The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump Is Second Most Feminine-Sounding Candidate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

Measuring Trump’s Language: Bluster but Also Words That Appeal to Women
Claire Cain Miller @clairecm MARCH 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like “incredibly grateful” and “open our hearts.” More surprising, the second-most feminine-sounding speaker is Donald Trump, who often talks about “my beautiful family” and “lasting relationships.”

But unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump is just as likely to speak in overtly masculine language, especially favoring phrases like “absolutely destroy” and often using insulting words that tend to alienate women (and many men): “moron,” “imbecile” and “loser.”

This is based on 126,362 words in publicly available speeches by the candidates through March 3 and in four debates analyzed by Textio, a company that uses software to evaluate language. Textio ranked the candidates’ language in various areas, including gender associations, references to minorities and the frequency with which they talked about themselves versus talking directly to voters.

… Mrs. Clinton’s language is often about coming together, and she mentions family five times as often as any other candidate. Mr. Trump’s language is the most polarized between masculine and feminine, though he has been sounding more feminine over the campaign, perhaps to try to appeal to female voters. …

Ted Cruz is the most masculine and aggressive speaker of all, Textio found, and much more masculine than Mrs. Clinton is feminine. He rarely uses feminine words, favoring “relentless,” “hunt down” and “totally destroy.”

Bernie Sanders’s average language is more masculine than Mr. Trump’s, but not as masculine as Marco Rubio’s. Mr. Sanders’s speech has been getting more masculine over time. …

Software is imperfect at understanding human language because it misses important clues like gestures, tone of voice and facial expressions, said Robin Lakoff, professor emerita of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, who in 1975 published a book, “Language and Woman’s Place,” that led to a variety of research on language and gender.

Based on these nonverbal cues, she concluded that Mr. Trump was the most feminine speaker of all the candidates, even more than Mrs. Clinton — he gestures a lot, is very expressive, poses statements as questions and repeatedly explains himself, all of which are commonly feminine, she said.

“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.”

Also in line with the Textio analysis, she said that Mr. Cruz spoke in the most masculine way, with few gestures or expressions, and with flat intonation and short, declarative sentences. …

I don’t watch a lot of the candidates on TV, but my impression is that the various elements of Cruz’s affect — facial expressions, intonation, words, etc. — aren’t seamlessly integrated.

The candidates who refer to minorities most are Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, and the references are always positive. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who speaks about minorities more negatively than positively, and over half the negative references are about people from Mexico.

Illegal alien people from Mexico.

… Less so Mr. Trump: He talks about himself more than any other candidate, using “I” or “we” 212 times per 1,000 words, and addresses voters directly less than anyone, 42 times per 1,000 words. In that way, his language is more like that of a business tycoon than a politician, according to Textio’s analysis. The previous presidential candidate who spoke most similarly to Mr. Trump? Ross Perot.

Another feminine aspect to Trump is that he Takes Everything Personally. Trump’s is an extreme version of this trait that’s actually pretty common among Big Men, who, in contrast to Nerds, are very aware of their individual human relationships.

In contrast, Reagan tended to be focused on principles and used individuals in his speeches as examples of general patterns. A competent newspaper columnist, Reagan was fairly abstracted and disengaged from actual individual people around him (as his children regretted), especially for a movie star. Reagan always regretted losing out to Humphrey Bogart the roles of Rick in Casablanca and Fred C. Dobbs in The Treasure of Sierra Madre, but Bogart was an all-time great at being in the moment with his costars, while Reagan as an actor was a little bit like Ben Affleck: serviceable, but not fully engaged. Reagan was a fine craftsman of acting, but not a genius at it.

I’ve always wondered why the key moment in the 1980 presidential debate was Reagan joshing Carter with “There you go again.” I never understood what was so awesome about it, but I think now that it was the moment when Reagan came down to the man0-a-mano level and exerted interpersonal dominance by dissing the President to his face. But then I’m not a Big Man, so I only understand these things at an abstract/empirical level, while Trump has an extraordinarily intuitive sales talent.

 
Hide 115 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like “incredibly grateful” and “open our hearts.”

    …and with the shrill, nasally, Chicago tone that conjures images of “Americas Ex-Wife”!

    “This year stop tip-toeing around it…..vote Pure Evil in 2016- Vote Hillary!”

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    For a while I thought that Hillary's raspy, screechy voice was due to having to speak so much while campaigning, but it never seems to get better.
    , @Lot
    Hillary's accent is very downstate Illinois/Indiana/Western Michigan. It is subtle since that accent is so close to general american, but to my ear the implicit Midwestern White is very strong in her voice, and that will be an advantage for her for the actual swing voters.
    , @Stacy2355
    This may the greatest comment I have ever read.
  2. Less so Mr. Trump: He talks about himself more than any other candidate, using “I” or “we” 212 times per 1,000 words, and addresses voters directly less than anyone, 42 times per 1,000 words.

    Many commentators have noted that this is a defining characteristic of Barak Hussein Obama’s public addresses. I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions.

    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    Trump's is "I will" and "we will" instead of (hey guys) "if you vote for me"


    Have not listened to Obama's drivel in many years but from recollection he's "I (muh feelings)" and "we must" "we cannot" this and that

  3. “There you go again” – I think it was the relatable delivery. Not hostile, not exasperated, just resigned and cool. You can’t help but smile when he delivers the line.

    http://youtu.be/qN7gDRjTNf4

    • Replies: @theo the kraut
    I guess you get it wrong with "Not hostile". Resigned, cool, jovial and with implicit condescension. Jovial in the twofold sense of the word--friendly and from above. Benignly from above, as befits Jove, yet from above, and that's rhetorically a death knell if your opponent is the president who doesn't get to be the top dog, because you are or can feign it, being the better actor. Carter comes over as stuck up, niggling, careful bordering on anxious--Reagan is relaxed and self assured, someone the voter is willing to delegate power so responsibility is off his back. Trump can do mano-a-mano, but Reagan, rhetorically, was better than that.
    , @MarkinLA
    They did have Carter's campaign playbook so that was probably thought out and rehearsed.
  4. It’s interesting, but not surprising to me that Trump’s speech pattern is “more feminine” relative to his male rivals (and to the extent such things are quantifiable). He’s been a player on the larger stage of the culture–not just the stunted arena of politics–where affect has long been shaped by Oprah and other chatty characters. One classic female-male polarity is talkative-reticient, and Trump is definitely the former. The torrent of words probably requires that a speaker will use more adjectives and intensifiers, which is characteristic of feminine speech. By contrast, the Gettysburg Address is probably the greatest example of terse, masculine speech.

    What amazes me about the article Steve cites is that academics (and the NYT) can claim to make meaningful distinctions between masculine and feminine speech, but insist that it’s bigotry to make such distinctions with regard to biology.

    • Replies: @theo the kraut
    that's right, but progressives don't care for logic. else, trump as a player is a natural in pua parlance, and that's more than just rehashing a set of speech/acting patterns. the natural combines male and female strengths, he has deeper intuitions in both directions than regular males. unfortunately the vulgarian is lacking in the gravitas compartment, yet i hope for some creative destruction.
    , @Olorin
    So now garrulous New York speech habits have been redefined as "feminine"?

    Yeah. OK. Whatever.
  5. More surprising, the second-most feminine-sounding speaker is Donald Trump…

    But unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump is just as likely to speak in overtly masculine language…

    In other words, Trump is the most balanced.

    said Robin Lakoff, professor emerita of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley…

    For experts on language and “gender”, Robin and George Lakoff’s own language at home didn’t seem to work out that well. They’re divorced.

    Other than that terse note in George’s bio-box, neither’s Wikipedia article mentions the other.

  6. I agree about Cruz. In fact, I have trouble just looking at still photos of him. It’s like the Uncanny Valley effect. I’m sure that’s why people distrust him so much.

    Slightly OT, but I always thought Folsom Prison Blues was a strange song. It describes well the type of men who are or should be locked up–psychopaths who kills just out of curiosity or for pleasure. But it’s written in the tone of someone we’re supposed to be feel sympathy for. That makes Cash either a fellow psychopath or a saint.

    • Replies: @theo the kraut
    no, a poet with the license to ill, if needed.
    , @Ozymandias
    This would be the pertinent verse:

    "I bet there's rich folks eating in a fancy dining car
    They're probably drinkin' coffee and smoking big cigars.
    Well I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free
    But THOSE PEOPLE keep a movin'
    And that's what tortures me..."
    ________

    No one ever recognizes this version of 'Folsom', but it was approved by The Man himself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO8j37HU6bg
    , @kihowi
    When Simpsons characters have a fake or pathetic smile they have angled up eyebrows. Cruz does this naturally. Not good.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Similarities abound to Richard Nixon, starting with the ski slope schnoz...

    Tricky Ted?
    , @gruff

    my impression is that the various elements of Cruz’s affect — facial expressions, intonation, words, etc. — aren’t seamlessly integrated.
     
    Taibbi in RS: "Cruz certainly has an odd face – it looks like someone sewed pieces of a waterlogged Reagan mask together at gunpoint".
  7. Keith Vaz [AKA "sir charles pipkins"] says:

    “The candidates who refer to minorities the most are Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, and the references are always positive.”

    That’s because they are angels who never do anything wrong and create utopian societies they never want to leave and Whites yearn to go to.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The fact that Sanders and Clinton only speak of "minorities" in positive terms tells one all one needs to know, especially in light of the [omitted by NYT] fact that their depictions of "majorities" aren't as glowing.
  8. Are the feminists at the NYT okay with all this gender stereotyping? Since when is “open our hearts” a feminine phrase and why is anybody thinking that Hilary Clinton has a heart to open?

    These people are fakers. I thought we were ready for women being drafted into combat and here they’re talking about being girly and “incredibly grateful”.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I know, right? This struck me as sooo weird. I am baffled by this fear of Trump to the point that all kinds of opinions are created like this one, which crazily, makes women seem like weaklings!

    OT: a scary development to add to the thread of the Duke Hoax . www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-yale-jack-montague-20160314-story-html

    - uncanny, especially because accuser had sex with the dude a few times 1.5 years ago! Yale is really messed-up these days.

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being "old maids," (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there's always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U's, boiler-plate state U's? Is it a class thing? Are female students at elite U's getting all Edith Wharton/Jane Austen-like? I found it very easy to navigate the pressures of desire whether I was wasted or not, back in the day. And, of course, on rare occasion, I had that coyote date that I regretted and cringed about, but it wasn't anyone's fault.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30's, early 40's (I'll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women. They will be too scared of their peers until this "yes means yes," ambiguity is over. Why risk your life? I feel very sorry for this Jack M., and hope he wins his case.

    I knew this "yes means yes," thing was gonna be destructive and so stupid. At want point will alumni figure out that their annual giving will go to legal fees? And, to also pay for those lawsuits when students OD, fall out of windows, or can't remember which party they were actually at? Red Solo cup maker better worry that they'll be sued too!

  9. So Trump will be the first transvestite president?

  10. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Less so Mr. Trump: He talks about himself more than any other candidate, using “I” or “we” 212 times per 1,000 words, and addresses voters directly less than anyone, 42 times per 1,000 words.
     
    Many commentators have noted that this is a defining characteristic of Barak Hussein Obama's public addresses. I'll let readers draw their own conclusions.

    Trump’s is “I will” and “we will” instead of (hey guys) “if you vote for me”

    Have not listened to Obama’s drivel in many years but from recollection he’s “I (muh feelings)” and “we must” “we cannot” this and that

  11. @Danindc
    "There you go again" - I think it was the relatable delivery. Not hostile, not exasperated, just resigned and cool. You can't help but smile when he delivers the line.

    http://youtu.be/qN7gDRjTNf4

    I guess you get it wrong with “Not hostile”. Resigned, cool, jovial and with implicit condescension. Jovial in the twofold sense of the word–friendly and from above. Benignly from above, as befits Jove, yet from above, and that’s rhetorically a death knell if your opponent is the president who doesn’t get to be the top dog, because you are or can feign it, being the better actor. Carter comes over as stuck up, niggling, careful bordering on anxious–Reagan is relaxed and self assured, someone the voter is willing to delegate power so responsibility is off his back. Trump can do mano-a-mano, but Reagan, rhetorically, was better than that.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    The spectacle of Ronald Reagan--GE shill and B actor--condescending to ANYONE was why I registered Republican to vote for John Anderson in the second-ever POTUS vote I had as a kid.
    , @Tony
    "Carter comes over as stuck up, niggling, "

    Hey watch it with that word. Didnt anybody tell you that using that word is a microaggression?
  12. @Chrisnonymous
    I agree about Cruz. In fact, I have trouble just looking at still photos of him. It's like the Uncanny Valley effect. I'm sure that's why people distrust him so much.

    Slightly OT, but I always thought Folsom Prison Blues was a strange song. It describes well the type of men who are or should be locked up--psychopaths who kills just out of curiosity or for pleasure. But it's written in the tone of someone we're supposed to be feel sympathy for. That makes Cash either a fellow psychopath or a saint.

    no, a poet with the license to ill, if needed.

  13. Yeah, the further up the chain you go, the more petty people become. It’s why all those jokes about losing to the boss at whatever you’re playing with him rings true: bosses aren’t interested in winning fair and square, they’re interested in being the boss. Napoleon used to cheat his own officers at cards, and openly, too, because his ego was so vast that even with all of Europe cowering at his feet, he still needed to win the game in front of him. Or read What Makes Sammy Run? and marvel that the main character, even after becoming a Hollywood producer, still makes his childhood bully work for him as his servant, just for the mental satisfaction of watching his former childhood tormenter wriggle under his thumb.

    And not only are powerful people petty, they keep lists about who was wronged them just to get back at them. Nixon was famous for his Enemies List, but all big politicians have them; Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn’t call it an Enemies List. Sociopathy is what’s needed to get ahead in bureaucratic situations, especially corrupt ones. Or at least extreme narcissism.

    Women are better at backbiting politicking, so historically when a civilization gets to a point where it has a top-heavy bureaucracy and a regular army, you see more women gaining positions of power.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn’t call it an Enemies List.

    Obama's "Enemies List" would closely coincide with that of the press, unlike with Nixon.
    , @Abe
    Somewhat apropos is this LOOONG article about Obama's foreign policy philosophy up now at THE ATLANTIC. It's heavy on substantive detail and very light on the smoke-up-the-butt blowing- almost restores the magazine's honor after launching the career of one Ta Genius Coates.

    Obama comes off as a pretty sensible guy overall, and waaaaay preferable to the wing-nut foreign policy tough-guys (and gals) in either party (Bush, McCain, Graham, Clinton).

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can't bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:


    Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries
     
    But this bizarre non-sequitur is just amazing to me:

    Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations. Finally, the president interrupted the prime minister: “Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”
     
    Yeah, "African American son of a single mom" (with a PhD)- LOL. Obama is about as authentic and real as Michael Cera singing a folk-rock acapella version of IN THE GHETTO.
    , @Marty
    I thought Schulberg's message was that as a tenement Jew, Sammy could never really feel secure, thus the need to s*** down. Generally, it's the less-accomplished who are the most consistently petty, because they don't understand the alternative value system. Higher up the pole, courtesy and generosity aren't defined as weakness. Sure, the upper middle-class always wants to preserve it's priveleges, but that's not what we mean when we speak of pettiness.
  14. I can totally see Ben Affleck as a Republican candidate, 15 years down the line..

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I could have imagined Affleck, a fellow who is broadly but not overwhelmingly talented as a director, actor, and writer, as the Democratic candidate down the line. But that was assuming it was a package deal with Jennifer Garner for First Lady, and he appears to have messed that up.
    , @Brutusale
    You've obviously paid no attention to his politics. He's only to the right of his Maxist buddy Damon.
  15. @ChrisZ
    It's interesting, but not surprising to me that Trump's speech pattern is "more feminine" relative to his male rivals (and to the extent such things are quantifiable). He's been a player on the larger stage of the culture--not just the stunted arena of politics--where affect has long been shaped by Oprah and other chatty characters. One classic female-male polarity is talkative-reticient, and Trump is definitely the former. The torrent of words probably requires that a speaker will use more adjectives and intensifiers, which is characteristic of feminine speech. By contrast, the Gettysburg Address is probably the greatest example of terse, masculine speech.

    What amazes me about the article Steve cites is that academics (and the NYT) can claim to make meaningful distinctions between masculine and feminine speech, but insist that it's bigotry to make such distinctions with regard to biology.

    that’s right, but progressives don’t care for logic. else, trump as a player is a natural in pua parlance, and that’s more than just rehashing a set of speech/acting patterns. the natural combines male and female strengths, he has deeper intuitions in both directions than regular males. unfortunately the vulgarian is lacking in the gravitas compartment, yet i hope for some creative destruction.

  16. Linguistically, Trump is even cleverer than this New York Times article gives him credit for. He is constantly calling people “losers”, for which he has been criticized as a poor role model. But this is actually a secret shout-out to the Muslim community, because it mirrors the speech pattern of their favorite deity. See
    http://quran.com/search?q=losers

  17. “Open out hearts” is typically feminine? Sexual differences just appear and disappear according to whether they fit a woman’s argument, don’t they.

    Taking everything seriously is a female trait, AND a trait of highly socially competent men. Another way to look at it is we’ve created a society where autisticy men do alright because we’ve created institutions that take away the necessity for a lot of difficult social interacting. There’s marriage, government, ritualized job seeking, bureaucracy and ideals like fairness and politeness. In return we get to make use of their autistic qualities to our advantage.

    Because women have realized that these men are unattractive and the elites have realized that less uppity and cheaper foreigners are almost as good, this part of our society is being eroded away. You better learn to take everything personally again in the future if you want to get somewhere.

  18. Get over it!

  19. @Keith Vaz
    "The candidates who refer to minorities the most are Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, and the references are always positive."

    That's because they are angels who never do anything wrong and create utopian societies they never want to leave and Whites yearn to go to.

    The fact that Sanders and Clinton only speak of “minorities” in positive terms tells one all one needs to know, especially in light of the [omitted by NYT] fact that their depictions of “majorities” aren’t as glowing.

  20. …said Robin Lakoff, professor emerita of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley…

    Did George Lakoff become a tranny? The sailerbait potential is high.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Tsk.

    Robin is a Brooklyn-born (1942) Cliffy who studied with Chomsky--as an auditor, not an actual student. (Radcliffe students could pop over to MIT to audit courses.)

    She's not only never been out of school, she's been at UC-Berkeley ever since 1972, when they picked her up. Ditto George (born in North Jersey), the same year.

    But 1972 was a good year to start building real estate equity in Berkeley.

    According to Zillow, Robin's $800,000 market value house in the Berkeley Hills is assessed at $207,000, and she pays under 2/3 the real estate tax that I do for my median value cottage in urbanizing Pugetopolis.

    According to Zillow, George's $1.6 million market value house in the Berkeley Hills is assessed at $168,000, and he pays about twice the real estate tax that I do for my median value cottage in urbanizing Pugetopolis. Some old contacts in Berkeley observed that his state salary was around a quarter of a million a year, but that was a few years ago.

    My point is, these are not people with a strong connection to anything you or I would call reality, at any level.

  21. Textio may conclude that Hillary Clinton sounds the most feminine, but I wouldn’t bet on Textio to run a Turing test, and Hillary the Candidate couldn’t pass one.

  22. Textio may conclude that Hillary Clinton sounds the most feminine, but I wouldn’t bet on Textio to run a Turing test, and Hillary the Candidate couldn’t pass one. She”s running Candidate ELIZA, and it shows in every reflecting-your-concerns, segue-into-soundbite non-response.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Re: Turing tests, I see your Hillary and raise you a Rubio.
  23. Years of selling high priced real estate have made him that way. Which sex makes the real estate decisions? How about golf membership decisions, do women make those too?

    I think someone said they sold Pres Kennedy like soap flakes. Trump is selling himself like a 2 bedroom condo in Manhattan.

    “Trump’s Top Women,” the headline read. And the subhead: “Surprise! Mr. Macho’s Inner Circle Isn’t An All-Boys’ Club.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html

  24. @Formerly CARealist
    Are the feminists at the NYT okay with all this gender stereotyping? Since when is "open our hearts" a feminine phrase and why is anybody thinking that Hilary Clinton has a heart to open?

    These people are fakers. I thought we were ready for women being drafted into combat and here they're talking about being girly and "incredibly grateful".

    I know, right? This struck me as sooo weird. I am baffled by this fear of Trump to the point that all kinds of opinions are created like this one, which crazily, makes women seem like weaklings!

    OT: a scary development to add to the thread of the Duke Hoax . http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-yale-jack-montague-20160314-story-html

    – uncanny, especially because accuser had sex with the dude a few times 1.5 years ago! Yale is really messed-up these days.

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being “old maids,” (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there’s always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U’s, boiler-plate state U’s? Is it a class thing? Are female students at elite U’s getting all Edith Wharton/Jane Austen-like? I found it very easy to navigate the pressures of desire whether I was wasted or not, back in the day. And, of course, on rare occasion, I had that coyote date that I regretted and cringed about, but it wasn’t anyone’s fault.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30’s, early 40’s (I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women. They will be too scared of their peers until this “yes means yes,” ambiguity is over. Why risk your life? I feel very sorry for this Jack M., and hope he wins his case.

    I knew this “yes means yes,” thing was gonna be destructive and so stupid. At want point will alumni figure out that their annual giving will go to legal fees? And, to also pay for those lawsuits when students OD, fall out of windows, or can’t remember which party they were actually at? Red Solo cup maker better worry that they’ll be sued too!

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being “old maids,” (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there’s always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.
     
    White guys are going for East Asian women big time (according to dating website stats). And there are a lot of East Asians in the U.S. these days.
    , @Steve Sailer
    "(I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh)"

    I never see any social science papers on statistics about becoming a grandparent, which I think is kind of a big deal to a fair number of people. What are the factors affecting the odds of becoming a grandparent before you are 80?

    I wonder if the NLSY79, which tracks about 5,000 children of the 1979 cohort that was 14 to 22 then, has data on the # of grandchildren born so far? The NLSY79 data is available to credentialed researchers (e.g., grad students), so that seems like a potential source, although it's probably a decade away from being far enough out to get a real good picture.
    , @OnCampusRapeCulture
    Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Rape culture madness is spreading to European universities too.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U’s, boiler-plate state U’s? Is it a class thing?

    Unfortunately, it's happening at practically all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board. Not a class thing, although it originates with sheltered upper-class women. Obviously the reasons behind it are complicated, but I believe they include a hypothesis that it largely stems from the increased dominance of female students in higher education. This leads to increased opportunities for casual sex rather than having to commit to a relationship. Casual sex is something that men, especially at that age, generally enjoy a lot more than women, even though women go through the motions and convince themselves they're cool with it. Their own professors have been conditioned these women believe that gender differences are just social constructs, but the biological reality is that women actually crave romantic relationships.

    So many of these rape accusations seem to be a classic case of a girl feeling rejected after sleeping with him casually, or after a breakup initiated by her boyfriend. The neurotic sex culture on campus was originally a (hysterical, overreaching) attempt to rectify previously inadequate, unfair ways some universities treated rape allegations. It has become an insidious way of redefining rape to include innocuous sexual behavior, criminalizing casual sex, in order to return to a campus culture of committed relationships or at least serious dating, which is more favorable to women's real desires.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30′s, early 40′s (I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women.

    As they would be free and probably wise to do, but gosh, that makes me so sad and worried as an unmarried 34 year old woman who hopes to find someone close to her in age. (I'm not single and childless by choice, but by bad choices, or is there no difference?) Should I be blessed with children, whether boys or girls, I will encourage them to try to pair up and have children at a younger age than myself. No matter how much technology advances to help older people have children, it will never be to a child's benefit to be likely deprived of strong bonds with their grandparents, and have to deal with the responsibility of aging parents at such delicate ages.

  25. I’m surprised they don’t mention how often Trump uses the most feminine word of all. The word guys have the most trouble saying. Yes, “the L word” – Love.

  26. Cruz has always be a super creep, super creep, he’s super creepy. http://youtu.be/vt-vG_TdOT4

    Ted Cruz always wanted to be an actor– acts out a scene from Princess Bride (cring worthy, terrible actor):
    http://youtu.be/0sLORYpyLEU

    Trump also wanted to be an actor (he has mentioned this in talks and in his books on success), but unlike Cruz he comes off natural because he uses it as an adjunct to his presentation.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Cruz channeling The Princess Bride was weird--but it made him more endearing than anything else I've seen him do. There was none of his usual phoniness in it, just love for a favorite movie of childhood. Thanks for the link.
    , @AndrewR
    How on earth does Cruz have so many supporters? He has the most unlikable personality of any candidate I can recall, although Walker and Graham come close.
  27. @Chrisnonymous
    I agree about Cruz. In fact, I have trouble just looking at still photos of him. It's like the Uncanny Valley effect. I'm sure that's why people distrust him so much.

    Slightly OT, but I always thought Folsom Prison Blues was a strange song. It describes well the type of men who are or should be locked up--psychopaths who kills just out of curiosity or for pleasure. But it's written in the tone of someone we're supposed to be feel sympathy for. That makes Cash either a fellow psychopath or a saint.

    This would be the pertinent verse:

    “I bet there’s rich folks eating in a fancy dining car
    They’re probably drinkin’ coffee and smoking big cigars.
    Well I know I had it coming, I know I can’t be free
    But THOSE PEOPLE keep a movin’
    And that’s what tortures me…”
    ________

    No one ever recognizes this version of ‘Folsom’, but it was approved by The Man himself.

  28. It’s interesting. So called leadership is basically being a feminized man. Talking a lot, liking socializing, gestures, stories.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "leadership is basically being a feminized man."

    But you have to do it without anybody noticing it.

  29. I wrote a post about Trump last summer where I described him as the leverage candidate. He is the most self-aware candidate we have seen since Nixon. Trump thinks about how others hear and see him, even while he is giving one of his off-the-cuff speeches. It’s what make him a great salesman and a great real estate tycoon. He’s always away of the group dynamics and how others are responding to him.

    He leverages his assets like no other candidate. As soon as he gets a positive response from the audience. he immediately starts to build on it. He’ll hammer home that idea and own it in your mind, then he starts looking for the next good deal in your head. It’s fun to watch, even for someone like me, who is not a big fan of Trump.

  30. @thinkingaboutit
    It's interesting. So called leadership is basically being a feminized man. Talking a lot, liking socializing, gestures, stories.

    “leadership is basically being a feminized man.”

    But you have to do it without anybody noticing it.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    "'leadership is basically being a feminized man.'

    But you have to do it without anybody noticing it."

    The problem Rs have been having since the latter days of the Laura Bush administration is that they keep forgetting the "man" part.

    , @Truth
    "leadership is basically being a feminized man.”

    "Gentlemen, it's called leadership..."



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFkfL_6I7_Y
  31. “Young Latinos convert parents into supporting Bernie Sanders”

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/young-latinos-convert-parents-supporting-bernie-sanders

  32. @ChrisZ
    It's interesting, but not surprising to me that Trump's speech pattern is "more feminine" relative to his male rivals (and to the extent such things are quantifiable). He's been a player on the larger stage of the culture--not just the stunted arena of politics--where affect has long been shaped by Oprah and other chatty characters. One classic female-male polarity is talkative-reticient, and Trump is definitely the former. The torrent of words probably requires that a speaker will use more adjectives and intensifiers, which is characteristic of feminine speech. By contrast, the Gettysburg Address is probably the greatest example of terse, masculine speech.

    What amazes me about the article Steve cites is that academics (and the NYT) can claim to make meaningful distinctions between masculine and feminine speech, but insist that it's bigotry to make such distinctions with regard to biology.

    So now garrulous New York speech habits have been redefined as “feminine”?

    Yeah. OK. Whatever.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Ha! I guess I'd better think twice from now on before I leave a 100-word comment here. :-)
  33. @theo the kraut
    I guess you get it wrong with "Not hostile". Resigned, cool, jovial and with implicit condescension. Jovial in the twofold sense of the word--friendly and from above. Benignly from above, as befits Jove, yet from above, and that's rhetorically a death knell if your opponent is the president who doesn't get to be the top dog, because you are or can feign it, being the better actor. Carter comes over as stuck up, niggling, careful bordering on anxious--Reagan is relaxed and self assured, someone the voter is willing to delegate power so responsibility is off his back. Trump can do mano-a-mano, but Reagan, rhetorically, was better than that.

    The spectacle of Ronald Reagan–GE shill and B actor–condescending to ANYONE was why I registered Republican to vote for John Anderson in the second-ever POTUS vote I had as a kid.

  34. • Replies: @MarkinLA
    No, the ignorant racist coward writing the column doesn't like Trump
  35. @BB753
    I can totally see Ben Affleck as a Republican candidate, 15 years down the line..

    I could have imagined Affleck, a fellow who is broadly but not overwhelmingly talented as a director, actor, and writer, as the Democratic candidate down the line. But that was assuming it was a package deal with Jennifer Garner for First Lady, and he appears to have messed that up.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Of course, Ben could always go back to J-lo in order to attempt to carry the Hispanic vote, since this is the Democratic party after all.

    Unlike Columba, for instance, J-lo has the name recognition and can speak more than passable English.
    , @AndrewR
    Maybe he can marry Caitlyn Jenner and then can run together on a cross-party ticket.
  36. The body of the information in this is based upon a faulty paradigm: that masculine and feminine as qualities can be taken as a sum total of pre-ordained points in a coordinate system. The fact is, Trump is both more feminine and more masculine than all the other candidates, a quality that belies any ability to test it using normatively-based systems. He approaches the ideal in a blending of the yin and yang of a personality, rendering a perfect litmus test for development in those capable of receiving his message. Too much yin and he’s a pussy; too much yang and he’s Adolf.

    The fault lies in the receivers, not the message.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    The other way to put this:

    Trump projects as more human than all the other candidates.

    They are cardboard cutouts in Rupert Pupkin DiMassimo's mommy's basement.
  37. @Sparkling Wiggle

    ...said Robin Lakoff, professor emerita of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley...
     
    Did George Lakoff become a tranny? The sailerbait potential is high.

    Tsk.

    Robin is a Brooklyn-born (1942) Cliffy who studied with Chomsky–as an auditor, not an actual student. (Radcliffe students could pop over to MIT to audit courses.)

    She’s not only never been out of school, she’s been at UC-Berkeley ever since 1972, when they picked her up. Ditto George (born in North Jersey), the same year.

    But 1972 was a good year to start building real estate equity in Berkeley.

    According to Zillow, Robin’s $800,000 market value house in the Berkeley Hills is assessed at $207,000, and she pays under 2/3 the real estate tax that I do for my median value cottage in urbanizing Pugetopolis.

    According to Zillow, George’s $1.6 million market value house in the Berkeley Hills is assessed at $168,000, and he pays about twice the real estate tax that I do for my median value cottage in urbanizing Pugetopolis. Some old contacts in Berkeley observed that his state salary was around a quarter of a million a year, but that was a few years ago.

    My point is, these are not people with a strong connection to anything you or I would call reality, at any level.

  38. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lagertha
    I know, right? This struck me as sooo weird. I am baffled by this fear of Trump to the point that all kinds of opinions are created like this one, which crazily, makes women seem like weaklings!

    OT: a scary development to add to the thread of the Duke Hoax . www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-yale-jack-montague-20160314-story-html

    - uncanny, especially because accuser had sex with the dude a few times 1.5 years ago! Yale is really messed-up these days.

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being "old maids," (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there's always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U's, boiler-plate state U's? Is it a class thing? Are female students at elite U's getting all Edith Wharton/Jane Austen-like? I found it very easy to navigate the pressures of desire whether I was wasted or not, back in the day. And, of course, on rare occasion, I had that coyote date that I regretted and cringed about, but it wasn't anyone's fault.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30's, early 40's (I'll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women. They will be too scared of their peers until this "yes means yes," ambiguity is over. Why risk your life? I feel very sorry for this Jack M., and hope he wins his case.

    I knew this "yes means yes," thing was gonna be destructive and so stupid. At want point will alumni figure out that their annual giving will go to legal fees? And, to also pay for those lawsuits when students OD, fall out of windows, or can't remember which party they were actually at? Red Solo cup maker better worry that they'll be sued too!

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being “old maids,” (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there’s always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    White guys are going for East Asian women big time (according to dating website stats). And there are a lot of East Asians in the U.S. these days.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Agree. Since I have several Millenial sons, ergo many friends both male and female are familiar to me; this trend towards Asian (East Asian) women is strong. I find it especially prevalent within STEM majors. The East Asian women "get" them, and there is no drama. Drama is something my sons hate. East Asian women are also very traditional (despite holding degrees/working in high level STEM fields) when it comes to commitment to family and traditional things. As a Finn, I am quite comfortable with young women who have a high degree of comfort for respectful family dynamics and a high drive to pursue their mettle.
  39. @Polymath
    Textio may conclude that Hillary Clinton sounds the most feminine, but I wouldn't bet on Textio to run a Turing test, and Hillary the Candidate couldn't pass one. She''s running Candidate ELIZA, and it shows in every reflecting-your-concerns, segue-into-soundbite non-response.

    Re: Turing tests, I see your Hillary and raise you a Rubio.

  40. @fish

    Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like “incredibly grateful” and “open our hearts.”
     

    ...and with the shrill, nasally, Chicago tone that conjures images of "Americas Ex-Wife"!

    "This year stop tip-toeing around it.....vote Pure Evil in 2016- Vote Hillary!"

    For a while I thought that Hillary’s raspy, screechy voice was due to having to speak so much while campaigning, but it never seems to get better.

  41. This is interesting, does anyone know what the balance was of Hitler, Mao and Stalin ?

    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    Perhaps no but we do know that they all liked to keep late hours
  42. @whorefinder
    Yeah, the further up the chain you go, the more petty people become. It's why all those jokes about losing to the boss at whatever you're playing with him rings true: bosses aren't interested in winning fair and square, they're interested in being the boss. Napoleon used to cheat his own officers at cards, and openly, too, because his ego was so vast that even with all of Europe cowering at his feet, he still needed to win the game in front of him. Or read What Makes Sammy Run? and marvel that the main character, even after becoming a Hollywood producer, still makes his childhood bully work for him as his servant, just for the mental satisfaction of watching his former childhood tormenter wriggle under his thumb.

    And not only are powerful people petty, they keep lists about who was wronged them just to get back at them. Nixon was famous for his Enemies List, but all big politicians have them; Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn't call it an Enemies List. Sociopathy is what's needed to get ahead in bureaucratic situations, especially corrupt ones. Or at least extreme narcissism.

    Women are better at backbiting politicking, so historically when a civilization gets to a point where it has a top-heavy bureaucracy and a regular army, you see more women gaining positions of power.

    Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn’t call it an Enemies List.

    Obama’s “Enemies List” would closely coincide with that of the press, unlike with Nixon.

  43. There’s a lot of talk about how Trump isn’t Presidential. But I love how Trump is always in a suit and tie. Very nice. Trump’s the only candidate who dresses like a President. As opposed to Cruz, who on the campaign trail dresses like something you’d see at a k.d. lang concert.

    • Agree: Travis
  44. When Simpsons characters have a fake or pathetic smile they have eyebrows that are raised in the middle. Cruz does this naturally. Not good.

  45. @Chrisnonymous
    I agree about Cruz. In fact, I have trouble just looking at still photos of him. It's like the Uncanny Valley effect. I'm sure that's why people distrust him so much.

    Slightly OT, but I always thought Folsom Prison Blues was a strange song. It describes well the type of men who are or should be locked up--psychopaths who kills just out of curiosity or for pleasure. But it's written in the tone of someone we're supposed to be feel sympathy for. That makes Cash either a fellow psychopath or a saint.

    When Simpsons characters have a fake or pathetic smile they have angled up eyebrows. Cruz does this naturally. Not good.

  46. Abe says: • Website
    @whorefinder
    Yeah, the further up the chain you go, the more petty people become. It's why all those jokes about losing to the boss at whatever you're playing with him rings true: bosses aren't interested in winning fair and square, they're interested in being the boss. Napoleon used to cheat his own officers at cards, and openly, too, because his ego was so vast that even with all of Europe cowering at his feet, he still needed to win the game in front of him. Or read What Makes Sammy Run? and marvel that the main character, even after becoming a Hollywood producer, still makes his childhood bully work for him as his servant, just for the mental satisfaction of watching his former childhood tormenter wriggle under his thumb.

    And not only are powerful people petty, they keep lists about who was wronged them just to get back at them. Nixon was famous for his Enemies List, but all big politicians have them; Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn't call it an Enemies List. Sociopathy is what's needed to get ahead in bureaucratic situations, especially corrupt ones. Or at least extreme narcissism.

    Women are better at backbiting politicking, so historically when a civilization gets to a point where it has a top-heavy bureaucracy and a regular army, you see more women gaining positions of power.

    Somewhat apropos is this LOOONG article about Obama’s foreign policy philosophy up now at THE ATLANTIC. It’s heavy on substantive detail and very light on the smoke-up-the-butt blowing- almost restores the magazine’s honor after launching the career of one Ta Genius Coates.

    Obama comes off as a pretty sensible guy overall, and waaaaay preferable to the wing-nut foreign policy tough-guys (and gals) in either party (Bush, McCain, Graham, Clinton).

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can’t bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:

    Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries

    But this bizarre non-sequitur is just amazing to me:

    Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations. Finally, the president interrupted the prime minister: “Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”

    Yeah, “African American son of a single mom” (with a PhD)- LOL. Obama is about as authentic and real as Michael Cera singing a folk-rock acapella version of IN THE GHETTO.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can’t bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:
     

    Obama as mr. passive aggressive says it all. Only thing missing are the foam parties.
    Very good words and I like Donnie Hathaway singing "In The Ghetto". He wrote and performed it so he has the right! And his longer live version 1972 is on the internet/youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMtUP_U-nGc
    Listen to that shimmering electric piano!
    Just saying I can appreciate the times that Donnie was a deserving semi-star while Obama is such a disgusting no_slave_blood phony.
    , @Jacobite

    people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).
     
    And yet that has been shown time and again to be the upper bound to the intelligence of an effective leader. One can not get too far away from the sensibilities and thought patterns of the masses and expect to be able to lead them. Management are always the intermediaries between the masses and the idea men.
    , @dcite

    I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber...
     
    Please. This person does not have anything near a 130 IQ. We'd see some evidence of it, wouldn't we? Commenters here tend to use a rare level, upper 2%, as a starting point for discussion. I doubt most pols have anywhere near that level. Author James Baldwin was considered a genius in his circle because his IQ was 120, and he at least wrote serious literature, or at least it was considered as such during the 1960s.

    People, especially in milieus where HBD is discussed by non-professionals, way over-estimate the number of people with IQs over 130 and underestimate the manifestations of this level of intelligence. Linda Gottfredson has some of the clearest and simplest criteria for the different IQ levels. It was almost chilling to me how accurate she is, even taking into consideration different tastes and personalities.

    B.O.'s IQ is maybe 110 on a good day. He's strictly average, but smart enough to sound smartish with the right teleprompter lines.

    If he was 130, it would have at least made him a halfway decent student, not someone who has to pay millions to keep his records secret. Not someone who can't speak about anything without a teleprompter. Not someone who has spent most of his time as president (when he can get away from prying eyes) watching sports on tv. Not someone who never mentions any serious literature except his own-ghost written tome, and not someone who cannot discuss complicated issues extemporaneously. There is no cue whatsoever that he is smart, and any illusions on that front probably result from the media telling us he's exceptional, and his putative acting lessons from Harry Lennix (who is said to have despised him, btw, calling B.O. a "stupid man.")
  47. Steve,you’re a Big Man…to us.

  48. I think that most of Steve’s best humor is through the artful selection of photos from google image search, and the appropriate captioning.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  49. @Chrisnonymous
    I agree about Cruz. In fact, I have trouble just looking at still photos of him. It's like the Uncanny Valley effect. I'm sure that's why people distrust him so much.

    Slightly OT, but I always thought Folsom Prison Blues was a strange song. It describes well the type of men who are or should be locked up--psychopaths who kills just out of curiosity or for pleasure. But it's written in the tone of someone we're supposed to be feel sympathy for. That makes Cash either a fellow psychopath or a saint.

    Similarities abound to Richard Nixon, starting with the ski slope schnoz…

    Tricky Ted?

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    Yeah: Cruz is extremely Nixonian in some ways.
  50. @Olorin
    So now garrulous New York speech habits have been redefined as "feminine"?

    Yeah. OK. Whatever.

    Ha! I guess I’d better think twice from now on before I leave a 100-word comment here. 🙂

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Yeah, I should talk. ;D

    OTOH, we could claim that this is our tres courant substitute for having to hide our hands coyly behind our backs as we simper in our latest Victoria's Secret whatevers. Or having to talk like Sylvester the Cat or grow moobs or weep over Jane Austen movies.

    You know. Intentional bender-gending. I lecture your ass endlessly, and I'm not being a phallocratic monster, but a chiccuck.

  51. @Rick James
    Cruz has always be a super creep, super creep, he's super creepy. http://youtu.be/vt-vG_TdOT4


    Ted Cruz always wanted to be an actor-- acts out a scene from Princess Bride (cring worthy, terrible actor):
    http://youtu.be/0sLORYpyLEU

    Trump also wanted to be an actor (he has mentioned this in talks and in his books on success), but unlike Cruz he comes off natural because he uses it as an adjunct to his presentation.

    Cruz channeling The Princess Bride was weird–but it made him more endearing than anything else I’ve seen him do. There was none of his usual phoniness in it, just love for a favorite movie of childhood. Thanks for the link.

  52. @Steve Sailer
    I could have imagined Affleck, a fellow who is broadly but not overwhelmingly talented as a director, actor, and writer, as the Democratic candidate down the line. But that was assuming it was a package deal with Jennifer Garner for First Lady, and he appears to have messed that up.

    Of course, Ben could always go back to J-lo in order to attempt to carry the Hispanic vote, since this is the Democratic party after all.

    Unlike Columba, for instance, J-lo has the name recognition and can speak more than passable English.

  53. @Danindc
    "There you go again" - I think it was the relatable delivery. Not hostile, not exasperated, just resigned and cool. You can't help but smile when he delivers the line.

    http://youtu.be/qN7gDRjTNf4

    They did have Carter’s campaign playbook so that was probably thought out and rehearsed.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Carter was easily the last POTUS who wasn't despicable as a human being.
    I never understood the Reagan-cult or this 'Reagan Democrats' nonsense. It was specifically under his presidency that US manufacturing went into terminal decline, mass-amnesty was first given for illegals, and the financial-sector was deregulated.
    The man doesn't even come across as likeable in the way the Bush II was. He was just incredibly lucky to have been in office whilst the USSR self-imploded (no thanks to his white elephant 'star wars').
  54. @Abe
    Somewhat apropos is this LOOONG article about Obama's foreign policy philosophy up now at THE ATLANTIC. It's heavy on substantive detail and very light on the smoke-up-the-butt blowing- almost restores the magazine's honor after launching the career of one Ta Genius Coates.

    Obama comes off as a pretty sensible guy overall, and waaaaay preferable to the wing-nut foreign policy tough-guys (and gals) in either party (Bush, McCain, Graham, Clinton).

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can't bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:


    Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries
     
    But this bizarre non-sequitur is just amazing to me:

    Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations. Finally, the president interrupted the prime minister: “Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”
     
    Yeah, "African American son of a single mom" (with a PhD)- LOL. Obama is about as authentic and real as Michael Cera singing a folk-rock acapella version of IN THE GHETTO.

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can’t bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:

    Obama as mr. passive aggressive says it all. Only thing missing are the foam parties.
    Very good words and I like Donnie Hathaway singing “In The Ghetto”. He wrote and performed it so he has the right! And his longer live version 1972 is on the internet/youtube

    Listen to that shimmering electric piano!
    Just saying I can appreciate the times that Donnie was a deserving semi-star while Obama is such a disgusting no_slave_blood phony.

  55. @ChrisZ
    Ha! I guess I'd better think twice from now on before I leave a 100-word comment here. :-)

    Yeah, I should talk. ;D

    OTOH, we could claim that this is our tres courant substitute for having to hide our hands coyly behind our backs as we simper in our latest Victoria’s Secret whatevers. Or having to talk like Sylvester the Cat or grow moobs or weep over Jane Austen movies.

    You know. Intentional bender-gending. I lecture your ass endlessly, and I’m not being a phallocratic monster, but a chiccuck.

  56. @Coldwarvet
    The body of the information in this is based upon a faulty paradigm: that masculine and feminine as qualities can be taken as a sum total of pre-ordained points in a coordinate system. The fact is, Trump is both more feminine and more masculine than all the other candidates, a quality that belies any ability to test it using normatively-based systems. He approaches the ideal in a blending of the yin and yang of a personality, rendering a perfect litmus test for development in those capable of receiving his message. Too much yin and he's a pussy; too much yang and he's Adolf.

    The fault lies in the receivers, not the message.

    The other way to put this:

    Trump projects as more human than all the other candidates.

    They are cardboard cutouts in Rupert Pupkin DiMassimo’s mommy’s basement.

    • Replies: @Coldwarvet
    He's more human because he embodies the essential elements of humanity - ability to survive and thrive in an hostile environment due to the use of mind; grasp of and mastery of the elements of business - that is, the dealings between traders of various scales and importance in a universe of uncertain outcomes; and, efficacious integration of public and private life to display something of beauty and wonder - almost a regality, actually, that is presented as fair evidence of a life well-lived. The basement dwellers can only dream of and try to tear down the evidence of accomplishment that is not evident in their own self-assessments. Hence... his haters.
  57. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article65659017.html

    Trump appeals to ignorant racist cowards.

    No, the ignorant racist coward writing the column doesn’t like Trump

  58. @Olorin
    The other way to put this:

    Trump projects as more human than all the other candidates.

    They are cardboard cutouts in Rupert Pupkin DiMassimo's mommy's basement.

    He’s more human because he embodies the essential elements of humanity – ability to survive and thrive in an hostile environment due to the use of mind; grasp of and mastery of the elements of business – that is, the dealings between traders of various scales and importance in a universe of uncertain outcomes; and, efficacious integration of public and private life to display something of beauty and wonder – almost a regality, actually, that is presented as fair evidence of a life well-lived. The basement dwellers can only dream of and try to tear down the evidence of accomplishment that is not evident in their own self-assessments. Hence… his haters.

  59. @MarkinLA
    They did have Carter's campaign playbook so that was probably thought out and rehearsed.

    Carter was easily the last POTUS who wasn’t despicable as a human being.
    I never understood the Reagan-cult or this ‘Reagan Democrats’ nonsense. It was specifically under his presidency that US manufacturing went into terminal decline, mass-amnesty was first given for illegals, and the financial-sector was deregulated.
    The man doesn’t even come across as likeable in the way the Bush II was. He was just incredibly lucky to have been in office whilst the USSR self-imploded (no thanks to his white elephant ‘star wars’).

    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Nonsense, Reagan was extremely personable, and had a sense of humor and the common touch. Clinton and Reagan were head and shoulders above the rest of the presidents since WWII charm wise.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Right, because Carter's dishonesty running as a conservative Democrat (back when there was such a thing) while concealing his Leftist agenda was so endearing.

    And the courage of Jimma was so great. Jimma's courage was especially evident April 20, 1979, in the face of that attack rabbit, swimming toward Jimma, as Jimma paddled about, and that rabbit had malice in his eyes, and intended to do in Jimma with his big nasty rabbit teeth.

    That Jimma he faced up to that vicious attack rabbit with great courage. It was a nasty swamp rabbit. And that attack rabbit came so fast, and was a most furious rabbit, that Jimma had no time to consult with Amy or Rosalynn before the moment of truth arrived.

    And Jimma was befuddled, but that Jimma mustered his Jimma courage, and that Jimma, he smacked the water with his paddle. And them Jimma he turned and paddled away with all his might. And through the heroic efforts of that paddling, that Jimma got away from the rabbit with the big nasty teeth.

    And Jimma came to see that as the occasion for a vicious rebuke of the Secret Service. After all, the Secret Service was supposed to keep Jimma safe from the vicious teeth of the attack rabbit. And that Jimma, he was not happy that he had to paddle about with superhuman effort for him to escape the attack rabbit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
  60. Marty [AKA "Near Vicksburg"] says:
    @whorefinder
    Yeah, the further up the chain you go, the more petty people become. It's why all those jokes about losing to the boss at whatever you're playing with him rings true: bosses aren't interested in winning fair and square, they're interested in being the boss. Napoleon used to cheat his own officers at cards, and openly, too, because his ego was so vast that even with all of Europe cowering at his feet, he still needed to win the game in front of him. Or read What Makes Sammy Run? and marvel that the main character, even after becoming a Hollywood producer, still makes his childhood bully work for him as his servant, just for the mental satisfaction of watching his former childhood tormenter wriggle under his thumb.

    And not only are powerful people petty, they keep lists about who was wronged them just to get back at them. Nixon was famous for his Enemies List, but all big politicians have them; Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn't call it an Enemies List. Sociopathy is what's needed to get ahead in bureaucratic situations, especially corrupt ones. Or at least extreme narcissism.

    Women are better at backbiting politicking, so historically when a civilization gets to a point where it has a top-heavy bureaucracy and a regular army, you see more women gaining positions of power.

    I thought Schulberg’s message was that as a tenement Jew, Sammy could never really feel secure, thus the need to s*** down. Generally, it’s the less-accomplished who are the most consistently petty, because they don’t understand the alternative value system. Higher up the pole, courtesy and generosity aren’t defined as weakness. Sure, the upper middle-class always wants to preserve it’s priveleges, but that’s not what we mean when we speak of pettiness.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Given his confidence, indifference to criticism (and insensitivity to PC) perhaps Trump is a Nietzschean aristocrat and his competitors are Nietzschean proles/slaves ("Genealogy of Morals").
    , @whorefinder

    Generally, it’s the less-accomplished who are the most consistently petty, because they don’t understand the alternative value system. Higher up the pole, courtesy and generosity aren’t defined as weakness.
     
    I really don't think that's true; it's more a mindset the Upper class want to impress upon the Middle class. The Upper wants the Middle to think that pettiness, revenge, etc. are "empty" and should not be done, but really that's how many Upper Class folk get into power: a complete anger at anyone who is rude to them or slights them, driving them to victory. The CEOs and movie producers are famous for their anger and tirades against enemies and seek to "bury" people. They make movies and TV shows that say the opposite so the Middle Class doesn't start competing with them. It's similar to how all the TV shows and movies have white criminals but yet the CEOs and movie producers all live in white neighborhoods far from black ones.

    Basically, narcissim/sociopathy are rampant in the Upper Classes, which is precisely how they got into the Upper Class.
  61. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Similarities abound to Richard Nixon, starting with the ski slope schnoz...

    Tricky Ted?

    Yeah: Cruz is extremely Nixonian in some ways.

    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Yes, Cruz is super smart although he is far more illiberal than Nixon.
  62. So how do Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao rate on the male/female scale?

    Hitler in particular.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    All these dictators were kind of artsy, except Mussolini (who probably had the most backing by actual artists, but didn't care much about art).
  63. @Big Bill
    So how do Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao rate on the male/female scale?

    Hitler in particular.

    All these dictators were kind of artsy, except Mussolini (who probably had the most backing by actual artists, but didn’t care much about art).

  64. @Marty
    I thought Schulberg's message was that as a tenement Jew, Sammy could never really feel secure, thus the need to s*** down. Generally, it's the less-accomplished who are the most consistently petty, because they don't understand the alternative value system. Higher up the pole, courtesy and generosity aren't defined as weakness. Sure, the upper middle-class always wants to preserve it's priveleges, but that's not what we mean when we speak of pettiness.

    Given his confidence, indifference to criticism (and insensitivity to PC) perhaps Trump is a Nietzschean aristocrat and his competitors are Nietzschean proles/slaves (“Genealogy of Morals”).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Or maybe he's a real good salesman?
  65. @Abe
    Somewhat apropos is this LOOONG article about Obama's foreign policy philosophy up now at THE ATLANTIC. It's heavy on substantive detail and very light on the smoke-up-the-butt blowing- almost restores the magazine's honor after launching the career of one Ta Genius Coates.

    Obama comes off as a pretty sensible guy overall, and waaaaay preferable to the wing-nut foreign policy tough-guys (and gals) in either party (Bush, McCain, Graham, Clinton).

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can't bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:


    Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries
     
    But this bizarre non-sequitur is just amazing to me:

    Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations. Finally, the president interrupted the prime minister: “Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”
     
    Yeah, "African American son of a single mom" (with a PhD)- LOL. Obama is about as authentic and real as Michael Cera singing a folk-rock acapella version of IN THE GHETTO.

    people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    And yet that has been shown time and again to be the upper bound to the intelligence of an effective leader. One can not get too far away from the sensibilities and thought patterns of the masses and expect to be able to lead them. Management are always the intermediaries between the masses and the idea men.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    While your comment intuitively seems likely, do you have any evidence or further reading on this idea?
  66. @slumber_j
    Yeah: Cruz is extremely Nixonian in some ways.

    Yes, Cruz is super smart although he is far more illiberal than Nixon.

  67. @Big Bill
    Given his confidence, indifference to criticism (and insensitivity to PC) perhaps Trump is a Nietzschean aristocrat and his competitors are Nietzschean proles/slaves ("Genealogy of Morals").

    Or maybe he’s a real good salesman?

  68. @Yevardian
    Carter was easily the last POTUS who wasn't despicable as a human being.
    I never understood the Reagan-cult or this 'Reagan Democrats' nonsense. It was specifically under his presidency that US manufacturing went into terminal decline, mass-amnesty was first given for illegals, and the financial-sector was deregulated.
    The man doesn't even come across as likeable in the way the Bush II was. He was just incredibly lucky to have been in office whilst the USSR self-imploded (no thanks to his white elephant 'star wars').

    Nonsense, Reagan was extremely personable, and had a sense of humor and the common touch. Clinton and Reagan were head and shoulders above the rest of the presidents since WWII charm wise.

  69. Alpha men are accorded more leeway in their behavior from both women and men. Imagine, without cracking a smile, Lindsey Graham saying what Trump says. It’s going to be huuuuuge!

  70. @Lagertha
    I know, right? This struck me as sooo weird. I am baffled by this fear of Trump to the point that all kinds of opinions are created like this one, which crazily, makes women seem like weaklings!

    OT: a scary development to add to the thread of the Duke Hoax . www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-yale-jack-montague-20160314-story-html

    - uncanny, especially because accuser had sex with the dude a few times 1.5 years ago! Yale is really messed-up these days.

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being "old maids," (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there's always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U's, boiler-plate state U's? Is it a class thing? Are female students at elite U's getting all Edith Wharton/Jane Austen-like? I found it very easy to navigate the pressures of desire whether I was wasted or not, back in the day. And, of course, on rare occasion, I had that coyote date that I regretted and cringed about, but it wasn't anyone's fault.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30's, early 40's (I'll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women. They will be too scared of their peers until this "yes means yes," ambiguity is over. Why risk your life? I feel very sorry for this Jack M., and hope he wins his case.

    I knew this "yes means yes," thing was gonna be destructive and so stupid. At want point will alumni figure out that their annual giving will go to legal fees? And, to also pay for those lawsuits when students OD, fall out of windows, or can't remember which party they were actually at? Red Solo cup maker better worry that they'll be sued too!

    “(I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh)”

    I never see any social science papers on statistics about becoming a grandparent, which I think is kind of a big deal to a fair number of people. What are the factors affecting the odds of becoming a grandparent before you are 80?

    I wonder if the NLSY79, which tracks about 5,000 children of the 1979 cohort that was 14 to 22 then, has data on the # of grandchildren born so far? The NLSY79 data is available to credentialed researchers (e.g., grad students), so that seems like a potential source, although it’s probably a decade away from being far enough out to get a real good picture.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Haha, are you messing with me, Steve? After you wrote that lovely piece about Nancy Reagan, you can't possibly be asking this question out of curiousity (Nancy & Ronald had no biological grandchildren) about something only "a fair number of people" care about?

    Honestly, no one cares about the stats of becoming a grandparent, most see old people as a burden; high medical costs. Only oldish men and women who love their adult children, would like to relive the joy and excitement (smell that sweet newborn's precious scalp) of grandbabies. It is the "circle of life," as corny as it sounds, that makes parents (lot less frantic) of adult children want to someday see grandchildren. But, there are no stats for grandbabies since there are too many single parents, divorces, blended families, etc. and well, there are no stats for "wishin'". People are far too simple creatures.

    , @Former Darfur
    Chrissie Hynde had two girls and both of them are childfree so far, they are both over 30.

    One of Mick Jagger's daughters is a grandmother now though. Who'd have thunk?
  71. The name Lindsey Graham sounds more Gay than a bathhouse in West Hollywood.

    • Replies: @Tony
    Speaking of gay, how could Rubio's sperch be more masculine than Trump's.
  72. @Steve Sailer
    I could have imagined Affleck, a fellow who is broadly but not overwhelmingly talented as a director, actor, and writer, as the Democratic candidate down the line. But that was assuming it was a package deal with Jennifer Garner for First Lady, and he appears to have messed that up.

    Maybe he can marry Caitlyn Jenner and then can run together on a cross-party ticket.

  73. Clinton and Reagan were head and shoulders above the rest…

    Please don’t use “Clinton” and “head” in the same sentence. It’s dinner hour here.

  74. @Marty
    I thought Schulberg's message was that as a tenement Jew, Sammy could never really feel secure, thus the need to s*** down. Generally, it's the less-accomplished who are the most consistently petty, because they don't understand the alternative value system. Higher up the pole, courtesy and generosity aren't defined as weakness. Sure, the upper middle-class always wants to preserve it's priveleges, but that's not what we mean when we speak of pettiness.

    Generally, it’s the less-accomplished who are the most consistently petty, because they don’t understand the alternative value system. Higher up the pole, courtesy and generosity aren’t defined as weakness.

    I really don’t think that’s true; it’s more a mindset the Upper class want to impress upon the Middle class. The Upper wants the Middle to think that pettiness, revenge, etc. are “empty” and should not be done, but really that’s how many Upper Class folk get into power: a complete anger at anyone who is rude to them or slights them, driving them to victory. The CEOs and movie producers are famous for their anger and tirades against enemies and seek to “bury” people. They make movies and TV shows that say the opposite so the Middle Class doesn’t start competing with them. It’s similar to how all the TV shows and movies have white criminals but yet the CEOs and movie producers all live in white neighborhoods far from black ones.

    Basically, narcissim/sociopathy are rampant in the Upper Classes, which is precisely how they got into the Upper Class.

  75. @Jefferson
    The name Lindsey Graham sounds more Gay than a bathhouse in West Hollywood.

    Speaking of gay, how could Rubio’s sperch be more masculine than Trump’s.

  76. @theo the kraut
    I guess you get it wrong with "Not hostile". Resigned, cool, jovial and with implicit condescension. Jovial in the twofold sense of the word--friendly and from above. Benignly from above, as befits Jove, yet from above, and that's rhetorically a death knell if your opponent is the president who doesn't get to be the top dog, because you are or can feign it, being the better actor. Carter comes over as stuck up, niggling, careful bordering on anxious--Reagan is relaxed and self assured, someone the voter is willing to delegate power so responsibility is off his back. Trump can do mano-a-mano, but Reagan, rhetorically, was better than that.

    “Carter comes over as stuck up, niggling, ”

    Hey watch it with that word. Didnt anybody tell you that using that word is a microaggression?

  77. @Chrisnonymous
    I agree about Cruz. In fact, I have trouble just looking at still photos of him. It's like the Uncanny Valley effect. I'm sure that's why people distrust him so much.

    Slightly OT, but I always thought Folsom Prison Blues was a strange song. It describes well the type of men who are or should be locked up--psychopaths who kills just out of curiosity or for pleasure. But it's written in the tone of someone we're supposed to be feel sympathy for. That makes Cash either a fellow psychopath or a saint.

    my impression is that the various elements of Cruz’s affect — facial expressions, intonation, words, etc. — aren’t seamlessly integrated.

    Taibbi in RS: “Cruz certainly has an odd face – it looks like someone sewed pieces of a waterlogged Reagan mask together at gunpoint”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    He probably won't age well, just as Reagan's face didn't age very well for a movie star's.
  78. @gruff

    my impression is that the various elements of Cruz’s affect — facial expressions, intonation, words, etc. — aren’t seamlessly integrated.
     
    Taibbi in RS: "Cruz certainly has an odd face – it looks like someone sewed pieces of a waterlogged Reagan mask together at gunpoint".

    He probably won’t age well, just as Reagan’s face didn’t age very well for a movie star’s.

    • Agree: gruff
  79. @Lagertha
    I know, right? This struck me as sooo weird. I am baffled by this fear of Trump to the point that all kinds of opinions are created like this one, which crazily, makes women seem like weaklings!

    OT: a scary development to add to the thread of the Duke Hoax . www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-yale-jack-montague-20160314-story-html

    - uncanny, especially because accuser had sex with the dude a few times 1.5 years ago! Yale is really messed-up these days.

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being "old maids," (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there's always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U's, boiler-plate state U's? Is it a class thing? Are female students at elite U's getting all Edith Wharton/Jane Austen-like? I found it very easy to navigate the pressures of desire whether I was wasted or not, back in the day. And, of course, on rare occasion, I had that coyote date that I regretted and cringed about, but it wasn't anyone's fault.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30's, early 40's (I'll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women. They will be too scared of their peers until this "yes means yes," ambiguity is over. Why risk your life? I feel very sorry for this Jack M., and hope he wins his case.

    I knew this "yes means yes," thing was gonna be destructive and so stupid. At want point will alumni figure out that their annual giving will go to legal fees? And, to also pay for those lawsuits when students OD, fall out of windows, or can't remember which party they were actually at? Red Solo cup maker better worry that they'll be sued too!

    Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Rape culture madness is spreading to European universities too.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U’s, boiler-plate state U’s? Is it a class thing?

    Unfortunately, it’s happening at practically all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board. Not a class thing, although it originates with sheltered upper-class women. Obviously the reasons behind it are complicated, but I believe they include a hypothesis that it largely stems from the increased dominance of female students in higher education. This leads to increased opportunities for casual sex rather than having to commit to a relationship. Casual sex is something that men, especially at that age, generally enjoy a lot more than women, even though women go through the motions and convince themselves they’re cool with it. Their own professors have been conditioned these women believe that gender differences are just social constructs, but the biological reality is that women actually crave romantic relationships.

    So many of these rape accusations seem to be a classic case of a girl feeling rejected after sleeping with him casually, or after a breakup initiated by her boyfriend. The neurotic sex culture on campus was originally a (hysterical, overreaching) attempt to rectify previously inadequate, unfair ways some universities treated rape allegations. It has become an insidious way of redefining rape to include innocuous sexual behavior, criminalizing casual sex, in order to return to a campus culture of committed relationships or at least serious dating, which is more favorable to women’s real desires.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30′s, early 40′s (I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women.

    As they would be free and probably wise to do, but gosh, that makes me so sad and worried as an unmarried 34 year old woman who hopes to find someone close to her in age. (I’m not single and childless by choice, but by bad choices, or is there no difference?) Should I be blessed with children, whether boys or girls, I will encourage them to try to pair up and have children at a younger age than myself. No matter how much technology advances to help older people have children, it will never be to a child’s benefit to be likely deprived of strong bonds with their grandparents, and have to deal with the responsibility of aging parents at such delicate ages.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Great analysis of the campus rape hysteria. Couldn't agree more.

    As for your desire for a man: you seem bright and sensible so that should take you a long way. As a slightly younger male, I am happy to not have to worry so much about settling down before 30 or whenever women start feeling old.

    Good luck.
    , @Lagertha
    lose the ridiculous handle, btw - take it from a designer: having 'rape' in any title is a lose-lose thing. Your overuse of SAT words (if that's how you talk) may make you appear like a snob to the basic guy who is trying to get/keep your attention at the party/reception you are forced to attend:) Guys don't like big words...at least in the first meet-up.

    Now, on to your points: I totally disagree with your assertion that this is going on at ('practically' your word, not mine) ALL American campuses across the country - my sons and their friends, currently, studying all over the country, disagree with you. Or, perhaps include the NCAA Div 1 football & basketball players stats you have not shown here, of the the myriad rapes/allegations that are public knowledge, or may be occurring on campuses "across the board" that you infer are happening, all over.

    The fact that you are on Unz makes me believe you are a former elite U student, not someone from Western Michigan University, East Carolina University, Central Connecticut State U, or Slippery Rock State University, etc., right? So, give me a break about "it's happening practically, at all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board." You lost me at liberal arts:)

    I do pity women who did not have casual sex, how else do you learn to be good at it? How else do you learn what you like? I'm very sad that you may believe that there is a "biological reality that women crave romantic relationships," overall. And, it's just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women. Men will do anything for sex. Men want commitment as much as women if they sense a connection. And, aaah, connection is that ephemeral thing. Women CHOOSE, after all, women choose who they walk that long journey with.

    Women are just as mercenary as men. And, your assertion that today's hysterical culture of accusing potentially innocent guys on campus of rape is some kind of system to restore young men to consider serious dating (again) and committed relationships "which is more favorable to women's real desires," makes me just well, cringe. SOOO 19th century - feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago! Did you never, seriously, have a "coyote date?" Did you never ever break someone's heart ("it's not you, it's me"; "we've grown apart," blah, blah, blah) and you didn't know why (not including he was crummy in bed)?

    When I was 12, my mother told me all about sex (she was worried since I traveled alone by subway to sing at a choir and girl scouts) since she and my father worked full time and I was a latch-key kid in Brooklyn in the late 60's. At 15, she took me to a gynecologist to discuss contraceptives, at 17 I knew what I needed. So, I was a weird girl. I met my husband by complete and utter accident in my early 30's, so chin-up! Smile, be happy, talk about simple topics like pets and vacations, and, more importantly, find out that a potential guy had a happy childhood and loved his parents - huge. To attract people you have to be available and happy, and, be active in the things you like to do outside of work. You have to make a lot of eye contact.

    Now, talking about grandchildren is just me competing with my cousins and friends who are in their 40's-60's right now...and the reality that my sons are just as independent, big explorers and nonconforming like I was...but they are not "rape culture" people. Everyone must stop thinking all guys at college are rapists.
    , @Ivy
    Talk with high school and college girls and you will come away with a different impression than what is in the news. They follow each other, and the exhortations of their girl magazines like Cosmo, Glamour and other rags, to be bold party girls who are encouraged to sleep around a lot for money, because why give it away when you can sell it!

    An egregious manifestation of that trend is in the paid party scene. There are domestic and foreign variants.

    In the domestic case, promoters pull in girls with the offer of free food, drinks, lodging, spa treatments and more. All they have to do is show up, look pretty and talk to the marks, I mean, the guys. The promoter arranges a venue in town like a restaurant or club. He sells entry to the event typically at 1,000 to 1,500 per guy, and for the bigger spenders he sells a table. There is an art to picking the right male female mix and the right demographic mix. Notably, there is little outcry about social justice by the participants.

    In the international case, the stakes are higher as are the expectations. Girls fly to Dubai and other ports of call for their interludes, which are typically over a long weekend. First class travel on Emirates Air or similar carriers, with available in flight services and suitable accommodations at the destination are de rigueur for the discerning girl. After all, if you are going to pocket 10,000 to 50,000 for the experience, why fly coach?

    On the low end are the independent operator girls who charge by the visit. Their motto is Why go out for six months on dates when you could make a lot of cash! These aren't your parents generation girls, of course.

  80. @Jacobite

    people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).
     
    And yet that has been shown time and again to be the upper bound to the intelligence of an effective leader. One can not get too far away from the sensibilities and thought patterns of the masses and expect to be able to lead them. Management are always the intermediaries between the masses and the idea men.

    While your comment intuitively seems likely, do you have any evidence or further reading on this idea?

    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Type in "presidential iq score" into google.
    , @Difference Maker
    As I've mentioned iirc the military of old determined that the threshold for incomprehensibility of thought processes is an iq gap of more than 30 points. Average white iq of course being 100.

    That being said I would not rule out the possibility of socially adept brilliant men mesmerizing the masses, but imo most such individuals wouldn't bother

    Furthermore, it is suggested that past an iq of 150, individuals are prone to profound alienation, as the greater part of humanity appear to be but on the level of animals. Still, I think with an iq of 160 I could do anything and be successful, coast along and be secure and comfortable, that is, what I am doing already, except richer and more comfortable, actually filthy rich.

    And there are pretty girls with reported iqs of more than 160. What is striking is how high iq individuals look brilliant

  81. @Yevardian
    Carter was easily the last POTUS who wasn't despicable as a human being.
    I never understood the Reagan-cult or this 'Reagan Democrats' nonsense. It was specifically under his presidency that US manufacturing went into terminal decline, mass-amnesty was first given for illegals, and the financial-sector was deregulated.
    The man doesn't even come across as likeable in the way the Bush II was. He was just incredibly lucky to have been in office whilst the USSR self-imploded (no thanks to his white elephant 'star wars').

    Right, because Carter’s dishonesty running as a conservative Democrat (back when there was such a thing) while concealing his Leftist agenda was so endearing.

    And the courage of Jimma was so great. Jimma’s courage was especially evident April 20, 1979, in the face of that attack rabbit, swimming toward Jimma, as Jimma paddled about, and that rabbit had malice in his eyes, and intended to do in Jimma with his big nasty rabbit teeth.

    That Jimma he faced up to that vicious attack rabbit with great courage. It was a nasty swamp rabbit. And that attack rabbit came so fast, and was a most furious rabbit, that Jimma had no time to consult with Amy or Rosalynn before the moment of truth arrived.

    And Jimma was befuddled, but that Jimma mustered his Jimma courage, and that Jimma, he smacked the water with his paddle. And them Jimma he turned and paddled away with all his might. And through the heroic efforts of that paddling, that Jimma got away from the rabbit with the big nasty teeth.

    And Jimma came to see that as the occasion for a vicious rebuke of the Secret Service. After all, the Secret Service was supposed to keep Jimma safe from the vicious teeth of the attack rabbit. And that Jimma, he was not happy that he had to paddle about with superhuman effort for him to escape the attack rabbit.

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

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It really was a big rabbit that attempted to board President Carter's boat.
  82. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Right, because Carter's dishonesty running as a conservative Democrat (back when there was such a thing) while concealing his Leftist agenda was so endearing.

    And the courage of Jimma was so great. Jimma's courage was especially evident April 20, 1979, in the face of that attack rabbit, swimming toward Jimma, as Jimma paddled about, and that rabbit had malice in his eyes, and intended to do in Jimma with his big nasty rabbit teeth.

    That Jimma he faced up to that vicious attack rabbit with great courage. It was a nasty swamp rabbit. And that attack rabbit came so fast, and was a most furious rabbit, that Jimma had no time to consult with Amy or Rosalynn before the moment of truth arrived.

    And Jimma was befuddled, but that Jimma mustered his Jimma courage, and that Jimma, he smacked the water with his paddle. And them Jimma he turned and paddled away with all his might. And through the heroic efforts of that paddling, that Jimma got away from the rabbit with the big nasty teeth.

    And Jimma came to see that as the occasion for a vicious rebuke of the Secret Service. After all, the Secret Service was supposed to keep Jimma safe from the vicious teeth of the attack rabbit. And that Jimma, he was not happy that he had to paddle about with superhuman effort for him to escape the attack rabbit.

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

    It really was a big rabbit that attempted to board President Carter’s boat.

  83. @AndrewR
    While your comment intuitively seems likely, do you have any evidence or further reading on this idea?

    Type in “presidential iq score” into google.

  84. @OnCampusRapeCulture
    Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Rape culture madness is spreading to European universities too.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U’s, boiler-plate state U’s? Is it a class thing?

    Unfortunately, it's happening at practically all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board. Not a class thing, although it originates with sheltered upper-class women. Obviously the reasons behind it are complicated, but I believe they include a hypothesis that it largely stems from the increased dominance of female students in higher education. This leads to increased opportunities for casual sex rather than having to commit to a relationship. Casual sex is something that men, especially at that age, generally enjoy a lot more than women, even though women go through the motions and convince themselves they're cool with it. Their own professors have been conditioned these women believe that gender differences are just social constructs, but the biological reality is that women actually crave romantic relationships.

    So many of these rape accusations seem to be a classic case of a girl feeling rejected after sleeping with him casually, or after a breakup initiated by her boyfriend. The neurotic sex culture on campus was originally a (hysterical, overreaching) attempt to rectify previously inadequate, unfair ways some universities treated rape allegations. It has become an insidious way of redefining rape to include innocuous sexual behavior, criminalizing casual sex, in order to return to a campus culture of committed relationships or at least serious dating, which is more favorable to women's real desires.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30′s, early 40′s (I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women.

    As they would be free and probably wise to do, but gosh, that makes me so sad and worried as an unmarried 34 year old woman who hopes to find someone close to her in age. (I'm not single and childless by choice, but by bad choices, or is there no difference?) Should I be blessed with children, whether boys or girls, I will encourage them to try to pair up and have children at a younger age than myself. No matter how much technology advances to help older people have children, it will never be to a child's benefit to be likely deprived of strong bonds with their grandparents, and have to deal with the responsibility of aging parents at such delicate ages.

    Great analysis of the campus rape hysteria. Couldn’t agree more.

    As for your desire for a man: you seem bright and sensible so that should take you a long way. As a slightly younger male, I am happy to not have to worry so much about settling down before 30 or whenever women start feeling old.

    Good luck.

  85. @Rick James
    Cruz has always be a super creep, super creep, he's super creepy. http://youtu.be/vt-vG_TdOT4


    Ted Cruz always wanted to be an actor-- acts out a scene from Princess Bride (cring worthy, terrible actor):
    http://youtu.be/0sLORYpyLEU

    Trump also wanted to be an actor (he has mentioned this in talks and in his books on success), but unlike Cruz he comes off natural because he uses it as an adjunct to his presentation.

    How on earth does Cruz have so many supporters? He has the most unlikable personality of any candidate I can recall, although Walker and Graham come close.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Smart Republicans have run out of patience with the misunderestimation ruse.
    , @Martin

    How on earth does Cruz have so many supporters?
     
    it's called Cambridge Analytica:

    Cruz app data collection helps campaign read minds of voters (Associated Press)

    http://archive.is/c5sSn

    but it looks like billionaire Robert Mercer bet on the wrong horse:

    What Kind of Man Spends Millions to Elect Ted Cruz? (Bloomberg)

    http://archive.is/0fspz


    According to Neugebauer, Cruz laid the groundwork for his run in February 2014, at a private meeting on the deck of the Palm Beach home of prominent donors Lee and Allie Hanley. Joining the Hanleys around a table in the Florida sun were Cruz and his wife, Heidi; his strategist, Jason Johnson; Neugebauer; and Robert and Rebekah Mercer. The topic was Cruz’s chances in the election. A pair of researchers hired by Mercer and Hanley presented some intriguing findings. The country was ready for a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington figure—they used the phrase “Trump-like,” Neugebauer says—meaning that an outsider candidate should have a good shot in 2016. The elder Mercer, as usual, sat silently in his suit and tie as the group spent seven hours discussing how a race might play out. "
     
  86. … Mrs. Clinton’s language is often about coming together…

    Something no doubt she and Bill have never done, but that she and Huma probably do often.

    There. That’s guy talk.

  87. @Anonymous

    I predict a generation of Millennial women will wind up being “old maids,” (if we stick with the idea that women are provincial and all) since too many current college and HS boys will be too scared to have ANY relationships with women in college (or, maybe, just the guys & girls in elite institutions) & at the work place immediately after. And, there’s always internet porn to keep the guys busy! Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.
     
    White guys are going for East Asian women big time (according to dating website stats). And there are a lot of East Asians in the U.S. these days.

    Agree. Since I have several Millenial sons, ergo many friends both male and female are familiar to me; this trend towards Asian (East Asian) women is strong. I find it especially prevalent within STEM majors. The East Asian women “get” them, and there is no drama. Drama is something my sons hate. East Asian women are also very traditional (despite holding degrees/working in high level STEM fields) when it comes to commitment to family and traditional things. As a Finn, I am quite comfortable with young women who have a high degree of comfort for respectful family dynamics and a high drive to pursue their mettle.

  88. @Steve Sailer
    "(I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh)"

    I never see any social science papers on statistics about becoming a grandparent, which I think is kind of a big deal to a fair number of people. What are the factors affecting the odds of becoming a grandparent before you are 80?

    I wonder if the NLSY79, which tracks about 5,000 children of the 1979 cohort that was 14 to 22 then, has data on the # of grandchildren born so far? The NLSY79 data is available to credentialed researchers (e.g., grad students), so that seems like a potential source, although it's probably a decade away from being far enough out to get a real good picture.

    Haha, are you messing with me, Steve? After you wrote that lovely piece about Nancy Reagan, you can’t possibly be asking this question out of curiousity (Nancy & Ronald had no biological grandchildren) about something only “a fair number of people” care about?

    Honestly, no one cares about the stats of becoming a grandparent, most see old people as a burden; high medical costs. Only oldish men and women who love their adult children, would like to relive the joy and excitement (smell that sweet newborn’s precious scalp) of grandbabies. It is the “circle of life,” as corny as it sounds, that makes parents (lot less frantic) of adult children want to someday see grandchildren. But, there are no stats for grandbabies since there are too many single parents, divorces, blended families, etc. and well, there are no stats for “wishin’”. People are far too simple creatures.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Old age isn't much fun, except for the grandkids part, which can be a blast. As a social science maven, I'd like to see the factors that go into having grandchildren before you are senile. This should be studyable with existing data sets.
  89. @AndrewR
    How on earth does Cruz have so many supporters? He has the most unlikable personality of any candidate I can recall, although Walker and Graham come close.

    Smart Republicans have run out of patience with the misunderestimation ruse.

  90. @Lagertha
    Haha, are you messing with me, Steve? After you wrote that lovely piece about Nancy Reagan, you can't possibly be asking this question out of curiousity (Nancy & Ronald had no biological grandchildren) about something only "a fair number of people" care about?

    Honestly, no one cares about the stats of becoming a grandparent, most see old people as a burden; high medical costs. Only oldish men and women who love their adult children, would like to relive the joy and excitement (smell that sweet newborn's precious scalp) of grandbabies. It is the "circle of life," as corny as it sounds, that makes parents (lot less frantic) of adult children want to someday see grandchildren. But, there are no stats for grandbabies since there are too many single parents, divorces, blended families, etc. and well, there are no stats for "wishin'". People are far too simple creatures.

    Old age isn’t much fun, except for the grandkids part, which can be a blast. As a social science maven, I’d like to see the factors that go into having grandchildren before you are senile. This should be studyable with existing data sets.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I'll give you stats when/if I have them! But, sheeesh, we both may be senile by then! If we can just get through this election...and get back to topics like this and golf courses, maybe next year's Super Bowl....something.
  91. Based on these nonverbal cues, she concluded that Mr. Trump was the most feminine speaker of all the candidates, even more than Mrs. Clinton

    So maybe Trump is actually more Eva Braun than Adolf Hitler.

    Duly noted.

  92. @Steve Sailer
    "leadership is basically being a feminized man."

    But you have to do it without anybody noticing it.

    “‘leadership is basically being a feminized man.’

    But you have to do it without anybody noticing it.”

    The problem Rs have been having since the latter days of the Laura Bush administration is that they keep forgetting the “man” part.

  93. @neutral
    This is interesting, does anyone know what the balance was of Hitler, Mao and Stalin ?

    Perhaps no but we do know that they all liked to keep late hours

  94. @AndrewR
    While your comment intuitively seems likely, do you have any evidence or further reading on this idea?

    As I’ve mentioned iirc the military of old determined that the threshold for incomprehensibility of thought processes is an iq gap of more than 30 points. Average white iq of course being 100.

    That being said I would not rule out the possibility of socially adept brilliant men mesmerizing the masses, but imo most such individuals wouldn’t bother

    Furthermore, it is suggested that past an iq of 150, individuals are prone to profound alienation, as the greater part of humanity appear to be but on the level of animals. Still, I think with an iq of 160 I could do anything and be successful, coast along and be secure and comfortable, that is, what I am doing already, except richer and more comfortable, actually filthy rich.

    And there are pretty girls with reported iqs of more than 160. What is striking is how high iq individuals look brilliant

  95. @Steve Sailer
    "(I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh)"

    I never see any social science papers on statistics about becoming a grandparent, which I think is kind of a big deal to a fair number of people. What are the factors affecting the odds of becoming a grandparent before you are 80?

    I wonder if the NLSY79, which tracks about 5,000 children of the 1979 cohort that was 14 to 22 then, has data on the # of grandchildren born so far? The NLSY79 data is available to credentialed researchers (e.g., grad students), so that seems like a potential source, although it's probably a decade away from being far enough out to get a real good picture.

    Chrissie Hynde had two girls and both of them are childfree so far, they are both over 30.

    One of Mick Jagger’s daughters is a grandmother now though. Who’d have thunk?

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    That would be Jade, who gave birth to another child of her own within a month or two of her first daughter having done so.

    As far as I know, they are not converts to Mormonism.
  96. @OnCampusRapeCulture
    Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Rape culture madness is spreading to European universities too.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U’s, boiler-plate state U’s? Is it a class thing?

    Unfortunately, it's happening at practically all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board. Not a class thing, although it originates with sheltered upper-class women. Obviously the reasons behind it are complicated, but I believe they include a hypothesis that it largely stems from the increased dominance of female students in higher education. This leads to increased opportunities for casual sex rather than having to commit to a relationship. Casual sex is something that men, especially at that age, generally enjoy a lot more than women, even though women go through the motions and convince themselves they're cool with it. Their own professors have been conditioned these women believe that gender differences are just social constructs, but the biological reality is that women actually crave romantic relationships.

    So many of these rape accusations seem to be a classic case of a girl feeling rejected after sleeping with him casually, or after a breakup initiated by her boyfriend. The neurotic sex culture on campus was originally a (hysterical, overreaching) attempt to rectify previously inadequate, unfair ways some universities treated rape allegations. It has become an insidious way of redefining rape to include innocuous sexual behavior, criminalizing casual sex, in order to return to a campus culture of committed relationships or at least serious dating, which is more favorable to women's real desires.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30′s, early 40′s (I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women.

    As they would be free and probably wise to do, but gosh, that makes me so sad and worried as an unmarried 34 year old woman who hopes to find someone close to her in age. (I'm not single and childless by choice, but by bad choices, or is there no difference?) Should I be blessed with children, whether boys or girls, I will encourage them to try to pair up and have children at a younger age than myself. No matter how much technology advances to help older people have children, it will never be to a child's benefit to be likely deprived of strong bonds with their grandparents, and have to deal with the responsibility of aging parents at such delicate ages.

    lose the ridiculous handle, btw – take it from a designer: having ‘rape’ in any title is a lose-lose thing. Your overuse of SAT words (if that’s how you talk) may make you appear like a snob to the basic guy who is trying to get/keep your attention at the party/reception you are forced to attend:) Guys don’t like big words…at least in the first meet-up.

    Now, on to your points: I totally disagree with your assertion that this is going on at (‘practically’ your word, not mine) ALL American campuses across the country – my sons and their friends, currently, studying all over the country, disagree with you. Or, perhaps include the NCAA Div 1 football & basketball players stats you have not shown here, of the the myriad rapes/allegations that are public knowledge, or may be occurring on campuses “across the board” that you infer are happening, all over.

    The fact that you are on Unz makes me believe you are a former elite U student, not someone from Western Michigan University, East Carolina University, Central Connecticut State U, or Slippery Rock State University, etc., right? So, give me a break about “it’s happening practically, at all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board.” You lost me at liberal arts:)

    I do pity women who did not have casual sex, how else do you learn to be good at it? How else do you learn what you like? I’m very sad that you may believe that there is a “biological reality that women crave romantic relationships,” overall. And, it’s just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women. Men will do anything for sex. Men want commitment as much as women if they sense a connection. And, aaah, connection is that ephemeral thing. Women CHOOSE, after all, women choose who they walk that long journey with.

    Women are just as mercenary as men. And, your assertion that today’s hysterical culture of accusing potentially innocent guys on campus of rape is some kind of system to restore young men to consider serious dating (again) and committed relationships “which is more favorable to women’s real desires,” makes me just well, cringe. SOOO 19th century – feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago! Did you never, seriously, have a “coyote date?” Did you never ever break someone’s heart (“it’s not you, it’s me”; “we’ve grown apart,” blah, blah, blah) and you didn’t know why (not including he was crummy in bed)?

    When I was 12, my mother told me all about sex (she was worried since I traveled alone by subway to sing at a choir and girl scouts) since she and my father worked full time and I was a latch-key kid in Brooklyn in the late 60’s. At 15, she took me to a gynecologist to discuss contraceptives, at 17 I knew what I needed. So, I was a weird girl. I met my husband by complete and utter accident in my early 30’s, so chin-up! Smile, be happy, talk about simple topics like pets and vacations, and, more importantly, find out that a potential guy had a happy childhood and loved his parents – huge. To attract people you have to be available and happy, and, be active in the things you like to do outside of work. You have to make a lot of eye contact.

    Now, talking about grandchildren is just me competing with my cousins and friends who are in their 40’s-60’s right now…and the reality that my sons are just as independent, big explorers and nonconforming like I was…but they are not “rape culture” people. Everyone must stop thinking all guys at college are rapists.

    • Replies: @OnCampusRapeCulture
    My handle is meant as a specific response to you, it's not a go-to handle. I didn't attend an elite university, or one in America at that. My English is quite formal because it's not my native language, although I'm rather glad to hear it's overfilled with SAT words (hopefully used correctly?). As I far as I know and have been told, men do not find me snobbish. It's an entirely natural tendency to try to analyze someone from their words, and I sincerely thank you for your dating advice and reassurance. I only wish you wouldn't reject my psychological hypothesis about campus rape culture, as I think there is a lot to it.

    It's not a matter of contention that sexual assault accusations have swept colleges around the country. First of all, the fact of the matter is the "Dear Colleague" letter and other sexual assault-related "guidance" documents from the dept. of education pertain to each and every school that obtains funding from the governement. Secondly, there are dozens lawsuits across the country filed by (mostly straight) men for being found guilty of sexual assault by campus kangaroo courts - and these expulsions we know about simply because of the lawsuits. No doubt there are tons more expelled or punished students and affected campuses. It's not just happening in elite schools, I assure you.

    Liberal arts is simply a shorthand for the objective of an all-encompassing education, where you have many required courses in the humanities, regardless of your major. Caltech, for example, is not a liberal arts university. I'm not sure why I lost you there. It is at liberal arts colleges where 1) Typically there is a strong influence of gender studies which propagates rape culture hysteria and 2) Female students increasingly outnumber male students, leading to increased intra-sexual competition, rather than inter-sexual competition, and more opportunities for casual sex rather than serious dating.

    From your comment, you may think that I'm condoning what is behind the hypothesis; that extending the definition of sexual assault and campus rape tribunals are part of a system punishing men in order to return to old-fashioned dating. I'm not condoning any of this, I am disgusted by what's happening, I'm just trying to understand why it's happening. If this hypothesis shocks you, consider a corollary of campus rape culture theory: The gender studies hysteria over unfair beauty standards, and trying to shame and punish men over their taste in women, as if that could change it. (I believe this is an issue that academic feminists of your generation correctly consider frivolous, not so for mine. They are obsessed with it.)

    Again, the hypothesis is that this obsession is because of an increased ratio of female over male students, which heightens intra-sexual competition over men. Men are at an advantage to have their pick of the most desirable women, and women have to make far more effort to catch a man's sexual interest, especially for a serious relationship, but even for casual hooking up. It intensifies feelings of body/face dissatisfaction among women, among other things pertaining to sexual interest. It would take a brave social scientist to research this, but I would bet anything in schools with a male-heavy or more equal ration of male and female students, female students would report far higher satisfaction both in their physical appearance and in dating/sex.

    I’m very sad that you may believe that there is a “biological reality that women crave romantic relationships,” overall. And, it’s just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women.

    SOOO 19th century – feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago!

    To put it bluntly, I couldn't care less what feminists did. They got a whole bunch of stuff about sex and the sexes hilariously and horrifyingly wrong. I'm the eldest of millenials, born in '81, and my generation is completely f***** up, pardon my language, by the sexual prescriptions and relationship advice of feminists.

    There is a huge difference between what women say and convince themselves to believe out of ideology, and what they intrinsically feel. Yes, I firmly believe that many of these female students feel like they have been raped or violated in some way because they feel so dejected and unfulfilled from super-casual sexual encounters (or broken relationships) on campus. Psychological, cognitive, cultural, biological, historical, evolutionary etc. research from a wide range of countries and disciplines supports the theory that in general, women cannot handle casual sex anywhere near as coolly as men do, without developing intimate feelings and being deeply hurt if these are not reciprocated. That's not even including the tons of women who have sex with their love interests repeatedly in the hopes of turning it into a relationship.

    You can learn to enjoy and be good at sex within committed relationships, I'd say that's the norm for many men and women. I'm no virgin nor am I particularly promiscuous, but I can tell you I only learned sexual skills and felt way, way more physical pleasure with boyfriends than in any fumbling casual encounters.

  97. @Steve Sailer
    Old age isn't much fun, except for the grandkids part, which can be a blast. As a social science maven, I'd like to see the factors that go into having grandchildren before you are senile. This should be studyable with existing data sets.

    I’ll give you stats when/if I have them! But, sheeesh, we both may be senile by then! If we can just get through this election…and get back to topics like this and golf courses, maybe next year’s Super Bowl….something.

  98. @fish

    Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like “incredibly grateful” and “open our hearts.”
     

    ...and with the shrill, nasally, Chicago tone that conjures images of "Americas Ex-Wife"!

    "This year stop tip-toeing around it.....vote Pure Evil in 2016- Vote Hillary!"

    Hillary’s accent is very downstate Illinois/Indiana/Western Michigan. It is subtle since that accent is so close to general american, but to my ear the implicit Midwestern White is very strong in her voice, and that will be an advantage for her for the actual swing voters.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Hillary’s accent is very downstate Illinois/Indiana/Western Michigan. It is subtle since that accent is so close to general american, but to my ear the implicit Midwestern White is very strong in her voice, and that will be an advantage for her for the actual swing voters.

     

    I don't know -- do you really think that her accent helps her with anyone? I agree she sounds more or less midwestern, but then she's got that extra-nasally tone that I agree seems to emanate from Lake Michigan . . . I'm from Iowa, and I find her truly horrible to listen to, no matter what the content of what she's actually saying.
  99. @Lot
    Hillary's accent is very downstate Illinois/Indiana/Western Michigan. It is subtle since that accent is so close to general american, but to my ear the implicit Midwestern White is very strong in her voice, and that will be an advantage for her for the actual swing voters.

    Hillary’s accent is very downstate Illinois/Indiana/Western Michigan. It is subtle since that accent is so close to general american, but to my ear the implicit Midwestern White is very strong in her voice, and that will be an advantage for her for the actual swing voters.

    I don’t know — do you really think that her accent helps her with anyone? I agree she sounds more or less midwestern, but then she’s got that extra-nasally tone that I agree seems to emanate from Lake Michigan . . . I’m from Iowa, and I find her truly horrible to listen to, no matter what the content of what she’s actually saying.

  100. @fish

    Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like “incredibly grateful” and “open our hearts.”
     

    ...and with the shrill, nasally, Chicago tone that conjures images of "Americas Ex-Wife"!

    "This year stop tip-toeing around it.....vote Pure Evil in 2016- Vote Hillary!"

    This may the greatest comment I have ever read.

  101. @Steve Sailer
    "leadership is basically being a feminized man."

    But you have to do it without anybody noticing it.

    “leadership is basically being a feminized man.”

    “Gentlemen, it’s called leadership…”

  102. Sailer you sonofabitch stop blocking my posts

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Sailer you sonofabitch stop blocking my posts

    Sailer should block posts like this because they are just noise.
  103. @Abe
    Somewhat apropos is this LOOONG article about Obama's foreign policy philosophy up now at THE ATLANTIC. It's heavy on substantive detail and very light on the smoke-up-the-butt blowing- almost restores the magazine's honor after launching the career of one Ta Genius Coates.

    Obama comes off as a pretty sensible guy overall, and waaaaay preferable to the wing-nut foreign policy tough-guys (and gals) in either party (Bush, McCain, Graham, Clinton).

    But, yeah, Obama is still as petty and resentful as many of us suspected all along (he also unfortunately does not realize he is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is- what I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber of a Von Neumann, Shannon, or a Feynman).

    Being a proper and reserved little b!tch, though, he can't bring himself to openly express these conflicts, and so uses subtle passive-aggressive slights. Turns out his missing the arm-in-arm march with other world leaders after Charlie Hebdo was anything but coincidental:


    Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries
     
    But this bizarre non-sequitur is just amazing to me:

    Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations. Finally, the president interrupted the prime minister: “Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”
     
    Yeah, "African American son of a single mom" (with a PhD)- LOL. Obama is about as authentic and real as Michael Cera singing a folk-rock acapella version of IN THE GHETTO.

    I call the 2SD hairpin; people with 130-ish IQs who are relatively innumerate and never bother to challenge themselves with real math or science classes never realize the gigantic chasm between themselves and people of the caliber…

    Please. This person does not have anything near a 130 IQ. We’d see some evidence of it, wouldn’t we? Commenters here tend to use a rare level, upper 2%, as a starting point for discussion. I doubt most pols have anywhere near that level. Author James Baldwin was considered a genius in his circle because his IQ was 120, and he at least wrote serious literature, or at least it was considered as such during the 1960s.

    People, especially in milieus where HBD is discussed by non-professionals, way over-estimate the number of people with IQs over 130 and underestimate the manifestations of this level of intelligence. Linda Gottfredson has some of the clearest and simplest criteria for the different IQ levels. It was almost chilling to me how accurate she is, even taking into consideration different tastes and personalities.

    B.O.’s IQ is maybe 110 on a good day. He’s strictly average, but smart enough to sound smartish with the right teleprompter lines.

    If he was 130, it would have at least made him a halfway decent student, not someone who has to pay millions to keep his records secret. Not someone who can’t speak about anything without a teleprompter. Not someone who has spent most of his time as president (when he can get away from prying eyes) watching sports on tv. Not someone who never mentions any serious literature except his own-ghost written tome, and not someone who cannot discuss complicated issues extemporaneously. There is no cue whatsoever that he is smart, and any illusions on that front probably result from the media telling us he’s exceptional, and his putative acting lessons from Harry Lennix (who is said to have despised him, btw, calling B.O. a “stupid man.”)

  104. @AndrewR
    How on earth does Cruz have so many supporters? He has the most unlikable personality of any candidate I can recall, although Walker and Graham come close.

    How on earth does Cruz have so many supporters?

    it’s called Cambridge Analytica:

    Cruz app data collection helps campaign read minds of voters (Associated Press)

    http://archive.is/c5sSn

    but it looks like billionaire Robert Mercer bet on the wrong horse:

    What Kind of Man Spends Millions to Elect Ted Cruz? (Bloomberg)

    http://archive.is/0fspz

    According to Neugebauer, Cruz laid the groundwork for his run in February 2014, at a private meeting on the deck of the Palm Beach home of prominent donors Lee and Allie Hanley. Joining the Hanleys around a table in the Florida sun were Cruz and his wife, Heidi; his strategist, Jason Johnson; Neugebauer; and Robert and Rebekah Mercer. The topic was Cruz’s chances in the election. A pair of researchers hired by Mercer and Hanley presented some intriguing findings. The country was ready for a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington figure—they used the phrase “Trump-like,” Neugebauer says—meaning that an outsider candidate should have a good shot in 2016. The elder Mercer, as usual, sat silently in his suit and tie as the group spent seven hours discussing how a race might play out. “

  105. @OnCampusRapeCulture
    Or guys will seek out European, Australian, Kiwi girls, who are not as neurotic about sex as American girls, it seems.

    Rape culture madness is spreading to European universities too.

    Why is there so much neurotic behavior concerning sex at elite institutions, anyway?; I personally, have heard no news (from students and media) like this from less selective U’s, boiler-plate state U’s? Is it a class thing?

    Unfortunately, it's happening at practically all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board. Not a class thing, although it originates with sheltered upper-class women. Obviously the reasons behind it are complicated, but I believe they include a hypothesis that it largely stems from the increased dominance of female students in higher education. This leads to increased opportunities for casual sex rather than having to commit to a relationship. Casual sex is something that men, especially at that age, generally enjoy a lot more than women, even though women go through the motions and convince themselves they're cool with it. Their own professors have been conditioned these women believe that gender differences are just social constructs, but the biological reality is that women actually crave romantic relationships.

    So many of these rape accusations seem to be a classic case of a girl feeling rejected after sleeping with him casually, or after a breakup initiated by her boyfriend. The neurotic sex culture on campus was originally a (hysterical, overreaching) attempt to rectify previously inadequate, unfair ways some universities treated rape allegations. It has become an insidious way of redefining rape to include innocuous sexual behavior, criminalizing casual sex, in order to return to a campus culture of committed relationships or at least serious dating, which is more favorable to women's real desires.

    I envision my own sons marrying late into their 30′s, early 40′s (I’ll probably never be a grandmother, sigh) to 25-27 year old women.

    As they would be free and probably wise to do, but gosh, that makes me so sad and worried as an unmarried 34 year old woman who hopes to find someone close to her in age. (I'm not single and childless by choice, but by bad choices, or is there no difference?) Should I be blessed with children, whether boys or girls, I will encourage them to try to pair up and have children at a younger age than myself. No matter how much technology advances to help older people have children, it will never be to a child's benefit to be likely deprived of strong bonds with their grandparents, and have to deal with the responsibility of aging parents at such delicate ages.

    Talk with high school and college girls and you will come away with a different impression than what is in the news. They follow each other, and the exhortations of their girl magazines like Cosmo, Glamour and other rags, to be bold party girls who are encouraged to sleep around a lot for money, because why give it away when you can sell it!

    An egregious manifestation of that trend is in the paid party scene. There are domestic and foreign variants.

    In the domestic case, promoters pull in girls with the offer of free food, drinks, lodging, spa treatments and more. All they have to do is show up, look pretty and talk to the marks, I mean, the guys. The promoter arranges a venue in town like a restaurant or club. He sells entry to the event typically at 1,000 to 1,500 per guy, and for the bigger spenders he sells a table. There is an art to picking the right male female mix and the right demographic mix. Notably, there is little outcry about social justice by the participants.

    In the international case, the stakes are higher as are the expectations. Girls fly to Dubai and other ports of call for their interludes, which are typically over a long weekend. First class travel on Emirates Air or similar carriers, with available in flight services and suitable accommodations at the destination are de rigueur for the discerning girl. After all, if you are going to pocket 10,000 to 50,000 for the experience, why fly coach?

    On the low end are the independent operator girls who charge by the visit. Their motto is Why go out for six months on dates when you could make a lot of cash! These aren’t your parents generation girls, of course.

  106. @anomymous
    Sailer you sonofabitch stop blocking my posts

    Sailer you sonofabitch stop blocking my posts

    Sailer should block posts like this because they are just noise.

  107. @Former Darfur
    Chrissie Hynde had two girls and both of them are childfree so far, they are both over 30.

    One of Mick Jagger's daughters is a grandmother now though. Who'd have thunk?

    That would be Jade, who gave birth to another child of her own within a month or two of her first daughter having done so.

    As far as I know, they are not converts to Mormonism.

  108. @BB753
    I can totally see Ben Affleck as a Republican candidate, 15 years down the line..

    You’ve obviously paid no attention to his politics. He’s only to the right of his Maxist buddy Damon.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Well, that might change, think of former Dem and Union man Reagan and former Civil Rights fellow traveller Charlton Heston.
    There must must be tons of closeted rightwingers in Hollywood.
    Damon must be the real thing, though, he looks gullible enough be a leftie.
  109. @Lagertha
    lose the ridiculous handle, btw - take it from a designer: having 'rape' in any title is a lose-lose thing. Your overuse of SAT words (if that's how you talk) may make you appear like a snob to the basic guy who is trying to get/keep your attention at the party/reception you are forced to attend:) Guys don't like big words...at least in the first meet-up.

    Now, on to your points: I totally disagree with your assertion that this is going on at ('practically' your word, not mine) ALL American campuses across the country - my sons and their friends, currently, studying all over the country, disagree with you. Or, perhaps include the NCAA Div 1 football & basketball players stats you have not shown here, of the the myriad rapes/allegations that are public knowledge, or may be occurring on campuses "across the board" that you infer are happening, all over.

    The fact that you are on Unz makes me believe you are a former elite U student, not someone from Western Michigan University, East Carolina University, Central Connecticut State U, or Slippery Rock State University, etc., right? So, give me a break about "it's happening practically, at all American liberal arts universities and colleges, across the board." You lost me at liberal arts:)

    I do pity women who did not have casual sex, how else do you learn to be good at it? How else do you learn what you like? I'm very sad that you may believe that there is a "biological reality that women crave romantic relationships," overall. And, it's just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women. Men will do anything for sex. Men want commitment as much as women if they sense a connection. And, aaah, connection is that ephemeral thing. Women CHOOSE, after all, women choose who they walk that long journey with.

    Women are just as mercenary as men. And, your assertion that today's hysterical culture of accusing potentially innocent guys on campus of rape is some kind of system to restore young men to consider serious dating (again) and committed relationships "which is more favorable to women's real desires," makes me just well, cringe. SOOO 19th century - feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago! Did you never, seriously, have a "coyote date?" Did you never ever break someone's heart ("it's not you, it's me"; "we've grown apart," blah, blah, blah) and you didn't know why (not including he was crummy in bed)?

    When I was 12, my mother told me all about sex (she was worried since I traveled alone by subway to sing at a choir and girl scouts) since she and my father worked full time and I was a latch-key kid in Brooklyn in the late 60's. At 15, she took me to a gynecologist to discuss contraceptives, at 17 I knew what I needed. So, I was a weird girl. I met my husband by complete and utter accident in my early 30's, so chin-up! Smile, be happy, talk about simple topics like pets and vacations, and, more importantly, find out that a potential guy had a happy childhood and loved his parents - huge. To attract people you have to be available and happy, and, be active in the things you like to do outside of work. You have to make a lot of eye contact.

    Now, talking about grandchildren is just me competing with my cousins and friends who are in their 40's-60's right now...and the reality that my sons are just as independent, big explorers and nonconforming like I was...but they are not "rape culture" people. Everyone must stop thinking all guys at college are rapists.

    My handle is meant as a specific response to you, it’s not a go-to handle. I didn’t attend an elite university, or one in America at that. My English is quite formal because it’s not my native language, although I’m rather glad to hear it’s overfilled with SAT words (hopefully used correctly?). As I far as I know and have been told, men do not find me snobbish. It’s an entirely natural tendency to try to analyze someone from their words, and I sincerely thank you for your dating advice and reassurance. I only wish you wouldn’t reject my psychological hypothesis about campus rape culture, as I think there is a lot to it.

    It’s not a matter of contention that sexual assault accusations have swept colleges around the country. First of all, the fact of the matter is the “Dear Colleague” letter and other sexual assault-related “guidance” documents from the dept. of education pertain to each and every school that obtains funding from the governement. Secondly, there are dozens lawsuits across the country filed by (mostly straight) men for being found guilty of sexual assault by campus kangaroo courts – and these expulsions we know about simply because of the lawsuits. No doubt there are tons more expelled or punished students and affected campuses. It’s not just happening in elite schools, I assure you.

    Liberal arts is simply a shorthand for the objective of an all-encompassing education, where you have many required courses in the humanities, regardless of your major. Caltech, for example, is not a liberal arts university. I’m not sure why I lost you there. It is at liberal arts colleges where 1) Typically there is a strong influence of gender studies which propagates rape culture hysteria and 2) Female students increasingly outnumber male students, leading to increased intra-sexual competition, rather than inter-sexual competition, and more opportunities for casual sex rather than serious dating.

    From your comment, you may think that I’m condoning what is behind the hypothesis; that extending the definition of sexual assault and campus rape tribunals are part of a system punishing men in order to return to old-fashioned dating. I’m not condoning any of this, I am disgusted by what’s happening, I’m just trying to understand why it’s happening. If this hypothesis shocks you, consider a corollary of campus rape culture theory: The gender studies hysteria over unfair beauty standards, and trying to shame and punish men over their taste in women, as if that could change it. (I believe this is an issue that academic feminists of your generation correctly consider frivolous, not so for mine. They are obsessed with it.)

    Again, the hypothesis is that this obsession is because of an increased ratio of female over male students, which heightens intra-sexual competition over men. Men are at an advantage to have their pick of the most desirable women, and women have to make far more effort to catch a man’s sexual interest, especially for a serious relationship, but even for casual hooking up. It intensifies feelings of body/face dissatisfaction among women, among other things pertaining to sexual interest. It would take a brave social scientist to research this, but I would bet anything in schools with a male-heavy or more equal ration of male and female students, female students would report far higher satisfaction both in their physical appearance and in dating/sex.

    I’m very sad that you may believe that there is a “biological reality that women crave romantic relationships,” overall. And, it’s just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women.

    SOOO 19th century – feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago!

    To put it bluntly, I couldn’t care less what feminists did. They got a whole bunch of stuff about sex and the sexes hilariously and horrifyingly wrong. I’m the eldest of millenials, born in ’81, and my generation is completely f***** up, pardon my language, by the sexual prescriptions and relationship advice of feminists.

    There is a huge difference between what women say and convince themselves to believe out of ideology, and what they intrinsically feel. Yes, I firmly believe that many of these female students feel like they have been raped or violated in some way because they feel so dejected and unfulfilled from super-casual sexual encounters (or broken relationships) on campus. Psychological, cognitive, cultural, biological, historical, evolutionary etc. research from a wide range of countries and disciplines supports the theory that in general, women cannot handle casual sex anywhere near as coolly as men do, without developing intimate feelings and being deeply hurt if these are not reciprocated. That’s not even including the tons of women who have sex with their love interests repeatedly in the hopes of turning it into a relationship.

    You can learn to enjoy and be good at sex within committed relationships, I’d say that’s the norm for many men and women. I’m no virgin nor am I particularly promiscuous, but I can tell you I only learned sexual skills and felt way, way more physical pleasure with boyfriends than in any fumbling casual encounters.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "It would take a brave social scientist to research this, but I would bet anything in schools with a male-heavy or more equal ration of male and female students, female students would report far higher satisfaction both in their physical appearance and in dating/sex."

    That was true at Rice U. in my era, which was 60-40 male to female. The coeds didn't bother wearing high heels to Saturday night dances. When I came back for my fifth reunion, we were all amazed by how short the current female students were compared to the height of women in the working world. After several hours, I finally came up with the answer: the undergrad coeds weren't high wearing heels to the dance, whereas in, say, the Chicago lakefront where I lived, women wore heels everywhere except jogging.

    , @Lagertha
    phew...your post had sooo much stuff to chew on - and, I had already moved on, as I do, since there are like 10 posts now by Steve! I KNEW English was not your 1st language (neither was mine) but I didn't want to assume...gets one into trouble. Anyway, I don't want to be a jerk and ignore you, and I very much want you to join Steve's motley commenter crew (very intense guys/very few women: prepare yourself ) so we can have more female opinions...so this is an awkward welcome mat?:) But, come up with a good avatar name.

    This is the problem of trying to have a dialogue on the internet; it doesn't work...everyone reads between the lines, ergo, all is misconstrued. Perhaps, because I found your first post writing so circular (with the SAT words) and confusing initially, we misunderstood each other? I agree so much with what you said in this 2nd post...HOWEVER, you also made me realize (once again, from years past) that I am an anomaly.

    Why: I was raised like a 3rd son of university educated parents, one who comes from a 6th-generation-university-educated background (my mother). My parents also had a nanny for 12 years while my older brothers and I were infants/small children. My parents worked a lot, yet, we were very close as a family; and my siblings & mother (my disabled father died decades ago) are close with our former nanny - very unusual, but we were unusual, whether in Europe or the USA.

    I have a B.A. in art and anthropology from a liberal arts U...Master's from a tech institute. And, I have always been sort of annoyed with American B.A. people who were not as worldly as I was, or hardly knew more than their native language...especially, because they were highly opinionated, and despised other students'/people's opinions. Now, I don't waste my time with tedious people.

    We are living in the day of most universities in the USA which have conformed to complete liberal (socialist) ideals that no longer tolerate dissension, which includes students and professors, sadly - diversity of opinion no longer exists nor can be spoken in class or at parties. However, two of my sons are attending U's where men do outnumber women/ratio is equal....so, there is no intra-sexual competition, which you mentioned. However, because all 3 sons are Millenials, as a mother, I am outraged that there is this tendency to paint all college males as potential predators...especially, if they are/were athletes as mine are. Or, later, in the world of work, that they are suspect because they are WASPS. WASP (or WASC) males seem to be the most hated group right now...but mine are innocent young men, and I am a lioness protecting her pride :)

    I have never had any use for feminism or feminists...especially, American ones - are there others? I detest feminists...I only like the funny ones like Camille Paglia, or, well, Amy Schumer. My grandparents and their peers (more women as men were dead/disabled) had to jump into the public sphere following the complete infrastructure destruction of WW2 - there was no time then or since, to conjure-up a feminist movement - my grandmother would have thought that was complete mental illness! I wholeheartedly agree that American feminists were/are tedious, and got so many things wrong. Women's Studies is such a load of bull - why not call it sex studies?...and make it focus on international cultural behavior, just to see how unfair and retrograde many cultures are today, in the world, as far as their treatment of women (and children)!

    Now, where we diverge: I don't think you will ever find a satisfying theory as to why women devalue their bodies/faces, but I blame the media - I was in college when the term, "super model," began. Thinness started, but NOT pushed by feminists - feminists were kind of trolls then, literally. Men in the 80's, and now for that matter, are simple creatures...they want the same thing (connection/loyalty/being comfortable "in their own skin"/respect/companionship/family) as women do. I have observed this for the last 30 years...which brings me to: I probably had more casual relationships (mutual, but safe sex in the age of AIDs) than many, but that was my choice. Men were receptive to that, but some were not. Most of my casual relationships were in my 20's, and, I am still good friends with a few of them, 30 years later, albeit we have no connection except something on the level of Christmas cards.

    Lastly, I got hurt several times by guys I thought I had that magical connection with...and I hurt some good men, some really decent men, as well. But, when I think back on those sad days, it was often a sad or anxious major change, and I "was not available/was not ready/was mourning a death of someone significant," that "broke" those goodn (or promising) relationships because I could not/would not connect. The casual ones were often, during a time of deep confusion...often mutual confusion..so it served a purpose. Ok, now I have said Waaaaaay too much.

  110. @OnCampusRapeCulture
    My handle is meant as a specific response to you, it's not a go-to handle. I didn't attend an elite university, or one in America at that. My English is quite formal because it's not my native language, although I'm rather glad to hear it's overfilled with SAT words (hopefully used correctly?). As I far as I know and have been told, men do not find me snobbish. It's an entirely natural tendency to try to analyze someone from their words, and I sincerely thank you for your dating advice and reassurance. I only wish you wouldn't reject my psychological hypothesis about campus rape culture, as I think there is a lot to it.

    It's not a matter of contention that sexual assault accusations have swept colleges around the country. First of all, the fact of the matter is the "Dear Colleague" letter and other sexual assault-related "guidance" documents from the dept. of education pertain to each and every school that obtains funding from the governement. Secondly, there are dozens lawsuits across the country filed by (mostly straight) men for being found guilty of sexual assault by campus kangaroo courts - and these expulsions we know about simply because of the lawsuits. No doubt there are tons more expelled or punished students and affected campuses. It's not just happening in elite schools, I assure you.

    Liberal arts is simply a shorthand for the objective of an all-encompassing education, where you have many required courses in the humanities, regardless of your major. Caltech, for example, is not a liberal arts university. I'm not sure why I lost you there. It is at liberal arts colleges where 1) Typically there is a strong influence of gender studies which propagates rape culture hysteria and 2) Female students increasingly outnumber male students, leading to increased intra-sexual competition, rather than inter-sexual competition, and more opportunities for casual sex rather than serious dating.

    From your comment, you may think that I'm condoning what is behind the hypothesis; that extending the definition of sexual assault and campus rape tribunals are part of a system punishing men in order to return to old-fashioned dating. I'm not condoning any of this, I am disgusted by what's happening, I'm just trying to understand why it's happening. If this hypothesis shocks you, consider a corollary of campus rape culture theory: The gender studies hysteria over unfair beauty standards, and trying to shame and punish men over their taste in women, as if that could change it. (I believe this is an issue that academic feminists of your generation correctly consider frivolous, not so for mine. They are obsessed with it.)

    Again, the hypothesis is that this obsession is because of an increased ratio of female over male students, which heightens intra-sexual competition over men. Men are at an advantage to have their pick of the most desirable women, and women have to make far more effort to catch a man's sexual interest, especially for a serious relationship, but even for casual hooking up. It intensifies feelings of body/face dissatisfaction among women, among other things pertaining to sexual interest. It would take a brave social scientist to research this, but I would bet anything in schools with a male-heavy or more equal ration of male and female students, female students would report far higher satisfaction both in their physical appearance and in dating/sex.

    I’m very sad that you may believe that there is a “biological reality that women crave romantic relationships,” overall. And, it’s just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women.

    SOOO 19th century – feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago!

    To put it bluntly, I couldn't care less what feminists did. They got a whole bunch of stuff about sex and the sexes hilariously and horrifyingly wrong. I'm the eldest of millenials, born in '81, and my generation is completely f***** up, pardon my language, by the sexual prescriptions and relationship advice of feminists.

    There is a huge difference between what women say and convince themselves to believe out of ideology, and what they intrinsically feel. Yes, I firmly believe that many of these female students feel like they have been raped or violated in some way because they feel so dejected and unfulfilled from super-casual sexual encounters (or broken relationships) on campus. Psychological, cognitive, cultural, biological, historical, evolutionary etc. research from a wide range of countries and disciplines supports the theory that in general, women cannot handle casual sex anywhere near as coolly as men do, without developing intimate feelings and being deeply hurt if these are not reciprocated. That's not even including the tons of women who have sex with their love interests repeatedly in the hopes of turning it into a relationship.

    You can learn to enjoy and be good at sex within committed relationships, I'd say that's the norm for many men and women. I'm no virgin nor am I particularly promiscuous, but I can tell you I only learned sexual skills and felt way, way more physical pleasure with boyfriends than in any fumbling casual encounters.

    “It would take a brave social scientist to research this, but I would bet anything in schools with a male-heavy or more equal ration of male and female students, female students would report far higher satisfaction both in their physical appearance and in dating/sex.”

    That was true at Rice U. in my era, which was 60-40 male to female. The coeds didn’t bother wearing high heels to Saturday night dances. When I came back for my fifth reunion, we were all amazed by how short the current female students were compared to the height of women in the working world. After several hours, I finally came up with the answer: the undergrad coeds weren’t high wearing heels to the dance, whereas in, say, the Chicago lakefront where I lived, women wore heels everywhere except jogging.

  111. @Brutusale
    You've obviously paid no attention to his politics. He's only to the right of his Maxist buddy Damon.

    Well, that might change, think of former Dem and Union man Reagan and former Civil Rights fellow traveller Charlton Heston.
    There must must be tons of closeted rightwingers in Hollywood.
    Damon must be the real thing, though, he looks gullible enough be a leftie.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    One can always hope, but it's a long shot in his case.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/ben-affleck-a-slave-to-identity-politics/16914#.VuvrOeIrKM8
  112. @OnCampusRapeCulture
    My handle is meant as a specific response to you, it's not a go-to handle. I didn't attend an elite university, or one in America at that. My English is quite formal because it's not my native language, although I'm rather glad to hear it's overfilled with SAT words (hopefully used correctly?). As I far as I know and have been told, men do not find me snobbish. It's an entirely natural tendency to try to analyze someone from their words, and I sincerely thank you for your dating advice and reassurance. I only wish you wouldn't reject my psychological hypothesis about campus rape culture, as I think there is a lot to it.

    It's not a matter of contention that sexual assault accusations have swept colleges around the country. First of all, the fact of the matter is the "Dear Colleague" letter and other sexual assault-related "guidance" documents from the dept. of education pertain to each and every school that obtains funding from the governement. Secondly, there are dozens lawsuits across the country filed by (mostly straight) men for being found guilty of sexual assault by campus kangaroo courts - and these expulsions we know about simply because of the lawsuits. No doubt there are tons more expelled or punished students and affected campuses. It's not just happening in elite schools, I assure you.

    Liberal arts is simply a shorthand for the objective of an all-encompassing education, where you have many required courses in the humanities, regardless of your major. Caltech, for example, is not a liberal arts university. I'm not sure why I lost you there. It is at liberal arts colleges where 1) Typically there is a strong influence of gender studies which propagates rape culture hysteria and 2) Female students increasingly outnumber male students, leading to increased intra-sexual competition, rather than inter-sexual competition, and more opportunities for casual sex rather than serious dating.

    From your comment, you may think that I'm condoning what is behind the hypothesis; that extending the definition of sexual assault and campus rape tribunals are part of a system punishing men in order to return to old-fashioned dating. I'm not condoning any of this, I am disgusted by what's happening, I'm just trying to understand why it's happening. If this hypothesis shocks you, consider a corollary of campus rape culture theory: The gender studies hysteria over unfair beauty standards, and trying to shame and punish men over their taste in women, as if that could change it. (I believe this is an issue that academic feminists of your generation correctly consider frivolous, not so for mine. They are obsessed with it.)

    Again, the hypothesis is that this obsession is because of an increased ratio of female over male students, which heightens intra-sexual competition over men. Men are at an advantage to have their pick of the most desirable women, and women have to make far more effort to catch a man's sexual interest, especially for a serious relationship, but even for casual hooking up. It intensifies feelings of body/face dissatisfaction among women, among other things pertaining to sexual interest. It would take a brave social scientist to research this, but I would bet anything in schools with a male-heavy or more equal ration of male and female students, female students would report far higher satisfaction both in their physical appearance and in dating/sex.

    I’m very sad that you may believe that there is a “biological reality that women crave romantic relationships,” overall. And, it’s just plain wrong to think guys like casual sex more than women.

    SOOO 19th century – feminists let that train roll out of the rail yard 40-50 years ago!

    To put it bluntly, I couldn't care less what feminists did. They got a whole bunch of stuff about sex and the sexes hilariously and horrifyingly wrong. I'm the eldest of millenials, born in '81, and my generation is completely f***** up, pardon my language, by the sexual prescriptions and relationship advice of feminists.

    There is a huge difference between what women say and convince themselves to believe out of ideology, and what they intrinsically feel. Yes, I firmly believe that many of these female students feel like they have been raped or violated in some way because they feel so dejected and unfulfilled from super-casual sexual encounters (or broken relationships) on campus. Psychological, cognitive, cultural, biological, historical, evolutionary etc. research from a wide range of countries and disciplines supports the theory that in general, women cannot handle casual sex anywhere near as coolly as men do, without developing intimate feelings and being deeply hurt if these are not reciprocated. That's not even including the tons of women who have sex with their love interests repeatedly in the hopes of turning it into a relationship.

    You can learn to enjoy and be good at sex within committed relationships, I'd say that's the norm for many men and women. I'm no virgin nor am I particularly promiscuous, but I can tell you I only learned sexual skills and felt way, way more physical pleasure with boyfriends than in any fumbling casual encounters.

    phew…your post had sooo much stuff to chew on – and, I had already moved on, as I do, since there are like 10 posts now by Steve! I KNEW English was not your 1st language (neither was mine) but I didn’t want to assume…gets one into trouble. Anyway, I don’t want to be a jerk and ignore you, and I very much want you to join Steve’s motley commenter crew (very intense guys/very few women: prepare yourself ) so we can have more female opinions…so this is an awkward welcome mat?:) But, come up with a good avatar name.

    This is the problem of trying to have a dialogue on the internet; it doesn’t work…everyone reads between the lines, ergo, all is misconstrued. Perhaps, because I found your first post writing so circular (with the SAT words) and confusing initially, we misunderstood each other? I agree so much with what you said in this 2nd post…HOWEVER, you also made me realize (once again, from years past) that I am an anomaly.

    Why: I was raised like a 3rd son of university educated parents, one who comes from a 6th-generation-university-educated background (my mother). My parents also had a nanny for 12 years while my older brothers and I were infants/small children. My parents worked a lot, yet, we were very close as a family; and my siblings & mother (my disabled father died decades ago) are close with our former nanny – very unusual, but we were unusual, whether in Europe or the USA.

    I have a B.A. in art and anthropology from a liberal arts U…Master’s from a tech institute. And, I have always been sort of annoyed with American B.A. people who were not as worldly as I was, or hardly knew more than their native language…especially, because they were highly opinionated, and despised other students’/people’s opinions. Now, I don’t waste my time with tedious people.

    We are living in the day of most universities in the USA which have conformed to complete liberal (socialist) ideals that no longer tolerate dissension, which includes students and professors, sadly – diversity of opinion no longer exists nor can be spoken in class or at parties. However, two of my sons are attending U’s where men do outnumber women/ratio is equal….so, there is no intra-sexual competition, which you mentioned. However, because all 3 sons are Millenials, as a mother, I am outraged that there is this tendency to paint all college males as potential predators…especially, if they are/were athletes as mine are. Or, later, in the world of work, that they are suspect because they are WASPS. WASP (or WASC) males seem to be the most hated group right now…but mine are innocent young men, and I am a lioness protecting her pride 🙂

    I have never had any use for feminism or feminists…especially, American ones – are there others? I detest feminists…I only like the funny ones like Camille Paglia, or, well, Amy Schumer. My grandparents and their peers (more women as men were dead/disabled) had to jump into the public sphere following the complete infrastructure destruction of WW2 – there was no time then or since, to conjure-up a feminist movement – my grandmother would have thought that was complete mental illness! I wholeheartedly agree that American feminists were/are tedious, and got so many things wrong. Women’s Studies is such a load of bull – why not call it sex studies?…and make it focus on international cultural behavior, just to see how unfair and retrograde many cultures are today, in the world, as far as their treatment of women (and children)!

    Now, where we diverge: I don’t think you will ever find a satisfying theory as to why women devalue their bodies/faces, but I blame the media – I was in college when the term, “super model,” began. Thinness started, but NOT pushed by feminists – feminists were kind of trolls then, literally. Men in the 80’s, and now for that matter, are simple creatures…they want the same thing (connection/loyalty/being comfortable “in their own skin”/respect/companionship/family) as women do. I have observed this for the last 30 years…which brings me to: I probably had more casual relationships (mutual, but safe sex in the age of AIDs) than many, but that was my choice. Men were receptive to that, but some were not. Most of my casual relationships were in my 20’s, and, I am still good friends with a few of them, 30 years later, albeit we have no connection except something on the level of Christmas cards.

    Lastly, I got hurt several times by guys I thought I had that magical connection with…and I hurt some good men, some really decent men, as well. But, when I think back on those sad days, it was often a sad or anxious major change, and I “was not available/was not ready/was mourning a death of someone significant,” that “broke” those goodn (or promising) relationships because I could not/would not connect. The casual ones were often, during a time of deep confusion…often mutual confusion..so it served a purpose. Ok, now I have said Waaaaaay too much.

  113. @BB753
    Well, that might change, think of former Dem and Union man Reagan and former Civil Rights fellow traveller Charlton Heston.
    There must must be tons of closeted rightwingers in Hollywood.
    Damon must be the real thing, though, he looks gullible enough be a leftie.
    • Agree: BB753
  114. […] Second Most Feminine-Sounding of the candidates (after Hillary),[42] which as Steve Sailer again points out, means […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS