The major lamentation over women’s slide into the workforce has been the number of jobs taken from men. Underlying all of that is the structural shift from the private to the public sector and from manufacturing to service based economies; both trends favor female employment.
But even if those are plausible issues for male concern, there is another issue with female upward mobility that is of consequence to the whole economy (local, national, global).
Women don’t create jobs.
Besides becoming more omnipresent in the workforce, women are taking on more upper management, consulting, and “50,000 foot view” strategic roles. The latter group are of most importance here as they deal more with large-scale risk implementation and capital deployment – the main thrust behind new products, new markets, and new jobs. Not only are women more than half of the U.S.’s workforce, they comprise a near supermajority in college attendance. Affirmative action type policies and general wailing for diversity have forced women up through the glass ceiling into these upper management positions whether they display merit or not. In Norway and France, policy dictates that 40% of a corporation’s upper management must be female. In business, one prospers by adhering to the mantra: “Don’t be France.”
In economics, the most important decision-making factors are opportunity costs and tradeoffs. A woman taking a man’s job on a production line has no reverberating consequences for anyone besides the man and his family (my examples are deliberately simplistic) – the opportunity cost is the same whether the gender is switched. But a woman taking a role in these high-level strategic positions – by the more sinister “invisible hand” of equality – has unseen opportunity costs arising from the differences in each gender’s nature: one more woman in the boardroom costs a man a boardroom job (which is a moot point) and perhaps a few other people jobs lower down the ladder. How so?
Job creation stems from “creative destruction”, innovation, and technology development which all stem from risk. I’ll preemptively put one argument to rest that I see springing up: innovation and technology do create jobs. It’s true that corporate men destroy jobs and green light endeavors that quickly fizzle out, but on the whole and in the long run, risk-taking men create a net benefit in the job market. The poor economic showing of the past decade is a bump in the otherwise long-trending trajectory of quality of life improvement.
My discussion of Baumeister last week underscores the dichotomy between male and female risk-aversion. Men have innately developed low risk aversion out of necessity. The men who passed on their genes engaged in riskier behavior and succeeded at higher rates than men of genetic inconsequentiality.
On the flip side, women are more conservative than men. This is biologically and behaviorally true. A woman is not only less likely to use drugs or go sky-diving, she is also less likely to engage in financial risk. In organizations with an AA infused feminine influence, risk will be lower, but so will return. Jobs may be preserved, but even more jobs will not be created. This is the important unseen tradeoff.
There are even more resounding knock-on effects to women’s unmerited infiltration of the boardroom. As more and more women sneak through the cracks of the glass ceiling, the competitive nature of industry that has led to massive job creation in the past will have compounding effects. Not only will an individual company take on a less risky strategy, the fact that it is up against less risky competitors who have followed the AA/PC path implies that the whole industry will be less risky all together. Lower levels of risk imply lower levels of innovation and job growth for the whole economy in the future. The problem is that we won’t notice the effects because we won’t know what the tradeoff scenario would have brought.
To make a quick example, the computer chips of Intel and AMD would be of lower quality and more expensive if one or the other company didn’t exist. Each company took on risk because they had to develop smaller, faster, and cheaper chips in order to stay abreast of their competition. The innovating drive for Intel was spurred by the chip developments and risk-taking of AMD. We can apply this concept to the risk-aversion of upper management. Depleting the level of risk taken on by one company affects not only that company but companies in similar industries. The lower levels of competition, over time, lead to less highly developed markets and products. More highly developed markets with higher levels of technology and cheaper products create more jobs and higher qualities of life for a nation.
Supporting this hypothesis, research at the London School of Economics showed that companies with higher ratios of female boardmembers have poorer financial performance. The research points out that, while women do their jobs very well, they tend to take on corporate governance roles that stifle growth. The females not only bring their singular risk-averse vote, their influence decreases the risk-taking of other members of the board.
Dr Ferreira said: ‘Women directors appear to have a significant impact on the governance of companies. However, it is not necessarily that the women on the board are doing all the monitoring. The behaviour of the board as a whole is affected by increased diversity.’
Decreased risk may be a sweet song to some, but risk-taking is the lifeblood of our businesses and our culture.  Especially for companies that are already reasonably well-governed, this extra red tape (on top of the red tape strewn about by the government) stifles creativity, innovation, risk, profit, and job growth.
If a woman enters the boardroom because she has proven that she has a good grasp on the risk/reward profile that the company embodies (i.e. the same track on which a man has to prove himself), she rightfully deserves her place. But if a woman enters said boardroom because some external pressure compels the boardroom gatekeepers to let her in, and this same policy is administered in boardrooms across the nation, female admittance implies worse financial performance, anemic job growth, and less-than-optimal quality of life. As with most governmental or socially structured dictates, inefficiencies arise. In the past, men have been mostly concerned with the primary effects of women in the workforce: men’s focus was on their replacement by females and the capitulation of the breadwinner role. But if we look a few steps further and a couple of levels above us, we’ll see that womens’ decisions in the boardroom have amplified effects on the millions of men and women down below them.
Chuck Ross holds a Master’s of Economics. He blogs daily at Gucci Little Piggy and works 5 shifts a week at a local Italian joint.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
The problem began when women were denied their basic profit urge and prohibited from opening brothels. They’re good at that business.
Women run comanies down whenever they move in in large numbers or get the top job. Just try reading about HP or Alcatel when women headed up those companies. They lost more money than Enron but Carly Fiorona is talked about as political potential.
I have now been in business 28 years. Women in business suck. It’s as simple as that.
The ‘bad guys’ at the top mandated ‘equal outcomes’ in the public work place at the UNs World Population Control Conference in Bucharest in 1974. I’ve posted that here before. So guvments did as they were told and introduced ‘statutes’ to destroy the family and push women into the work place since that time. The US got a head start with JD Rockefellers Population Control Commission which Nixon founded in 1970 and made Rockefeller the chairman. The Commission reported in 1972 and ‘equal rights’ which really meant equal outcomes was US guvment policy from 1972 onwards. The idea IS to destroy the US and global economy by having it infested with women and then, in the aftermath of the destruction, offer a chip on which your ‘special drawing rights’ will be accessed but not stored so that everyone is ‘equal’. Yes, that would mean ‘equally poor’.
Kevin Rudd pretended to write a paper in which he called for ‘activist government’ to ‘ensure social equality’. By this he means that the guvment will force everyone to be equally poor destroying all motivation for innovation or success by men. Your world is being communised as has been well documented in Agenda 21 on the UN website. Welcome to your new ‘technological stone age’. Women lap this shit up because they really are that lacking in intelligence.
Lack of technological innovation caused by poor female leadership and incompetence? That’s where I draw the line. As a self-employed single employee company, these affirmative action policies hadn’t affected me, but now they will. I won’t be able to buy newer and more awesome hi-tech devices because companies run by women will fail to invent them. Now I’m pissed.
MSNBC never failed to put a camera on a nasally reverent, creaming Maria Bartiromo interviewing St. Carly and St. Meg The Whitman.
Lauded and applauded once – now the cameras suddenly shy away from their abysmal business failures.
Somebody forgot to tell The Money Honey that she got her job the old-fashioned way. She also got her doughy trillionaire hubby the same: how she looked.
Ya come a long way, baybee.
Somebody copyrght and mass produce this slogan for the Spearhead:
“Failure a Bitch”
I don’t think many, if indeed any, of the big changes that have effected the economy in the last 30 years have been driven by women. Take for example Google. This seems to have been started from scratch with very little capital. There was no reason why women could not have done it yet they didn’t. This remember all happened in say the last 15 years. Going back a little further there is the example of Microsoft. This again was the result of a man’s foresight and energy. Neither of these things happened in the dark ages. Each could have been done by a woman but was not.
If women are so marvellous the why is not the mobile phone industry dominated by women? Twenty years ago there was no such industry. I know women will say that men prevented them doing these things. Women are utterly base and contemptible. Every time I think of them I am overwhelmed by the discussed they stimulate in me. I really do hate them.
“Just try reading about HP or Alcatel when women headed up those companies. They lost more money than Enron but Carly Fiorona is talked about as political potential.”
Funny you should say that: When Fiorina was appointed at HP, I had just been cast on the crap heap after a long career with HP.
I started my own company and was in direct competition with HP. Carla was holding the company under very tight reigns and, while I was patrolling their customer installed base, HP employees themselves were unable to stop me for fear of losing their jobs.
To me, this was like a God given blessing: I took a full third of their customer base in my province and made plenty of money.
I used every trick in the book(s) (namely, The Art of War and The Prince: the best selling courses I ever tought myself.) and rammed through HP as if it was made of butter.
So, I owe Carla Fiorina. She was the best thing that ever happened to me.
There are always two sides to ANY coin: just flip it over and … cash in…
@Paul,
It’s OK to find women contemptible and to even hate them, but I would like to suggest a more constructive approach.
Instead of wasting such good energy, why not take advantage of them. You can turn things around and make them work to your advantage. (refer to my previous post)
Why not capitalize instead? Imagination is the magic ingredient: something women lack. So this is where we have the edge.
They say there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Be wise as a fox and white as a dove is a good motto, isn’t it? Turn things around in your favor: it’s quite all right now. After all, women killed chivalry: it’s fair game now and we do have a definite advantage here.
Feeling the love in here.
I agree with the premise of women being generally more risk-adverse than men, and that this could stifle technological innovation and competition. However, there is a place for the risk-adverse within companies: accounting, quality assurance, and risk assessment. At my old company, they’d pair project and team leaders (mostly male) with QA (mostly female) and that seemed to be quite a potent combination. Having a largely-male boardroom with a female Chief Risk Officer (CRO) would be a similar makeup.
What you’ll find is that start-ups are overwhelmingly male, and add female employees as they become larger and more complex organizations.
bah.
If some Ivy League MBA cunt offered you all a cushy job your noses would be so far up her ass she’d have an Adam’s Apple.
Braveau…
Yes. I think women are particularly effective in the following areas inside a company: sales/marketing, PR, HR, risk management, accounting, legal. Sales/marketing, PR, and HR are naturals for women due to the interaction with people and the emphasis on communication. Risk management is also a natural role, as it caters to the stickler inside most women. Accounting is similar, but particularly appeals to numbers-oriented women. And legal tends to be something women like because it is, as a profession, risk-averse (don’t have the responsibility for line decision making) and allows some women (a common strategy I have seen used by women) to become “gurus” in a certain area, creating a high degree of job security (appealing to women) by means of having special expertise, at the cost of lesser pay and lesser possibilities of advancement. We have women in all areas in the company I work for, of course, but these are the areas where they tend to shine and/or dominate.
Women don’t create anything
Female Domination in the HR department is not a good thing. They bring their female supremacist agenda with them and are encouraged to by the power that be. Most companies, both private and public, need a total HR overhaul.
I didn’t say it was a “good” thing, rather it is something women are good at. They *are* good at HR. I don’t like the policies they enact, either, but they are naturals for HR due to the people factor.
I think this article has many good points. I tend to feel the principle of “creative destruction” in this century has been mutated to something more like “destroy anything that doesn’t stroke my ego” whether it’s creative or not.
But otherwise, good thinking.
In my career in a creative industry I’ve worked with a couple of exceptional women. They were not as numerous or exceptional as the best men I’ve worked with but they were pretty damn good, and wonderful to work with.
Beyond that there were a fair amount of mediocre men, a vast amount of mediocre women, and several blatantly incompetent women. I will affirm that the worst man I’ve worked with was a genius compared to the incompetent women.
I think I would disagree, respectfully, almost completely.
First, women have much greater risk appetite than men. It’s just limited to: choice of partner (men rarely think they can “change” a mate), and status-markers. Women often end up dead thinking they can exercise their magical sex appeal over dangerous men (the Petersons, Drew and Scott, come to mind, as does Natalee Holloway). They also tend to be part of the “flip that house” and granite counter-top market. The main part.
Women follow also the socially approved dogmas of the day. No one is more “religious” than women in following whatever stuff is believed and said by the “authorities” of respectable opinion. Men generally do not behave in this way.
This makes women BIGGER risk takers in following green idiocy, or PC platititudes, instead of real focus on real risks and rewards. Fiorina is a good example, she noted that no “American has a right to a job” at HP when outsourcing and moving production overseas. Which was good PC globalized platitudes, bad for business. She gutted R&D, because she wanted “green” iniatitives.
Right on cue, a woman writes a blog only slightly tainted by feminist b.s. in explaining why women don’t build wealth.
I think we’re learning how to defeat women
by out-talking them
I did a S&M job for about 2 months. I didn’t last beyond the first conference, though. It became quite obvious that I’d only been hired to work as a booth bunny.
Brutal:
thanks for that link. at least one woman knows the score (sort of).
Theresa Gattung is another example of a woman destroying wealth. She got the CEO job at New Zealand Telecom back in 1999. At the time, Telecom was by far the largest publicly listed company on the NZ exchange and its profitability excellent. After 7 years of her in charge, shareholder value had been reduced to a third of its 1999 value – and this during a period where share markets everywhere, including NZ, all boomed. Her 7 year tenure was characterized by taking few risks in innovation. Small telecoms companies took advantage of all sorts of opportunities that Telecom should have been pursuing, but didn’t. She publicly stated that her marketing campaigns were about sowing confusion and exploiting it – I think the idea of actually providing better value for money to customers was laughably naive to her. Needless to say, Telecom is no longer the largest public company in New Zealand, but now that she’s been fired and a man appointed in her place, that may change.
Curiously, from her hew job as CEO of a tiny wool company, she’s calling on all young women to ‘storm the bastille’ and take over boardrooms en masse.
Having worked with women in engineering, I agree that they rarely innovate, especially compared to the men. But there are a number of women I have worked with who I would always involve in any project, as they had an eye for marketability. More than just making it look pretty, these women were good at refining an existing design into something functionally better (and prettier). That’s why there are so many female industrial engineers, and so few female mechanical engineers.
Of course, since these women were in STEM fields, they were not exactly typical.
The key point is still innovation. Women can follow a formula and turn out consistently good work, but my go-to guys for something new are always, well, guys.
Women are good in many capacities along the supply chain. As mentioned by many above, they can handle their own in marketing, HR, and other less scientific and strategic roles.
But when it comes to developing the strategy of a company and employing risk to the advantage of the company, a company influenced more and more by women suffers a competitive disadvantage. Of course, there may be exclusions to this statement, but *in general*….
I don’t begrudge women the jobs they do have, but those roles can operate in separate spheres than the risk-taking and capital deployment roles that best suit men.
For instance, I’d much rather have a woman teach me a job that requires attention to detail. They think about the minutiae than men do. Men get frustrated trying to relay detailed-oriented instructions; we are more geared towards abstract thinking and top-down approaches. This fits the nature that Baumeister talked about in his speech and that is at the heart of the risk dichotomy.
Rebel January 25, 2010 at 09:47
Rebel!! Great story dude!!
I pretty much did similar to IBM but not to such a great extent. In the recession in 2002 I went and offered my services to them to help build a product in the telco space. They seemed to think I did not have enough experience which was really funny since I had more than anyone else that worked for them!! So my colleagues and I put our money where our mouth is and 18 months ago we closed our first big ‘new deal’. No need to tell you who we beat…
We closed another deal today and it’s looking like we are going to set fire to our particular little niche. We even got a call from from VCs the other day! Our name is getting around!
And I agree. No need to hate women. I don’t. I love the women I date. I really do. If the world was a fair place I would have married my favourite one.
piercedhead January 25, 2010 at 13:19
“Theresa Gattung is another example of a woman destroying wealth. She got the CEO job at New Zealand Telecom back in 1999.”
Someone who knows Theresa? Wow. Small world. TCNZ was a complete basket case. It was so bad the major investors were told to pull out by their financial advisers. That is when I got a call. The local PWC guy was casting around for how to help Theresa build a Business Intelligence System that they could leverage to drive growth. At the time I was known in the region as having put in such systems for some very big companies and driving massive profit improvments. We did our pitch and won the deal as PWC. Alas someone from Boston Consulting Group got to Theresa and had us kicked out again. Cest la vie. As piercedhead points out….things went from bad to worse under her leadership. By the way. we got deals with other telcos in NZ so we were part of the crew that then undermined TCNZ!! LOL!!
Just a comment on one of the systems I did for a client I can’t name in Australia.
They are one of the most recognised names in Australia but they were under attack from a plethora of new entrants to the very lucrative market in 1999. They held 37% of the national market but that was going down. People were being fired. I was selling to them for 2 years during this decline in profitability. Finally we got our deal in 2000. This was the only IT project I ever worked on that paid for itself before it was even delivered into production!!
Over the next two years they were able to lift market penetration from 37% to 42% in a saturated mature market with new entrants still trying to break in. We DOUBLED the gross profit by reducing wastage and increasing revenues. The owner (a household name in Australia) called the company ‘the jewel in the corporate crown’ and mandated all companies in the group have a system put in like the one we put in. When the company was finally sold to foreign interests it was rated one of the best performing companies in the world of it’s type. Alas, I only got my consulting fees!! But they did buy three copies of my software later which was nice. I never saw women do this kind of stuff, ever.
This one is really funny….One day, 1996, I was calling on one of the big 4 banks in Australia and this woman was in charge of their marketing analysis system/data warehouse. She was one of these real ‘ball-breaker’ types. After pleasantaries she gruffly said to me “Why should I be listening to you?” in a very condescending tone like I was the village idiot.
I replied: “Because 5 years ago I invented some new database design techniques that revolutionised your banks ability to do marketing analysis and marketing campaigns. Those techniques not only saved you millions of dollars in hardware purchasing but they have helped you become the leading bank in Australia. And now? We have invented some more stuff you might be interested in.” She turned to her most senior technical advisor, who was the guy I had TRAINED 5 years earlier and he just nodded.
Zing….Shut up woman. Let the man speak!
Funny, Bob, I always thought there were more female IOEs because IOEs are for the most part complete idiots who shouldn’t even be called engineers. It seemed like that’s where most of the female wanna-be engineers on pussy scholarship ended up, then the rest either batted their eyelashes and cheated off guys to get through their classes or were one of the few women who actually knew their shit.
I think all my newfound awareness is starting to make me become more cynical about women and giving me a desire to embrace misogyny again as I once did. Looking back on my interactions with women in the past doesn’t help. I don’t look back fondly on the inept moron who swindled all my clueless friends for help on her homework while I wanted nothing to do with her. And every woman I know, except my mom and my girlfriend, exhibit enough desire for female supremacy that it’s disgusting.
global, I would have given that woman a Connery hand.
@Toby
Good discussion on risk, and very relevant, but it presents only one dimension of what is taking place – implicit is the assumption that the preference for women over men is “benign†and driven by the best of intentions (the “equal†in equal opportunity). An even more pernicious dimension in all of this is along the lines of Toby’s comment, and female domination in HR.
Within the “equal opportunity†sphere, the default view, as it is ideologically presented, is that if a man and women present as equal in terms of merit, the job should go to the woman. But the reality is not quite so benign. When we further factor in quotas, the reality becomes not one of gently tipping the scales a little bit to “nudge†women, but a downright shunting of women into jobs where the merit principle is completely abandoned, beyond policies of job descriptions. Any question of ambiguity and doubt becomes a quota opportunity. Large numbers of women are being promoted who are just not up to the same standard as the men that they are displacing. This has male and female heads of departments, at the highest levels, beaming with self-satisfaction that they are meeting quotas, while beneath them, large numbers of women enjoy opportunities as lower-and-middle-level managers that they’ve not had to compete on in terms of merit. And the highest level decision-makers are caught up in their own lies… they see other agencies proudly trumpeting their woman-friendly workplaces, and feel the pressure to massage their own quotas.
What I’m getting at is that what is taking place today is far less benign than the risk element discussed in Chuck’s article – it is a thorough routing of men’s rights and the principle of merit. This discussion on risk makes presumptions of morality and the best of intentions that just don’t add up. The blatant politics of equal opportunity and quotas is more sweeping.
I have been thinking about whether this system will collapse, whether “Atlas” will “shrug”.
I have a feeling that the system will continue for a long time, perhaps indefinitely. This is because the entire system is underwritten economically by technical progress, and this progress is in the hands of a relatively few “beta” males who do what they do for the love of it.
The reason why Australia runs so well is that we make an enormous amount of money from a few industries that employ relatively few people. Mining and agriculture in particular. The rest of the economy rests on these industries.
In a similar way, the reason why America can do crazy things like have quotas for women in top business positions, and have women on aircraft carriers, is because the nation as a whole is incredibly rich and has “money and power to burn”. And it is incredibly rich largely because of the top 0.1% of mostly male “nerds” and entrepreneurs who create the new enabling technologies.
It took a few hundred men to prove the concept of the Internet. They did this for personal satisfaction, and maybe made a bit of money. The irony is that now the Internet is used by tens of thousands of unhappy feminists to complain about how evil men are, and indulge in “rent-seeking” behaviour, such as demanding further quotas in education and industry.
My suspicion is that as long as a few men make it to MIT and the like in the West, the system will continue to run.
I remember studying the productivity of a public research facility in Australia. It seemed that just a couple of the inventions that came out of the institute “paid for” the entire cost of running the institution. In the same way, the inventions of a few tame “betas” can keep the entire Western economy running quite nicely. The West can continue to afford to maintain feminists.
A feminist is no more likely to understand where her high standard of living comes from than the average woman is to understand how air conditioning works. They just enjoy it without thinking about it. They never think about the men that invented it or the men that maintain it.
Globalman January 25, 2010 at 09:15
For those who are not familiar with the
JD Rockefellers Population Control Commission, I post the following link to their site.
http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm
Brutal Corporate Male January 25, 2010 at 10:30
Right on cue, a woman writes a blog only slightly tainted by feminist b.s. in explaining why women don’t build wealth.
Women like her make me sick just like those who whine and cry about the mythical glass geiling. If there is a glass ceiling, it is on top of the building/room. What, they want an office on the roof?
Novaseeker January 25, 2010 at 10:12
I didn’t say it was a “good†thing, rather it is something women are good at. They *are* good at HR. I don’t like the policies they enact, either, but they are naturals for HR due to the people factor
——————————————————————————
Wha? HR is the vanguard that enforces discrimination and political correctness. IQ tests are literally banned and women filled HR backs this up. There is only one book on HR that even mentions IQ anymore, while its patently obvious from the studies that it is *the* leading and easily measured productivity factor (except in sales, but its still potent there). Women are, and I stress on the average for Ive met a *few* somewhat respectable ones, useless for anything but babies.
Robert January 26, 2010 at 03:04
Notice there is a chapter on
Chapter 10: The Status of Children and Women
But there is no chapter on ‘the status of men’. In pretty much ALL UN docs you will see a complete absence of discussion about ‘men’. Agenda 21 is a good example of that.
Also note on this page: http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/010_status_of_children_and_women.htm
“The Commission therefore recommends that the Congress and the states approve the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and that federal, state, and local governments undertake positive – programs to ensure freedom from discrimination based on sex.”
When one understands that ‘discrimination’ is actually ‘the ability to discern the differences between items’ what the commission was really talking about was making men and women androgenous and making sure that equal outcomes were achieved by pushing women into the work force and depriving men of occupational opportunities.
It is this statement that demonstrates that ‘Equal Rights’ is all about ‘Population Control’. This was my ‘smoking gun’ that I found. JD Rockefeller, a leading voice of the banksters, pushing ‘equal rights’. Just like Aaron Russo reported Nick Rockefeller told him. Only here it is written over JD Rockefellers own signature and presented to the US Guvment to become ‘policy’.
If anyone has ANY doubt that ‘feminism’ is run by the Rockefellers and their Illuminati buddies try reading this statement again and remember who asked for it, Nixon, and who wrote it, Rockefeller. Not a woman in sight.
ardia:
concerning HR departments.
I think if we look inside the system, if we accept that organizations have to have HR departments out of necessity due to external pressure, it makes sense that women should be chosen to do so since they are best geared to it. given what HR is supposed to do, women are good at doing that.
Companies know they’re going to have some skin taken off their nose through HR; the optimal HR dep’t helps minimize litigation and such by putting out a nice face and nice little pamphlets.
In today’s world where Bill Clinton is considered distant history, the stuff on Rockefellers & Nixon etc. comes across as ancient Egypt.
It confuses people because they can’t grasp it. They’ve never seen an Illuminati so it’s like a UFO.
If two world wars haven’t loosened the grip of Rothschild Illuminatis, you present an invincible foe to an already weakened brotherhood that has difficulty dealing daily with Mrs. HR Dept.
@ David:
I’m not at all certain that the idiots who are in charge of running things in the West have enough brains to realize that those 0.1% of “nerds” are the only thing that is keeping their civilization from stagnating and crumbling.
For example, the British are cutting their nuclear physics research budget by half. This is going to essentially gut their existing workforce and is a crystal clear signal to young ‘nerds’ that they should stay the hell away from nuclear physics if they want to have a job in the UK.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/british-science.html
Ironically, the UK is committed to ‘carbon reduction’ quotas that it probably can’t meet without nuclear energy. They have bizarre plans to build thousands of windmills instead. Unfortunately, the wind doesn’t blow when electrical demand is highest (cold clear winter nights and hot humid breezeless summer days). Look out for rotating blackouts in the UK starting in 3 to 5 years.
There you go. The danger of female-dominated companies represents an opportunity for male-dominated companies to out-compete them.
I don’t think access to MIT is all that important. The most significant things for young men with passions to create are access to information and access to like-minded men. Universities used to have monopolies on that, but the internet has aced the campus. Guys can now get right into whatever it is that motors them, and they no longer need to wait to be a certain age, or pass exams in subjects of no interest to them.
Women have a stifling effect on innovation – this I witnessed first-hand all through my career. If something’s not ‘accepted best practice’ – no matter how provably superior it may be, their risk-aversion tends to lead them to receiving it unfavorably. They don’t have the same love for originality, nor the same understanding of the risks inherent in standing still. If they can’t see the immediate practicality of something, they also tend to dismiss or deride it rather than consider what its long term potential may be. A good example of this was the internet itself not too long ago. Women were overwhelmingly slow adopters of it, with numerous articles of feminist bent appearing throughout the 90s admonishing young men for ‘wasting their time’ on this new media. Feminists even claimed that female users were far more ‘efficient’ in their usage of the net, using it to do practical things, rather than all that idle surfing that men users did. They failed to see that male passions exercised in this way is what drives technical progress – or at least, they tried to portray it as an ugly thing.
The same process is at work today. Women are forever ridiculing young men for being such keen gamers and ‘wasting’ so much time at a console. What they don’t consider is that computer games are more than just recreation – they are simulations of reality and they enable sensory participation in new virtual realities. They are the future of IT – keyboards and text will give way to voice and image recognition wedded to virtual entities that will be brought about by advances in game technology. And it will be young men who pioneer all this. The same young men that Feminists are ridiculing now, but as soon as the technology becomes mainstream and vital, these Feminists will be doing their utmost to increase female participation and exclude men. By then, the men will have moved on to greener pastures (you’ll know what that is because it will be the new thing that attracts women’s scorn).
There’s no magic in this. When something takes the fancy and imaginations of young men so thoroughly that they devote all their waking hours to it, they will make something out of it. Something impressive. Other men will build on it. Very quickly, a city of new developments arises out of the emptiness that was formerly there. It doesn’t take long before others see wider-reaching and commercial application out of all these efforts. It’s at this point that the whole enterprise becomes visible to women, and they start wanting to move in.
Exactly make work a video game and get a lot done. Get 8 million people doing the task thinking it is a game and getting actual work done and it will be amazing.
Connect a million tanks to the internet and let the players think it is a game while they are in fact destroying the planet mua mua hahhahahh
LOL! Such is the (evil) genius of men! I wish I had thought of that.
Exactly. That was my point.
””””””’piercedhead January 26, 2010 at 12:48
Connect a million tanks to the internet and let the players think it is a game while they are in fact destroying the planet mua mua hahhahahh
-Gunslingergregi
LOL! Such is the (evil) genius of men! I wish I had thought of that.
”””””’
Yea it is all part of the china plan he he he
Woman and children become evil looking doom type monsters just a little slower than the male monsters he he he
piercedhead:
There’s no magic in this. When something takes the fancy and imaginations of young men so thoroughly that they devote all their waking hours to it, they will make something out of it. Something impressive. Other men will build on it. Very quickly, a city of new developments arises out of the emptiness that was formerly there. It doesn’t take long before others see wider-reaching and commercial application out of all these efforts. It’s at this point that the whole enterprise becomes visible to women, and they start wanting to move in.
David: This is similar to one of the point that I was trying to make in my debate with “Summer Glau” recently on this website. I was trying to say to this young woman – “don’t come into fields created by men (science fiction, astrophysics) and make large claims about how you, a woman, have been unfairly excluded in the past and how you are going to do so much better than the men now.” It is bad manners and silly.
piercedhead, I think you put your case well. Very interesting. However, I don’t think it invalidates my point that the system will survive quite well because of the genius of a relatively small group of men, and that they carry along in their wake all the less productive members of society, including a very large contingent of whining feminists.
Hollywood thought of it back in 1983.
Nukes work better than tanks.
Not the same. Conventional extermination is not the same as nuclear extermination. I have come up with a new paradigm he he he
We don’t need nukes to get rid of the west we just need enough bullets and it will be much cleaner when done ready for the new settlers.
Talking about completely taking the human component out of war kind of like feminists do when dealing with men. Except it is harder for soldiers to do that than feminists as they have some compassion for people that are human beings. What the video game shit will do is completely take away compassion and the people will just be playing a game with no long term adverse affects from killing 100′s of k’s of people.
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 07:40
Robert January 26, 2010 at 03:04
Notice there is a chapter on
Chapter 10: The Status of Children and Women
But there is no chapter on ‘the status of men’. In pretty much ALL UN docs you will see a complete absence of discussion about ‘men’. Agenda 21 is a good example of that.
Yes, I noticed that.
Also note on this page: http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/010_status_of_children_and_women.htm
“The Commission therefore recommends that the Congress and the states approve the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and that federal, state, and local governments undertake positive – programs to ensure freedom from discrimination based on sex.â€
When one understands that ‘discrimination’ is actually ‘the ability to discern the differences between items’ what the commission was really talking about was making men and women androgenous and making sure that equal outcomes were achieved by pushing women into the work force and depriving men of occupational opportunities.
It is this statement that demonstrates that ‘Equal Rights’ is all about ‘Population Control’. This was my ’smoking gun’ that I found. JD Rockefeller, a leading voice of the banksters, pushing ‘equal rights’. Just like Aaron Russo reported Nick Rockefeller told him. Only here it is written over JD Rockefellers own signature and presented to the US Guvment to become ‘policy’.
If anyone has ANY doubt that ‘feminism’ is run by the Rockefellers and their Illuminati buddies try reading this statement again and remember who asked for it, Nixon, and who wrote it, Rockefeller. Not a woman in sight.
The material you posted about is very interesting.
I once had a discussion with a fellow member of the MRM where we discussed war as being an instrument of population control that culls the male population. One other area where the male popualtion is culled is what I call the corrections industry. It is no big secret that the U.S. has an increasing number of people being sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Most of these people are males. I know some of these males are guilty of the crimes for which they are sentenced but, it seems to me that more laws are created to incriminate men the most.
I have long suspected an alliance between feminism and national/global eilte organizations. I even suspect an alliance between feminists the guvment, corporations, law enforcement and, the correctional industry. I know of no state in the U.S. that has more prisons built to house female offenders than male offenders. Here in Tennessee there is only one prison for women while there are at least thirteen prisons for male offenders.
http://www.state.tn.us/correction/institutions/stateprisons.html
“On December 8, 2009, there were 18,918 males and 1,182 females assigned to TDOC for a total of 20,100 inmates incarcerated in Tennessee’s adult institutions. There are no adult inmates in the unit occupied by juveniles. On December 8, 2009, there were 24 juveniles incarcerated in our facilities”.
http://www.state.tn.us/correction/faq.html
Tennessee’s largest owner of privatized prions is The Corrections Corpoaration of America (CCA stock exchange symbol ;CXW)
http://finance.paidcontent.org/v/quote?Symbol=321%3A1236031
“Welcome to Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s industry leader of privately-managed corrections solutions for federal, state and local government”.
http://www.correctionscorp.com/
http://www.correctionscorp.com/facilities/
I know several people who are working in the corporate enviroment. It is no big secret that corporations exist for one main purpose; to make money (profit).
Consider the manner in which feminism has villified and criminalized male patterns of behavior and how VAWA and laws written based on/patterned after the creation of VAWA ,have made it easier for women to accuse men of committing violent crimes against them.
The way I see, feminists want laws created to harm/destroy men. Consider this; it is extremely difficult for a male felon (ex con) to secure employment. This is not only because of the few bad apples that have spolied it for the rest but, also due to how people are convinced to view male ex cons. This I believe, is what is responsible for the growing recevidism rate for male ex cons. I suspect that for female ex cons it is most of the time, just a matter of finding a man who will support her for the rest of her life.
A point I want to make is that males in the U.S. and other nations are doomed by the effects feminism has in all echelons of America unless we do something to end it’s effects.
Please forgive me if my post is sloppy as I have so much to say yet, I’m exhausted after a day of activism.
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 07:40
That is very intersting information.
Have you read about his?
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/14561
When I hear of population control, I think not only of men like those in Haiti but ,also those who are victims of the following;
Disasters; Women and children first ( I suspect girls first, boys last) then…?
War; Again, the same as above.
Control of the male population?
I could also mention the possibility of feminist/VAWA /law enforcement/corrections industry(jail/prison) alliances that contribute to controlling the male population.
W00t! so glad I get to be the first to inform Gunslinger of this (usually someone else spoils this fun)
Control tanks and helicopters and make the players think its a game eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_(film)
didn’t actually SHOW any real warfare, but the concept was… sorta there. They even schoolbussed in kids to do it!
””””’ Leslie manages to defeat war toys using the old traditional toys, but his sister is destroyed, revealing that she is an android built by his father. ””””””””’
Never saw it but obviously not what I am talking about since the war toys lost.
The key though is in the complete dehumanization of the enemy so as to be able to completely exterminate them.
Then the ability to mass produce the vehicles on a large scale.
I’ll have to check it out though.
Friedman: China beating US on low carbon energy — Hot Topic
Friedman: China beating US on low carbon energy. by Bryan Walker on January 13, 2010 … http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/88/8802sci1.html …
Griffin: China Could Beat US in Moon Race | Universe Today
Jul 15, 2008 … Education of the finest degree in science, research, mechanics, theory. …. China WILL beat us to the moon in a new moon race, …
http://www.universetoday.com/…/griffin-china-could-beat-us-in-moon-race/ – Cached – Similar
China Beating U.S. in Car Sales Means Overcapacity (Update1 …
Dec 9, 2009 … China Beating U.S. in Car Sales Means Overcapacity (Update1). Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A …
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a57asDW4.U0s
China may beat US in science, technology – Economy and Politics …
Jul 24, 2008 … China may beat US in science, technology, Scientific activity, investment and policy initiatives seem to be in harmony in China, …
http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/…/China-may-beat-US-in-science.html – Cached
China, Japan Beating Swords Into Plowshares – Harvard – Belfer …
“China, Japan Beating Swords Into Plowsharesâ€. Holding a banner of welcome, Chinese navy personnel greet the Japanese destroyer Sazanami in a welcoming …
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/…/china_japan_beating_swords_into_plowshares.html?… – Cached
”””””’W00t! so glad I get to be the first to inform Gunslinger of this (usually someone else spoils this fun)””””’
But really I mean who spoiled my shit on anything.
When I say people can save money and retire who is there to say diferent lol
and
” sorta there””
is not there is it.
gunz: I don’t want to retire too early, my vast fortunes must continue accumulating so that one day I *will* have the money to buy my own country where I will survey all that I own from my mountaintop estate daily, and of course provide a sanctuary for goats. But only the fainting kind.
I’d like to comment on two important things that were mentioned by codebuster and piercedhead upthread, that really need to be viewed together in order to make sense: on the one hand, we have “equal opportunity” programs that separate productivity and skills from pay and advancement, and on the other we have the recognition that young men are increasingly disconnected from society and connected to video games (despite the best efforts of feminists–and indeed women in general–to shame them over it). Video games became the overwhelmingly popular form of entertainment among young men for several reasons, but the least discussed and most important of these is that they create better incentive structures than often exist in real life. In reality, the nice guy who puts in the effort and plays by the rules gets neither the girl nor the promotion. In a video game, these behaviors are rewarded, constantly encouraged, and end in success. In reality, the guy who comes up with an innovative new way to approach the problem is viewed as less important than whoever gets credit for it. In a video game, coming up with a new way to approach a problem is generally a dramatic advantage–and the game never tries to steal credit for it. In reality, even people ostensibly working with you have and act on incentives that are damaging to you. In a video game, sides are largely straightforward and incentives of mutual support are generally clear.
Video games are popular, in large part, because they create incentive structures that many people find so preferable to the ones that exist in actual human society that they will forsake the other benefits of human interaction in order to enjoy them.
I’m diggin’ the subtext. The subtext of the picture wherein the majority demographic of the population is made the minority in the photo.
Unless that lone white guy is gay.
That said, it’s either a picture of a staff meeting at the:
- Dept. of Education
- EEOC
- Oprah
- TSA
or, all of the above. Same diff.
@Arbitrary
I don’t know which video games you play, but the ones I play involve running over hookers with my car, beating them to death, keeping my pimp hand strong and generally committing violent crimes.
Video games are also popular with young men because so many of them, despite the uptick in girl gamers, are unapologetically and unabashedly male in orientation. You group together with mates to shoot other squads, take territory or defend it. Or you get a group of 40 people together and coordinate them to slay a badass dragon. And so on. It’s a male space, where boys can be boys without having to apologize for it or restrain themselves or be PC or any of it. It’s probably one of the only outlets available for this today (the others being things like the wrestling craze, or ESPN or similar things). At a time when one after the other male space has been colonized or de-maasculinized by women, (mostly) male programmers have been busy recreating male spaces in video games, and boys and young (and not so young) men have been flocking to these games as a kind of refuge where they can be guys with other guys. The videogame — particularly in multiplayer mode — has taken the place that the older male hangouts used to take of bringing guys together to shoot the breeze together. Those older spaces were mostly smashed by feminism (the sports bar remains, perhaps), and so video games have taken up the slack.
firepower:
good pick up on the picture. i think you’re the first to notice that. surprisingly, when i typed in “women in the boardroom” in a google image search, this was the first picture that came up. it was very fitting to my overall theme.
and i’m pretty sure the lone white guy is gay. the plaid shirt with canary colored tie couldn’t be put together by a heterosexual man.
so that’s a pretty diverse company there. by diverse i mean virtually bankrupt.
Yes, the “doing things you can’t do in real life” is also an important component of most video games. But the incentive structure of the game–and not of the reality of those sorts of actions–is likely as I described: putting in more time translates directly into greater achievement, following the directions of the game as given leads to success (even if those directions tell you to do things you can’t and/or shouldn’t do in reality), and coming up with new and different behaviors than originally expected by the designers is judged entirely based on results rather than outside approval (and you get the proceeds for their effectiveness).
Novaseeker,
The “male in orientation” is a consequence of who, in our society, would view things like open competition and rewards dependent upon effort as (1) desirable, and (2) requiring escapism. It is primarily males who fall into the first category, and primarily (but, unfortunately, decreasingly) the young who fall into the second.
That said, I agree entirely on your assessment of multiplayer environments.
Excellent observation, and something I can directly relate to. My own exit from the paid work-force was motivated by this same disconnect between effort/innovation and consequence. I now get much more pleasure and sense of accomplishment from doing whatever I can do for myself to survive outside of the formal economy, even though the dollar payback is a fraction of what it was. Everything I do now is mine. Every new and better way of doing things is entirely mine, without need for approval, reporting elsewhere or argument that I am the rightful beneficiary. Likewise, every mistake is also borne by me and the appropriate lesson learned – no mindless fine or jail sentence for breaking a law, no passing the buck into someone else’s in-tray. I can’t think of anything more vital to the human spirit than this autonomy – and if videogames are the most accessible things able to deliver it, then it is little wonder they are so successful.
”””””””””” Arbitrary January 27, 2010 at 12:33
I don’t know which video games you play, but the ones I play involve running over hookers with my car, beating them to death, keeping my pimp hand strong and generally committing violent crimes.
Yes, the “doing things you can’t do in real life†is also an important component of most video games. But the incentive structure of the game–and not of the reality of those sorts of actions–is likely as I described: putting in more time translates directly into greater achievement, following the directions of the game as given leads to success (even if those directions tell you to do things you can’t and/or shouldn’t do in reality), and coming up with new and different behaviors than originally expected by the designers is judged entirely based on results rather than outside approval (and you get the proceeds for their effectiveness).
””””””””””””””’
”””putting in more time translates directly into greater achievement””””’
It does in an hourly job. If you work 80 hours you get double what you get at 40 hours. I played ultima online for a few years. Real life is easier than the game to an extent because it i harder to pay people to work for you. With a business I can have someone work there and have them deliver the money to my bank without doing shit really.
””””””’ msexceptiontotherule January 27, 2010 at 10:50
gunz: I don’t want to retire too early, my vast fortunes must continue accumulating so that one day I *will* have the money to buy my own country where I will survey all that I own from my mountaintop estate daily, and of course provide a sanctuary for goats. But only the fainting kind.
”””””
Not talking about retiring from making money talking about retiring from working to make money.
Rereading my post, it looks like I’m excited just to “disprove” that you were the first to think of this. Well, what I was going through at the time was I was reading the original conversation with several comments still to read, I’d have to read them all because spouting out without knowing if it was already said would make me look like a fool, so it was really more or less “let’s see if I get to post this first” and it seems I was.
As for the movie, yeah, I didn’t really care for the implimentation if it really DID show the idea, the war weapons would’ve won, and the “traditional” toys wouldn’t win by the “Zap Brannigan” (futurama) way of sending wave after wave of your own Men to get killed to exceed the kill bot kill count, it just doesn’t work that way.
Just saying you weren’t alone in this idea, though showing it failing definitely counts as “missing the point”.
previous post @ Gunslinger
When applies it will work. Just need to get rid of pesky ballistic missiles but yea china just came up with their own test of an anti ballistic missile so yea on their way.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/china-conducted-anti-ballistic-missile-test-9982/
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/china-conducted-anti-ballistic-missile-test-9982/
U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads which as of 31 December 2006 stood at 3,696. Assembly line mass production the key to everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#cite_note-3
Patriot missiles,
Number built, over 8600
So really yea again mass production.
If you send 10k a day then yea not enough ammo in the world he he he
Never mind lack of launchers.
It is fair at the moment except when you negate the nukes conventional becomes viable. It is just that there is a way to seperate human emotion of fear from the battle and also seperate the human emotion of compassion. Plus you don’t lose your army they only get better you just lose equipment and when you mass produce it cheap who cares if you lose 40k or 100k or a million vehicle platforms as long as you win.
{ 3 trackbacks }