The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Hillary's New Video: "The Future Is Female"

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Couldn’t find an English version?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/hillarys-new-video-the-future-is-female/#comment-1758536
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If the future is female, then more must be done for males since the future will deny them.

    Btw, I thought the future was 50 genders. To say it’s ‘female’ is reactionary. What about all the genders between male and female?

  3. “Hillary’s New Video: “The Future Is Female””

    So much for: “Stronger Together”.

    https://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Together-Blueprint-Americas-Future/dp/1501161733

    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    Yeah, right! "Stronger Together". On the other hand, I suspect she was referring to The Sisterhood.

    Then again, Hillary always did have a problem with men so--no surprises here.
  4. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Judging by EU, the future will be Muslim.

    The GLOB cut off white male balls, and white males are allowed to be tough and macho ONLY IN antifa mode of bashing other whites. So, white females gained a lot of power in the new order. Since they are a punch of softy-proggies, they are for open borders to let all the pitiful immigrants in. But the immigrants are macho and angry, often Muslim or African. And they don’t listen to stupid white bitches. And so, rape is rising in Sweden and all over EU. But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.

    The future will be Muslim or African. Women cannot defend any order in the long run. The West castrated itself when it allowed women to lead and dominate.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.
     
    Allowed by who?

    Passive voice isn't very tough.
  5. Do the SJWs not consider a statement like this problematic? Does it include men who pretend like they are women?

    My other thought was that they are really trying hard to drive minority men away from the Democrats.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    A pretty amazingly large number of leftwing men have utterly internalized feminist misandry. I've stopped thinking "surely this goes too far. Surely lefty men/whites will pushback at this point". Remember when the blm black girls shut down a Bernie speech in Seattle ? A lot of us probably thought that the white bernie bros would start to pushback, They didn't . Bernie instead hired BLMers, among them milo's boyfriend Symone Sanders.
  6. This is very strange. A friend sent me a picture taken of Hillary taken at a Broadway show about a week ago and she is wearing that same strange shapeless brown suit that looks like it was made from a burlap sack. Does she wear the same thing every day now?

  7. Well Adam Carolla did write a book called “In 40 Years We’ll All be Chicks.” So maybe Hillary is right.

  8. I suspect that she is thinking of running again in 2020. She truly is half crocked.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I suspect that's mostly a line to try and keep her and Bill's "speaking fees" up. But she is more than capable of being genuinely delusional.
  9. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I thought the future was shemale? Hillary seems transphobic.

  10. The rest of the non-Western world will continue to treat women as badly as they always have.

  11. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-draws-cheers-criticism-future-female-line-n717736


    “…the phrase Clinton used grows out of 1970s lesbian separatist culture and is enjoying a vibrant second life today.

    “The Future Is Female” became re-popularized in 2015 by the lesbian-owned lifestyle brand Otherwild, which started producing a line of T-shirts and other items featuring the phrase in stark lettering against a plain background.

    Otherwild owner Rachel Berks told NBC News that she first came across “The Future Is Female” on the Instagram account @h_e_r_s_t_o_r_y, a lesbian culture archive.

    The account’s administrator had posted an archival photo of 1970s lesbian folk singer Alix Dobkin wearing a T-shirt with the phrase emblazoned across the chest. The photo was taken by Dobkin’s then-girlfriend, Liza Cowan, who told ID magazine in December 2015 that she identified as a lesbian separatist and that the slogan “The Future Is Female” was a “call to arms” and an “invocation.”

    Kelly Rakowski, who oversees the popular Instagram account (and its more than 70,000 followers), told NBC News that she sees the phrase as a “feminist declaration.”

    “It’s pretty wild to hear Hillary Clinton drop ‘The Future Is Female,’” Rakowski said . “I never thought that what I unearthed in the depths of the internet would be such a broad, cultural sensation.” “

  12. Hillary had a 1994 flashback and meant to say ” Yes the future is E – mail ” . At least she was right about something .

  13. “Is anyone else cold or is it just me?”

    Women always say that. Cold is interchangeable with hot. Possible reasons:

    1) Maybe they really are more sensitive to changes in temperature and atmospheric conditions than men. 2) Women are more scatterbrained, less focused than men, so their minds are always more open to small amounts of irrelevant incoming data. Maybe men are able to feel these small temp changes too, but don’t notice them because our attention tends to be absorbed by one thing at a time instead, and this one thing usually isn’t temperature.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    So you can't/couldn't find women of robust Arctic and Nordic ancestry who'd give you time of day (or invite you out for biathlon at 20 below or a week or two at Moose Camp)?

    Well, yeah. Not everyone is a winner in the mating stakes. Nor is expected to be.

  14. If the future is female, I’m all for it.

    I’ll sit and drink beer and laugh while a couple of girls crawl under my pickup truck in the middle of winter in an unheated garage to pull the transmission out and rebuild it. And I’ll sit and drink beer and laugh when the plumbers send a girl over to snake my feces out of a clogged toilet at 3 a.m., or when they send a roofing crew comprised entirely of girls to do a tear-off on a 90 degree summer day, or hire an all-girl lumberjack crew and sawmill crew.

    And I’ll gladly watch the girl coal miners with acrylic nails coming out of the mine at shift change time while I sit in the house and throw a load of laundry in and watch “Ellen” waiting for it to get done. After that I’ll grill a steak that had been cut by an all-girl crew at the slaughterhouse.

    Yeah, it’s going to be a great future, all right!

    • Replies: @TheJester
    Didn't you get the memo? The Feminist Manifesto only allows women to work in high-paying corporate jobs in air conditioned and centrally heated office buildings. Anything less is sexist and demeaning to women.
    , @Hill RE
    Spot on.
    This whole girl empower movement is filled with flaws and holes. It is little more than a fantasy which is already having negative repercussions and will have many more. It is a movement which is not based upon thinking things out clearly and being extremely hypocritical in the process.

    You have brought up several aspects which I have thought about but I don't see the female empowered proponents addressing.. I don't think such reality even crosses their mind.

    So many more of your scenarios could be added to the list.
    I will just add one more...
    When weather conditions are poor and people are losing power due to the storm knocking the lines down; when tornadoes, earthquakes, and tidal waves hit the shores; when nature rebels... who is out in the middle of that terrible storm trying their best to correct the problem??? It sure isn't the girls. Most of the time if you have to go out you won't even find a single woman out there working on the power lines or whatever. Let's add those jobs to your list too.... since the future is female. It just makes sense.
  15. Even in this day and age, I was shocked to hear something so directly anti-male.

  16. Well if insane multiculturalism ends up destroying the West, I wouldn’t bet against the future being East Asian. It’s incredibly sad in some sense to see successful countries basically ruin themselves from within…

    I think countries like China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are uniquely positioned to benefit from the current global political climate.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think its important that we do not "love our women as much" as the European men have, to the point that as a whole, they mostly have made no actions whatsoever to act against the interests of feminist groups.

    At some point, you do have to do something about the extremists if you're going to have to get any stability. Recognizing feminism as a cancer that spreads, and therefore needs early treatment, is important. Otherwise, its a war against men, only that the men don't fight back.
    , @mobi

    Well if insane multiculturalism ends up destroying the West, I wouldn’t bet against the future being East Asian. It’s incredibly sad in some sense to see successful countries basically ruin themselves from within…

    I think countries like China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are uniquely positioned to benefit from the current global political climate.
     

    But therein lies what seems to be The Achilles heel of your people in such a contest - that even though the social and economic restrictions on women's freedoms have been relaxed only a fraction of what they have over here, your women seem to lose interest in breeding at the fastest, most extreme rate on the planet.

    Even with fewer feminist freedoms, their fertility rates are already lowest of all.

    East Asian women, more than any, seem to possess the lowest 'innate desire' to have kids. If they aren't massively pressured into it, they'd rather shop, more or less.

    Trying to force that genie back into the bottle is hugely problematic, if not impossible (barring Islam, and is that a cure worse than the disease?)

  17. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The pendulum is swinging back to masculinity. Peak estrogen is over. The mommy parties are being voted out across the Western world.

    The truth is millions of men have spent the past few decades being polite toward feminism and female issues in general. But now the results are in and the picture isn’t pretty.

    Get ready for the epic reversal!

  18. “The Future Is Female”

    …..and Alix Dobkin still can’t get laid! Yuck…..and I say that as a guy with fairly low standards!

    http://seesaw.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54fabf0ec883301b8d16e0ce4970c-pi

  19. Neither the past nor the present are female, so it has to be the future.

    Although for some reason the future takes its sweet time arriving. For example, we were supposed to have a female president right now but it didn’t work out. Why do you think that was, Hillary?

    • Replies: @mobi

    Neither the past nor the present are female, so it has to be the future.
     
    ...and always will be.
  20. I think she left out the words “President of France” after “future.”

  21. Jesus. What more confirmation does one need that 2020 is in her cross hairs. She is starting to resemble Barbra Bush more each passing day.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    I thought she was affecting a Lena Dunham kind of thing in the video. Her hairstyle in particular--always a marker for the kind of character Hillary's trying to project--recalls Dunham's style (or non-style) in "Girls."

    Note also that the video is shot in a very amateurish way: bad lighting, poor framing, dismal background, glamourless. A head without a body (because the body is problematic). I suppose it's all part of the message: a dream of revolt by the flabby, frumpy, female SWPL SJWs.
  22. @Anon
    Judging by EU, the future will be Muslim.

    The GLOB cut off white male balls, and white males are allowed to be tough and macho ONLY IN antifa mode of bashing other whites. So, white females gained a lot of power in the new order. Since they are a punch of softy-proggies, they are for open borders to let all the pitiful immigrants in. But the immigrants are macho and angry, often Muslim or African. And they don't listen to stupid white bitches. And so, rape is rising in Sweden and all over EU. But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.

    The future will be Muslim or African. Women cannot defend any order in the long run. The West castrated itself when it allowed women to lead and dominate.

    But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.

    Allowed by who?

    Passive voice isn’t very tough.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Eh, the passive voice can be made masculine enough: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003414.html .

    I think you'll agree after reading that the toughness of the passive voice has been adequately demonstrated ...
    , @Fredrik
    White women won't allow white men to protect them.

    A lot of what we see today is happening because of female approval.
    , @AndrewR
    Whom
  23. I thought we were done hearing from the Clinton grifters.

    I am.

    Care to join me?

  24. What does this mean? It is so sadly, irrational, again, from Hillary, or whoever is still prepping her. I just spent an intensely exhausting time with family members with dementia. And, the one lasting great accomplishment that was evident after spending time with these once fierce women in my company & care for 2 weeks, is: they had several children each whose children are soaring. The future is not female or male…the future is the future. sheesh! Men can still decide they want docile women from the 3rd world – oh, wait, American women hadn’t thought of that!

    The future is tomorrow and next year when the same problems may not have been solved. The utter nonsense! My misogynistic head is about to explode. Can she just be a grandmother and do the stuff that grandmothers should care about, want to do? Someone should ask what she wants on her gravestone…keep her busy for the next 2 years!

    • Replies: @King Baeksu

    Men can still decide they want docile women from the 3rd world
     
    After twenty years in Asia, I can assure you that it's not quite that simple. Plus the Americanization of much of the world means that the SJW nonsense is everywhere here as well, and only growing in strength. The global future may not be entirely female, but it will indeed be thoroughly estrogen-drenched!
  25. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Maybe Hillary is entering her goofy old dingbat phase.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    anonymous, Please provide proof that she ever left that phase.
  26. Femaleness. It’s the way of the future…..the way of the future…..the way of the future……….the way of the future……..

    Let’s take a walk Hillary.

  27. 2017: Float “Future is Female” theme.
    2018: Whatever the hell it is that’s wrong with Bill finally kills him. Lotsa attention/sympathy for me.
    2019: Marry Huma. Adopt some black kids? (Check w/ Spielberg.)
    2020: My hat in the ring again. Michelle as VP. Testosterone-poisoned America will be ready at last.

  28. @Daniel H
    I suspect that she is thinking of running again in 2020. She truly is half crocked.

    I suspect that’s mostly a line to try and keep her and Bill’s “speaking fees” up. But she is more than capable of being genuinely delusional.

  29. @Lagertha
    What does this mean? It is so sadly, irrational, again, from Hillary, or whoever is still prepping her. I just spent an intensely exhausting time with family members with dementia. And, the one lasting great accomplishment that was evident after spending time with these once fierce women in my company & care for 2 weeks, is: they had several children each whose children are soaring. The future is not female or male...the future is the future. sheesh! Men can still decide they want docile women from the 3rd world - oh, wait, American women hadn't thought of that!

    The future is tomorrow and next year when the same problems may not have been solved. The utter nonsense! My misogynistic head is about to explode. Can she just be a grandmother and do the stuff that grandmothers should care about, want to do? Someone should ask what she wants on her gravestone...keep her busy for the next 2 years!

    Men can still decide they want docile women from the 3rd world

    After twenty years in Asia, I can assure you that it’s not quite that simple. Plus the Americanization of much of the world means that the SJW nonsense is everywhere here as well, and only growing in strength. The global future may not be entirely female, but it will indeed be thoroughly estrogen-drenched!

    • Agree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In the long run, and I do mean 'long', in the undetermined future when all has 'come out in the was' as it were, I doubt that will be the case.
    'Drive out nature with a pitchfork......'
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Its all relative, isn't it? So even if East Asia gets SJWized, its always seen as better because if it is less so.

    Personally, I would think that Russia seems to be going the right direction in squelching the cancer of feminism.
  30. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Desiderius

    But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.
     
    Allowed by who?

    Passive voice isn't very tough.

    Eh, the passive voice can be made masculine enough: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003414.html .

    I think you’ll agree after reading that the toughness of the passive voice has been adequately demonstrated …

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I see that Waugh's description of Ishmaelia in Scoop borrowed from Churchill's description of Sudan in The River War.
    , @Desiderius
    You're missing the point.

    Churchill employed passive voice in that passage to add variety to his prose, but he was always careful to provide both subjects and objects (where appropriate) for his verbs, both active and passive.

    You, on the other hand, employed a passive construction to unmanfully avoid the question of just who it is who is doing the allowing (or not allowing) that troubles you so. If you wish to tackle the problem, or convince anyone else that there is in fact a problem to be tackled, you're going to have to provide a subject for your sentence.
  31. You gotta give her credit. She doesn’t quit.

    I think she’s trying to position herself as the leading feminist spokeswoman in the wake of her loss, much like Gore made himself the leading environmentalist/climate change spokesman after his loss.

  32. @Anon
    Eh, the passive voice can be made masculine enough: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003414.html .

    I think you'll agree after reading that the toughness of the passive voice has been adequately demonstrated ...

    I see that Waugh’s description of Ishmaelia in Scoop borrowed from Churchill’s description of Sudan in The River War.

  33. I guess she wants the investigations into her bribes and emails to start up again

  34. @Desiderius

    But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.
     
    Allowed by who?

    Passive voice isn't very tough.

    White women won’t allow white men to protect them.

    A lot of what we see today is happening because of female approval.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    White women won’t allow white men to protect them.

     

    Speaking of which, did you see this in Dagens Nyheter?

    "Kanske är det männen som borde utvisas i stället?"

    ("Perhaps it's men who should be deported instead [of non-western immigrants]?")

    http://asikt.dn.se/asikt/debatt/vi-maste-prata-mer-om-vilka-som-valdtar/

    The writer is some oldish student/leftist of questionable origins, Hanna Sulkakoski, "who believes in cosmopolitan justice". Well! I'm surprised Bonniers let that one through.
  35. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Someone should post a YouTube link to the eerily prophetic 1980 ‘Worm that Turned’ miniseries by the acclaimed British comedy duo, ‘The Two Ronnies’.

  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @King Baeksu

    Men can still decide they want docile women from the 3rd world
     
    After twenty years in Asia, I can assure you that it's not quite that simple. Plus the Americanization of much of the world means that the SJW nonsense is everywhere here as well, and only growing in strength. The global future may not be entirely female, but it will indeed be thoroughly estrogen-drenched!

    In the long run, and I do mean ‘long’, in the undetermined future when all has ‘come out in the was’ as it were, I doubt that will be the case.
    ‘Drive out nature with a pitchfork……’

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Way way back in the 1930s, that great geneticist, Ronald Fisher, baldly stated that 'any nation which habitually practices contraception will, eventually, cease to exist'.
    Perhaps, in the same vein one might hazard that 'any nation which takes "sex equality" seriously, will ultimately cease to exist'.
  37. Reminds me an old, Polish comedy :D (Actually, IMO THE best Polish comedy of all times :D )

    … radiation was just a feminist lie to keep women underground and the surviving male population were “naturalised” into women by the feminists when they took power in the post-war period.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexmission

    “The League protects you, the league advises you, the league will never betray you!”

    http://kinoplay.pl/gfx/big/1312789853.1302.jpg

  38. @ben tillman
    Even in this day and age, I was shocked to hear something so directly anti-male.

    Agree. It’s a terrible slander.

  39. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    In the long run, and I do mean 'long', in the undetermined future when all has 'come out in the was' as it were, I doubt that will be the case.
    'Drive out nature with a pitchfork......'

    Way way back in the 1930s, that great geneticist, Ronald Fisher, baldly stated that ‘any nation which habitually practices contraception will, eventually, cease to exist’.
    Perhaps, in the same vein one might hazard that ‘any nation which takes “sex equality” seriously, will ultimately cease to exist’.

  40. Perhaps, in the same vein one might hazard that ‘any nation which takes “sex equality” seriously, will ultimately cease to exist’

    The Gulf region has been experiencing a massive baby boom for some time now, as has much of Africa. There’s an endless supply of virile, horny young men there who have no time for feminist nonsense and all that junk. Is it just a coincide that the feminized Democratic Party and their fey counterparts in Europe are so eager to open the floodgates and let in as many of these youths as possible? Feminists may pay lip service to “gender equality” in public, but only naifs and beta suckers take such pronouncements at face value!

  41. As Steve has pointed out, womens’ issues tend to take a back seat to conflict which is racial/ethnic/religious/tribal. This is common sense and it’s also the observed lesson of recent history.

    So I suspect that the window is rapidly closing on Hillary’s female future.

  42. @Fredrik
    White women won't allow white men to protect them.

    A lot of what we see today is happening because of female approval.

    White women won’t allow white men to protect them.

    Speaking of which, did you see this in Dagens Nyheter?

    “Kanske är det männen som borde utvisas i stället?”

    (“Perhaps it’s men who should be deported instead [of non-western immigrants]?”)

    http://asikt.dn.se/asikt/debatt/vi-maste-prata-mer-om-vilka-som-valdtar/

    The writer is some oldish student/leftist of questionable origins, Hanna Sulkakoski, “who believes in cosmopolitan justice”. Well! I’m surprised Bonniers let that one through.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    oldish student/leftist of questionable origins, Hanna Sulkakoski
    ----
    Sounds like someone who writes for the NPR show "This Jewish Life" err I mean "This American Life".
    , @Fredrik
    Yeah,
    that's really unexpected. I'm no longer reading DN unless an article has been recommended by reliable persons. I'd say it's best for my long term health do ignore DN.
  43. @Desiderius

    But white men are not allowed to be tough and defend their women.
     
    Allowed by who?

    Passive voice isn't very tough.

    Whom

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I may be mistaken, but I believe the who here is subject (the one allowing), rather than object, so should be "who".
  44. @Dr. X
    If the future is female, I'm all for it.

    I'll sit and drink beer and laugh while a couple of girls crawl under my pickup truck in the middle of winter in an unheated garage to pull the transmission out and rebuild it. And I'll sit and drink beer and laugh when the plumbers send a girl over to snake my feces out of a clogged toilet at 3 a.m., or when they send a roofing crew comprised entirely of girls to do a tear-off on a 90 degree summer day, or hire an all-girl lumberjack crew and sawmill crew.

    And I'll gladly watch the girl coal miners with acrylic nails coming out of the mine at shift change time while I sit in the house and throw a load of laundry in and watch "Ellen" waiting for it to get done. After that I'll grill a steak that had been cut by an all-girl crew at the slaughterhouse.

    Yeah, it's going to be a great future, all right!

    Didn’t you get the memo? The Feminist Manifesto only allows women to work in high-paying corporate jobs in air conditioned and centrally heated office buildings. Anything less is sexist and demeaning to women.

    • Replies: @Dr. X

    The Feminist Manifesto only allows women to work in high-paying corporate jobs in air conditioned and centrally heated office buildings. Anything less is sexist and demeaning to women.
     
    Yep... feminists sure want "equality" -- as long as "equality" is defined as making $100,000 a year as a lawyer or professor in a comfortable office without ever breaking a nail. And getting plenty of coffee breaks and flex-time.

    Check your privilege, all you white male lumberjacks and truckers!
  45. @newrouter
    "Hillary's New Video: "The Future Is Female""


    So much for: "Stronger Together".

    https://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Together-Blueprint-Americas-Future/dp/1501161733

    Yeah, right! “Stronger Together”. On the other hand, I suspect she was referring to The Sisterhood.

    Then again, Hillary always did have a problem with men so–no surprises here.

  46. @King Baeksu

    Men can still decide they want docile women from the 3rd world
     
    After twenty years in Asia, I can assure you that it's not quite that simple. Plus the Americanization of much of the world means that the SJW nonsense is everywhere here as well, and only growing in strength. The global future may not be entirely female, but it will indeed be thoroughly estrogen-drenched!

    Its all relative, isn’t it? So even if East Asia gets SJWized, its always seen as better because if it is less so.

    Personally, I would think that Russia seems to be going the right direction in squelching the cancer of feminism.

  47. Hillary should have been honest and come up with a video called: “I am the past, and so are all nice (and not so nice like me) white ladies”

  48. Nah, the future is AI.

    When our robot overlords rule, we’ll regret not having made the future human.

  49. @Yan Shen
    Well if insane multiculturalism ends up destroying the West, I wouldn't bet against the future being East Asian. It's incredibly sad in some sense to see successful countries basically ruin themselves from within...

    I think countries like China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are uniquely positioned to benefit from the current global political climate.

    I think its important that we do not “love our women as much” as the European men have, to the point that as a whole, they mostly have made no actions whatsoever to act against the interests of feminist groups.

    At some point, you do have to do something about the extremists if you’re going to have to get any stability. Recognizing feminism as a cancer that spreads, and therefore needs early treatment, is important. Otherwise, its a war against men, only that the men don’t fight back.

  50. @Barnard
    Do the SJWs not consider a statement like this problematic? Does it include men who pretend like they are women?

    My other thought was that they are really trying hard to drive minority men away from the Democrats.

    A pretty amazingly large number of leftwing men have utterly internalized feminist misandry. I’ve stopped thinking “surely this goes too far. Surely lefty men/whites will pushback at this point”. Remember when the blm black girls shut down a Bernie speech in Seattle ? A lot of us probably thought that the white bernie bros would start to pushback, They didn’t . Bernie instead hired BLMers, among them milo’s boyfriend Symone Sanders.

  51. @Pericles

    White women won’t allow white men to protect them.

     

    Speaking of which, did you see this in Dagens Nyheter?

    "Kanske är det männen som borde utvisas i stället?"

    ("Perhaps it's men who should be deported instead [of non-western immigrants]?")

    http://asikt.dn.se/asikt/debatt/vi-maste-prata-mer-om-vilka-som-valdtar/

    The writer is some oldish student/leftist of questionable origins, Hanna Sulkakoski, "who believes in cosmopolitan justice". Well! I'm surprised Bonniers let that one through.

    oldish student/leftist of questionable origins, Hanna Sulkakoski
    —-
    Sounds like someone who writes for the NPR show “This Jewish Life” err I mean “This American Life”.

  52. @Kyle a
    Jesus. What more confirmation does one need that 2020 is in her cross hairs. She is starting to resemble Barbra Bush more each passing day.

    I thought she was affecting a Lena Dunham kind of thing in the video. Her hairstyle in particular–always a marker for the kind of character Hillary’s trying to project–recalls Dunham’s style (or non-style) in “Girls.”

    Note also that the video is shot in a very amateurish way: bad lighting, poor framing, dismal background, glamourless. A head without a body (because the body is problematic). I suppose it’s all part of the message: a dream of revolt by the flabby, frumpy, female SWPL SJWs.

  53. @anonymous
    Maybe Hillary is entering her goofy old dingbat phase.

    anonymous, Please provide proof that she ever left that phase.

  54. I wonder how long the Dems will allow Hillary to pseudo represent them. People like Elizabeth Warren need to be front and center if they aspire to be POTUS. Hillary proved that she could turn off people and sway them to the other side.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    shhhhhhh! Don't give them any rational ideas. However, all the Democrats are so annoying now, so obnoxious, petulant every time they open their mouths that the public is turning against them. I predict there will not be a Democrat President in decades. And, as you guys know, my predictions are accurate :) As the economy gets better, money wins.

    Hillary can't help herself...like a true NPD person, she must stay in the limelight. I thought the ongoing investigation would surely make her lay low. What's the latest on that? Anyone know?

  55. @Pericles

    White women won’t allow white men to protect them.

     

    Speaking of which, did you see this in Dagens Nyheter?

    "Kanske är det männen som borde utvisas i stället?"

    ("Perhaps it's men who should be deported instead [of non-western immigrants]?")

    http://asikt.dn.se/asikt/debatt/vi-maste-prata-mer-om-vilka-som-valdtar/

    The writer is some oldish student/leftist of questionable origins, Hanna Sulkakoski, "who believes in cosmopolitan justice". Well! I'm surprised Bonniers let that one through.

    Yeah,
    that’s really unexpected. I’m no longer reading DN unless an article has been recommended by reliable persons. I’d say it’s best for my long term health do ignore DN.

  56. @inertial
    Neither the past nor the present are female, so it has to be the future.

    Although for some reason the future takes its sweet time arriving. For example, we were supposed to have a female president right now but it didn't work out. Why do you think that was, Hillary?

    Neither the past nor the present are female, so it has to be the future.

    …and always will be.

  57. @Yan Shen
    Well if insane multiculturalism ends up destroying the West, I wouldn't bet against the future being East Asian. It's incredibly sad in some sense to see successful countries basically ruin themselves from within...

    I think countries like China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are uniquely positioned to benefit from the current global political climate.

    Well if insane multiculturalism ends up destroying the West, I wouldn’t bet against the future being East Asian. It’s incredibly sad in some sense to see successful countries basically ruin themselves from within…

    I think countries like China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are uniquely positioned to benefit from the current global political climate.

    But therein lies what seems to be The Achilles heel of your people in such a contest – that even though the social and economic restrictions on women’s freedoms have been relaxed only a fraction of what they have over here, your women seem to lose interest in breeding at the fastest, most extreme rate on the planet.

    Even with fewer feminist freedoms, their fertility rates are already lowest of all.

    East Asian women, more than any, seem to possess the lowest ‘innate desire’ to have kids. If they aren’t massively pressured into it, they’d rather shop, more or less.

    Trying to force that genie back into the bottle is hugely problematic, if not impossible (barring Islam, and is that a cure worse than the disease?)

    • Replies: @Yan Shen

    But therein lies what seems to be The Achilles heel of your people in such a contest
     
    As a US citizen, "my people" are the other fellow citizens of the United States!
  58. @Glossy
    "Is anyone else cold or is it just me?"

    Women always say that. Cold is interchangeable with hot. Possible reasons:

    1) Maybe they really are more sensitive to changes in temperature and atmospheric conditions than men. 2) Women are more scatterbrained, less focused than men, so their minds are always more open to small amounts of irrelevant incoming data. Maybe men are able to feel these small temp changes too, but don't notice them because our attention tends to be absorbed by one thing at a time instead, and this one thing usually isn't temperature.

    So you can’t/couldn’t find women of robust Arctic and Nordic ancestry who’d give you time of day (or invite you out for biathlon at 20 below or a week or two at Moose Camp)?

    Well, yeah. Not everyone is a winner in the mating stakes. Nor is expected to be.

  59. @TheJester
    Didn't you get the memo? The Feminist Manifesto only allows women to work in high-paying corporate jobs in air conditioned and centrally heated office buildings. Anything less is sexist and demeaning to women.

    The Feminist Manifesto only allows women to work in high-paying corporate jobs in air conditioned and centrally heated office buildings. Anything less is sexist and demeaning to women.

    Yep… feminists sure want “equality” — as long as “equality” is defined as making $100,000 a year as a lawyer or professor in a comfortable office without ever breaking a nail. And getting plenty of coffee breaks and flex-time.

    Check your privilege, all you white male lumberjacks and truckers!

  60. Much as I rebel against it instinctively, she has a point.

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.

    The farther back we go, the more the balance of power favored size, strength, and aggression. But this is equivalent, roughly, to ‘the more primitive the society, the greater the male advantage’

    But brawnpower is evaporating. The pace is accelerating. The first great disruption was probably the emancipation of really smart males – the rise of the Nerds. Freed from subjugation to the jocks, basically. Primitive societies are high school writ large, in a sense.

    This was accompanied by serious disruption, some of it quite destructive. But would anyone seriously contend that we would be better off ruled across the board by military types, say – or worse, the current ranks of the UFC?

    The second great emancipation by brainpower had to be that of women vs men.

    It is likely to be at least as disruptive, and just as unpleasant to many who lose status. But taking the position that it shouldn’t happen, that we need to go back to the old, patriarchal ways, strikes me as indeed standing on the wrong side of history.

    Societies that assign power based on talent – especially smarts – will be stronger in the long run than those that shackle half the population based on gender (hello, Islam). I still believe it. We can’t see it clearly yet because we’re caught in the middle of it – one of the greatest transitions of power in human history.

    Like all great transitions, it’s likely to be full of excesses.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.
     
    Not in the part of the population distribution that matters most.

    You've learned your catechism well. It is wrong.
    , @The most deplorable one

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.
     
    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.

    However, the other things that males do far better than females is cooperate in groups. Females are lousy at that, and get all bitchy after more than two are together. Further, as we just saw in this article:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303282

    the number of women made no difference and it was all down to the average IQ of the group.

    Further, however, since women know in their genes that they can get by by opening their legs they have less incentive to perform at the highest levels.

    [1] Having two X chromosomes, which are enhanced in genes expressed in the brain is a bit of a curse, because they average their effects.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Read Smart and SeXy. Males will always have a fundamental advantage at the smart fraction due to higher variance. Its unavoidable.
  61. @Buffalo Joe
    I wonder how long the Dems will allow Hillary to pseudo represent them. People like Elizabeth Warren need to be front and center if they aspire to be POTUS. Hillary proved that she could turn off people and sway them to the other side.

    shhhhhhh! Don’t give them any rational ideas. However, all the Democrats are so annoying now, so obnoxious, petulant every time they open their mouths that the public is turning against them. I predict there will not be a Democrat President in decades. And, as you guys know, my predictions are accurate :) As the economy gets better, money wins.

    Hillary can’t help herself…like a true NPD person, she must stay in the limelight. I thought the ongoing investigation would surely make her lay low. What’s the latest on that? Anyone know?

  62. @Anon
    Eh, the passive voice can be made masculine enough: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003414.html .

    I think you'll agree after reading that the toughness of the passive voice has been adequately demonstrated ...

    You’re missing the point.

    Churchill employed passive voice in that passage to add variety to his prose, but he was always careful to provide both subjects and objects (where appropriate) for his verbs, both active and passive.

    You, on the other hand, employed a passive construction to unmanfully avoid the question of just who it is who is doing the allowing (or not allowing) that troubles you so. If you wish to tackle the problem, or convince anyone else that there is in fact a problem to be tackled, you’re going to have to provide a subject for your sentence.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I'm not the original Anon; I didn't notice that the OP was anon, or I'd have used a different name.
    I can't answer your question about the allowing agent.
    This should teach me not to post under a generic name; it probably won't, unfortunately, but I'll try to be more careful in future.
    Sorry for any resulting confusion.

    Did you like The River War? I don't think the future of the Sudan is going to be very female ...

    RB

  63. @AndrewR
    Whom

    I may be mistaken, but I believe the who here is subject (the one allowing), rather than object, so should be “who”.

    • Replies: @Anon
    No, you're missing the point of the passive voice, which is that the noun signifying that to which action is being done (the experiencer) is the subject of the sentence and accordingly inflected. The agent is designated, if designated at all, in a prepositional phrase, employing what would be the ablative case in Latin, but is simply the objective case in English.

    What you are criticizing is not the use of the passive voice but a vagueness as to agency.
  64. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Desiderius
    I may be mistaken, but I believe the who here is subject (the one allowing), rather than object, so should be "who".

    No, you’re missing the point of the passive voice, which is that the noun signifying that to which action is being done (the experiencer) is the subject of the sentence and accordingly inflected. The agent is designated, if designated at all, in a prepositional phrase, employing what would be the ablative case in Latin, but is simply the objective case in English.

    What you are criticizing is not the use of the passive voice but a vagueness as to agency.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    What you are criticizing is not the use of the passive voice but a vagueness as to agency.
     
    As if the former was not employed to achieve the latter.
  65. @mobi

    Well if insane multiculturalism ends up destroying the West, I wouldn’t bet against the future being East Asian. It’s incredibly sad in some sense to see successful countries basically ruin themselves from within…

    I think countries like China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are uniquely positioned to benefit from the current global political climate.
     

    But therein lies what seems to be The Achilles heel of your people in such a contest - that even though the social and economic restrictions on women's freedoms have been relaxed only a fraction of what they have over here, your women seem to lose interest in breeding at the fastest, most extreme rate on the planet.

    Even with fewer feminist freedoms, their fertility rates are already lowest of all.

    East Asian women, more than any, seem to possess the lowest 'innate desire' to have kids. If they aren't massively pressured into it, they'd rather shop, more or less.

    Trying to force that genie back into the bottle is hugely problematic, if not impossible (barring Islam, and is that a cure worse than the disease?)

    But therein lies what seems to be The Achilles heel of your people in such a contest

    As a US citizen, “my people” are the other fellow citizens of the United States!

  66. L’avenir est féminin.
    Die Zukunft ist weiblich.

    It’s not just Marine Le Pen.
    And her daughter, Marion… Oooh la la!
    Don’t forget Frauke Petry. She’s cute, too.
    Someone should make a fansite of all the cute Euro fashettes.

  67. @mobi
    Much as I rebel against it instinctively, she has a point.

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in 'brawnpower'.

    The farther back we go, the more the balance of power favored size, strength, and aggression. But this is equivalent, roughly, to 'the more primitive the society, the greater the male advantage'

    But brawnpower is evaporating. The pace is accelerating. The first great disruption was probably the emancipation of really smart males - the rise of the Nerds. Freed from subjugation to the jocks, basically. Primitive societies are high school writ large, in a sense.

    This was accompanied by serious disruption, some of it quite destructive. But would anyone seriously contend that we would be better off ruled across the board by military types, say - or worse, the current ranks of the UFC?

    The second great emancipation by brainpower had to be that of women vs men.

    It is likely to be at least as disruptive, and just as unpleasant to many who lose status. But taking the position that it shouldn't happen, that we need to go back to the old, patriarchal ways, strikes me as indeed standing on the wrong side of history.

    Societies that assign power based on talent - especially smarts - will be stronger in the long run than those that shackle half the population based on gender (hello, Islam). I still believe it. We can't see it clearly yet because we're caught in the middle of it - one of the greatest transitions of power in human history.

    Like all great transitions, it's likely to be full of excesses.

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.

    Not in the part of the population distribution that matters most.

    You’ve learned your catechism well. It is wrong.

    • Replies: @mobi

    Not in the part of the population distribution that matters most.

    You’ve learned your catechism well. It is wrong.
     
    That's for the future.

    The present, and especially the past, underweights 'women's way of doing things', based on brawn over brains.
  68. @Yan Shen

    But therein lies what seems to be The Achilles heel of your people in such a contest
     
    As a US citizen, "my people" are the other fellow citizens of the United States!

    Well said. Good to have you.

  69. @Anon
    No, you're missing the point of the passive voice, which is that the noun signifying that to which action is being done (the experiencer) is the subject of the sentence and accordingly inflected. The agent is designated, if designated at all, in a prepositional phrase, employing what would be the ablative case in Latin, but is simply the objective case in English.

    What you are criticizing is not the use of the passive voice but a vagueness as to agency.

    What you are criticizing is not the use of the passive voice but a vagueness as to agency.

    As if the former was not employed to achieve the latter.

    • Replies: @Anon
    But nowadays white men can no longer be tough and protect their women.

    Still no hint given as to why not. I'd say this was semantically equivalent to the original sentence, for all practical contexts.

    A hint on when to use "who" and when to use "whom": substitute "he" (/they) for "who" and "him" (/them) for "whom", and see which sounds more natural.

    So "allowed by him" instead of "allowed by he" => "allowed by whom". This works almost all the time.

  70. @mobi
    Much as I rebel against it instinctively, she has a point.

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in 'brawnpower'.

    The farther back we go, the more the balance of power favored size, strength, and aggression. But this is equivalent, roughly, to 'the more primitive the society, the greater the male advantage'

    But brawnpower is evaporating. The pace is accelerating. The first great disruption was probably the emancipation of really smart males - the rise of the Nerds. Freed from subjugation to the jocks, basically. Primitive societies are high school writ large, in a sense.

    This was accompanied by serious disruption, some of it quite destructive. But would anyone seriously contend that we would be better off ruled across the board by military types, say - or worse, the current ranks of the UFC?

    The second great emancipation by brainpower had to be that of women vs men.

    It is likely to be at least as disruptive, and just as unpleasant to many who lose status. But taking the position that it shouldn't happen, that we need to go back to the old, patriarchal ways, strikes me as indeed standing on the wrong side of history.

    Societies that assign power based on talent - especially smarts - will be stronger in the long run than those that shackle half the population based on gender (hello, Islam). I still believe it. We can't see it clearly yet because we're caught in the middle of it - one of the greatest transitions of power in human history.

    Like all great transitions, it's likely to be full of excesses.

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.

    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.

    However, the other things that males do far better than females is cooperate in groups. Females are lousy at that, and get all bitchy after more than two are together. Further, as we just saw in this article:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303282

    the number of women made no difference and it was all down to the average IQ of the group.

    Further, however, since women know in their genes that they can get by by opening their legs they have less incentive to perform at the highest levels.

    [1] Having two X chromosomes, which are enhanced in genes expressed in the brain is a bit of a curse, because they average their effects.

    • Replies: @mobi

    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.
     
    Yes, I knew that.

    Should I assume you're unaware that IQ variance is symmetrical?
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Well, it's a bit more complex than that.

    Because most of one X in each cell in a female is inactivated (randomly) the effect is to average.

    Since males only have one, they get the full force, high or low.
  71. @Desiderius

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.
     
    Not in the part of the population distribution that matters most.

    You've learned your catechism well. It is wrong.

    Not in the part of the population distribution that matters most.

    You’ve learned your catechism well. It is wrong.

    That’s for the future.

    The present, and especially the past, underweights ‘women’s way of doing things’, based on brawn over brains.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, I think is has more to do with underweighting those things women are good at creating, principally families.
  72. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Desiderius

    What you are criticizing is not the use of the passive voice but a vagueness as to agency.
     
    As if the former was not employed to achieve the latter.

    But nowadays white men can no longer be tough and protect their women.

    Still no hint given as to why not. I’d say this was semantically equivalent to the original sentence, for all practical contexts.

    A hint on when to use “who” and when to use “whom”: substitute “he” (/they) for “who” and “him” (/them) for “whom”, and see which sounds more natural.

    So “allowed by him” instead of “allowed by he” => “allowed by whom”. This works almost all the time.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Thanks. Makes sense.

    Still no hint given as to why not.
     
    Yes, that was my original point. The reference to passive voice was a turn of phrase.
  73. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Desiderius
    You're missing the point.

    Churchill employed passive voice in that passage to add variety to his prose, but he was always careful to provide both subjects and objects (where appropriate) for his verbs, both active and passive.

    You, on the other hand, employed a passive construction to unmanfully avoid the question of just who it is who is doing the allowing (or not allowing) that troubles you so. If you wish to tackle the problem, or convince anyone else that there is in fact a problem to be tackled, you're going to have to provide a subject for your sentence.

    I’m not the original Anon; I didn’t notice that the OP was anon, or I’d have used a different name.
    I can’t answer your question about the allowing agent.
    This should teach me not to post under a generic name; it probably won’t, unfortunately, but I’ll try to be more careful in future.
    Sorry for any resulting confusion.

    Did you like The River War? I don’t think the future of the Sudan is going to be very female …

    RB

  74. @Anon
    But nowadays white men can no longer be tough and protect their women.

    Still no hint given as to why not. I'd say this was semantically equivalent to the original sentence, for all practical contexts.

    A hint on when to use "who" and when to use "whom": substitute "he" (/they) for "who" and "him" (/them) for "whom", and see which sounds more natural.

    So "allowed by him" instead of "allowed by he" => "allowed by whom". This works almost all the time.

    Thanks. Makes sense.

    Still no hint given as to why not.

    Yes, that was my original point. The reference to passive voice was a turn of phrase.

  75. I can’t answer your question about the allowing agent.

    Don’t sell yourself short.

  76. @mobi

    Not in the part of the population distribution that matters most.

    You’ve learned your catechism well. It is wrong.
     
    That's for the future.

    The present, and especially the past, underweights 'women's way of doing things', based on brawn over brains.

    No, I think is has more to do with underweighting those things women are good at creating, principally families.

  77. @The most deplorable one

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.
     
    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.

    However, the other things that males do far better than females is cooperate in groups. Females are lousy at that, and get all bitchy after more than two are together. Further, as we just saw in this article:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303282

    the number of women made no difference and it was all down to the average IQ of the group.

    Further, however, since women know in their genes that they can get by by opening their legs they have less incentive to perform at the highest levels.

    [1] Having two X chromosomes, which are enhanced in genes expressed in the brain is a bit of a curse, because they average their effects.

    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.

    Yes, I knew that.

    Should I assume you’re unaware that IQ variance is symmetrical?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    Should I assume you’re unaware that IQ variance is symmetrical?
     
    Well, approximately symmetrical. There is a lower limit, after all.

    However, why does that matter?

    Progress does not seem to depend on having more average people, rather, it seems to depend on the ability of above average people to come up with things that they can convince average people to do.

    And, as a result of the larger variance in males, there are just more above average males. And females just do not cooperate well in the way that males do. It's genetic.
  78. @mobi
    Much as I rebel against it instinctively, she has a point.

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in 'brawnpower'.

    The farther back we go, the more the balance of power favored size, strength, and aggression. But this is equivalent, roughly, to 'the more primitive the society, the greater the male advantage'

    But brawnpower is evaporating. The pace is accelerating. The first great disruption was probably the emancipation of really smart males - the rise of the Nerds. Freed from subjugation to the jocks, basically. Primitive societies are high school writ large, in a sense.

    This was accompanied by serious disruption, some of it quite destructive. But would anyone seriously contend that we would be better off ruled across the board by military types, say - or worse, the current ranks of the UFC?

    The second great emancipation by brainpower had to be that of women vs men.

    It is likely to be at least as disruptive, and just as unpleasant to many who lose status. But taking the position that it shouldn't happen, that we need to go back to the old, patriarchal ways, strikes me as indeed standing on the wrong side of history.

    Societies that assign power based on talent - especially smarts - will be stronger in the long run than those that shackle half the population based on gender (hello, Islam). I still believe it. We can't see it clearly yet because we're caught in the middle of it - one of the greatest transitions of power in human history.

    Like all great transitions, it's likely to be full of excesses.

    Read Smart and SeXy. Males will always have a fundamental advantage at the smart fraction due to higher variance. Its unavoidable.

    • Replies: @res
    That may be true, but mobi's earlier point still stands: "...brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in 'brawnpower'."

    In brawnpower we are talking significant differences in group means so the differences are not just in the tails. Here is an example from Razib of just how dramatic the strength differences can be:
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/men-are-stronger-than-women-on-average/
  79. @Daniel Chieh
    Read Smart and SeXy. Males will always have a fundamental advantage at the smart fraction due to higher variance. Its unavoidable.

    That may be true, but mobi’s earlier point still stands: “…brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.”

    In brawnpower we are talking significant differences in group means so the differences are not just in the tails. Here is an example from Razib of just how dramatic the strength differences can be:

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/men-are-stronger-than-women-on-average/

  80. @The most deplorable one

    The long arc of history bends toward brainpower. Men have far less advantage there than they do in ‘brawnpower’.
     
    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.

    However, the other things that males do far better than females is cooperate in groups. Females are lousy at that, and get all bitchy after more than two are together. Further, as we just saw in this article:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303282

    the number of women made no difference and it was all down to the average IQ of the group.

    Further, however, since women know in their genes that they can get by by opening their legs they have less incentive to perform at the highest levels.

    [1] Having two X chromosomes, which are enhanced in genes expressed in the brain is a bit of a curse, because they average their effects.

    Well, it’s a bit more complex than that.

    Because most of one X in each cell in a female is inactivated (randomly) the effect is to average.

    Since males only have one, they get the full force, high or low.

  81. @mobi

    You seem unaware of the actual facts.

    The male variance in IQ is larger than the female variance (and for good reasons.[1]). This means that there are more males at any IQ point above about .5SD above the mean and the ratios get absolutely huge out at 3SDs.
     
    Yes, I knew that.

    Should I assume you're unaware that IQ variance is symmetrical?

    Should I assume you’re unaware that IQ variance is symmetrical?

    Well, approximately symmetrical. There is a lower limit, after all.

    However, why does that matter?

    Progress does not seem to depend on having more average people, rather, it seems to depend on the ability of above average people to come up with things that they can convince average people to do.

    And, as a result of the larger variance in males, there are just more above average males. And females just do not cooperate well in the way that males do. It’s genetic.

    • Replies: @mobi

    Well, approximately symmetrical. There is a lower limit, after all.

    However, why does that matter?

    Progress does not seem to depend on having more average people, rather, it seems to depend on the ability of above average people to come up with things that they can convince average people to do.
     

    I'll not try to deny that '3 SDs and above' is important. But it's exceedingly rare. For all intents and purposes, it's virtually irrelevant to day-to-day decisions about how things are to be done.

    How many American presidents, say, possessed IQs of 145 or above? Zero?

    I posted recently:


    ...when IQ differences are greater than 30 points, leader/follower relationships will break down or will not form. It establishes an absolute limit to the intellectual gulf between leader and followers...there was an D15IQ 'sweet spot' of best outcomes from 123 to 144.

    ...persuasiveness is at its maximum when the IQ differential between speaker and audience is about 20 points... This has been corroborated with empirical studies of manager and leader success, which peaks between a 1.0 and 1.2 standard deviation differential.
     

    http://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html


    India possesses many geniuses. For that matter, so does Africa. And yet, somehow, they remain India and Africa.

    The whole curve matters more than any part of it. And the average matters most of all to the general state and structure of a society, because far more people are located there.

    Men are minimally smarter than women on average. The fact that, until very recently, they dominated women much as they do in Saudi Arabia today had little to do with brainpower.

    Surely this can't be controversial (and if it's false, what happened to males' IQs in the last 100 years that they have ceded so much of that historical dominance? More so the more advanced the society.)

    Sure, if the day arrives that the bottom 90% of the Bell curve is rendered obsolete, and powerless or worse, men might regain their historical dominance over women.

  82. @Peripatetic commenter

    Should I assume you’re unaware that IQ variance is symmetrical?
     
    Well, approximately symmetrical. There is a lower limit, after all.

    However, why does that matter?

    Progress does not seem to depend on having more average people, rather, it seems to depend on the ability of above average people to come up with things that they can convince average people to do.

    And, as a result of the larger variance in males, there are just more above average males. And females just do not cooperate well in the way that males do. It's genetic.

    Well, approximately symmetrical. There is a lower limit, after all.

    However, why does that matter?

    Progress does not seem to depend on having more average people, rather, it seems to depend on the ability of above average people to come up with things that they can convince average people to do.

    I’ll not try to deny that ’3 SDs and above’ is important. But it’s exceedingly rare. For all intents and purposes, it’s virtually irrelevant to day-to-day decisions about how things are to be done.

    How many American presidents, say, possessed IQs of 145 or above? Zero?

    I posted recently:

    …when IQ differences are greater than 30 points, leader/follower relationships will break down or will not form. It establishes an absolute limit to the intellectual gulf between leader and followers…there was an D15IQ ‘sweet spot’ of best outcomes from 123 to 144.

    …persuasiveness is at its maximum when the IQ differential between speaker and audience is about 20 points… This has been corroborated with empirical studies of manager and leader success, which peaks between a 1.0 and 1.2 standard deviation differential.

    http://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

    India possesses many geniuses. For that matter, so does Africa. And yet, somehow, they remain India and Africa.

    The whole curve matters more than any part of it. And the average matters most of all to the general state and structure of a society, because far more people are located there.

    Men are minimally smarter than women on average. The fact that, until very recently, they dominated women much as they do in Saudi Arabia today had little to do with brainpower.

    Surely this can’t be controversial (and if it’s false, what happened to males’ IQs in the last 100 years that they have ceded so much of that historical dominance? More so the more advanced the society.)

    Sure, if the day arrives that the bottom 90% of the Bell curve is rendered obsolete, and powerless or worse, men might regain their historical dominance over women.

  83. Another asinine comment by a power mad two time loser. She’s not referring to females in the traditional sense she is referring to feminists. The future will never belong to feminists. Scientifically speaking feminists should and will go extinct due to their hatred for masculine male and procreation.

  84. @Dr. X
    If the future is female, I'm all for it.

    I'll sit and drink beer and laugh while a couple of girls crawl under my pickup truck in the middle of winter in an unheated garage to pull the transmission out and rebuild it. And I'll sit and drink beer and laugh when the plumbers send a girl over to snake my feces out of a clogged toilet at 3 a.m., or when they send a roofing crew comprised entirely of girls to do a tear-off on a 90 degree summer day, or hire an all-girl lumberjack crew and sawmill crew.

    And I'll gladly watch the girl coal miners with acrylic nails coming out of the mine at shift change time while I sit in the house and throw a load of laundry in and watch "Ellen" waiting for it to get done. After that I'll grill a steak that had been cut by an all-girl crew at the slaughterhouse.

    Yeah, it's going to be a great future, all right!

    Spot on.
    This whole girl empower movement is filled with flaws and holes. It is little more than a fantasy which is already having negative repercussions and will have many more. It is a movement which is not based upon thinking things out clearly and being extremely hypocritical in the process.

    You have brought up several aspects which I have thought about but I don’t see the female empowered proponents addressing.. I don’t think such reality even crosses their mind.

    So many more of your scenarios could be added to the list.
    I will just add one more…
    When weather conditions are poor and people are losing power due to the storm knocking the lines down; when tornadoes, earthquakes, and tidal waves hit the shores; when nature rebels… who is out in the middle of that terrible storm trying their best to correct the problem??? It sure isn’t the girls. Most of the time if you have to go out you won’t even find a single woman out there working on the power lines or whatever. Let’s add those jobs to your list too…. since the future is female. It just makes sense.

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.