of rights to women and non whites coincides with the gradual decline of our society.”

        If why I said offended you, you must be apoplectic about Coward?

        While I did not assume you were a FemiNazi, your response gives very good grounds for me to believe you are.

        Before your respond, if your capable of rational discourse that is, learn the what a reduction ad absurdum is? Hint its what I just did to you. Have a nice day.

      • Dota says:

        Beatrix isn’t a feminazi, I’ve known her since my days at Robert Lindsay’s. She is a fiery one though!

      • coward says:

        The fact is Beatrix, women like you are the exception, quite like intelligent negroids or masculine Asian men, or unattractive White men. The majority of Asian men are less masculine than the majority of Caucasian men, which is a fact backed by statistics. But there are some Asian men who are much more masculine than all or most White men. This does not mean Asian men as a whole are equally masculine to White men, but that part of their bell curve is above all or most of ours while most of ours is above most of theirs. Same with women and testosterone levels or desire to dominate. Not all women, but most are much more submissive than the majority of men.

      • Beatrix says:

        “You think globalism is not anti-male, maybe you should crawl out of the rock you have been living under for 20 years.”
        Globalism is not society.
        Try living in India or Nepal, where I do. (And it ain’t lunchtime here, dear.)
        It certainly isn’t ‘anti-male’ around here.
        Bride burning, honor killing, female infanticide are still quite popular ’round these parts. Call that a ‘toxic anti male society’?

        “If why I said offended you, you must be apoplectic about Coward?”
        Are you trying to say- “If what I said offended you, you must be apoplectic about Coward?”
        No, you didn’t offend me. Coward is just a socially retarded pubertal mess, I’d think that was obvious by his posts on this blog. Best just not to respond to him.
        Well, it sounds like you’re just another MRA creepster trolling the internet yourself, Mr Lewis -using standard & typical epithet of ‘FemiNazi’ is a sure sign.
        Anyhow……
        I’ve lived in cultures around the world & there’s one thing you MRA guys cant seem to grasp that truly is ‘global’ & extends completely cross culturally in all modern human societies-
        Women are valued for their beauty.
        Men are valued for how much $ they earn.
        It’s crass, crude, juvenile, brusque & nasty but it’s true.
        So learn how earn not just spew crap on the internet, Mr Lewis.
        Do you have a useless degree in something like or akin to ‘sociology’, Mr Lewis?
        Because those are the types who usually trot out endless useless knowledge & their lack of operational logic by screaming FALLACY!! before ever giving any real thought to the issue – I suppose to compensate for their lack of real earnings?
        No, I suppose I have a more analytical mind that constantly asks “What works?” & is prone more to gathering & analyzing information, designing & testing solutions to problems, & formulating plans.
        It pays well, & the benefits are excellent.
        Reality sucks, doesn’t Mr Lewis.
        Always remember- when we assume it makes an ASS out of U & ME.
        A simple mnemonic device for simple folks like U.

      • coward says:

        Actually, men are valued for their strength, patriarchal guidance of a healthy well functioning family, masculinity, ability to overcome adversity, and model his environment to suit his needs. Women are valued for their fertility and ability to nurture a healthy family and to comfort a man when a man’s mind is in chaos.

  12. coward says:

    If it were up to me, women would have their voting and independence rights removed. The Industrail Revolution, Columbian Exploration, Renaissiance, etc all happed in a male-dominated society. If it were up to me, women would be forced to marry, be subservient to men, and interracial breeding would be punidhable by death. I mean, you simply cannot deny that back in the day when all this was true that dociety fared well better. You can try to suggest a more progressive approach all you want with yohr Paleoconservatism, but allowing minorities to integrate with us and giving women equal rights were not characteristics of ojr glorious society from 1800-1950. It is remarkable that the giving of rights to women and non whites coincides with the gradual decline of our society.

    • Lee Min Ho says:

      comment deleted.

      (Disruptive. Old commenters knows what coward has said in the past and none of those things are relevant to this debate)

      • Beatrix says:

        Oh come on guys.
        Quit littering BAG & Dota’s blog with your personal spats.
        It is RUDE.
        Take it outside, boys.

      • Lee Min Ho says:

        Lol, Coward have been acting lately like he is a White and he says minorities should not have rights, when he himself have admitted being a Mulatto previously! so there is a reason why I want people see the truth through Coward, I myself am not a saint, I pretended to be a White Girl many time (I am Bisexual, but a White boy ) but I finally speak truth, at least when I pretended acting like a girl, I didn’t wrote feminazi comments against men, but here Coward pretending being a White, write against minorities ! so there was a good reason why I did this “personal spat” .Coward wrote all of that saying he is really a Mulatto.

      • Lee Min Ho says:

        Disruptive. Old commenters knows what coward has said in the past and none of those things are relevant to this debate
        Yes it is! acting with hypocrisy against non Whites, when he himself is a mulatto, he already admitted it, but anyways ,Beatriz nailed it, Coward is just a crazy Mulatto, or in Beatrix’s words:
        Coward is just a socially retarded pubertal mess, I’d think that was obvious by his posts on this blog. Best just not to respond to him.

  13. Todd Lewis says:

    “Oh come on guys.
    Quit littering BAG & Dota’s blog with your personal spats.
    It is RUDE.”

    Hmm…. After reading the above comments you feel qualified to say that?

    • coward says:

      The only real commentor we dont need is naruto or whatever he calls himself now. Batterytrain and Mixedraced can be combattive but they are brilliant additions to our collective intelligence (even if both are non White). Of course Beatrix may sound a bit femininininininistic, but she still has stuff or relevance to say.

  14. Todd Lewis says:

    “I don’t see how the genetic fallacy applies because I don’t see why evolution is such a bad source. Generalizing isn’t necessarily bad for without it we’d be unable to make any observations/hypothesis at all. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be mindful of the exceptions and account for their interests when formulating policy.”

    I don’t think you understand the problem.

    We have two fallacies in play (1) the Genetic Fallacy and (2) the Hasty Generalization.

    We see that: “It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it.”

    Evolutionary arguments do not meet that exception. There are no eyewitnesses or testimony to look at.
    One cannot describe the origin of a thing to validate or invalidate it. It’s just how logic works.

    Of course generalizations are not all bad, but if the sample size is to small say only 20 years of experience verse say all of recorded human history you have a skewed sample. The former is far inferior the latter. Beatrix was doing just such a thing. Obviously Beatrix’s sample excludes the whole patriarchal civilization of the west from Homer to World War I where her ridiculous claims fall flat on their face. Only in a world where men are handicapped can such a disillusion be maintained.

    “I don’t see how the genetic fallacy applies because I don’t see why evolution is such a bad source.”

    What do you mean by bad source? We need to understand what you are trying to prove. Testosterone allows for risk taking, this can be tested in the present scientifically. So the claim may or may not be false. But we cannot say that such and such is true because I can chart it genealogy.

    For example I could say that by describing the natural selection of certain brain patterns that lead Darwin to discover evolution, the theory of evolution is false. Dawkins claims religion is false because he can explain its origin. Well what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So Evolution is also false. We see from these two examples the futility of proving something true or false by it pedigree.

    • coward says:

      No, because evolution has withstood millions of tests and religion has failed every single one. You sure can describe the origin of something to explain it, that is how science works. Much of quantum physics defies classical logic but still works, such as observation of a muon changes its spin, or the wave particle duality caused by observation, or quantum entanglement which is mathematically impossible (or was until two Chinamen at Hong Kong University used their chink skills to calculate it out). But otherwise, its what works that works, not what human logic dictates. Evolution and the effects of testosterone on behaviour has stood up to tests. Its antithesis theory has failed every single one. Human logic is not as important as human observation.

      • Dota says:

        Human logic is not as important as human observation.

        And that is the key that ultimately solved Xeno’s paradoxes.

    • Beatrix says:

      “Obviously Beatrix’s sample excludes the whole patriarchal civilization of the west from Homer to World War I where her ridiculous claims fall flat on their face.”
      What you failed to notice is that Beatrix stated quite clearly that it was her opinion with males & females she has met – obviously her OPINIONS based on a career in reproductive health research in the bloody 3rd world. Where, I may add, YOUR ridiculously narrow western viewpoints & patriarchal civilization get tossed right out the window.
      Western civilization is hegemonic, but it doesn’t extend to out here in the Himalayas (aside from Coca-cola, Marlboros, & Snickers bars).
      Out here is how most of the world’s population lives, in 3rd world agony – despite what living in the west might lead you to think.
      Obviously your ridiculous claims exclude all patriarchal civilizations of the Orient, forever?
      Pick up the pace, Mr Lewis, we want debate here.

      • coward says:

        But the 3rd world has very little relevance to us. They may be more numerous than we, but they do not matter. We are discussing the role of women in Anglosphere Western first world countries founded on a traditional Protestantism set of morals. This blog is dedicated to the preservation of that specific vulture, and many 3rd world countries have no significance, they are merely tools to be exploited, but otherwise have no relevance to Western culture. The fact is, 3rd world agony is not our problem, and the only agony our figurative medicines should ease is our own.

      • batterytrain says:

        http://www.jacklondons.net/writings/StrengthStrong/invasion.html

        Read this coward, I found it and thought of you for some reason.

    • Beatrix says:

      Go coward! You been holding out on us!
      Come on guerrero/Lee, I’ve seen you write some brilliant stuff NOT about gay rights/acceptance too!
      Beatrix – aka ‘Mom’ to the world

      • Lee Min Ho says:

        Wow beautifully said Beatrix : ) , Coward the bully need to learn his lesson with your words, he have tried to bully me or Axum in the past here, or in Robert Lindsay he used to bully some Black commenters calling them “nigger”. Thanks.

      • coward says:

        Women like you, Beatrix, are perfectly okay being dominant and independant, and I have no problem with that (as long as you are Caucasian). But where the problem of feminism (or in your case, borderline feminism) comes in is when you try to spread your ideologies to normal, mentally healthy women. You are a genetic anomaly, part of the upper 1% of the bell curve in femal dominance. But you are not the same as 99% of women who are genetically programmed to be womanly. So while I cant change your nature, I aak that you do not poison other women.

    • Dota says:

      Todd

      Interesting points, but my reasoning is basically pretty simple. If testosterone accounts for greater risk taking, and if that thesis can be empirically validated today (via observation), then I’m going to assume that it also applied thousands of years ago. We have historical accounts that confirm it. I can drop a piece of wood on water and watch it float. I can repeat the exercise several times and arrive at the same observation. It’s then safe to assume to that wood always has floated on water and always will. I might be thinking like a peasant, but this is how I think.

  15. mixedraced says:

    Dota, where do you want women to be positioned in society?

    • Dota says:

      Equal political/civil rights. Right to education, health care ect…

      Restore the old gender status quo. Equity feminism of the early 19th century was fine, but gender feminism is basically Jewish/elite subversion. Empowering women over men will surely lead to chaos and ruin.

      • Osama's Llama Dune And Sauna says:

        But if were to be honest, America’s progress declined sharply after equality feminism. The men went out and industrialized, created jobs snd innovated while the women were married and would nurture and support the man. But after equality feminism, progress plateaued and then declined sharply. Same with the Civil Rights. Our full potential will never be reached without physical entities fulfilling their biological duty.

      • Osama's Llama Dune And Sauna says:

        Dota, how is your marital relationship structured?

      • Dota says:

        Traditional. I’m the breadwinner. My wife works but I pay the bills. I do consult her on major decisions and she’s free to do her own thing.

      • Osama's Llama Dune And Sauna says:

        What do you do for a living? Please dont tell me its computer programming or managing a 7/11. Those are traditional Indian immigrant jobs, or running a Curry Bistro resturante.

      • Dota says:

        I’ve been working in Accounting for a few years now (insert Bohra joke here) but plan on making a career switch soon. I can’t give away too many personal details here.

      • Osama's Llama Dune And Sauna says:

        Im sorry to be so rude, but thank God I am rich. I couldnt imagine how shitty it must be like to be like you guys that make only a moderate amount of money. It must be hell. But does your wife act submissive to you or is she more of a spirited type?

      • Batterytrain says:

        So you are rich? That is kind of surprising…

        You are not a true Nietzschen Aryan if you succumb to the Venus fly trap that is materialism and materialistic thought, it is a disturbance in space time in your relation to the world. One of the noble Aryan traits is to be at one and with nature and succumb to the artificial and corrosive influence of the material world.

      • batterytrain says:

        Natural world*
        Not succumb to the artificial and corrosive*

      • Osama's Llama Dune And Sauna says:

        Well my Dad makes a lot of money and my mom makes an above sverage salary. We are worth well over a million. Well ovrr ten million. Double one hundred million. I have every material thing that I want for sure, but I still have a huge rage problem. I mean, but I am certainly packing in the man department……if you know what I mean, and still growing an inch each month. So Im not that insecure. But I am glad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s