1. Men are at the top of society, but they’re also at the bottom
The feminist movement sought to usurp modern culture based upon the observation that men occupy the upper echelons of society. The problem with the feminist argument is that, because women were too busy looking upward, they didn’t notice that men occupied the bottom of society as well.
             Â
Men operate in the boardroom, courtroom, and legislature; they are also fixtures of the battlefield and prison cell. They sleep in the most plush beds with sheets of a high thread count; they also occupy real estate under the most rickety of bridges using local business’ most recent cardboard throwaways as padding. Men are risked, experimented with (both by nature and by culture), and used for the greater good. They reap large rewards by incurring more risk. Women who complain about the male-dominated social structure fail to understand the concept of trade-offs; the men who now dominate have reached those positions against a backdrop of an unseen number of men who have failed.
2. Men are the extreme sex
Men and women may have average intelligence or behavioral measures across a broad spectrum of ability, but men occupy the extreme tails of those distributions. With regards to IQ, men have the highest incidence of genius, but they also have the highest incidence of mental retardation. The average IQ of men equals that of women because the highs for men are balanced out by the lows.Â
When businesses make employment decisions, they prefer to choose from the right tail of the employability distribution (this was the point Larry Summers tried to make, for which he was canned). Men tend to be chosen for higher level jobs because they exhibit more extreme intelligence and ability. When a job has a limited number of positions available with no requirement for gender, people with the most intelligence, ambition, creativity, and work ethic will be selected; this is an evolutionary outcome.Â
Male extremity leaves room for people to fabricate their own stories with regards the “superiority” of either gender. As Baumeister said:
“Men go to extremes more than women. Stereotypes are sustained by confirmation bias. Want to think men are better than women? Then look at the top, the heroes, the inventors, the philanthropists, and so on. Want to think women are better than men? Then look at the bottom, the criminals, the junkies, the losers.
In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.”
He makes a powerful point. The purpose of his speech was to investigate the cultural shift that spanned an era where men were thought of as superior (up through the 1960s), on through to a decade where superiority was a toss-up, to the modern age, from 1980 on, where women were thought of as morally superior and “better” than men. If we want to characterize men as “good” or “bad”, there are plenty of extreme examples to validate both sides of the argument.Â
To explain the social effects of the concept of male extremity, Baumeister points to GPA and minimum wage. Both are affected by arbitrary boundaries. For GPA, grade inflation has made it such that there can be vast differences in the mental ability required to get one “A” over another.  Grade inflation has eroded the value of the highest-scoring students – presumably male. Therefore, the very low-scoring students – also presumably male – pull the average male score below that of girls who hover in the middle with their inflated grades.
The same goes for minimum wage. Workers are bounded by a wage floor but not a wage ceiling. Men’s average wage looks higher than it would be if there wasn’t an arbitrary floor. Account for the number of men who don’t work, have shaky job prospects, or end up in prison or dead from pursuing illegal activity as a response to poor job prospects, and the average wage of men and women falls into more equitable territory.Â
According to Baumeister, these two statistical anomalies arising from male extremity make it seem as if women are adding more inputs into the system while receiving less compensation.Â
Â
3. Can’t versus Won’t
Baumeister cites research that has shown that women don’t want to engage in certain specialized fields as much as men. To be a top-notch mathematician, one has to not only have the ability to do math, but they must have the desire and devotion to it.Â
If men are the more extreme gender, in terms of innate ability and innate desire to achieve, it makes sense that men would more likely make it through the rigorous gauntlet that is the process towards Ph.D. math positions. Men’s extreme nature means that more men – although a very small proportion of them – will have the focus and determination to see their math studies through to the highest level.Â
This disparity is a consequence of our different evolutionary-ingrained natures; men are more extreme in their wants – successful men differentiate themselves and get a leg up by being persistent in their endeavors.  In the workplace too, 80% of those who work 50+ hours are men.Â
Baumeister also makes a particularly interesting argument with regards to men’s creative extremity compared to women. Creativity can be a motivating factor that has little to do with actual ability, and it also offers a differentiation among men that can be a solid strategy towards the goal of reproduction.Â
Why is it, Baumeister asks, that during the 19th century, a large number of girls played the piano, yet very few women ever composed music? Baumeister shields us from the oft-repeated feminist meme that women weren’t encouraged to create music by showing that, if women were inclined to, they could overcome the perception of discouragement running rampant throughout society. When newly-freed black men – who had little access to musical instruments and had every barrier in the world preventing them from playing or composing – actually did gain access to instruments, they composed jazz music and blues which have come to influence much of modern American music. There is a difference in the innate motivations of men and women.
4. The Most Underappreciated Fact
DNA research has shown that throughout human history, twice as many women as men have reproduced; something along the lines of 40% of men produced offspring while 80% of women did.
The disparity in the odds of reproduction had to have had resounding effects on the characteristics of modern day humans. Modern humans descend from the 40% of men who had to out-compete the other 60% who failed to reproduce as well as the 80% of women who were able to bear children. Baumeister asserts that we are the product of men who took on risk and differentiated themselves from other men and women who played it safe. The long gestation period and rarity of female sex cells makes it such that women are – evolutionarily-speaking – less disposable than men. Populations in which women took on undue risk had lower survival rates. From the standpoint of producing a healthy next generation, women are much more crucial than men.
Since men had a much lower chance of reproducing anyway, they are most naturally geared towards engaging in risky behavior. These risks can take on many forms:  financial, physical, explorative.Â
5. The Different Social Natures of Men and Women
Women are often thought of as the more social gender, and Baumeister admits that women tend to be more amenable than men. But he puts forth the argument that men are just as social – but in different ways than women. Female sociability is more intimate while males’ is more superficial but wide-reaching. Men tend to cast a wide (albeit flimsy) net while women lay down a steel trap.Â
Baumeister points to several observations of these differences. Men help strangers more than women, but they are also more likely to engage in fights with strangers. Since women care more about intimate relationships, they aggres and help people who are close to them. Since men care about broad social networks with low intimacy, they also aggres and help in those arenas.Â
Childhood playground observation supports this thesis. Young boys tend to engage with multiple play partners during recess while young girls tend to focus on one other person. Baumeister ties up all of this up as evidence to support what we see in the “real world”: men most often dominate vast, loose, non-intimate social networks like business, politics, sports, and the economy.
6. Egalitarianism = small group; Meritocracy = large group
For small, intimate groups in-depth communication strengthens bonds. In loose organizational networks, withholding some information is part of a strategy for success while tipping your hand to the competition hinders it.Â
The different natures of men and women were shown by another experiment. Research in the 1970s showed that women tend to allocate resources in an egalitarian fashion; egalitarianism is more amenable to small groups and helps them survive. Men tended to allocate resources based upon merit which is a better way to maximize “profitability” and teamwork in large groups.Â
This provides further evidence that, because of their greater disposability, men have developed strategies to operate within large social networks.Â
7. Culture
Baumeister views culture as a biological strategy that has pitted groups of men and women against other groups of men and women. This runs counter to the feminist view of culture that promotes the idea that the culture of patriarchy has developed in order to hold women down.
Culture creates a fusing force called “social gain”. It is a sort of electric bond that utilizes division of labor and cooperation within the given culture to aid in survival. When one culture is pitted against another culture, the culture with the most effective fusing force captures resources, survives, and spreads through either cultural diffusion or heredity to higher numbers of surviving offspring.
Since culture’s benefits are stronger with more people, and since men are more tuned towards engaging with larger groups, men have been the main drivers and benefactors of culture.
8. Men and Culture
Baumeister rejects the claim that men have benefited from patriarchy. He views patriarchy as a conspiracy theory that posits that men have systematically and purposely sought to hold women down.
Baumeister’s argument is that, because men’s networks tend to be shallow and widespread, they benefit from the rise of culture. As culture rises, their sphere of influence becomes more important as well. The distinction is that male-domination of social structure didn’t arise because men sought to hold women down; it was a result of the different natures of male and female physiology and the surviving strategies that were most amenable to propagation of the culture.
9. Three Ways Culture Uses Men
a. Culture uses men to create large social structures
As has been repeated, men are geared towards operating within loosely-knit, superficial social settings. Culture is created out of the evolved inclination of men to compete, innovate, and work their way to the top of society.Â
Cultures that form using more intensive amounts of competition, innovation, intelligence, and ability will be marginally stronger against competing cultures; the culture that is strongest prevails. Following from this, if we currently reside within a given culture, we have the infrastructure of that culture to thank for our existence. If the culture – the electrically symbiotic system of division of labor and cooperative effort – wasn’t in place, the ability to survive would have been greatly eroded. The culture is what got us here; arbitrarily criticizing the culture is like criticizing your legs because they “helped” you walk in front of a moving car (please note: the culture of which I speak isn’t pop culture; it’s the culture of hard work, duty, meritocracy, and self-sufficiency).Â
b. Men are Disposable
Physiological differences make each female womb coveted while each male penis is easily replaced. A fully-populated next generation can still be brought forth if half of the men have died off, but this can’t be done if half the women suffer the same fate.Â
Men expend themselves in any number of ways. They engage in dangerous risks like combat or exploration, but they also spend inordinate amounts of time in other endeavors. Baumeister draws a parallel to the research process whereby 11 men can fail in their theories while the one who succeeds wins the Nobel Prize. There is a lot of risk involved, but the payoff is especially sweet for the one who does succeed.
I mentioned earlier that men are experimented with both culturally and biologically. In light of the recent research that shows that the Y sex chromosome is 30% different from chimpanzees (while the rest of our DNA is only 2% different), it seems that the Y chromosome (men) are the mechanisms of evolution. Experiments and mutations in human beings are carried out on the male sex chromosome. In biological terms, men are used as guinea pigs by the forces of natural selection to tweak and mold human physiology and behavior. Culturally as well, men develop extreme behavior which correlates with greater disposability all in an effort to come up with the strongest strategies towards propagating the culture going forward. While there will be unmitigated failures, the positive extremes add value to the species.   Â
c. Be a Man: create more than you consume
The whole point of male disposability is to benefit future generations.  Since male sex gametes are common, we are most inclined to offer the benefit to offspring. Being a man involves risking what you have in order to benefit others.  Risking life and limb on a battlefield, capital in a financial endeavor, time and brain power on innovative efforts or political endeavors don’t come with a certain payoff. There are quite a few losers for every winner, but even those losers give something of themselves in order to build the culture. Their failure is a result of a contest with a man who ended up winning. The failure would have been a winner if he had faced an inferior competitor. The fact that the best man won benefits culture, society, and humanity as a whole by putting forth a battle-tested idea or innovation.
In order to incubate competition, the cultural set-up operates on the assumption that there is a limited amount of respect to go around. Not everyone can have respect in this relative hierarchy. Put-downs, hazing, and harassments have all co-evolved with male groups in order to separate the cream from the rest of the crop; culture doesn’t benefit most if people aren’t “harassed” or put in their place. This is a hard pill for women to swallow when they enter a workplace that wasn’t designed to allocate respect to everyone from the jump.
In summary of his speech, Baumeister brings up one more interesting point. He acknowledges that culture uses men and creates an insecurity in men that leads to both grand achievements and dastardly deeds. On balance, the insecurity instilled in men pushes culture forward. It creates the desire in men to be accepted by competing and proving themselves in their cultural networks. This insecurity, stemming from the biological development of male disposability (which developed from the fact that men aren’t as necessary for fully populated future generations) is culture’s engine.
Chuck Ross holds a Master’s degree in Economics and an up-to-date State of Kansas food handlers card. He blogs daily at Gucci Little Piggy.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s really very simple. Men DO all the worst things, i.e. war, etc. and DO all the best things, invent and build everything and ARE civilization.
Women don’t really DO anything… at all.. good or bad. The key word here is DO.. PRO-ACTIVE. Get it?
Women are ‘reactive’ which is just another way of saying ‘does nothing.’ Anyone can ‘react.’ Who wouldn’t be able to ‘react’ to someone else’s actions? A woman’s life is a joke without a punchline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Men occupy the entire spectrum of possibilities: they are vanguards. Women, on the other hand, remain blissfully in the center, leading mediocre lives.(sleep, work,eat)
One can say that most women cluster into a very small area of the spectrum. They are basically creatures of habit. It is hard to blame someone for being just average. As it stands, we are being misjudged by “plain, average” people.
I want to state that the question “Is there anything good about men” is very offensive and I do take offense at it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe it’s an offensive sounding question, but it was designed to get attention. Remember, Baumeister works in a field that is utterly dominated by feminist women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seems good to me, except that -
- this isn’t entirely right.
There certainly are more men in the high IQ end, but tmen and women are ‘equal’ at the lower ends – to all partical purposes.
Furthermore male IQ is higher than female IQ on average.
Somebody might care to study these;
http://eugenik.dk/static/bilag009.pdf
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/IQ.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/general%20intelligence.php
There is actually a lot of links, but some of those I used to have are now defunct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hm . . . there should be a picture here;
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/SOLLYS/IQmale-female.gif
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Women are average. Throw mediocrity at them!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s with “are you the one…it takes only one girl to change the world” ads? Ironic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The old saying of
“a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet”
must apply to a guy named Baumeister
suddenly gettin’ The Shaft
in a divorce settlement
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really liked Baumeister’s article.
His upcoming book should be good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice piece, Chuck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This website thinks women should be satisfied with being housewives and taking care of the kids and being “mediocre”, but then demeans such work and calls it useless. It codems women for working outside the home, but then calls housewives and children an ungrateful burden holding men back. You want wives to be financially dependant but complain about alimony.
What is the ideal woman?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So did you actually read anything on the site, at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is the ideal woman? — Canadian Girl
She ought to be chained to the bed, but the chain ought to be long enough to reach the kitchen.
Stop embarassing my countrymen to the rest of the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
5′ 6″, red hair, green eyes, freckles, healthy physique (i.e., not obese), smarter than I am–oh, wait, you meant what, exactly, are women supposed to do in an ideal rearrangement of the current society. Compete on equal terms with men, without any special treatment, affirmative action, chivalry, government intervention, etc. If (as I suspect) those terms aren’t acceptable, we can negotiate some degree of special treatment in some areas in return for limitations in others.
Since we can’t magically get from the way society is to such a state, between now and then you could try supporting positions that will actually get us there–the two directions that would take us there from out current position are placing limitations on women, or else removing existing special privileges from women. Which would you prefer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A girl who actually comprehends this website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The article indicates that boardrooms, culture, politics, the judicial system and the military are dominated by men, but then in another article it complains about how that very same system is opressing men and that some how women are to blame. Why would a system buildt and managed by men opress men?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is the ideal woman? — Canadian Girl
Although “Kev’s Courtin’ Song” puts out some good criteria for the ideal woman as well.
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/kevin-bloody-wilson-kev-s-courtin–song-lyrics.html
Verse 1
Blown too much of me time buying dinner and wine
And me money on flowers and lollies
Only to find that what’s on me mind
Isn’t on hers and she’s sorry
So I’ve made up some lines that save wastin’ time
And keep me from blowin’ me brass
I’m ever so cool I just prop on the stool
Right next to hers and I ask:
Chorus
‘Do you fuck on first dates?
Does your dad own a brewery?
Could I feel your tits?
Or would you show ‘em to me?
Cause you’ve you’ve got a nice head
And you look pretty honest
So me face’ll be leavin’ in a quarter of an hour–
I’d like you to be on it’
Verse 2
You know how it feels when you first meet a sheila
And the bullshit you’ve gotta go through
Like callin’ her up and tellin’ her you love her
When all that you’d love is just to screw
But she wants to hold hands and you to meet her old man
And sit around for hours and talk
But me new method is, you just cut through the shit
And get down to the goodies straight off:
Chorus
‘Do you fuck on first dates?
Does your dad own a brewery?
Could I feel your tits?
Or would you show ‘em to me?
Do you sleep in the nick?
Do you give head very often?
If we can decide, your place or mine
We can fuck off then’
Verse 3
So the next time you see a good-lookin’ sheila
And you’d give a week’s pay just to hold her
Don’t sit acting dumb, just front her full-on
And drop a few lines like I told you
This new method of mine might not work every time
But then again no method will
I’ve been spat at and slapped, and kneed in the knackers
But then I’ve got a few fucks as well
Chorus
‘Do you fuck on first dates?
DOES YOUR DAD OWN A BREWERY?
Could I feel your tits?
Or would you show ‘em to me?
If the answer is ‘No’
To me questions above –
Then be a good sport and give me the name
Of a girlfriend who does!’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In order to reduce competition.
Not women per se, but feminism, which has convinced women to ask for (and get) things (both physical stuff and social policies) that are ultimately bad for them and for society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
haha – a mate in Lancashire sent me a bunch of his stuff.
I’ve Come in Me Pants Agin is a classic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because the men who do the oppressing are different ones than the men who are oppressed.
Feminists seem to think all men are identical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that’s because if the tables were turned and women had the structural power that the Men-in-Power do, they would reflexively stack the deck against men. As with much of feminism, it’s a projection onto men of what women would do had they the structural power of the top men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ The Truth
I noticed the same ad:
http://www.becauseiamagirl.ca
Seriously, is this a real ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That site MUST be real.
because Canadians don’t have any sense of humor.
Ever see “This Hour has 20 Minutes?”
holy shit
It’s 1984-ish
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fat-tailed distribution for fat-head males
Another tedious attempt to show that “whatever is, is right.” Slipping as usual from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ based on whatever notion of superiority suits those who benefit most from the status quo.
Where are there any reliable data on which to base your claims? There’s nothing here but the sort of illogic paraded by proponents of so-called intelligent design.
anti_supernaturalist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While I do understand the logic behind some of the points; some of these theories doesn’t add up with history. Women have generally been downgraded to second class citizens in almost every major culture with a few exceptions here and there. I mean with as much xenophobia and genocide that has been practiced between different cultures almost every major culture specifically restricted the power and ability of women in terms of their role and status in society. While alot of the social dogma surrounding female role’s can be tied to this risk/lose principal(for example I can see restricting the economic power of women may have started as a way of protecting them from theft and robbery in ancient times) they have been changed eventually to a system that prevented women access to those activity when the supposed threat is removed. Not only that but alot of social dogma revolves around the basic concept that women are INCAPABLE of performing the same activities as men; while the author here makes the point that women may not have a high number of exceptional/failing people that men occupy but does not make the point that women are incapable of performing those acts. That is a pretty serious disconnect and the author makes no effort to explain for example why Islamic/Hindu culture put women in the role of basically male property and highly restricts their activities and freedoms to this day when they have clear examples of women in Western/European cultures capable of performing those same roles.
Some of these theories have some merit; however I feel this just explains the root causes of gender inequality; it doesn’t explain the subsequent perversion of these behavior and the codification of misogyny in most of the world cultures; which was done in deliberate effort to maintain male dominance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” anti_supernaturalist January 21, 2010 at 13:15
fat-tailed distribution for fat-head males
Another tedious attempt to show that “whatever is, is right.†Slipping as usual from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ based on whatever notion of superiority suits those who benefit most from the status quo.
Where are there any reliable data on which to base your claims? There’s nothing here but the sort of illogic paraded by proponents of so-called intelligent design.”
Did you even look at the graphs posted above you raging reactionary?
I don’t like my intelligence being questioned by “normals” who want to feel good about themselves by saying everyone is basically the same. We are not. Men happen to exhibit more extreme characteristics, both good and bad. It is a scientifically confirmed, but should be obvious just through common sense and observation. Women can be extraodinary. Many are. That does not change the fact that far more men are extraordinary. Don’t hate me because I’m a male with a high IQ, superb visual spatial abilities, and above average creative problem solving abilities, just because you are average. The school system already caters to your kind. How do you think I felt in school, being held back by people like you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t good looking, I wasn’t good at sports, I wasn’t charismatic. You will not take from me my superior mind just because I have a penis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Some of these theories have some merit; however I feel this just explains the root causes of gender inequality; it doesn’t explain the subsequent perversion of these behavior and the codification of misogyny in most of the world cultures; which was done in deliberate effort to maintain male dominance.”
Bitch. You think as a gifted nerd, I dominated females, or females dominated me. This isn’t some Femifisting board, this is a men’s rights board. Women were never oppressed, unless all those men fighting in wars, dieing at dirty and dangerous jobs, getting tortured and maimed, and inventing science and technology, all to keep your pampered ass safe and happy was somehow oppressing you, you don’t know shit about reality except for the feminist brainwashing that prevents you from having a clear view of reality in its totality, not some narrow minded view from the shelter of victimhood. We are all victims bitch, men far, far more than women, throughout history and today. Wake up, grow up, and stop using men as a scapegoat for your unhappiness and mediocrity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Women have generally been downgraded to second class citizens in almost every major culture with a few exceptions here and there.”
Women setup societies and cultures to benefit themselve. It was the greatest scam of all time. Set yourself up to reap the rewards while having no accountability or responsibility. You’re trying to blame men on that? It was women who played the helpless victim card in order to keep themselves safe and comfortable on the homefront. Men control the world, but women control men. So tell me, who was really in charge. The man who toiled away in a coal mine everyday until he died of black lung, or his wife who had to cook him dinner when he came home (with a coal oven mind you, invented by men). Women have been riding on the backs of men sense we were in caves, like beasts of burden, and you think we oppressed you? Give me a break.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Not only that but alot of social dogma revolves around the basic concept that women are INCAPABLE of performing the same activities as men”
Sure, sure. Women can pee standing up also. It just makes a mess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m on fire! Someone put me out!
I’ve got to go for now. Someone step up and bat this bullshit down while I’m gone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The original looks like a very interesting article. I’ve added it to my Bookmarks list for things to read when I’m not juggling household logistics.
Random thoughts:
- I have to concur that GPA is a miserably poor measure of capacity; students are often considered less informed not based on their final-exam scores, but by their dutiful completion of daily busy-work. Institutionalized “education” rewards the unquestioning drudge, not the inquiring mind.
- I do question whether male risk-taking behavior occurs as a sort of nihilistic response to lack of mating potential, or is the cause of less genetic representation among later generations. I’ll have to look more closely at the original material to know whether the former is what’s being asserted.
- Naturalistic assumptions about reality will invariably give rise to the idea that men are disposable and, therefore, relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I run into some problems there, because it looks awfully like a proposal that women are and should be treated preferentially just by virtue of femaleness, and that men are by and large fungible. Again, I’ll review the original.
- Finally, I do sometimes wonder what the gents here think of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps, given their attitudes toward its central functions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…Pardon me; “some of the gents here”, not a general statement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women have generally been downgraded to second class citizens in almost every major culture with a few exceptions here and there.
Exceptions like, um, Christian/Western Culture?
I mean with as much xenophobia and genocide that has been practiced between different cultures almost every major culture specifically restricted the power and ability of women in terms of their role and status in society.
Complained the steering wheel to the back left tire.
they have been changed eventually to a system that prevented women access to those activity when the supposed threat is removed.
Yup. And, while women currently couldn’t give a toss about climbing scaffolding and packing bricks & lumber in the construction industry, it is almost a given that as soon as men invent ways to construct buildings by sitting in an airconditioned office while pushing buttons and talking to one’s co-workers for 7.5hrs/day, the women will enter the industry in droves, complaining that they were prevented from participating in the construction industry for thousands of years, and they will blame it on those big, mean misogynists over there – you know, the ones with the penises.
Not only that but alot of social dogma revolves around the basic concept that women are INCAPABLE of performing the same activities as men;
They might be capable of doing many things, but, how come they need to push for all kinds of sexual harrassment laws, calls for affirmative action, “flex-time”, and so on, and so on.
Also, it costs an employer approximately $10,000 in training expenses and lost productivity to lose an employee and replace with another. Since women tend to not stay with an employer as long as a man, and will ask for maternity leave (costing the employer money in training a temp etc.), plus the continual demanding for gender specific benefits, like flex time, or the push for companies to help pay for daycare… plus the eggshell walking around all the sexual politics… why should an employer want to hire one of these wonderful creatures? Out of the goodness of his heart? He’ll donate to charity after becoming a multimillionaire, not before.
That is a pretty serious disconnect and the author makes no effort to explain for example why Islamic/Hindu culture put women in the role of basically male property and highly restricts their activities and freedoms to this day when they have clear examples of women in Western/European cultures capable of performing those same roles.
You mean like how men are sued for as property in divorce court? That is what you are suing for with childsupport and alimony in divorce court. You are suing as if the man is a piece of property – a friggin’ ox that has to keep ploughing fields for a woman.
Some of these theories have some merit; however I feel this just explains the root causes of gender inequality;
Could you explain the merits of gender equality?
I can’t see any merits to androgyny at all.
Not one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Wochie, don’t take this question as me being hostile to you, but may I ask how you imagine the Indian practice of suttee was contrived as beneficial to women?
Also, Muslim societies are strongly based around the ideas put forth by a very poor example of maleness (who had very little in the way of ethics, so this explains a lot). Not very advantageous to women. (NOTE: This is not a knock against male-invented culture; I’m just throwing you a couple of examples of societies either not good for women, or not set up by women.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hurricane, the problem with your views is that throughout history the gap in power and status between men and women within any particular socioeconomic class has been vanishingly small compared to the gap in power and status between men and women of the lower classes versus men and women of the upper classes.
I.e., would you rather have been a female aristocrat or a male peasant?
You’re grotesquely exaggerating the importance of the status of women relative to their male peers while grotesquely understating the importance of their status relative to their female oppressors. Women have always been abusive members of the oppressive ruling aristocracies of human history.
Again, which would you rather have been — a female slaveowner, or a male slave?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One reason I can see to discriminate against Hurricane in the workplace is her apparent inability to use separate paragraphs when presenting a new point or topic, despite most likely boasting of a higher level of education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“. . .may I ask how you imagine the Indian practice of suttee was contrived as beneficial to women?”
Sure, you can ask.
And I can suggest in response that we wait for you to come up with such a proposition on your own first, just to establish your intellectual integrity. Then we’ll try to come up with more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mrs. Pilgrim, it was to the benefit of all the other surviving members of the village not to have to support one more person with the village’s limited resources. In a society of abundance, such a practice is rightly viewed as barbaric.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
anti_supernaturalist:
While Baumeister does overthrow some PC sentiments, he is still a big name professor. In his speech he made it abundantly clear that he wasn’t making any moral proscriptions. He merely cited the innate differences in men and women and those difference’s co-evolution with culture. The fact that the goal posts are constantly changing usurps the whole argument about “what’s right?”.
My claims are a rehash of Baumeister’s claims. He cites his sources in his speech. Regardless, his hypthoses pass the sniff test; they make sense. Men are expendable because of physiological differences —-> they’re primed for risk-engagement —–> taking on risk fosters cultural growth and benefits the greater good —–> men evolved to be able to operate better within non-intimate hiearchies —–> non-intimate hieararchies were necessary for survival of the clan. Women were less primed for doing the things that made society and culture great. ***But let us not overlook the fact that women had the most important role of all: childbirth and child rearing.***
It is true: once women were able to undergo childbirth and rearing (with the aid of men’s innovation) with their eyes closed and one hand tied behind their back, this changed the whole ball game.
Personally, I don’t make a proscription for society; I don’t really know how to determine how we should all live. Nevertheless, there are real differences between men and women that shouldn’t be socially engineered away. Those differences have implications for the business world, politics, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what, exactly, is the point of all this? many of you seem to be trying to prove the superiority of men or women. it makes no sense to me-they are obviously both necessary!!
statistics are bullshit. it is our own perceptions and stereotypes that oppress us ALL and make us turn against each other, wasting time and energy looking for someone else to blame for our inadequacies or laziness. we are all responsible for the parts we play.
why can’t we just appreciate individual PEOPLE for what they are, without having to make one gender or race better or worse than another?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hurricane:
The most eye-catching part of Baumeister’s speech was his observation that the acceptable views of men and women in society have flip-flopped in only 40 years. Up until the 1960s, Baumeister says that it was widely accepted that men were superior and women were the inferior model. In the 1970s, stereotypes about gender differences held, but men and women were viewed on the same plane. After 1980, Baumeister believes that women came to be viewed as superior to men in many ways. Not only superior morally but potentially superior intellectually i.e. the hard sciences would be dominated by women if it weren’t for patriarchy.
“The Feminine Ideal” has been in the works probably since the Reformation. It developed supersonic speed within the last 40 years after receiving intermittent jolts every 40 years or so before that. With the culmination of a democratic upswell and certain socially changing innovations (created by men), women flipped the boat of “second classness” over and threw men into the water.
They took patriarchy’s iron grip as evidence that women could hold their own in traditionally male arenas if given the chance. But patriarchy isn’t like that. In fact, what feminists call patriarchy is merely the system that was created *due to* men’s innate abilities to function in culturally-progressing institutions and hiearchies. *If women were somehow allowed to make decisions 5,000 years ago, we’d be a lot worse off than we are today.*
Take that up with Arabs and feminists. Feminists are the ones who want to support a woman’s choice to wear a burqa in France while chastising Muslim culture for forcing them to wear it. It baffles my brain.
Modern Western culture isn’t like that. Sure, there were some transgressions in previous eras, but I didn’t live then. I’m observing society now; it aims heat-seeking missles towards men on a constant basis in order to redress the patriarchy problem. The thing is, there wasn’t really a patriarchy problem, and their missles have already made everything right and then some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because the law doesn’t, even though it should. Because the educational system doesn’t, even though it should. Because people who claim to be crusading in the name of equality don’t, even though they should.
I don’t particularly care to make a value judgment regarding whether one group of people is better or worse than another. But feminism, the ideology, is a web of pretty lies designed to advance an agenda, and I stand together with those who oppose it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And that must be why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have already had female Prime Ministers, decades ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
happymedium:
I’m writing a lot here, but I have to add one more thing.
I wrote something a while back on my blog about the appeal of libertarian movements and the Roissysphere. The Spearhead is a conglomeration of those two spheres and men’s rights issues. It’s no coincidence that the same kind of men find comfort in these various areas of the blogosphere. All of these movements share the same basic free market principles (economically as well as in social exchange).
But they are all based in similar grounding: *they want to minimize the amount of government tinkering and social engineering.*
There are so pogroms today that push western cultures towards one singular goal of diversity and kumbayaism. Those ideals are fine, but if they aren’t achieved by a natural progression towards that, there will be other factors popping up that undermine any progress made.
A concerted effort to get girls into schools and push them to be more highly educated than boys (plus the general slant of grammar school against boys) has made it such that men are now underemployed in the workforce. Also, the huge public sector financed by the government shifts jobs from men towards women. These are sudden shocks to the system that men haven’t quite learned how to deal with.
Brainwashing boys into thinking that their behaviors are evil has resounding effects. Boys are less boyish while girls girlishness takes on different definitions. Political correctness is a monolithic force that distorts freedom and social interactions.
I could go through a million examples; my point is that libertarianism, The Spearhead, Roissy, etc are all related. Those movements are groups of men (mostly) who don’t want to see socialism unfairly distort society. We know that it will hurt everyone in the long run.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is more of a class/social/cultural construct than anything else. In India you see plenty of female construction workers, laboring hard, carrying bricks, sometimes while pregnant. It is one of the only things that women of their class, mostly uneducated, can do to earn money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The push to diagnose boys with ADD, ADHD, Asperers and Autism and get them on drugs a.s.a.p. also has resounding effects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is more of a class/social/cultural construct than anything else. In India you see plenty of female construction workers, laboring hard, carrying bricks, sometimes while pregnant. It is one of the only things that women of their class, mostly uneducated, can do to earn money.
And, I’ll betcha that their husbands are off doing more physical and dangerous labour.
Just like 100+ years ago, it was quite common for women to be seen out in the fields with a pitchfork in the haying season, or milking the cows… while their husbands were off doing the more dangerous, heavier work – like working in a mineshaft or cutting down trees with an axe.
It has been this way since we lived in caves and the cavewoman heard a bump outside, and her cave-husband was pushed out the entrance first, with her behind peeking over his shoulder, using him as a shield.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
France today announced that 40% of company boardrooms have to be filled by women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244946/French-companies-forced-reserve-40-boardroom-posts-women-just-dont-tell-Harriet-Harman.html
I wonder if they’re thinking of introducing similar initiatives to redress the gender imbalance on the battlefields, in the prisons, lunatic asylums etc.?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if they’re thinking of introducing similar initiatives to redress the gender imbalance on the battlefields, in the prisons, lunatic asylums etc.?
Feminists only look up, not down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sidestepping a bit but just wanted to point out a gross inequality here in the UK. My mish-mash of thoughts inspired by the pic alone…
Council housing/social housing – fat chance of getting on the list if you’re a single male. You’d probably edge up the list a bit with an illness or some other need but I doubt you’d get far.
Nope, single men are classed at the bottom.
Women are prioritised.
I’m really not into busting a nut to get a mortgage and psychologically I find it a difficult thing to accept, being tied to a bank for so many years. My view is that I pay my taxes and the government have a democratic accountability to meet my basic fundamental needs (shelter, for example). Once someone is comfortable I believe (housed), they can establish their life-chance trajectory more successfully and actually become a more productive member of society. This model is bit like big companies/factories in more intense industrial times, catered for this by building nearby villages for their workers, securing their well-being and hence securing productivity with a healthier workforce. This model should be used for literally all of us in the form of adequate affordable rented housing.
Instead, many working men, the backbone of society, are ‘sofa-surfing’, living in shit or insecure accommodation rented from rogue landlords, for example. Some men can move multiple times per month or live in overcrowded houses. Been there. There is little accommodation security and it has a wide-reaching effect on how men function, the economy and so on.
Another model is ‘key-workers’ housing, which ensures council workers in a certain borough are prioritised on the housing list. Why do they have this? Because councils want to ensure their ‘key’ workers are in good stead to deliver key services in the borough for its residents. Many of the services are feminised – teachers, council offices administration, nursing, nurseries. Policemen, firemen qualify so a cut of the cake here. I’m sure the males are still less prioritised.
BUT, we are ALL ‘key’ workers in effect ffs. We all as a working force contribute our part. And yet men have to accept occupying the bottom of the social housing ladder. Many men want to settle, which will allow them to become even more productive rather than haul their shit around from place to place like some urban nomad, affected by cirumstances not of their own making.
I believe it is virtually an epidemic here in London. Little space, little resources and burgeoning populations, low government investment on housing, etc.
Believe me I’m trying to go my own way and I’m saving, thinking of a few ideas but to buy a house is something I never wanted to be FORCED to do because of the lack of available resources/space being prioritised for women.
Many men are borderline on becoming like those poor brothers in the pic. Yes I understand all the arguments about women and children, care for them (doesn’t mean I agree), but ffs men need a larger share of housing for the reasons I have stated about quality of life, life-chances, input into the economy, to live comfortably, security, to be able transfer this ‘health’ into societies.
It is also a time where many responsible men (hard-working but low pay) fall under eligibility for loans/mortgages.
So there is a sizable male workforce out there that are being CUT OFF and left to fend more than needed because of the lack of housing investment and the way present resources are being managed (into women’s hands).
The ‘feminization of space’ is like the Titanic being played out right now. Women get the housing (the lifeboat) and the men are left to drown (into a pool of insecure accomodation).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Although “Kev’s Courtin’ Song†puts out some good criteria for the ideal woman as well.”
Lol, Fedrz! You are a very naughty boy, I reckon.
I think a good spanking may be in order here …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have a theory about big success in fields like science. I think it is to do with ego as much as ability. Time and again, I have seen equally good scientists, one of whom chooses to work in a backwater (such as the taxonomy of beetles) and the other goes for the prize (in the field of immunology, for example). These two scientists may be equally clever, but only the latter has any chance of winning a Nobel Prize.
Incredible arrogance leads a man to attempt the incredibly difficult. Women aren’t usually that arrogant. It is not just ability – although I think women actually are a bit less intelligent than men generally – it is also attitude. Successful men are often nasty, not because success makes them nasty, but because being nasty makes them a success. Read The Double Helix by JD Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in 1962, I think. This famous book discloses one thing clearly – Watson was and is a prick. I am not saying he is dumb, just that a less arrogant man would not have even tried to solve the problem he did. He actually refers to ordinary zoologists (at the Strangeways Institute) as doing trivial work. He knew not to waste his time on minor problems. So did his colleague, and co-prize winner, Francis Crick.
The missing ingredients are arrogance and independence. These are not feminine traits, and only the former is a feminist trait.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Although “Kev’s Courtin’ Song†puts out some good criteria for the ideal woman as well.â€
Lol, Fedrz! You are a very naughty boy, I reckon.
I think a good spanking may be in order here … – Kathy Farrelly
As long as it is clear that I am the spanker ’round these parts!
I may be a lot of things, but no-one ever accused me of being a submissive Nice-Guy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do men do everything they do culturally to improve their chances in the mating game? To win? Seems reductionist to me. What about the centrality of work in men’s lives, especially as they age. For many men, for millions of them, without work life is flat, terribly flat. The work becomes its own reward. Maybe the only reward. No theory to offer. I’m just put off by the mechanistic notion that we’re mere pawns driven through life by biological imperatives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Canadian girl,
The perfect woman is a girl who can actually hold a job and pay her share of bills. I don’t think anyone here would complain about a girl who doesn’t want our money. People on this site don’t have very high expectations from women. They would be happy if a woman was just a decent huge being and not a parasite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Socialism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
During pregnancy? While lactating to feed her infant? During your childrens’ formative years?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“As long as it is clear that I am the spanker ’round these parts!”
touché,
“I may be a lot of things, but no-one ever accused me of being a submissive Nice-Guy.”
‘kay.. I’ll just get back in my box, then ..(retreats very slowly and deliberately- suddenly makes mad dash for the hills
)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David:
Interesting you mention that. Baumeister discusses male ego:
He also discusses other factors besides innate ability that make it such that men have been the ones to develop culture. As you touch on, men do have greater drive and ambition to succeed; our forbears – the 40% of men who were able to procreate – had to pull out all the stops in order to survive and thrive to provide for their families. While creativity may be closely related to ability, it is somewhat of a different motivating factor. Men tend to be the most creative of the creative.
But creativity, drive, ambition, etc are involve investment. If you are ambitious towards the wrong goal, you’re merely treading water. Over time, there were enough successes on the backs of even more failures that cultures prospered.
Take the math Ph.D. in my example. Mathematicians not only have to be uber-smart; they have to have a desire to do math. Math is boring for most, but only a few of those that are intellectually capable of doing math actually have the patience and fortitude to stick it out to the upper echelons of the field. So, however you want to look at it, that’s two separate reasons why men tend to succeed in these types of fields compared to women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh yes, that’s why women always got into the lifeboats first, had doors opened for them, have heavy things carried for them…damn that oppression! Take a close look and listen well to the next coverage of a disaster you hear–’Women and children need ********!’ ’200 women and children injured!’
Second class, indeed……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ricpic:
The evo psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has some articles arguing that this is so. While I don’t think he means to say that everything a man does is done for sexual gain, I think we have to look at how we got here to understand where we are today.
We are the inheritors of behaviors that succeeded. By success I mean they were either caused the individual possessing them to be selected. It’s not that everything men do is in an attempt to get laid; we just happen to behave in ways that were successful in getting us (or our forbears) laid in the past.
The Game starts all over with each generation. 40% of men reproduce 100% of the second-generation. 40% of those reproduce 100% of the 3rd generation. I’m sure the modern ratio is much higher now (~60%?), but you get the picture. The catalogue of desired traits is winnowed down through time.
So yeah, a man might join the presidential campaign of some liberal candidate in order to swoop a girl he likes; he also might get in a fight with another guy in order to defend his woman. The woman is attracted to the man in both instances; the first is contrived, the second is innate. The outcome is the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is the ideal woman?
The guys on here are extremely diverse. Some would say “no woman is the ideal woman”, some would say “barefoot and pregnant” or “mindless sex slave”, and most fall in-between.
The point is that they’re discussing interesting topics and aren’t bound by PC rules. But if you stick around, prepare your defenses; everyone’s fair game here and they don’t mince words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Three feet tall, no teeth, big ears, and a flat head to rest your beer on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I was heavily pregnant, I’d rest my drink on my stomach. Very practical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is the ideal woman?
Black&German:
The guys on here are extremely diverse. Some would say “no woman is the ideal womanâ€, some would say “barefoot and pregnant†or “mindless sex slaveâ€, and most fall in-between.
David: The ideal woman? Maybe one who can stay on this website and not have a hissy fit or threaten to sue someone.
In reality? The ideal woman? Fairly. Fairly pretty. Fairly intelligent. Fairly feminine. Fairly motherly. Fairly sexual. A fairly good cook. A fairly good adviser. A fairly good conversationalist. Fairly well read. Nothing special. Just a good female companion for a man on life’s journey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“From the standpoint of producing a healthy next generation, women are much more crucial than men.” Not after they eggs dry up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ideal woman. There is no ideal woman because her ideals are always changing.
I suppose it would be one who can surprise you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is the ideal woman?
One who can do these things:
Don’t talk, unless it’s something that actually pertains to SOMETHING.
Don’t fuck my brother/best friend/milk man/garbage man/gardener/cable repair man unless you are getting paid for it and giving me the money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Patriarchy was built by wealthy-enpowered men to opress other inferior, down the hierarchy males, in a guys game´, a guys´matter. The powerful castes (men their woman-partners) gave the inferior men the resources (menial jobs and a wife) to have them glad, at work and go to war (and die for the powerful MEN).
Privilege castes always ruled, and still do. Marriage and dependance of women was set out by them by all posible tools(laws, customs, religions).
Anyway, the above post doesn´t consider other kind of intelligence (emotional, adaptative, social), and I don´t think the one with the highest IQ, is the best to rule a corporation, or the most risky person, either: some common sense is neccesary, too.
Anyway, no civilizacion is supported without aproval of the majority of females; due to my job, I´ve been talking and changing ideas with many muslim women…and most of them support and accept their regime. So I don´t think men create and keep the civilizations… alone (women have their part to tell too).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lara:
If you read the post you’ll see that Baumeister says the same thing. Culture isn’t a story of men against women; its a story of men and women of one culture against men and women of another culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chuck: I totally agree; that´s why I am so bothered when they say “woman didn´t do anything”…
Nothing? who gave you bith (and somestimes died for)? who took care, nurtured you? who administered the household and do the other things while most men where in hard works or at war?
this offends us too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
this offends us too
Agreed. Some of the guys on here expect admiration for “men’s work” but show none of the same for “women’s work”. They are both essential for a civilization to function smoothly. We Westerners can just look around us at the chaos to see what happens when all of the value is put on one type of work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol. Haven’t met many young American women who “administered the household” while the man is working. The ones who do stay at home tend to do whatever they can to offload their responsibilities onto others.
I’ll tell you about a problem that was occurring in my hometown:
Young women didn’t want to pay for daycare, so usually they’d have their mother (the grandmother) take care of the kid(s). However, sometimes grandma was getting her hair done, too. So what would they do? They’d go to the public library, dump the kids there, and then go shopping or getting their nails done.
Every time I’d go to the library there would be tons of kids running around screaming, and the librarians had to become babysitters. It’s still a big problem, and might even be worse now since the Mexican women, who have a lot of kids, learned they could do it, too.
This is how American women “administer the household.” Kind of hard for us men to be appreciative of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welmer:
In PAST YEARS (not now) giving birth, caring for children, doing the household, administering the house finance, educating the kids and so on was a hard work, doing by women; on the other hand, going to war, doing hard work aut there was a toug thing.
Both past labours and tasks must be appreciated now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“No theory to offer. I’m just put off by the mechanistic notion that we’re mere pawns driven through life by biological imperatives.”
No, we are not mere pawns driven by biological imperatives, but said biological imperatives still exist and through the process of evolution had the side affect of freeing our mind to understand more sublime truths. Understanding the nature of reality, or God, or truth is inconsequential if we have no progeny to pass that wisdom on to. So in this sense, every thing we do is no longer just to please women to pass on our genes, but can become a mission to further evolution (in all its forms) itself. It is related to the sacrificial hero principle. Why would an Alpha sacrifice his life for the tribe if this is an evolutionary dead end for him. Well, we have to factor in that by doing so, his shared DNA, separate but existing in totality in his various siblings, cousins, nephews, etc. he actually preserves more of his DNA essence by sacrificing himself to save the rest of the tribe. In this sense, Einstein didn’t figure out relativity to get laid, but to further the DNA viability of the entire western civilization, even the entire human race. (We might wipe ourselves out with nukes (I doubt it) but if we get attacked by aliens, I promise nukes will be one of our few defenses.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Mrs. Pilgrim January 21, 2010 at 14:15
Mr. Wochie, don’t take this question as me being hostile to you, but may I ask how you imagine the Indian practice of suttee was contrived as beneficial to women?
Also, Muslim societies are strongly based around the ideas put forth by a very poor example of maleness (who had very little in the way of ethics, so this explains a lot). Not very advantageous to women. (NOTE: This is not a knock against male-invented culture; I’m just throwing you a couple of examples of societies either not good for women, or not set up by women.)”
I would never suggest that women have not been oppressed, abused, or even enslaved by men at times. My point is that men have always been oppressed, abused, and enslaved by the “system” set up to benefit the few men and women at the top of the hierarchy. Even where men had the illusion of freedom, it was at the cost of living a precarious, dangerous, and burdened existence. With freedom comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes the absence of freedoms. We are all slaves in our own ways. The question is, whose slavery was better, men’s or women’s.
You could also think of it this way. Are children oppressed, abused, and enslaved by their parents, or are they protected, punished, and lacking rights for their own good? You would of course say, “Well, by this women are treated as children.”. Yes, but trust me, that is how women preferred it. We treat women as adults here, as our equals. Thats why we don’t hold back. This is how men treat each other. Do you think all women want to face and deal with the realities and truths we explore here, or do you think, like children, like feminists, they continue to want to be coddled and shielded by the harsh realities of existence. Women are treated as children because that is the better deal. If I could be a teenager for my entire existence, I would be. Women made that choice. Now they want to be an adult, but they don’t want the adult responsibilities, stress, and tedium that accompany it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lara:
We can agree on this point. I fully recognize the importance of women; the only problem is that it seems to be women who didn’t recognize the importance of women in the first place. They weren’t content doing all the things you listed.
No wonder ugly women and lesbians were the frontrunners of modern day feminism; they had no viable stake in the household or any power to counterbalance mens’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chuck: many women don´t actually recognize the importance of a woman´s duty in the past, because it is not considered important in the mainstream; it has always been underrated and scorned (for men and women)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No wonder ugly women and lesbians were the frontrunners of modern day feminism; they had no viable stake in the household or any power to counterbalance mens’.
There were also the bored, educated upper middle class wives like Betty Friedan — women who wanted to live lives like their husbands and envied them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lara:
Not always. Within the last 100 or so years? Women didn’t think twice about the social structure being bad for them until a bunch of women who didn’t fit in that structrue told them so. This is a recent development in the grand scheme of things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Acksiom writes: “And I can suggest in response that we wait for you to come up with such a proposition on your own first, just to establish your intellectual integrity. Then we’ll try to come up with more.”
You can suggest it, but I will counter your suggestion with the observation that I was asking Mr. Wochie, not you.
Now see, being snarky to one another gets us nowhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crella writes: “Oh yes, that’s why women always got into the lifeboats first, had doors opened for them, have heavy things carried for them…damn that oppression! Take a close look and listen well to the next coverage of a disaster you hear–’Women and children need ********!’ ‘200 women and children injured!’
Second class, indeed……”
Goodness me, yes. Why any right-thinking woman would want to trade that for wage-work, I don’t know.
David writes: “In reality? The ideal woman? Fairly. Fairly pretty. Fairly intelligent. Fairly feminine. Fairly motherly. Fairly sexual. A fairly good cook. A fairly good adviser. A fairly good conversationalist. Fairly well read. Nothing special. Just a good female companion for a man on life’s journey.”
The lady who gets you (got you already, perhaps?) should count her blessings!
Welmer writes: “lol. Haven’t met many young American women who “administered the household†while the man is working.”
Hi there. *smiles*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Mr. Wochie: I wasn’t accusing you of anything, sir; I just thought I detected a hole or two in the reasoning. Thanks for the clarification.
Novaseeker writes: There were also the bored, educated upper middle class wives like Betty Friedan — women who wanted to live lives like their husbands and envied them.
I recall from some deep recess of my baby-addled memory that Ms. Friedan was also involved with the Communist Party at some point. Marxism has always sought to strip women of our place in the world. Destabilize the family, and you destabilize society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I gladly offer the freedom to women to do and become whatever they want, but not if that involves standing in my way or holding me back to get there, especially when it is done with the dishonest and cowardly excuse that I was holding them back to begin with. Non-competition, ie. socialism does not work. I wish it did, but its been tried repeatedly. Competition, that which works, is competition, and by men winning, it does not imply the rules are rigged in our favor, it just implies that we are more capable of winning (and lets not forget loosing, Bell-curve).
The education system held me back. It was compulsory and limited my potential. No need to get into the weeds of this, but for you don’t get it, read a book or two like “The War Against Boys”, or many of the books about the failures of our factory line like education system.
Women in general also held me back, because by not possesing a systemizing, visual spatial, less verbal, and less social male intellect like me, they assumed I was inferior or defected, when in truth, it is what makes me superior intellectually, and thus through their rejection of me as a person, they affected my confidence (sense I am not a sociopath lacking feelings), which as seen in above posts, is equally important for success?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All I want is the truth, and a level playing field.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why any right-thinking woman would want to trade that for wage-work, I don’t know.
Because they’re not right-thinking, obviously. They’re often book-smart but common-sense stupid. They’re caught in a permanent fog of envy, have mixed-up priorities, and suffer under a constant sense of inferiority. You can hear it come through in the things that they write.
And now I have to go do some of that homemaking stuff. But it’s been a very interesting conversation today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Vancouver
“Socialism”
There is good socialism and bad socialism.
Good socialism – as my previous point above – to ensure hard working men, who cannot afford to buy a house, but are integral to the economy, are still socially supported through housing allowing them to stay productive and exist securely, albeit at the bottom of society. Having this foundation of ‘a home’ is the foundation to who knows what? The home for many is a starting point for greater things – even to pursue ‘Capitalist’ trajectories so there’s no point in trying to finger-point (both ideologies work to their own ends, usually socialism being a foundation for a capitalist trajectory). I don’t see many people actually acknowledging this, rather just polarising the ideas rather than attempting to fuse the ideas or acknowledging how they co-exist.
And an alternative example for ‘Capitalist-Liberalists’, a worst-case scenario in the UK:
As a male capitalist banker, investor, businessman, whatever, you could have millions-billions. But if you lost it all tomorrow, your house, everything, you would fall back into the socialist ‘safety-net’ (so they call it) and be straight down to the Department of Social Security for help.
Help, I need a place to live!
Well, sorry Mr. LostYourMoney, you still look fit and healthy, there’s a long housing waiting list I’m afraid, the available housing has been taken up by WOMEN – single mums no less, so you’re going to have to make do for now.
You could really lose it all tomorrow and this is likely what awaits.
Recently on a radio talk-show, I heard of a man who’d lost his house was now sleeping in a garage. Another productive man out of the picture.
Many men are wasted due to living a very precarious existence. No security.
Men are contributing to, but are being shut out of some of the most basic resources in life for sponger people (moreso women) who do very little but have rinsed socialist mechanisms which were put there initially for the welfare of men who were to work, to keep producing. The whole ideal has now been hijacked. Now many women use the same resource, they exploit it, they just occupy it and are doing nothing, or are raising children poorly.
Therefore- Bad socialism – all men paying taxes, subsidising single mums who raise little brats in prioritised council housing who contribute jack. Shit, some women even having a baby for that reason, for a council house. I thought babies were made out of love but this is some instrumental, de-humanising shit I can’t get my head round.
But that is why societies are slowly crumbling. They are not looking after a valuable resource (male power). It’s all about exploitation regardless but guvments are wasting ‘man’s’ contribution in a way that results in a higher resource turnover (men die younger). Why? A contributing factor is with the lack of housing resources, man burns up half his shitty life running round trying to find his cave, his home, his dwelling (so that he can invest in himself – still only to be further exploited by socialists, capitalists, whoever).
But socialism used for women’s advancement yields less – they ‘sit on it’ and don’t traject.
With my example for men, socialism yields more productivity. A contributing workforce is maintained or arises. That’s why a lot of Victorian housing was built in England to house men of industry, so they could build a life, family and so on.
Now family life has fragmented, women are dominating resource allocation. The housing resource I’m talking about is all in women’s hands, moreso single women. They’re taking it all.
Men deserve a higher share.
For me, socialism through a male lens is no problem, if used for the right reasons. I doubt you can get rid of socialism, might as well work with it to one’s advantage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lethargic – there is only ONE “good” kind of socialism – and that is socialism for which all members of a socialist society of any size, is a VOLUNTARY member…in which they are not FORCED to participate by the power of a coercive government. Enforced participation ensures all of the problems inherent in socialist economics – free rider problems, tragedy of the commons etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll second HL. There is no good socialism.
There is good charity, but charity is choice. Charity is a gift. As soon as the government mandates it, it is an entitlement.
People treat entitlements and gifts quite differently.
Once the government mandates the “charity” it is socialism. Because the government has to at least attempt to appear fair, they have to put all these rules in place to say who can receive their charity and who cannot. Once you have hard and fast rules, the system becomes very easy to exploit.
That leads to what you see now, where women (who have generations upon generations of training on how to exploit the rules and manipulate) taking over-advantage of the socialism of government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a much better write up than the one I did on my private blog. Bravo, Chuck Ross!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i still revisit this work and read over it from time to time in the hopes to affirm things i forget from time to time
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[shrug] So? And that is supposed to excuse you from the challenge to establish your intellectual integrity. . .how, exactly?
So, oh look, it did get us somewhere. It got us to the place where we know you’re not willing to meet the Man Standard for adult behavior, and can therefore casually disregard you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J.:
Thank you. I can’t say I did anything more than rehash what Baumeister already said plus mix in a couple of new points. To me, Baumeister’s speech was very eye-opening as TAllagash points out as well.
seriously, you’re blogging about this THREE YEARS LATER? For shame. Anyways, I love everything Baumeister has done — his paper on alien abduction was perhaps the best ever written on the subject. Perhaps you can blog about it IN 2025.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damn, I never knew my mom was a troll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Saw something on the news so thought I’d come back to this. I had mentioned ‘Good and Bad’ socialism which was not expressed as well as I would have liked but my intention was to address the results of how socialist models work and to what benefit they can yield for men.
Today the debate of social hosuing reared its head in a London borough and they’re getting the idea. Housing being prioritised for working people, and I hope a lot of them are men, who finally get a share of the housing resource cake.
This is only in discussion in one council but they’re on the right track in stopping scroungers abuse the system. If you provide a resource, get something back from it – people who are responsible, people who can pay and contribute to the tax base – give it moreso to working MEN.
Unfortunately I can see the housing now being channeled off to working/volunteering/training women. Councils have an ingrained ‘women-come-first’ mentality. The feminization of space continues.
There has to be some kind of balance. Men need a greater SHARE. It is a small opportunity I hope for men (if passed).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 5 trackbacks }