The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How Feminism Holds Women Back from High Achievement
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We live in an era when females outperform males on average at a wide range of routine tasks, such as coloring within the lines, turning homework in on time, graduating from high school and college, not going to jail, pulling together marketing plans, not dying, and the like.

When the culture decided around 1964 to stop propagandizing in favor of “self-discipline” and start propagandizing against “conformism,” the less naturally conformist sex, males, followed, which led some to be rock stars and led others to be jailbirds or burnouts (and some to be both).

The more naturally conformist sex, females, tended to keep on keeping on, although there was a striking shift in 1969 in propaganda about what females should conform to: from homemaking to working for large organizations.

But 45 years into the latest era of feminist domination of the Megaphone, men continue to outperform women at most of the highest levels of achievement, which constitutes a crisis about which we need to be updated constantly.

Now, here’s a sensible suggest: that to do better at the highest levels, women need to respond to criticism more objectively. But of course, this nugget of good sense is buried under lots of feminism victimology and You Go Girlisms. Much of the appeal of feminism is that it encourages women to do what they always felt like doing anyway: take everything personally. But to succeed at the highest level, you need some objectivity, which feminism hates. Feminists see objective reality as a conspiracy out to make them feel bad about themselves.

Learning to Love Criticism
By TARA MOHR SEPT. 27, 2014

A NEW study by the linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done for Fortune.com, found two differences between workplace performance reviews given to men and women. Across 248 reviews from 28 companies, managers, whether male or female, gave female employees more negative feedback than they gave male employees. Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

The study speaks to the impossible tightrope women must walk to do their jobs competently and to make tough decisions while simultaneously coming across as nice to everyone, all the time. But the findings also point to something else: If a woman wants to do substantive work of any kind, she’s going to be criticized — with comments not just about her work but also about herself. She must develop a way of experiencing criticism that allows her to persevere in the face of it.

And yet, many women don’t have that tool kit. In my coaching practice and training courses for women, I often encounter women who don’t voice their ideas or pursue their most important work because of dependence on praise or fears of criticism.

Many women are aware of this problem. “I know I need a thicker skin, but I have no idea how to get it,” one woman, a consultant to small businesses, said to me.

Criticism stings for all of us, but women have been socialized to not rock the boat, to be, above all else, likable. By the time a girl reaches adolescence, she’ll most likely have watched hundreds of films, television shows and advertisements in which a woman’s destiny is determined not by her own choices but by how she is perceived by others. In those hundreds of stories, we get the message: What other people think and say about us matters, a lot.

Feminism’s control of the Megaphone hasn’t failed, it just hasn’t been tried hard enough!

… Add to this history what we see in our time: Powerful women tend to receive overreactive, shaming and inappropriately personal criticism. …

Finally, we get to some actual, you know, criticism of women:

In the context of these influences, what allows women to become free of concerns about the reactions they or their work will provoke? I’ve found that the fundamental shift for women happens when we internalize the fact that all substantive work brings both praise and criticism. Many women carry the unconscious belief that good work will be met mostly — if not exclusively — with praise. Yet in our careers, the terrain is very different: Distinctive work, innovative thinking and controversial decisions garner supporters and critics, especially for women. We need to retrain our minds to expect and accept this.

Also, you need to retrain your mind to admit that your innovative thinking and controversial decision might be, you know, wrong. To be a high performer, you have to go further out on the risk-reward curve. You’ll make more mistakes than if you cautiously stick to the tried and true, and you’ll be criticized for your mistakes.

There are a number of effective ways to do this. A woman can identify another woman whose response to criticism she admires. In challenging situations, she can imagine how the admired woman might respond, and thereby see some new possible responses for herself. It can be helpful to read the most negative and positive reviews of favorite female authors, to remind ourselves of the divergent reactions that powerful work inspires.

Women can also benefit from interpreting feedback as providing information about the preferences and point of view of the person giving the feedback, rather than information about themselves. In other words, a negative reaction from five investors doesn’t tell a woman anything about the quality of her business idea or her aptitude for entrepreneurship; it just tells her something about what those investors are looking for.

This is a funny example of how feminism encourages women to do what they always felt like doing: interpret everything personally and subjectively. Do you really think Peter Thiel or Paul Graham would tell a man that five investors dismissing his start-up idea “doesn’t tell a [man] anything about the quality of [his] business idea” but instead is just about the investors’ peculiarities? Successful masculine thinking deals both with subjective realities and objective realities, such as that my idea might be objectively no good, or, at minimum, needs major improvements. And maybe there is something that investors don’t like about me? Can I improve that aspect of my performance? Or maybe I should get a partner who is a better front man?

The most successful men in Silicon Valley neither dismiss criticism of their proposals as merely the subjective preferences of the critics nor do they accept criticism as crushing permanent proof that they are worthless human beings who will never ever come up with a good idea. Obviously, maintaining your subjective self-confidence while being objective about your ideas is difficult to do. Most men can’t, but more men than women can, which is one reason why the high end of Silicon Valley is dominated by men.

Looking back on a lifetime of feminist dominance of the media, I can recall distant eras when certain feminists tried to be logical, but those attempts alienated other feminists. So, today, feminism is whatever any woman is upset about. It doesn’t have to be consistent with what other feminists are upset about. It doesn’t even have to be consistent with whatever other things that particular feminist is upset about. All that matters is that whoever is bitching claims the mantle of Team Women.

 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “We live in an era when females outperform males on average at a wide range of routine tasks, such as coloring within the lines, turning homework in on time, graduating from high school and college, not going to jail, pulling together marketing plans, not dying, and the like.”

    John Cusack has a corner on this market.

    Sure Thing, Say Anything, High Fidelity.

    Read More
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/how-feminism-holds-women-back-from-high-achievement/#comment-725453
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. OsRazor says:

    There’s an interesting article by Paglia how modern feminism so distorts nice, middle class white girls’ perceptions of themselves and of reality that it poses a danger to them. http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

    Of course, Paglia ignores the blatant racial aspect of the butchery of poor Hannah Graham, but the point stands: women are so cocooned inside weird ideas about what’s safe and what’s not, that they’re really susceptible to evil smacking them upside the head.

    What was common-sense among women even a generation ago seems like horrible patriarchal nonsense today: If you’re a woman, you don’t walk around drunk out of your mind in the middle of the night alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's pushed even further to the point that a woman should not defend herself and run away, not even tell some sloppy dude his attention is unwanted. She can only prevail submitting a complain against him or "speak up" later. So brave and practical! Feminism succeeded in making perfect victims out of women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    It must be said, however, that Eskimos cannot handle criticism well and yet gained more power, privilege, and money than most other people.

    That Sirius guy/gal preferred to criticize than be criticized but he/she sure got rich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chubby Ape
    Please stop using the word "Eskimo" to mean "Jews". Also, could you please stop dragging Jews into every conversation? Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Big Bill says:

    The odd part about this is that it is girls giving other girls nasty criticism. Just like in grade school, high school and college.

    Which makes one wonder, how can it be that girls are so weak and pitiful when it comes to taking criticism? They have had to deal with nasty, game playing, backbiting women almost from birth. You would think they are used to nasty girl games by now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen..or..umm..workplace

    With any luck, all male youths, drugged out on Ritalin and emasculated, will be prefect obedient workers for our estrogen overlords . And watching Keeping up with the Kardashian reruns until your brain turns to goo and then doing the ice bucket challenge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. TGGP says: • Website

    I like how Steve can look on the bright side even while people maintain some wrongheaded ideas. After all, if Slate can acknowledge the basis of the Bell Curve, there’s hope for even the lumpenintelligentsia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. “feminism is whatever any woman is upset about. It doesn’t have to be consistent with what other feminists are upset about. It doesn’t even have to be consistent with whatever other things that particular feminist is upset about. All that matters is that whoever is bitching about whatever claims the mantle of Team Women.”

    This is an astute point. This month, the NFL has been in the throes of the domestic violence issue; how they’ve responded, not responded, done enough or not, etc. Among those leading the charge have been the feminists.

    But with the NFL more or less at last taken some steps to improve their image and start to suspend their more unruly players, suddenly sports fans noticed that hey, what about other sports? In particular, what about when a woman athlete is the main abuser and charged?

    Thus regarding the Hope Solo situation, the mostly male sports fans called this a double standard: how is it permitted that one gets to continue to represent her team on the international stage for their team and is also officially acknowledged with the capt.’s armband for her career record?

    Slate weighed in with professional feminists Amanda Hess. Kate Fagan (and Ta-Nahesi Coates) soon followed. Focusing on Solo distracted from the real issue: big bad male power structure (NFL) encourages a culture of violence due to its hyper-masculinity inherent in male sports. While some women do abuse, “everyone” knows that males are usually at fault and so lets all stop noticing and focusing on Solo and lets keep on bashing the NFL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Jefferson says:

    I wonder what feminists think of trannies who believe vaginas and penises are just social constructs ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

    Here’s a crazy thought … perhaps women actually have more abrasive, judgmental, and strident personalities than men? Nah, that couldn’t be it. It must be the patriarchy is subjugating the women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Art Deco says: • Website

    Criticism stings for all of us, but women have been socialized to not rock the boat, to be, above all else, likable.

    How come the socialization didn’t take with the majority of my first, second, third, fourth, and fifth degree relations?

    Here’s a crazy thought … perhaps women actually have more abrasive, judgmental, and strident personalities than men?

    I’ve worked in some odd places the last twenty-five years, but knew only one man in any of them who had notable personality issues, (though there was one other who seemed to rub a wide swath of people the wrong way). The problem chap was queer as a $3 bill. However, the most troublesome person in the office was the housfrau with the desk next to his who was job sharing with another women; next to her he was Captain Kangaroo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. So, today, feminism is whatever any woman is upset about. It doesn’t have to be consistent with what other feminists are upset about.

    Yes, I see this in the feminism to which my older daughter is currently in thrall. She fervently supports Muslim women who claim that wearing a burqa is empowering, while also fervently supporting woman who demand the right to dress like sluts without attracting unwanted attention from undesirable men.

    Speaking of the criticism women get at work, there was a very interesting “This American Life” recently about a woman, Carmen Segarra, who worked as a government regulator at Goldman Sachs. She had many concerns about the business practices of GS, but her supervisors told her she wasn’t fitting in well, was regarded as arrogant, had sharp elbows, didn’t act on career direction from her superiors, etc. She was ultimately fired. Based on the report and my own suspicions, I’d have to take her side in the matter. Government regulators really don’t want to regulate GS. (BTW, Carmen Segarra definitely qualifies as a Conquistador-American.)

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Criticism stings for all of us, but women have been socialized to not rock the boat, to be, above all else, likable.

    Well, no. Women have been socialized to believe that, regardless of what they do or how they behave, they ARE likable. Women grow up receiving much less negative and much more positive feedback than men. Women grow up with the idea that their worth is inextricably tied to their sex.

    The result is that any criticism is (a) a shock, (b) deeply personal, and (c) seen as an attack on their womanhood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @Priss Factor
    It must be said, however, that Eskimos cannot handle criticism well and yet gained more power, privilege, and money than most other people.

    That Sirius guy/gal preferred to criticize than be criticized but he/she sure got rich.

    Please stop using the word “Eskimo” to mean “Jews”. Also, could you please stop dragging Jews into every conversation? Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Please stop using the word “Eskimo” to mean “Jews”."

    Casting aspersions on Jews for the crimes of Eskimos is unpardonable.

    We must speak truth to eskimo power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Marty says:

    This reminds me of a story about the king of torts, William Prosser, when he was dean at Boalt. A judge I knew said he once asked Prosser about a classmate, future Cal. Supreme Court justice Frank Newman. Prosser said, “That guy has ten ideas a week. Nine of them are pure sh*t, but one is always pure gold.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. …included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.”

    OK, men are probably as abrasive as women on average, possibly more so.

    But “judgmental” and “strident”?

    Well, there are just way more women who think that being judgmental and strident is the same thing as being important and having something important to say–”Hear what I Believe and Value! I’m screeching with certainty!” And when people don’t pay them the deference they believe is due, it all just gets a thousand times worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Here’s a crazy thought … perhaps women actually have more abrasive, judgmental, and strident personalities than men?

    In fairness, the friction comes from both sides of the equation. Chicks do what you say, but even if women were to act in an identical fashion to men, men would not receive their criticism well. It’s a male evolutionary imperative to not be dominated by women: that’s whipping boy/gamma status.

    Only possible exception is with unattractive, post-menopausal women that are a good 15-20+ years older than the male.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Steve, your point is well taken, but there is a legitimate question about different workplace treatment raised by the data:

    “Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.”

    Two null hypotheses to test here:
    1) women and men display equal amounts of negative behavior in the workplace.
    2) women receive the same type and amount of personality-focused criticism for workplace behavior.

    There may be data elsewhere to reject number 1, but there certainly is suggestive data in the quotes article to lean closer towards rejecting number two.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo

    Two null hypotheses to test here:
    1) women and men display equal amounts of negative behavior in the workplace.
    2) women receive the same type and amount of personality-focused criticism for workplace behavior.

    There may be data elsewhere to reject number 1, but there certainly is suggestive data in the quotes article to lean closer towards rejecting number two.
     
    As someone else just pointed out, the link to the "data" in support of rejecting number 2 takes you to a Forbes.com article, not a peer reviewed journal . . . not even a low impact, open access journal, just a web magazine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. […] (oder Added?): Von Steve Sailer erscheint parallel ein Artikel, in dem er mein Bemühen um das Verstehen des Tickens von Feministinnen so […]

    Read More
  19. even if women were to act in an identical fashion to men, men would not receive their criticism well.

    No. Male criticism, of both men and women, tends to be performance oriented. Female criticism, of both men and women, tends to be personal. Which is why women hate female bosses at least as much as men do and probably a good deal moreso.

    the friction comes from both sides of the equation

    You’re assuming the “equation” is a men vs women thing, and it’s not. It’s a boss vs subordinate thing, and the people complaining that the female bosses are unpleasant to deal with certainly include a great many women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This was all laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Nunavut.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “This is a funny example of how feminism encourages women to do what they always felt like doing: interpret everything personally and subjectively.”

    That, in and of itself, isn’t the problem. After all, Eskimos are among the most personal-subjectively emotioned people in the world.

    Indeed, suppose we allow for control groups.

    We choose just the men and leave out the women. And then, we just take the very-high-IQ men and leave out everyone else from smart to dumb.

    Among the very-high-IQ men, who are likely to succeed more? The subjectively-driven egos or objectively-neutral egos? It’s usually the former. Steve Jobs was a very personal and subjective person. Though Bill Gates act mild-faced in public, he is one ruthless son of a bitch who never took no shit from no one. And Mark Zuckberg is a nasty, domineering, cunning, and cackling weasel.
    Sure, they had brains enough to do what they needed to do, but brain power wasn’t enough. They were driven by powerful emotions, egotism, ambition, will-to-power-ism, and nasty-ism.

    So, the question arises… why does it work better with men than with women?
    It may well be true that at tail ends, there are more high IQ men than there are high IQ women–just like there are more low IQ men than low IQ women. So, male talents are more extreme.

    But the other reason isn’t so much the problem of personalism but the nature of the personalism. It could be that the personal-subjective energies of men are more driven, aggressive, ruthless, visionary, domineering, conquest-oriented, and Alexander-the-Great-Julius-Caesar-Kublai-Khan-Napoleon-Adolf-Hitler-Patton-ish than are the personal-subjective energies of women.

    After all, men’s emotions comes from the balls whereas the women’s emotions come from the ovaries. So, men got ball-brain connections whereas women got womb-brain connections. And it just so happens that ball power is more explosive than womb power.
    And then suppose we compare penis power with breast power. The penis tries to conquer and squirts its power-juice all over full-grown nekkid women. The breasts try to nurture and feed a helpless babe. Big difference in emotional character.

    Generally, we like to think that intelligence is associated with rationality, balance, objectivity, logic, and moderation. In contrast, emotions are associated with passion, impulsiveness, craziness, irrationality, instability, and etc. Intelligence and emotions are opposites, we like to think.
    This is true enough in the sense that science works according to laws of reasons, facts, and logic.

    And if one wants to be intelligent in the conventional way, there’ s no need to be get emotional about stuff. Only need only to control one’s emotions, diligently pay attention to academic instructions, follow the rules, and apply known scientific knowledge and theories to the tasks at hand.
    But if one wants to be intelligent in a bold, imaginative, innovative, and revolutionary way, then a balanced and objective use of intelligence isn’t enough. One’s ego has to be fueled by powerful emotions. One has to have the will to be smarter than others, richer than others, more ahead of the curve than others, more original than others, more cutting-edge than others, and etc.

    It’s like if you want to win the championship in sports, you need something more than the discipline to take the vitamins and stick to the regular regimen of exercise. You need the fire in the belly to win, to crush your opponents, and etc. The science of sports isn’t enough. Sure, you need to master the ‘art/science’ of sports but you also need the drive and egotism to be the champion of the world. You gotta have the killer instinct, which is why, when boxers enter the ring, they feel real hatred for the opponent. They must have the heart of a killer to go all out and win. Training and technique aren’t enough when the crucial moment arrives.

    Science, business world, intellectualism, arts, and etc. all follow more or less the same rules of ambition and psychology. Though some endeavors require more rational intelligence than others, whenever someone wants to do something truly original, new, or great in his field, he has to have the powerful will to go beyond all others and destroy the competition. I think a lot of great scientists were obsessive and even a bit crazy types. So were many great philosophers. Their biographies read like looney bin stuff. This is, of course, even truer of artists, many of whom lost their sanity to go beyond others.

    Intelligence alone, no matter how high, isn’t enough to break through the gravity of the mind. The mind is structured in such a way that it is ‘prejudiced’ in favor of known and established knowledge. So, even most very intelligent people generally remain within the paradigm of what they’d been taught and trained for.
    But for them to use their intelligence to break to a higher level, they need something more than IQ and skill. They need rocket blasters of sheer energy and ‘madness’ to push their minds beyond the gravitational pull of their thought processes.

    I think some scientist/thinker some years ago said the human mind is mostly geared toward imitation than inspiration. (It’s like any good musician can imitate note-for-note the work of someone like Coltrane or Hendrix. Human intelligence alone can mimic and master lots of stuff. But to bring forth something like the work of Coltrane or Hendrix from within one’s own creative soul requires something more than intelligence and talent. One has to have a powerful inner craziness obsessed with the will to break free of the gravity of norms and conventions of expression.) The favoring of imitation-over-inspiration is a mental habit wired into most of us. And this goes for most high-IQ people too. They feel most comfortable working within established paradigms and mental habits. It takes a special kind of mentality to break free of such gravitational field. Since intelligence alone is passionless and computerlike, it won’t provide the energy/drive that enables a person to break onto the other side. The intelligence/ability has to be fueled by powerful emotions in order for certain individuals to become super-giants in their fields. And men who achieve such things are no less personal-subjectively driven than women are. They don’t take criticism well. They are fiercely arrogant, competitive, obsessive, driven, paranoid, and domineering.

    It’s just that the male style of personal-subjectivity is more aggressive, obsessive, and even psychopathic than the female style of personal-subjectivity. Male intelligence is fueled by the balls whereas female intelligence is buttressed by the womb. Sure, women can be bitchy, but it’s no match to son-of-a-bitchy.

    This explains why so many Eskimos confound a lot of people. Most people conflate intelligence with rationality, balance, objectivity, skepticism, and sensibleness. So, they figure higher intelligence is associated with even more objectivity, sensibleness, and etc.
    So, following such a logic, since so many Jews are high-IQ, they should be more rational, sensible, judicious, balanced, and thoughtful than most folks. But it isn’t so. Many high-IQ Jews are among the most dangerous, paranoid, ruthless, arrogant, hateful, and judgmental people in the world.
    Why?
    It’s because many Eskimos are not content to be merely intelligent/successful but wanna be super-intelligent/super-successful(to go where no man has been before), and to achieve what they wanna achieve, they need to be driven by powerful emotions–like Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET who was both extremely rational in his strategy and extremely extreme in his emotional commitment to winning(at least according to the movie).
    Without the fuel of such powerful emotions, even high intelligence will work mostly in practical and conventional manner: Very efficiently and well but within the norms of the paradigm.

    For high intelligence to break through to another level, it has to be pumped by powerful emotions.
    But this produces a kind of paradox: a fusion of high intelligence(associated with reason) with powerful obsession(associated with passion and irrationality).

    But then consider some of the greatest Eskimos who’ve had the biggest influence on history.
    Karl Marx claimed to be ‘scientific’ but was driven by the will of a prophet.
    Freud claimed to be a scientist but was actually one of the most obsessive thinkers of all time.
    Ayn Rand was hardly a great thinker but she swayed a lot of people. She called her theory ‘objectivism’ but she was a very obsessive and emotional person. (Some Jewish women got honorary balls.) Einstein wasn’t just some dry cool-headed scientist but some nutty guy who used to sweat during the night in fascinated fright about the theories cooking inside his head. Noam Chomsky has been one of the most aggressive, driven, vindictive, competitive, and domineering personalities in linguistics and ideology in the past 50 yrs. I’ll bet Google sons of bitches aren’t merely smart computer geeks but big-balled ambitious weasels. I mean they wanna use Google to take over just about everything. Howard Stern joked about being the King of All Media, but Larry Brin and Sergei whoositz really wanna Google-ize everything around the world.

    And look at foreign policy. Eskimos talk some ostensibly rational ‘human rights’ stuff about spreading democracy and preventing tyranny, but their policies in the Middle East and Ukraine are really driven by fierce emotions of domination, aggression, supremacism, arrogance, and our-balls-are-bigger-than-yours. (Jewish women attitude seems to be “Our Jewish wombs are bigger balls than the balls of gentile men.”)

    So, the issue isn’t personality/subjectivity vs professionalism/objectivity.

    It’s just that male character of personality/subjectivity is more powerful than the female kind, just like the Eskimo character of personality/subjectivity is more powerful than the gentile kind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Ian says:

    Great post Steve – as you often do, you got precisely to the heart of the matter about something I’ve subconsciously noticed but had not yet crystallized into concepts and words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Kaz says:

    >Kieran Snyder

    Oh wow, this again.

    I can’t believe ‘journalists’ are still bringing this bullshit up.

    She isn’t able to actually confirm the truth of the ‘reviews’ she received

    She doesn’t know the people involved, if they’re lying or not.

    She can’t verify one damn thing about the ‘data’ she received.

    Why the hell is anyone believing her?! Of course I know why.. Because it jives with the message they’re selling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    In my limited experience, managers are reluctant to criticize women openly in their reviews, because they take it so poorly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Ian says:

    included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.”

    My guess is that plenty of the criticism of women employees also included phrases such as “weepy”, “slow moving”, “spacey”, “unoriginal”, “lacking initiative”, and “timid”.

    But “abrasive” and “strident” are what those with the megaphone want women to be more like, so, those are the personality traits that this article try to frame as assessments that are not legitimate, that are only made for unfair, bias-based, keep-strong-women-down reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Women, more so than men, can act like completely different persons once they are put into a position of authority. Can be to such an extreme that their former personality becomes unrecognizable. It's bizarre.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Marty says:

    I was once on a jury where a female senior V.P. of a bank was testifying about the plaintiff in an employment case. Her criticism of him was that his style was, “just the facts, ma’am.” Since he was an operations guy responsible for making the data processing run smoothly, I couldn’t see why she had a problem with that. What, she wanted him to gossip with her?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Luke Lea says: • Website

    Men have been working together in “corporate” teams for hundreds of thousands of years (warfare and hunting). Women less so, and even less in mixed male and female groups outside the family. Maybe this has something to do with it, evolutionarily speaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. vinteuil says: • Website

    One of the very few rewards of being gay is that, unless you’re a total fool, you rarely have to deal with women, other than your mother & your sisters.

    Straight guys have my deepest sympathy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    men continue to outperform women at most of the highest levels of achievement

    Regimenting the society so that we achieve male/female parity among the high achievers would have grave consequences given the higher standard deviation of IQ among men. Decades ago, when I became fascinated with these things, I calculated the expected ratio of men to women among the highly intelligent (IQ > 135) as 2:1. Later, after joining Mensa, which publishes all kind of statistics about its members, I found out that the ratio of men to women in that organization (you need an IQ above 135 to join, or thereabout) is almost exactly 2:1. And that’s at a cutoff level that does not guarantee any degree of outstanding achievement. How much would the average IQ of the Nobel prize winner have to drop so that we can reach male/female parity is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Read More
    • Replies: @meep
    I'm a Mensa member and I think the cutoff is two standard deviations above the mean, or 130 where SD=15.

    You're right about the sex ratio imbalance, though. I've noticed this since elementary school gifted and talented classes. It's annoying because if you are a bright lady, especially one of a non careerist bent, it's hard to like minded, similar ability friends, or media geared toward very smart women. All my girlfriends are similar in ability and most have very few friends. There just aren't a lot of similar people with whom to connect. I can't imagine how hard it must be if you're the rare Mensa qualified black.

    And a somewhat related observation: the more serious and technical one gets in a field, the higher the male: female ratio. Food blogging is dominated by women. But as you move from "bake yummy cookies" to "let's calculate the water percentage of this poolish and figure out precise aging times," the share of men goes way up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. pyrrhus says:

    Ambrose Bierce: “The woman who can take constructive criticism has not yet been born.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. pyrrhus says:
    @Kaz
    >Kieran Snyder

    Oh wow, this again.

    I can't believe 'journalists' are still bringing this bullshit up.

    She isn't able to actually confirm the truth of the 'reviews' she received

    She doesn't know the people involved, if they're lying or not.

    She can't verify one damn thing about the 'data' she received.

    Why the hell is anyone believing her?! Of course I know why.. Because it jives with the message they're selling.

    In my limited experience, managers are reluctant to criticize women openly in their reviews, because they take it so poorly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Abe says: • Website

    Slightly offtopic, but-

    Global warming reaching critical levels; women hit hardest. Yes, really:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0924/World-s-women-bear-brunt-of-climate-change-says-UN-women-chief

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Gypsy says:

    People are still using the term “feminist”? Why?
    I grew up in the ’60′s, and back in that wonderful, chaotic time of social upheaval, a “feminist” was an individual who purported that women deserved the same rights enjoyed by men.
    Radical, huh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Lot says:

    I’m calling BS on this supposed “study” finding:

    Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

    There’s just no way a properly conducted study really finds a difference that wide. The study author is either incompetent or making shit up.

    linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done for Fortune.com

    In other words, an irrelevant website of an irrelevant magazine has found an underemployed lumpenintellgencian to make some shit up for a clickbait article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tokugawa
    I agree about the study result.

    I don't doubt the direction of the result, but 76% vs 2% sets off my BS detector.

    But of course if you really want to know you have to go and actually read the study and look at the data, and nobody has time for that, so whatever nonsense was printed in the abstract is now Science.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Anonymous
    Steve, your point is well taken, but there is a legitimate question about different workplace treatment raised by the data:

    "Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments."

    Two null hypotheses to test here:
    1) women and men display equal amounts of negative behavior in the workplace.
    2) women receive the same type and amount of personality-focused criticism for workplace behavior.

    There may be data elsewhere to reject number 1, but there certainly is suggestive data in the quotes article to lean closer towards rejecting number two.

    Two null hypotheses to test here:
    1) women and men display equal amounts of negative behavior in the workplace.
    2) women receive the same type and amount of personality-focused criticism for workplace behavior.

    There may be data elsewhere to reject number 1, but there certainly is suggestive data in the quotes article to lean closer towards rejecting number two.

    As someone else just pointed out, the link to the “data” in support of rejecting number 2 takes you to a Forbes.com article, not a peer reviewed journal . . . not even a low impact, open access journal, just a web magazine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Do you really think Peter Thiel or Paul Graham would tell a man that five investors dismissing his start-up idea “doesn’t tell a [man] anything about the quality of [his] business idea” but instead is just about the investors’ peculiarities? Successful masculine thinking deals both with subjective realities and objective realities, such as that my idea might be objectively no good, or, at minimum, needs major improvements.

    The modern businessman would kneel before the altar of Mammon.

    But the old-fashioned businessman, like Thomas Edison or Henry Ford, would probably defy his personal rivals in business and forge out on his own.

    Thomas Edison might have been a bad scientist and a bad inventor, but he stuck to his guns and defied the naysayers.

    Henry Ford might have lacked practical imagination – certainly he was less imaginative than Nikola Tesla – and he certainly lacked realistic awareness of his own limits – his expedition to grow rubber in South America failed miserably – but he stuck to his guns and defied the naysayers.

    Some American businessmen who stuck to their guns ended up getting crushed by kleptocrats – a car maker named Tucker stuck to his guns but got crushed by inferior ankle-biters.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Whew. Imagine what the New York Times would have done to showboat this example of monotonous moaning had one or more of her male bosses’ reviews criticized Grievance Industry (Feminism Division) author Tara Mohr, or one or more of her article’s subjects, for being “burly.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. I call BS on this “study”. Is it remotely plausible that an effect this size (76 vs 2 %!!) exists? After decades of every supervisor in the country having drummed into his head about the importance of hiring women,not discriminating against women etc etc ad nauseum? There is virtually no chance this is accurate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Steve says, “To be a high performer, you have to go further out on the risk-reward curve. You’ll make more mistakes than if you cautiously stick to the tried and true, and you’ll be criticized for your mistakes.”

    So true, so true. And I’ve said the same to feminists of my acquaintance, though I put it in personal, concrete terms. I tell them, “Back when I was nailing scores of chicks, I was often asked by my male friends how I did it. I told them that wooing babes was like hitting home runs. You will strike out as often as you will score so to have any chance of success you mustn’t give in to fear of failure. You must accept that you will be repulsed and ridiculed as many times as you are accepted. After all, when you’re swinging for the fences your bound to strike out often.”

    “Remember”, I remind feminists, “Babe Ruth wasn’t just the Home Run King, he was also the Strike Out King.”

    Feminists really dig the sports analogy and the part about hosing mass women elicits their keen interest. Hopefully, I summarize, they can learn from my experiences and apply the lesson to their own budding careers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Jeff W. says:

    Steve writes:

    The most successful men in Silicon Valley neither dismiss criticism of their proposals as merely the subjective preferences of the critics nor do they accept criticism as crushing permanent proof that they are worthless human beings who will never ever come up with a good idea.

    which reminds me of Winston Churchill’s remark:

    Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. “Obviously, maintaining your subjective self-confidence while being objective about your ideas is difficult to do.”

    There is a “third way” that I tripped upon in college. Rather than taking everything personally and becoming an insufferable crank and/or waking up each morning to grin at the mirror whilst praying “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dosh garnit, people like me!” again and again until you sort of believe it, you can instead tell yourself that, in an ultimate sense, nothing you say or do in this moment will have any real impact on those around you — their minds are their own — or really any impact on your own life.

    Before giving presentations or speeches, I tell myself this again and again, remind myself that after I give X speech, I will be no smarter, no better looking, no wealthier, no sexier than I was before giving the speech. It really calms my nerves and makes me not care about the outcome, and, because of that, my performance is stronger. Outcome independence: it’s not just for PUAs.

    I’ve taken this strategy into the workplace. I fully expect any idea I come up with to be shot down immediately, often scornfully, by peers and superiors. I also fully expect a more charismatic peer or manager to suggest my exact same idea three weeks later to resounding approval. In fact, I’ve learned it’s best to give away my ideas to whomever is considered most charismatic in the workplace, and then let him present them as his own to, of course, resounding applause.

    Or I could go the feminazi route and cultivate and nurture a corrosive bitterness in my soul that will make me even less convincing and attractive than I already am not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Jefferson says:

    “Also, could you please stop dragging Jews into every conversation? Thank you.”

    I would cut “Pizza With Hot Pepper” some slack if the majority of Steve Sailer’s blogs were actually about the Jews, but the majority of them are not. So it is annoying that 99 percent of Pizza’s posts here are about the Jews.

    Steve Sailer can make a blog about golf courses or Paul Walker, and “Pizza With Hot Pepper” will find a way to drag the Jews into the conversation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Ian
    included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.”

    My guess is that plenty of the criticism of women employees also included phrases such as "weepy", "slow moving", "spacey", "unoriginal", "lacking initiative", and "timid".

    But "abrasive" and "strident" are what those with the megaphone want women to be more like, so, those are the personality traits that this article try to frame as assessments that are not legitimate, that are only made for unfair, bias-based, keep-strong-women-down reasons.

    Women, more so than men, can act like completely different persons once they are put into a position of authority. Can be to such an extreme that their former personality becomes unrecognizable. It’s bizarre.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A beautiful mind is no great film but this quote is so relevant to so much contemporary diversity whining

    Professor — (trying to inturrept him)

    No! John… John .. John
    Do you see what they are doing in there? It’s the pens , reserved for the member of the department, who makes the achievement of a lifetime. Now what do you see john?

    John — Recognition.

    Prof– Well try seeing Accomplishment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. SF says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/reports-wh-intruder-gets-past-front-door-213907587–politics.html

    Both the guard overpowered by the intruder Omar J. Gonzalez and the head of the secret service are women. Kind of reminds me of the story a few years ago about the 5’3″ woman prison guard who was overpowered by a prisoner who killed three law enforcement people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nichols

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Anonitron says:

    Those first two paragraphs are really great and incisive. I don’t have any other observations to make, I just want to affirm that this is the type of post that makes it obvious why iSteve has become a sort of nexus of contrary conservative thought on the internet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. FWIW says:

    I must be living on a different planet. The idea of a monolithic feminism is a decade or two out of date.

    Need to trash a particular feminist? Just find who she is feuding with. Here is Catlin Flanagan saying something inflammatory about Tiger Mom’s in Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/the-ivy-delusion/308397/ I haven’t read it, but either the tiger mom or her opposite is going to be roughed up.

    Or my favorite, Sandra Tsing Loh — on Lesbian Bed Death: All of these possibilities will pale compared with the corporeal depravity I’m about to describe—a radical self-pleasuring act that may well represent the true frontier of female liberation. Which is to say I speak to you candidly now about some lesbians I know, two lesbians. They live in a suburb of Los Angeles. They’re both a hair north of forty. One is a computer technician; the other, a hospital administrator. Physically, they are much as you might picture them. For the past twelve years, Teri and Pat have had a special Monday-night ritual. They order an extra-large cheese pizza (sixteen slices). While waiting—and I am not making this up—they settle in on the couch with large twin bags of Doritos. Each chip is dipped first in Philadelphia cream cheese and then in salsa. Cream cheese, salsa. Cream cheese, salsa. Cream cheese, salsa. The Doritos are finished to the last crumb, and then, upon arrival, the pizza as well. For Teri and Pat, this night of a million carbs is, by special agreement, guilt-free. Both feel that it is better than sex.

    In a brief delusion of blog induced creative writing, I would just paraphrase some of this stuff. There was a good quote somewhere about American women lusting for Islamic men, because — they wanted to feel dominated or American men were too pussy whipped or the like.

    I ripped this off … no way I could ever write this shit:

    As they walked back, she was thinking ….
    Please, please just fuck me already. Honestly, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I like that you want to take things slow. I can totally get behind the idea of emotional connection, but dearjesusinheaven, FUCK ME.

    There is plenty more where that came from. An unlimited supply.

    And … at least this is funny. To me, anyway:

    n recent months, Apple has given iTunes users a U2 album and health nuts a revamped HealthKit app that tracks just about everything about a person’s health except menstruation. Apple loves Bono and refuses to acknowledge periods. Apple is literally your dad.

    …As it stands, women have other options for tracking their periods with their smartphones. I use one called Period Tracker, which my boyfriend’s 10-year-old nephew once attempted to “play” when he seized my smartphone from the kitchen counter last Thanksgiving. “This is a boring game,” he said, before telling Period Tracker that I’d been experiencing saltiness cravings and a heavy flow.

    Apple ignoring menstruation won’t make it go away. If it did, we’d have eliminated periods long ago.

    ____________________

    Feminism is all over the place. And there is no reason to bother calling them out. It has already been done with vicious frankness that a man, regardless of his courage, would never write.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. tokugawa says:
    @Lot
    I'm calling BS on this supposed "study" finding:


    Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.
     
    There's just no way a properly conducted study really finds a difference that wide. The study author is either incompetent or making shit up.

    linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done for Fortune.com
     
    In other words, an irrelevant website of an irrelevant magazine has found an underemployed lumpenintellgencian to make some shit up for a clickbait article.

    I agree about the study result.

    I don’t doubt the direction of the result, but 76% vs 2% sets off my BS detector.

    But of course if you really want to know you have to go and actually read the study and look at the data, and nobody has time for that, so whatever nonsense was printed in the abstract is now Science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Alice says:

    Feminism is just stuck with its new who/whom problems.

    Feminists spent a lot of capital getting power by exalting the victimhood status of women. Women imbibed the theory they were victims all the way through college and grad school. It’s pretty hard to suddenly let go and find out you’re the oppressor. Better to find a new way to be a victim.

    But, honestly, I really was a victim. I had been so brain washed I had *no idea* that I was different than the men around me. I was a nerd at MIT and Cal and it wasn’t until leaving grad school and needing a job that I finally realized I couldn’t stand working with most nerd men, because they behaved like men, and I just didn’t give a damn to spend 10 hours around them and then more with my husband.

    I had never been told men had different ideas about ambition, or different ideas about sexes, or different ideas about winning. Honest. No idea.

    I believe the optimal solution is for women to be liberated back to the homemaker they wish to be, but I was 34 before I found out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @Chubby Ape
    Please stop using the word "Eskimo" to mean "Jews". Also, could you please stop dragging Jews into every conversation? Thank you.

    “Please stop using the word “Eskimo” to mean “Jews”.”

    Casting aspersions on Jews for the crimes of Eskimos is unpardonable.

    We must speak truth to eskimo power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. I agree with your criticism of feminism and the qualities needed by a successful entrepreneur. I also agree that there is a general difference in male and female psychology, so that line-managing typical female employees is very tough, they tend to take things personally and get upset.

    “Powerful women tend to receive overreactive, shaming and inappropriately personal criticism. …”

    From the outside, this does seem to be a notable feature of American society. The likes of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton do attract a particular sort of venomous hatred that men generally don’t get. It comes from men and women – Sarah Bernhard publicly fantasising about Sarah Palin being gang raped by blacks, say. From public speakers it comes mostly from the Left – Bill Maher say, not Glenn Beck – Anne Coulter gets quite nasty but she’s pretty gender-equal, whereas most get far more personally vicious about women than men. Amongst the US public it seems equally true of Left & Right.

    So, I was wondering about their data on performance reviews. Are women in the US really treated so differently from men? It seems to me that it might just be possible. But did they actually look at written performance reviews, or did they just ask the people being reviewed what they felt the review said about them? Doing the latter would likely get very different responses from male and female appraisees even if the reviews were similar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Whiskey says: • Website

    We live in a matriarchy. Feminism is a function of female led mass consumerism. For example women buy 80% of fiction.

    So no surprise that public life is emotionally distraught and all over the place.

    If women had to compete for men like European history up to the Welfare state and corporate mass employment, you would see different attitudes. Emotionalusm reigned in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Unzerker says:

    Mandatory reading:

    http://clarissasblog.com/2014/05/14/i-dont-want-to-hire-women/

    A businesswoman writes why she doesn’t want to hire any more women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Flip says:

    “They may be stupid, but they sure are fun.”
    -Todd Rundgren

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. meep says:
    @Anonymous
    "men continue to outperform women at most of the highest levels of achievement"

    Regimenting the society so that we achieve male/female parity among the high achievers would have grave consequences given the higher standard deviation of IQ among men. Decades ago, when I became fascinated with these things, I calculated the expected ratio of men to women among the highly intelligent (IQ > 135) as 2:1. Later, after joining Mensa, which publishes all kind of statistics about its members, I found out that the ratio of men to women in that organization (you need an IQ above 135 to join, or thereabout) is almost exactly 2:1. And that's at a cutoff level that does not guarantee any degree of outstanding achievement. How much would the average IQ of the Nobel prize winner have to drop so that we can reach male/female parity is left as an exercise for the reader.

    I’m a Mensa member and I think the cutoff is two standard deviations above the mean, or 130 where SD=15.

    You’re right about the sex ratio imbalance, though. I’ve noticed this since elementary school gifted and talented classes. It’s annoying because if you are a bright lady, especially one of a non careerist bent, it’s hard to like minded, similar ability friends, or media geared toward very smart women. All my girlfriends are similar in ability and most have very few friends. There just aren’t a lot of similar people with whom to connect. I can’t imagine how hard it must be if you’re the rare Mensa qualified black.

    And a somewhat related observation: the more serious and technical one gets in a field, the higher the male: female ratio. Food blogging is dominated by women. But as you move from “bake yummy cookies” to “let’s calculate the water percentage of this poolish and figure out precise aging times,” the share of men goes way up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. sansfoy says:

    76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

    Actually, this sounds like a legitimate problem to me. In all my time in the business world, I can’t say that women are more likely to be assholes than men. Seems about mixed to me. But if it’s only women getting the personal negative feedback, that sounds like a legit complaint.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. vinteuil says:
    One of the very few rewards of being gay is that, unless you’re a total fool, you rarely have to deal with women, other than your mother & your sisters.

    That made me laugh out loud at The Internet.

    Straight guys have my deepest sympathy.

    Thank you.

    Sebastian says:
    No. Male criticism, of both men and women, tends to be performance oriented. Female criticism, of both men and women, tends to be personal. Which is why women hate female bosses at least as much as men do and probably a good deal more so.

    You nailed it. That’s the missing (read: carefully hidden) piece of the puzzle. Only a female boss would call a female employee “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident” in a performance review.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. WhatEvvs [AKA "Cookies"] says:

    How could feminism be holding women back from high achievement if in your opinion women are incapable of high achievement?

    This place is a garden of horrors. Hard core anti-Semites, white nationalists, and good old-fashioned misogynists. By the last, I mean guys who really really hate women – not feminism, women.

    You can’t disprove hatred. That’s a misunderstanding of the equation. But I’ll point out a couple of things. There is one field where women are prominent and they put up with relentless criticism: ballet. Ballerinas are criticized for nearly everything: how they hold a pinky finger can be criticized. Whether they narrow their eyelids. Black Swan notwithstanding, they don’t go crazy – they put up with it.

    The life sciences are now dominated by women, who have made crucial contributions. Feminism doesn’t seem to have held them back.

    A few years ago, some Israeli woman chemist won a Nobel, and Steve Sailer had the balls to question whether it was an AA prize. Someone put him in his place very quickly – what this woman had done was truly extraordinary. Speaking of which, if any of you have diabetes, or have a relative who has, look up the name Rosalyn Yalow, get down on your knees and thank God that this obsessively single-minded woman and her partner existed. Yalow was shuttled into a secretarial position because she was a woman, but she didn’t allow that to sideline her. None of you are up against the difficulties she was and all you can do is whine on a website about how tough you have it. You have no idea what tough is.

    I am not a feminist. I think they’re wrong about practically everything. But the answer to feminism isn’t the insanity I find on this website.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    There is one field where women are prominent and they put up with relentless criticism: ballet.
     
    Good point. Let's make a general policy of giving all women male homosexual bosses and coworkers.
    , @Ozymandias
    "By the last, I mean guys who really really hate women – not feminism, women.

    You can’t disprove hatred."
    __________

    Ah, the irony of juxtaposition. Nonetheless, thank you for the inspiring anecdotal tale of 'woman contributes.' It was heartwarming and uplifting. Would definitely read again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. So it is annoying that 99 percent of Pizza’s posts here are about the Jews.

    But who bothers to read them? His latest missive came in at over 1,500 words. He’s not commenting, he’s colonizing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “So it is annoying that 99 percent of Pizza’s posts here are about the Jews.”

    About Eskimos, dammit.

    You see, it makes no sense to talk about the powerless since they have no power over us. Jews are powerless, so why talk about them? It’d be as pointless as bitching about the Nepalese or Madagascarians.

    We should focus our attention on those who control our politicians. Those who groomed and made Obama. Who are over-represented in the supreme court. Who’ve been pushing open borders. Who’ve had people like Jason Richwine fired. Who triggered wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. Who’ve purged all the ‘Arabists’. Who’ve pulled strings to force Hungary to ban a conference about the survival of white people.

    We need to focus our attention on the power.
    When wasps ruled, the eskimos concentrated their vitriol on the wasps. They didn’t waste their energies on Bulgarian-Americans.

    To be sure, I’m beginning to suspect that it’s really the yanomamos who really control the power in the US. I’m always open to revising the truth if need be. Maybe yanopac is more powerful than Icepac.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HandsomeWhiteDevil
    Perhaps it is time to let the Eskimos be, and move on to some other invisible minority, like, say, the Faroese.

    Yes, the Faroese. Nobody ever talks about the Faroese. We can give these unjustly neglected people a moment in the sun, not that there ever is any sun way up there in the North Atlantic.

    Let the world know of the struggle for national survival of the heroic Faroese people, who prevailed against the wicked depredations of the Danes, or the Norwegians, whichever one of those wore those horned helmets and those metal bras.

    We can speak truth to the power of those horrid Anglos as well, who oppressed our brothers on the Shetland Islands, and drove their mellifluous and euphonious tongue of Norn, or Vorn, or Voldemort, or whatever it was, into extinction.

    And the Faroese eat rancid puffins, and moldy sheeps. And whales, too. They eat whales!

    So, best of all, no one can ever accuse them of being Kosher!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Cookies says:
    This place is a garden of horrors. Hard core anti-Semites, white nationalists, and good old-fashioned misogynists.

    Oh, admit it, Cookies. That’s exactly what keeps you coming back day after day. There are plenty of other blogs where you could go for “polite company” and PC platitudes, but you keep coming back here ’cause you can’t wait to see what we’ll say next. You can gasp, clutch your pearls, or point and sputter all you want, but you’re not fooling anyone. Our nation used to value freedom of speech and freedom of association, crusty curmudgeons, cantankerous cranks and crackpots included. This little corner of The Internet still does….. for now.

    There is one field where women are prominent and they put up with relentless criticism: ballet. Ballerinas are criticized for nearly everything: how they hold a pinky finger can be criticized. Whether they narrow their eyelids. Black Swan notwithstanding, they don’t go crazy – they put up with it.

    Agree to agree. I think I speak for the entire HBD-O-Sphere, Man-O-Sphere and Alt-Right-O-Sphere when I say we all wish there were more women like ballerinas. There is intrinsic value to feminine beauty and grace. Steve’s written quite a bit on ballerinas. Search the archives and enjoy.

    The life sciences are now dominated by women, who have made crucial contributions.

    “Contributing” and “dominating” are not the same thing. Do you really want to get into a life sciences gender body count contest? Here of all places? Really?

    A few years ago, some Israeli woman chemist won a Nobel, and Steve Sailer had the balls to question whether it was an AA prize.

    After the Nobel committee engaged in behavior as fundamentally unserious as awarding a prize to Barack Hussein Obama for…. being a hopey-changey black president or something… how could an intelligent person view subsequent awards with anything other than suspicion at best and outright contempt at worst? I have sympathy for the Israeli woman chemist. The shadow of affirmative action is a thorn in the side of every minority legitimately exceptional statistical outlier who achieves greatness. Just ask one, they’ll tell ya.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Bill says:
    @WhatEvvs
    How could feminism be holding women back from high achievement if in your opinion women are incapable of high achievement?

    This place is a garden of horrors. Hard core anti-Semites, white nationalists, and good old-fashioned misogynists. By the last, I mean guys who really really hate women - not feminism, women.

    You can't disprove hatred. That's a misunderstanding of the equation. But I'll point out a couple of things. There is one field where women are prominent and they put up with relentless criticism: ballet. Ballerinas are criticized for nearly everything: how they hold a pinky finger can be criticized. Whether they narrow their eyelids. Black Swan notwithstanding, they don't go crazy - they put up with it.

    The life sciences are now dominated by women, who have made crucial contributions. Feminism doesn't seem to have held them back.

    A few years ago, some Israeli woman chemist won a Nobel, and Steve Sailer had the balls to question whether it was an AA prize. Someone put him in his place very quickly - what this woman had done was truly extraordinary. Speaking of which, if any of you have diabetes, or have a relative who has, look up the name Rosalyn Yalow, get down on your knees and thank God that this obsessively single-minded woman and her partner existed. Yalow was shuttled into a secretarial position because she was a woman, but she didn't allow that to sideline her. None of you are up against the difficulties she was and all you can do is whine on a website about how tough you have it. You have no idea what tough is.

    I am not a feminist. I think they're wrong about practically everything. But the answer to feminism isn't the insanity I find on this website.

    There is one field where women are prominent and they put up with relentless criticism: ballet.

    Good point. Let’s make a general policy of giving all women male homosexual bosses and coworkers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @WhatEvvs
    How could feminism be holding women back from high achievement if in your opinion women are incapable of high achievement?

    This place is a garden of horrors. Hard core anti-Semites, white nationalists, and good old-fashioned misogynists. By the last, I mean guys who really really hate women - not feminism, women.

    You can't disprove hatred. That's a misunderstanding of the equation. But I'll point out a couple of things. There is one field where women are prominent and they put up with relentless criticism: ballet. Ballerinas are criticized for nearly everything: how they hold a pinky finger can be criticized. Whether they narrow their eyelids. Black Swan notwithstanding, they don't go crazy - they put up with it.

    The life sciences are now dominated by women, who have made crucial contributions. Feminism doesn't seem to have held them back.

    A few years ago, some Israeli woman chemist won a Nobel, and Steve Sailer had the balls to question whether it was an AA prize. Someone put him in his place very quickly - what this woman had done was truly extraordinary. Speaking of which, if any of you have diabetes, or have a relative who has, look up the name Rosalyn Yalow, get down on your knees and thank God that this obsessively single-minded woman and her partner existed. Yalow was shuttled into a secretarial position because she was a woman, but she didn't allow that to sideline her. None of you are up against the difficulties she was and all you can do is whine on a website about how tough you have it. You have no idea what tough is.

    I am not a feminist. I think they're wrong about practically everything. But the answer to feminism isn't the insanity I find on this website.

    “By the last, I mean guys who really really hate women – not feminism, women.

    You can’t disprove hatred.”
    __________

    Ah, the irony of juxtaposition. Nonetheless, thank you for the inspiring anecdotal tale of ‘woman contributes.’ It was heartwarming and uplifting. Would definitely read again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Speaking of women and high achievement, it looks like Jim Webb is going to run against Hillary Clinton. He’s a year older than her, which means he would be older than Reagan if elected, but other than that it would be good to have him run, saying things that the political establishment doesn’t want said. Expect lots of articles about how mean he is because he points out things he thinks Hillary Clinton does wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "Jim Webb is going to run against Hillary Clinton"

    Way to split the Simon in London household! I loved Born Fighting (despite the anachronistic Irish Tricolor on the cover). My wife is a big Clintonista. Normally she'd support Webb, like her a Blue Dog Southern Democrat, but sex-loyalty trumps regional loyalty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. “Tech entrepreneur”. Is that the official new euphemism for “female with no actual technical skills, employed in soft field peripherally associated with real tech companies”? There seems to be an uptick recently in female “consultants” (with some flavor of angry-studies credentials) being described as “entrepreneurs”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Have any of you been to a legitimately top-tier college this generation? There are huge numbers of extremely high-achieving women, rocking classes like O-chem while racking up impressive extracurriculars. Yes, gender parity at MIT and Caltech is skewed at the Asberger’s end of the IQ distribution, but at most elite pursuits, women are doing fine.

    When I hear some middle-aged cubicle dweller grump that they are surrounded by mediocre women in their F500 cubicle, it seems pretty plain that they’re looking in a mirror.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Me
    Asperger Syndrome has not much, if anything at all, to do with IQ -- i.e., talking about an "Asberger’s end of the IQ distribution" makes no sense. Saying that is akin to referring to the "large foot size end of the IQ distribution."

    Some people seem to think that having Asperger's indicates intelligence, but that's a myth. People with this disorder have IQs that are like everyone else's, with some being very smart and others being dumber than a box of rocks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Jefferson says:

    “From the outside, this does seem to be a notable feature of American society. The likes of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton do attract a particular sort of venomous hatred that men generally don’t get. It comes from men and women – Sarah Bernhard publicly fantasising about Sarah Palin being gang raped by blacks, say. From public speakers it comes mostly from the Left – Bill Maher say, not Glenn Beck – Anne Coulter gets quite nasty but she’s pretty gender-equal, whereas most get far more personally vicious about women than men. Amongst the US public it seems equally true of Left & Right.”

    Liberal men publicly make fun of Ann Coulter by saying she looks like a man, yet nobody in the feminist movement comes out to condemn those comments. But if any man on the right publicly were to say that Janet Reno or Janet Napolitano looks like a man, the feminists would whip out the sexist card in a heartbeat.

    I do see the irony in left wing men making fun of Ann Coulter for not looking feminine enough, when it is the left wing that has a damn near monopoly on the masculine looking female vote.

    I see more masculine looking women per capita here in the liberal Bay Area than I did when I was on vacation in the beaches of deep red South Carolina for example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @John Mansfield
    Speaking of women and high achievement, it looks like Jim Webb is going to run against Hillary Clinton. He's a year older than her, which means he would be older than Reagan if elected, but other than that it would be good to have him run, saying things that the political establishment doesn't want said. Expect lots of articles about how mean he is because he points out things he thinks Hillary Clinton does wrong.

    “Jim Webb is going to run against Hillary Clinton”

    Way to split the Simon in London household! I loved Born Fighting (despite the anachronistic Irish Tricolor on the cover). My wife is a big Clintonista. Normally she’d support Webb, like her a Blue Dog Southern Democrat, but sex-loyalty trumps regional loyalty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Priss Factor
    "So it is annoying that 99 percent of Pizza’s posts here are about the Jews."

    About Eskimos, dammit.

    You see, it makes no sense to talk about the powerless since they have no power over us. Jews are powerless, so why talk about them? It'd be as pointless as bitching about the Nepalese or Madagascarians.

    We should focus our attention on those who control our politicians. Those who groomed and made Obama. Who are over-represented in the supreme court. Who've been pushing open borders. Who've had people like Jason Richwine fired. Who triggered wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. Who've purged all the 'Arabists'. Who've pulled strings to force Hungary to ban a conference about the survival of white people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0PUXhWCUCA

    We need to focus our attention on the power.
    When wasps ruled, the eskimos concentrated their vitriol on the wasps. They didn't waste their energies on Bulgarian-Americans.

    To be sure, I'm beginning to suspect that it's really the yanomamos who really control the power in the US. I'm always open to revising the truth if need be. Maybe yanopac is more powerful than Icepac.

    Perhaps it is time to let the Eskimos be, and move on to some other invisible minority, like, say, the Faroese.

    Yes, the Faroese. Nobody ever talks about the Faroese. We can give these unjustly neglected people a moment in the sun, not that there ever is any sun way up there in the North Atlantic.

    Let the world know of the struggle for national survival of the heroic Faroese people, who prevailed against the wicked depredations of the Danes, or the Norwegians, whichever one of those wore those horned helmets and those metal bras.

    We can speak truth to the power of those horrid Anglos as well, who oppressed our brothers on the Shetland Islands, and drove their mellifluous and euphonious tongue of Norn, or Vorn, or Voldemort, or whatever it was, into extinction.

    And the Faroese eat rancid puffins, and moldy sheeps. And whales, too. They eat whales!

    So, best of all, no one can ever accuse them of being Kosher!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Webb is the candidate most likely to stir up things. He would be tougher on immigration than any other potential candidate except for Ted Cruz. He’s the most likely candidate to put forth a citizenist stance

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. […] feminism holds women back from high […]

    Read More
  71. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @OsRazor
    There's an interesting article by Paglia how modern feminism so distorts nice, middle class white girls' perceptions of themselves and of reality that it poses a danger to them. http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

    Of course, Paglia ignores the blatant racial aspect of the butchery of poor Hannah Graham, but the point stands: women are so cocooned inside weird ideas about what's safe and what's not, that they're really susceptible to evil smacking them upside the head.

    What was common-sense among women even a generation ago seems like horrible patriarchal nonsense today: If you're a woman, you don't walk around drunk out of your mind in the middle of the night alone.

    It’s pushed even further to the point that a woman should not defend herself and run away, not even tell some sloppy dude his attention is unwanted. She can only prevail submitting a complain against him or “speak up” later. So brave and practical! Feminism succeeded in making perfect victims out of women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Me says:
    @Anonymous
    Have any of you been to a legitimately top-tier college this generation? There are huge numbers of extremely high-achieving women, rocking classes like O-chem while racking up impressive extracurriculars. Yes, gender parity at MIT and Caltech is skewed at the Asberger's end of the IQ distribution, but at most elite pursuits, women are doing fine.

    When I hear some middle-aged cubicle dweller grump that they are surrounded by mediocre women in their F500 cubicle, it seems pretty plain that they're looking in a mirror.

    Asperger Syndrome has not much, if anything at all, to do with IQ — i.e., talking about an “Asberger’s end of the IQ distribution” makes no sense. Saying that is akin to referring to the “large foot size end of the IQ distribution.”

    Some people seem to think that having Asperger’s indicates intelligence, but that’s a myth. People with this disorder have IQs that are like everyone else’s, with some being very smart and others being dumber than a box of rocks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation