RSS
The GSS contains one of the most unambiguous, straightforward measures of personal support for voluntary eugenics. Most recently in 2004–yes, dated, but we work with what we have–the survey asked in the case of a pregnant woman or the partner of a pregnant woman, “Would you (yourself want to/want your partner to) have an abortion if a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect?” The percentages, by political orientation, who said they would want an abortion in such circumstances:
In a sober world, Dawkins would have come in for criticism on account of his assertion that presumably state-mandated eugenic programs would work. The libertarian rightly objects that it could work–“work” defined in this context as achieving the stated objective–but that, like so many other government programs, it could also end up creating a lot more problems than it would ‘solve’. And this only addresses utility–the moral and legal objections remain.
In the world we actually live in, he came under fire for treating the term “eugenics” as anything other than a thoughtless synonym for “Pure Evil”. That he qualified his statement by saying he finds the idea morally repugnant did him no good in eyes of his persecutors.
We live in an age of horizontal intellectual totalitarianism.
GSS variables used: POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), YEAR(2004), GENEABRT(1-2)
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
I am given to understand that in the USA, the rate of Down syndrome births has plummeted because of voluntary eugenics (selective abortion).
Give people a chance to avoid bearing a “special needs” child and a great many will do it.
Also true: give a person a survey question that has a response that is the 'obvious' socially-acceptable response, and a goodly chunk of people will choose that over the response that best-fits their actual preference.
Also true: put people who give the 'obvious' socially-acceptable survey answer, in a real-life situation where they're facing the thing they were questioned about ... and they will reveal their actual preferences.
Surveys are pointless if you're trying to determine facts, intentions or preferences.
They are moderately useful if you're trying to get a guess about beliefs, so long as the belief is non-controversial.
A good counter-example (where surveys are even shit at determining beliefs)...
A lot of people who straight-up don't believe in any god, will refer to themselves as 'agnostic' with respect to the foreskin-obsessed psychopath in the Abrahamic Trilogy of primitive drivel.
This tendency is far more marked in the US (and in people with career exposure to the US).
For the most part, soi-disant agnostics' non-belief in Kali or Vishnu or Bastet or Hephaestus is significantly more adamantine... their claimed agnosticism about the Old Testament Sky Maniac is a social hedge, not an actual belief .Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar, @dfordoom
Eh, does this track much differently from abortion support in general? I wouldn’t be surprised if the distribution totally inverted if it was framed differently, such as support of genetic testing as a screening process for conception or genetic therapy.
“it could work–“work” defined in this context as achieving the stated objective–but that, like so many other government programs, it could also end up creating a lot more problems than it would ‘solve’”
Allow me to correct your sentence here:
“it could work–“work” defined in this context as achieving the stated objective–but that, just like all government programs, it would end up creating a lot more , far worse, problems than it would actually “solve””.
There, fixed it for ya!
Regards, onebornfree
Liberal eugenics really aren’t a problem.
Liberal dysgenics on the other hand…
There is a real problem with intelligent women being convinced that they shouldn’t have children for the sake of climate change.
Some may argue that overall this is good since it means liberals have fewer children.
But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination. The system takes intelligent women and lies to them in the colleges. The social sciences especially take advantage of female empathy and convince them of all kinds of egalitarian fiction.
I don’t know what the answer is but I have seen it first hand. There is a huge problem with bitter childless liberal women thinking their unhappiness is caused by Trump or the patriarchy. It’s not pretty and they spend a lot of their time supporting the same egalitarian fiction they were taught.
Perhaps it's best left up to them to make up their own minds. And, of course, a challenge has been those "men" of the manosphere who enjoy placing the blame on the "current dating and mating system" in place.
"But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination".
You mean that ANY ideology is subject to having its proponents becoming indoctrinated and seeking to indoctrinate others.Replies: @John Johnson
Colleges do not and never have taught women to not have children because of climate change. At one time, 60- 40 years ago women and men were propagandized to have fewer children because of over population.
Liberals however, soon realized that over population came from the third world, not advanced countries. Since liberals hate Whites and love blacks and browns, liberals shut up about over population about 35 years ago.
You should be embarrassed to display your ignorance on the internet, especially your ignorance that it takes both a woman and a man to conceive a child.
Another childless sad bachelor loser bloviating about the mis deeds of women.Replies: @Rosie
Liberal dysgenics on the other hand...
There is a real problem with intelligent women being convinced that they shouldn't have children for the sake of climate change.
Some may argue that overall this is good since it means liberals have fewer children.
But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination. The system takes intelligent women and lies to them in the colleges. The social sciences especially take advantage of female empathy and convince them of all kinds of egalitarian fiction.
I don't know what the answer is but I have seen it first hand. There is a huge problem with bitter childless liberal women thinking their unhappiness is caused by Trump or the patriarchy. It's not pretty and they spend a lot of their time supporting the same egalitarian fiction they were taught.Replies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @Alden
There is much truth in what you say here, of course, but from what I understand, fertility is actually improving among highly educated women.
Gifted women, like gifted men, often find corporate or professional life stultifying and oppressive. Like Alice in Wonderland, they are distressed that “the creatures are so easily offended” when they commit some faux pas, not being especially socially adept.
Compare: Being a SAHM with all sorts of freedom to learn new things and hang out with your kids, who love you in spite of, or maybe because of, your eccentricities.
Obviously, this chart isn’t all good news, and, as the SJWs are fond of saying: “We still have a lot of work to do. But still, it’s good that fertility among the most educated women has declined less than that of other groups.
Increasing parental age is also dysgenic and getting worse.Replies: @houston 1992
Very few women from that generation went to college. It was during the '70s that college attendance in general expanded significantly and women attending college became normalized. Today, more women attend college than men.
Completed fertility in 2010 would refer to the generation of women who came of age in the 80s and early 90s and attended college in that period. By that time, attending college was normal for women.
So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. The college grads of the later generation are like the high school grads of the older generation.Replies: @Rosie
What is your source for that chart? Just want to take a closer look at the data.
It is interesting but I'm skeptical. I would want a breakdown of native vs foreign born.Replies: @Rosie
Pfffshshswahahahahaha – the atheist got jacked for committing secular blasphemy! Oh the irony!!!
Yup. Look, it’s easy – at least let the Chinese try it out first (they are the most likely to have least moral objections to it and the security-state apparatus to enforce it) then wait a couple of decades to see if it even works or if it leads to SHTF-apocalypse mode. Then at least you will have put the utility question behind you and have only the moral/ethical question to work out.
Peace.
Give people a chance to avoid bearing a "special needs" child and a great many will do it.Replies: @Lot, @Hypnotoad666, @Kratoklastes
Agree. Reduction in Downs births is huge, this poll doesn’t reflect what people actually do.
Dysgenic fertility was worst circa 1970. This shows the partial improvement.
Increasing parental age is also dysgenic and getting worse.
“Completed fertility” refers to women at the end of their fertility. So completed fertility in 1995 would refer to the generation of women who were born around 1945 to 1950.
Very few women from that generation went to college. It was during the ’70s that college attendance in general expanded significantly and women attending college became normalized. Today, more women attend college than men.
Completed fertility in 2010 would refer to the generation of women who came of age in the 80s and early 90s and attended college in that period. By that time, attending college was normal for women.
So it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison. The college grads of the later generation are like the high school grads of the older generation.
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpgReplies: @UK, @Anon, @res, @Mario Partisan
“Genetic defect” is very vague. It could cover anything from a baby without a brain to a baby with a genetic disposition to male pattern baldness. And does it mean only physical defects? My feeling is that most respondents probably did not have a clear idea what the question meant.
Remember that if the LGBT lobby is correct is claiming that homosexuals are “born that way” (in fat they’re almost certainly wrong) then some folks might consider that to be a genetic defect.
Increasing parental age is also dysgenic and getting worse.Replies: @houston 1992
Lot: I am interested in that: plz provide some good links
“Each year of paternal age adds 2 new mutations and reduces offspring g by .084 points.”
Until 1975, under the left-wing Social Democrats, Sweden allowed compulsory sterilisation on eugenic grounds. The Social Democrats are still in power.
Abortion on demand has been in Scandinavia since the mid 1930s. The "old" social democratic type parties took the view that if poverty was eliminated as a reason for abortion, there would be fewer abortions. Hence the social welfare programmes. That was largely true through the 1960s, but since that time "White" birthrates have declined, primarily because of industrialisation. That has been the case in non-White countries as well.
What about baldness? Can I abort a baby because he has the genes for alopecia?
Very few women from that generation went to college. It was during the '70s that college attendance in general expanded significantly and women attending college became normalized. Today, more women attend college than men.
Completed fertility in 2010 would refer to the generation of women who came of age in the 80s and early 90s and attended college in that period. By that time, attending college was normal for women.
So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. The college grads of the later generation are like the high school grads of the older generation.Replies: @Rosie
Nonsense.
You deliberately chose a graph that obfuscates these facts.
Cornell was one of the first serious universities to allow women. It allowed women beginning in 1870, but female enrollment was basically non-existent until much later, rising significantly in the 1970s which is also when the other Ivy League colleges started admitting women.
https://brancra.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cornell_enrollment_1.pngReplies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @dfordoom
This graphic looks at the entire population so isn't really what we want. But it is the first thing which popped up in my search so I expect it will for others as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/
Figure 2 in this Census report is the best data I found (better data welcomed) for looking at this. Figure 1 is similar to the graphic above.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2016/demo/SEHSD-WP2016-04.pdf
Figure 2: Percent of Women with a Bachelor's or Higher Degree by Birth Cohort and Age, with Regression Lines
At age 33 (earliest data available for the 1935 cohort) we see (roughly, by eye) the following percentages by birth year. I added implied year of measurement to make it easier to think about this.
1935 1968 9%
1945 1978 18%
1955 1988 24%
1965 1998 27%
1975 2008 36%
So for Anon's cohorts:We are looking at roughly the difference between 18% and 25% of women graduating college. A difference worth noting, but not as large as I think Anon implied. This is less of a difference than I expected before I looked at the data.
Having the data for some college would improve this analysis. Anyone?Replies: @Rosie
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpg
It seems to me, though, that your chart actually supports Anon’s point. Here is how I read the chart:
The vertical axis is male minus female, i.e. positive values indicate college attendance is skewed towards males, and negative values indicate otherwise.
The horizontal axis is birth year, so college freshmen year is about 18 years after birth date.
What does the chart show? It shows that male/female balance was only modestly biased towards men for those born up until 1910, i.e. those entering college in the late 1920s, after which there is a trend towards male dominance. Male dominance in college attendance is stable for those born from 1925 to 1950 (i.e. for the 1943 to 1968 freshmen classes.) From then on, the decline in the bias favoring men is monotonic, with men and women reaching gender parity in about birth year 1955 (freshmen class of 1973). The end of the chart is birth year 1975 (freshmen class of 1993) with women having reached the level of dominance that men had on college campuses from the 1940s through 1960s.
In short, it seems that Anon’s comment is not nonsense, but is instead supported by the chart you posted.
Am I missing something?
I actually think the chart is interesting. For those who think the late 1800s to early 1900s were a time of Victorian patriarchy, the chart is a wake up. That time was not as nearly skewed towards men as we might imagine.
On the other hand, male dominance reaches a more or less stable plateau around the freshmen classes of the mid 1940s, coinciding with the return of the GIs from the front and the GI bill. In other words, it seems that peak male dominance is related to the generation of men who were compensated for their sacrifice with the offer of a college education. Patriarchy!? Or maybe it’s just throwing a bone to the men who managed not to come home in a box.
But notice, the decline towards parity and then pro-female bias begins in birth year 1950, i.e. for those born during the baby boom and entering college in the 1970s. In other words, it was those very men who got the GI bill that fathered the women who would start to overtake men in college attendance.
Interestingly, while college attendance overall is now biased towards women, the STEM fields are still biased towards men. (I know, it must be all those sexist nerds in chemical engineering who hate the idea of having a cute girl to study with.) What gives? Well, the transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy has meant that almost all people feel the need to enter college just to get into the middle class. But men who want to make a decent living, but don’t have the desire or inclination to do college (STEM or otherwise) have the trades as an alternative to college, yet another no BS sector women have little inclination to pursue (for full disclosure I went to college not the trades.) This might explain the skewness towards women overall.
What might explain the lack of college-related “sexism” during the Victorian period? At that time, college attendance was probably confined to the upper classes, and while industrialization was happening quickly, we had not yet entered the era of intense scientific research and high-tech engineering. In short, college was meant to refine the children of the rich, not so much about producing legions of engineers. In other words, the content was much more oriented to the softer subjects that women are more inclined to show an interest in, thus explaining the lack of strong bias towards men. Of course, I wasn’t there, so I’m quite open to hearing counter arguments.Replies: @Rosie
This is one case, at least where it concerns Liberals spawning, where deviancy needs to be defined upward.
The only way, to get a point across, and become immune to cancellation is to not bother with it. Like Anatoly said, never cuck. Harassed on the street? Beat the hell out of them. You get the idea. Be the anti-intellectual intellectual.
Remember that if the LGBT lobby is correct is claiming that homosexuals are "born that way" (in fat they're almost certainly wrong) then some folks might consider that to be a genetic defect.Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
Not to mention the debilitating genetic condition of hyperpigmentation.
Blast from the past:
1973 SPECIAL REPORT: “FORCED STERILIZATIONS OF WELFARE MOTHERS”
Woodley of Menie writes about this, search his papers. Eg:
“Each year of paternal age adds 2 new mutations and reduces offspring g by .084 points.”
Stefan Molyneux’s short take on Dawkins tweets:
Regards , onebornfree
Galton proposed that such young couples be given financial inducement to have children, while those of weak intellect would be given "a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods" and "the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised."
These latter steps, although none of them are coercive in the manner described by Molyneux, have needless to say, not been implemented. The intellectual elite is still not as fecund as might be hoped, due to feminism and contraception, while the underclass, though frequent patrons of abortionists, still breed like rabbits. As for "emigrants and refugees from other lands," the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them - to invite and welcome only "the better sort" would be racist!Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus
Eugenics is morally right and sensible. Going by the survey results AE has posted, liberals are less degenerate than conservatives on this issue.
This is a bit more complicated than it may seem. A severely handicapped baby is not going to be raised entirely by the parents. Public assistance, often a great deal of it, will be needed. Allowing women to bear children that will need, say, over a million dollars in taxpayer funding to survive is not a purely a private decision.
A zika baby, e.g. will never be another Stephen Hawking ( and Hawking was not born with ALS) but it could consume the public resources used to keep the real Hawking alive when he became ill.
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpgReplies: @UK, @Anon, @res, @Mario Partisan
The grad rates are merely the high school rates from before. The uptick in grad rates is because “grad” includes so many more women. The huge increase in both sexes going to college makes this the case.
In 1975, the Social Democrats were under the treasonous Olaf Palme, who rejected most of what the real Social Democrats had done under 30+ years of Tage Erlander.
Abortion on demand has been in Scandinavia since the mid 1930s. The “old” social democratic type parties took the view that if poverty was eliminated as a reason for abortion, there would be fewer abortions. Hence the social welfare programmes. That was largely true through the 1960s, but since that time “White” birthrates have declined, primarily because of industrialisation. That has been the case in non-White countries as well.
Gifted individuals spit on corporate life, some say so, slightly paraphrasing the “spit”… Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his writing (we did not ask for his consent on exposing the matter), for one. Corporate life and government service are about entering and leaving a walk-in closet day long. Socially adept can be translated in mediocre, neurotic, cowardly tuning the bite and the bark. Dogs walk in packs, humans scale as mechanics, screws, nails, nuts and bolts.
“We live in an age of horizontal intellectual totalitarianism.”
I am no libertarian. However, it might for biological processes. We know that upon locating some genetic defects they can be corrected. We may not know the side effects. But we know that genetic manipulation cab and does work for biological factors. it has plenty of unknowns and hurdles yet but we have some evidence.
Whether we can correct for cognition is another matter, because those kinds of biological models simply don’t exist.
I wasn’t talking about grad rates. I was attacking the idea that women attending college was not “normal” before the 1970s. That is simply not true. Women have been going to college since the beginning of the century, in nearly equal numbers to men.
When I was a kid, handicapped children were typically packed off to an institution where they lived a short unhappy life. Remember the Willowbrook State School scandal.
Individuals with down’s syndrome typically suffer from a variety of physical defects such as heart problems that, untreated, doom them to death in childhood or early adulthood. Now, endless sums are expended to keep alive a severely-handicapped child who will sit in a chair or lie in a bed 24/7 hooked to a variety of machines. She might even be sent to school for “education” despite having the iq of carrot.
At one time, it was thought that there were things that a truly well-educated person knew about literature, history, etc. That what was meant by a liberal education. Plus, the pursuit of the coveted MRS degree. Meet a more affluent level of young men than at the factory.
Is there anyway to find some commenters 60 and under? Or some 90 year olds aware of what’s been happening since 1950?
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpgReplies: @UK, @Anon, @res, @Mario Partisan
It’s not nonsense. Not only did much fewer people in general attend college in the past, fewer women relative to men attended college. Moreover, there was a significant qualitative difference in the mainly sex segregated colleges that men and women attended in the past. Most women’s “colleges” were not serious academic institutions like men’s colleges, but finishing schools for wealthy ladies.
You deliberately chose a graph that obfuscates these facts.
Cornell was one of the first serious universities to allow women. It allowed women beginning in 1870, but female enrollment was basically non-existent until much later, rising significantly in the 1970s which is also when the other Ivy League colleges started admitting women.
You are woefully misinformed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_colleges_in_the_United_States
Until the late 60s that kind of college education-lite did little harm and was probably a net social benefit. Up until the late 60s you could say that of humanities courses in general. Once the SJWs gained control humanities courses became a menace to society.
And women, who have more of an instinct for social conformity than men, seem to be particularly vulnerable to SJW indoctrination in college.
Law schools are possibly the greatest social menace of all.Replies: @Rosie
Individuals with down's syndrome typically suffer from a variety of physical defects such as heart problems that, untreated, doom them to death in childhood or early adulthood. Now, endless sums are expended to keep alive a severely-handicapped child who will sit in a chair or lie in a bed 24/7 hooked to a variety of machines. She might even be sent to school for "education" despite having the iq of carrot.Replies: @iffen
Most human beings think that we should take care of the sick, the elderly, the infirm and the handicapped. I know that I do. Although, my soul tempts me to make exceptions for people with certain kinds of mental disease. And BTW, many Down’s people are able to function with minimal help.
Give people a chance to avoid bearing a "special needs" child and a great many will do it.Replies: @Lot, @Hypnotoad666, @Kratoklastes
There has also been a massive and highly successful eugenics project within the Jewish community to eliminate Tay-Sachs disease.
This proves Dawkins point (which was self-evident to begin with.) And if Dawkins were a little more troll-like he could accuse the anti-eugenics people of being anti-Semitic. (“What, you want we should kill Jewish children instead of let them practice eugenics — you’re the Nazi!”.)
Peace.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @res
Do we really want to wait until the Chicoms have already deployed an army of genetically engineered super-replicants before we get going on this?
Give people a chance to avoid bearing a "special needs" child and a great many will do it.Replies: @Lot, @Hypnotoad666, @Kratoklastes
Absolutely true, and sensible as fuck. Anyone who didn’t flush that shit as soon as possible, is mildly retarded, and should receive zero publicly-funded support for the rest of they and their kids’ lives.
Also true: give a person a survey question that has a response that is the ‘obvious’ socially-acceptable response, and a goodly chunk of people will choose that over the response that best-fits their actual preference.
Also true: put people who give the ‘obvious’ socially-acceptable survey answer, in a real-life situation where they’re facing the thing they were questioned about … and they will reveal their actual preferences.
Surveys are pointless if you’re trying to determine facts, intentions or preferences.
They are moderately useful if you’re trying to get a guess about beliefs, so long as the belief is non-controversial.
A good counter-example (where surveys are even shit at determining beliefs)…
A lot of people who straight-up don’t believe in any god, will refer to themselves as ‘agnostic’ with respect to the foreskin-obsessed psychopath in the Abrahamic Trilogy of primitive drivel.
This tendency is far more marked in the US (and in people with career exposure to the US).
For the most part, soi-disant agnostics’ non-belief in Kali or Vishnu or Bastet or Hephaestus is significantly more adamantine… their claimed agnosticism about the Old Testament Sky Maniac is a social hedge, not an actual belief .
So how do you rectify your position with the Christian axiom that all life is sacred and that we are made in His image? Consider that "the secular juggernaut in the form of eugenics, birth control, and population control all bear on how we regard human life and human origins. If we are products of the primordial ooze, then we have no rights other than those our betters confer on us".Replies: @Kratoklastes
https://a4.pbase.com/v3/93/329493/1/47827847.parisaug05183.JPG
Surveys are pure fantasy.
Well it depends. If those genetically engineered guys all share some gene that some mutated virus targets because one of them ate some bat-soup with rhino-testicle sauce and it wipes them all out…we’ll know what not to do.
Honestly, I’m not very interested in participating in the whole genetic engineering thing nor really stopping others from doing so. I’m pretty happy with Humans v1.0. But if others want to go Humans v2.0, go for it. We have already transitioned into Technopoly in the West, so the train must keep going forward – all other considerations will eventually be tossed aside. The bifurcation of humanity within our lifetimes is a very real possibility.
I just ask that my tax dollars aren’t involved – not much to ask.
I will say one thing about China. Given historical trends, that place has very bloody civil wars from time to time. There are religious pressures, demographic pressures, etc. that are under the surface. We don’t really know exactly because it’s not an open book. I could see it going at its current rate for a while yet and I could also see it collapsing like the Soviet Union out of nowhere in a bloody mess that would make the Balkans look like a picnic. Don’t know.
Peace.
Anyway, even if it were diverse, China's TFR is too low for civil war. IMO, the West is much more unstable, and people there have much more reason to rebel, though I'm not predicting civil war yet.Replies: @Talha
Liberal dysgenics on the other hand...
There is a real problem with intelligent women being convinced that they shouldn't have children for the sake of climate change.
Some may argue that overall this is good since it means liberals have fewer children.
But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination. The system takes intelligent women and lies to them in the colleges. The social sciences especially take advantage of female empathy and convince them of all kinds of egalitarian fiction.
I don't know what the answer is but I have seen it first hand. There is a huge problem with bitter childless liberal women thinking their unhappiness is caused by Trump or the patriarchy. It's not pretty and they spend a lot of their time supporting the same egalitarian fiction they were taught.Replies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @Alden
“There is a real problem with intelligent women being convinced that they shouldn’t have children for the sake of climate change.”
Perhaps it’s best left up to them to make up their own minds. And, of course, a challenge has been those “men” of the manosphere who enjoy placing the blame on the “current dating and mating system” in place.
“But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination”.
You mean that ANY ideology is subject to having its proponents becoming indoctrinated and seeking to indoctrinate others.
Also true: give a person a survey question that has a response that is the 'obvious' socially-acceptable response, and a goodly chunk of people will choose that over the response that best-fits their actual preference.
Also true: put people who give the 'obvious' socially-acceptable survey answer, in a real-life situation where they're facing the thing they were questioned about ... and they will reveal their actual preferences.
Surveys are pointless if you're trying to determine facts, intentions or preferences.
They are moderately useful if you're trying to get a guess about beliefs, so long as the belief is non-controversial.
A good counter-example (where surveys are even shit at determining beliefs)...
A lot of people who straight-up don't believe in any god, will refer to themselves as 'agnostic' with respect to the foreskin-obsessed psychopath in the Abrahamic Trilogy of primitive drivel.
This tendency is far more marked in the US (and in people with career exposure to the US).
For the most part, soi-disant agnostics' non-belief in Kali or Vishnu or Bastet or Hephaestus is significantly more adamantine... their claimed agnosticism about the Old Testament Sky Maniac is a social hedge, not an actual belief .Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar, @dfordoom
“Anyone who didn’t flush that shit as soon as possible, is mildly retarded…”
So how do you rectify your position with the Christian axiom that all life is sacred and that we are made in His image? Consider that “the secular juggernaut in the form of eugenics, birth control, and population control all bear on how we regard human life and human origins. If we are products of the primordial ooze, then we have no rights other than those our betters confer on us”.
Your turn...
If "all life is sacred", why do supposedly Jesus-freak politicians from the US and NATO spend so much time deliberately killing brown children, with the overwhelming support of US Evangelicals and other 'pro-life' retards?
(My answer: they don't believe what they pretend to believe. You can tell by the way they live their actual lives.)Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom
I’m all for eugenic abortion against creatures like this:
Of course!
If you’re a 115+ IQ woman, the factory guys (exceptions notwithstanding) probably aren’t going to be your type, regardless of wealth.
You deliberately chose a graph that obfuscates these facts.
Cornell was one of the first serious universities to allow women. It allowed women beginning in 1870, but female enrollment was basically non-existent until much later, rising significantly in the 1970s which is also when the other Ivy League colleges started admitting women.
https://brancra.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cornell_enrollment_1.pngReplies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @dfordoom
If true (which I doubt), that’s outrageous.
Definitely not true for teaching or nursing schools which would have been the bulk of them.Replies: @dfordoom
Obviously, this chart isn’t all good news, and, as the SJWs are fond of saying: “We still have a lot of work to do. But still, it’s good that fertility among the most educated women has declined less than that of other groups.
What is your source for that chart? Just want to take a closer look at the data.
It is interesting but I’m skeptical. I would want a breakdown of native vs foreign born.
I don't know if the information you have is available, but I suspect that highly-educated White women are the most fecund of their peers in educational attainment.Replies: @Rosie
Perhaps it's best left up to them to make up their own minds. And, of course, a challenge has been those "men" of the manosphere who enjoy placing the blame on the "current dating and mating system" in place.
"But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination".
You mean that ANY ideology is subject to having its proponents becoming indoctrinated and seeking to indoctrinate others.Replies: @John Johnson
You mean that ANY ideology is subject to having its proponents becoming indoctrinated and seeking to indoctrinate others.
The difference is that the colleges are not supposed to be pushing an ideology of any type. They are supposed to be for educating students to the facts and allowing open research.
The same is true for the press. They are supposed to be reporting, not pushing an ideology.
Most White people are unable to see through left-wing propaganda in the media and schools and this is especially true for women. The social sciences are really just targeting female empathy and don’t care if White men buy into it or not. But to be clear I’m not trying to blame women. White men are just as much of the problem for buying into libertarian garbage and “free market” solutions to problems that are unfortunately more complicated than depicted by Fox news type analysts.
Another important false consciousness is the various brands of etiolated "Judeo-Christianity" that plague present-day America. Christianity in and of itself is not necessarily bad for a society, but the rubbish that most churches peddle these days certainly is, whether it's Evangelical Zionist lunacy or the homosexual gospel of the "mainline" churches. Even counting the destructiveness of the controlled media, the forces of darkness may well have won their greatest victory when they managed first to subvert, and then to co-opt mainstream Christianity.Replies: @John Johnson
I would agree on some level that there is an emphasis on more liberal thought and the shutting down of certain opinions, but that is a feature, not a bug, of universities in the modern age. Recall that prior to the 1960's, universities were more conservative in nature with their standards and cultural norms.
Of course, it begs the question if race realism and patriarchy are indeed "facts", and that certain avenues to pursue research (think Charles Murray) are based on immutable truths. Of course, I do believe that he should be able to peddle his wares, as well as enable conservative ideas to have equal access, hell, even flourish, on college campuses.
"The same is true for the press. They are supposed to be reporting, not pushing an ideology."
I would say that corporate media on both the left and the right are to blame, as well as being unable to tell the distinct difference between "reporting" and "opinion pieces". But the New York Times and Fox News do report facts and do have stories that are well sourced. This "Fake News" mantra of the left and the right is just fodder for confirmation bias.
"Most White people are unable to see through left-wing propaganda in the media and schools and this is especially true for women."
That's more of an opinion rather than fact. Otherwise, what you are implying is that high IQ whites with high time preferences are essentially being easily duped and manipulated. IF that be the case, I don't buy it.
"The social sciences are really just targeting female empathy and don’t care if White men buy into it or not."
Maybe. Then again, probably not.
"White men are just as much of the problem for buying into libertarian garbage..."
You are making an assumption here.
The press has always been political.
The original idea of a "free press" was that anyone should be able to start a newspaper in order to promote a particular political viewpoint. It was hoped that there would be a number of different newspapers which would all push slightly different political lines, but it was assumed that all newspapers would be political/ideological propaganda.
The idea of objective reporting was a lie right from the start. It was intended to mislead people into thinking that the press was something other than propaganda.Replies: @John Johnson
If true (which I doubt), that’s outrageous.
Definitely not true for teaching or nursing schools which would have been the bulk of them.
Although undoubtedly there were quite a few women who were attracted to nursing by the prospect of marrying a doctor.
What is your source for that chart? Just want to take a closer look at the data.
It is interesting but I'm skeptical. I would want a breakdown of native vs foreign born.Replies: @Rosie
https://www.nber.org/papers/w12139
I don’t know if the information you have is available, but I suspect that highly-educated White women are the most fecund of their peers in educational attainment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/lets-not-panic-over-women-with-more-education-having-fewer-kids/273070/
I don't know if the information you have is available, but I suspect that highly-educated White women are the most fecund of their peers in educational attainment.Replies: @Rosie
I’m sorry, Mr. Johnson. I don’t think that is the link you wanted. Here you are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/lets-not-panic-over-women-with-more-education-having-fewer-kids/273070/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mW3-1L_BSPQ
Regards , onebornfreeReplies: @Crawfurdmuir, @EldnahYm
Molyneux is wrong – eugenics, as originally conceived by Sir Francis Galton, involved little more than bringing people of marriageable age together based on superior intellect rather than on other criteria. This is going on even now at selective universities, which have replaced debutante balls and other such opportunities for younger members of the elite to meet future mates of comparable quality.
Galton proposed that such young couples be given financial inducement to have children, while those of weak intellect would be given “a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods” and “the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised.”
These latter steps, although none of them are coercive in the manner described by Molyneux, have needless to say, not been implemented. The intellectual elite is still not as fecund as might be hoped, due to feminism and contraception, while the underclass, though frequent patrons of abortionists, still breed like rabbits. As for “emigrants and refugees from other lands,” the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them – to invite and welcome only “the better sort” would be racist!
How many times is this completely unsubstantiated and brain-dead canard going to be repeated before somebody does something simple like Google total fertility rates by income?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @res, @dfordoom
Except people do not operate on that premise. Trying approaching a women and discover what transpires when you ask the question "Do you have the required intellect to breed with me in the future should we marry and procreate?"
"which have replaced debutante balls and other such opportunities for younger members of the elite to meet future mates of comparable quality."
To each their own.
"while those of weak intellect would be given “a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods” and “the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised.”
Sounds elitist to me. No thank you.
"As for “emigrants and refugees from other lands,” the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them – to invite and welcome only “the better sort” would be racist!"
Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed in that fashion by nativists and WASPs in the late 1800's. Were these "Heritage Americans" correct in their assessment in the inferior intellectual capabilities of Poles, Slavs, and Italians? How did these three groups respond to such a charge?Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
I tend to think that the historic instability of China is pretty passe, due to industrialization, modern communications, and travel.
Fortunately, for the Han, they make up at least 92% of the population.
The Western model of politics is not looking as attractive as it did around 1990 or so. Moreover, the collapse of the USSR required massive elite defection. Why should the elite in China defect? The CCP has made them rich.
Anyway, even if it were diverse, China’s TFR is too low for civil war. IMO, the West is much more unstable, and people there have much more reason to rebel, though I’m not predicting civil war yet.
Again, don't know the future, just talking from past trends. I mean the Christian population is growing steadily:
"China's Christians keep the faith, rattling the country's leaders
Growing ranks of churchgoers outnumber Communist Party members...At one of these, members congregate secretly to study parts of the Bible not discussed at official churches. The weekly gathering attracts government employees and members of the military who are unwilling to reveal their beliefs. An expert at a government think tank says the congregation has many corporate CEOs and employees, as well as highly educated people seeking greater religious freedom."
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/China-s-Christians-keep-the-faith-rattling-the-country-s-leaders
Is that going to work itself out nice and easy? I don't know. What if another dude thinks he is a brother of Christ incarnated and starts a Taiping-style rebellion and when the dust clears 40 million are dead?
Peace.Replies: @songbird
Allow me to correct your sentence here:
"it could work–“work” defined in this context as achieving the stated objective–but that, just like all government programs, it would end up creating a lot more , far worse, problems than it would actually "solve"".
There, fixed it for ya!
Regards, onebornfreeReplies: @Fidelios Automata
That’s assuming the government is being honest about the real reasons for its policies.
Anyway, even if it were diverse, China's TFR is too low for civil war. IMO, the West is much more unstable, and people there have much more reason to rebel, though I'm not predicting civil war yet.Replies: @Talha
Possibly, I’m not certain either way. I’m just going by historical precedent. Modern advances may make it worse, just like WW2 was the most devastating of the periodic European continental conflicts. Don’t know, we’ll have to wait and see.
Never stopped them before, to be honest.
OK – now that is unprecedented, I’ll give you that, you need a young population for wart, not an aging one. However, millions of men without a wife (due to decades of one-child policy favoring males) may provide the necessary canon fodder.
Again, don’t know the future, just talking from past trends. I mean the Christian population is growing steadily:
“China’s Christians keep the faith, rattling the country’s leaders
Growing ranks of churchgoers outnumber Communist Party members…At one of these, members congregate secretly to study parts of the Bible not discussed at official churches. The weekly gathering attracts government employees and members of the military who are unwilling to reveal their beliefs. An expert at a government think tank says the congregation has many corporate CEOs and employees, as well as highly educated people seeking greater religious freedom.”
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/China-s-Christians-keep-the-faith-rattling-the-country-s-leaders
Is that going to work itself out nice and easy? I don’t know. What if another dude thinks he is a brother of Christ incarnated and starts a Taiping-style rebellion and when the dust clears 40 million are dead?
Peace.
Actually, what I think is perhaps an interesting prediction of political change involving China is small-scale and directed outward. It involves the possible end of cheap consumer goods, as wages rise. There might not be a country to replace them - not one with about a 105 IQ average. If people have trouble getting cheap TVs, etc., then they might finally start to realize how much worse off we are now economically. Might lead to political upsets. Or maybe not, maybe automation is all that matters.Replies: @Philip Owen
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mW3-1L_BSPQ
Regards , onebornfreeReplies: @Crawfurdmuir, @EldnahYm
Eugenics is not defined as a government policy. It could be brought about in any number of ways. Molyneux’s response is typical of hysterical libertarians.
Eugenics is morally right and sensible. Going by the survey results AE has posted, liberals are less degenerate than conservatives on this issue.
My Son works with “Special needs Kids”. I have seen their effects on their families and it is a fate I would not wish on my worst enemy. The turnover rate in his business is about 90%. Very few stay in this work because it is so heart breaking, many suffer PTSD like symptoms after doing this work.
Anything else need to be said?
The last paragraph is quite on the mark. The system deploys different types of propaganda to catch different personalities, with sob stories and guilt trips for nurturing types and individualism and “free market” enterprise or color-blind “patriotic” nonsense for the aggressive ones. Women tend to fall more into the former camp and men into the latter, though of course there’s also a lot of overlap both between the sexes and within individuals.
Another important false consciousness is the various brands of etiolated “Judeo-Christianity” that plague present-day America. Christianity in and of itself is not necessarily bad for a society, but the rubbish that most churches peddle these days certainly is, whether it’s Evangelical Zionist lunacy or the homosexual gospel of the “mainline” churches. Even counting the destructiveness of the controlled media, the forces of darkness may well have won their greatest victory when they managed first to subvert, and then to co-opt mainstream Christianity.
Galton proposed that such young couples be given financial inducement to have children, while those of weak intellect would be given "a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods" and "the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised."
These latter steps, although none of them are coercive in the manner described by Molyneux, have needless to say, not been implemented. The intellectual elite is still not as fecund as might be hoped, due to feminism and contraception, while the underclass, though frequent patrons of abortionists, still breed like rabbits. As for "emigrants and refugees from other lands," the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them - to invite and welcome only "the better sort" would be racist!Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus
No, they don’t.
How many times is this completely unsubstantiated and brain-dead canard going to be repeated before somebody does something simple like Google total fertility rates by income?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
"Breed like rabbits" is hyperbole, but the trend we see is dysgenic enough for concern. Not to mention the issue of people not having kids because they feel they can't afford it while subsidizing the children of others through their taxes.Replies: @iffen, @Corvinus
Stop trying to muddy the water with irrelevant stuff like facts!
And if the gifted woman married assortatively for intelligence her husband and kids are likely to be some of the smartest and most interesting people she encounters. Unless her workplace is extremely sorted. And given how conformist most workplaces are these days even that might not help if she has views anywhere outside the mainstream.
Peace.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @res
Perhaps the best take on the Dawkins eugenics tweet kerfuffle I have seen. Thanks.
Peace.
Yes, indeed.
How many times is this completely unsubstantiated and brain-dead canard going to be repeated before somebody does something simple like Google total fertility rates by income?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @res, @dfordoom
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or are serious. The link you provide indicates:
The pyrnt, Edith, is that a crude birth rate of 66.44 (that of the lowest income group), amounts, after some reasonable assumptions, to a completed fertility rate of about 1.99, which isn't even above replacement, and which destines the affected demographic to eventual extinction no less than do the bleaker birthrates of effete Europeans. "Going extinct" is kind of a funny definition of "breeding like rabbits," don't you think?
Or as Clint Eastwood put it, "Dying ain't much of a living, boy."
Of course, I also have to take issue with the whole planted axiom that income levels are a good proxy for reproductive fitness in the first place. I'm sure you can think of a bunch of reasons why that's not necessarily the case, but that's another whole post.Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @Alden
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpgReplies: @UK, @Anon, @res, @Mario Partisan
Looking at the differences rather than the absolute values obscures the point Anon made. What we really want is the absolute proportions graduating by birth year for each sex (women in particular, since that was the point).
This graphic looks at the entire population so isn’t really what we want. But it is the first thing which popped up in my search so I expect it will for others as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/
Figure 2 in this Census report is the best data I found (better data welcomed) for looking at this. Figure 1 is similar to the graphic above.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2016/demo/SEHSD-WP2016-04.pdf
Figure 2: Percent of Women with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree by Birth Cohort and Age, with Regression Lines
At age 33 (earliest data available for the 1935 cohort) we see (roughly, by eye) the following percentages by birth year. I added implied year of measurement to make it easier to think about this.
1935 1968 9%
1945 1978 18%
1955 1988 24%
1965 1998 27%
1975 2008 36%
So for Anon’s cohorts:
We are looking at roughly the difference between 18% and 25% of women graduating college. A difference worth noting, but not as large as I think Anon implied. This is less of a difference than I expected before I looked at the data.
Having the data for some college would improve this analysis. Anyone?
How many times is this completely unsubstantiated and brain-dead canard going to be repeated before somebody does something simple like Google total fertility rates by income?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @res, @dfordoom
So you think the under $10,000 group having a birth rate 50% higher than the over $200,000 group is not significant?
“Breed like rabbits” is hyperbole, but the trend we see is dysgenic enough for concern. Not to mention the issue of people not having kids because they feel they can’t afford it while subsidizing the children of others through their taxes.
It is significant, but to the point where there are mandated policies made to ensure that "lower class types" and the "mentally challenged"--however one attempts to classify them--are outright prohibited, at worst, or gently coerced, at best, to have limited or no control over their own reproductive capabilities? Under what authority or power is one afforded to make that specific decision for other people?Replies: @res
This graphic looks at the entire population so isn't really what we want. But it is the first thing which popped up in my search so I expect it will for others as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/
Figure 2 in this Census report is the best data I found (better data welcomed) for looking at this. Figure 1 is similar to the graphic above.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2016/demo/SEHSD-WP2016-04.pdf
Figure 2: Percent of Women with a Bachelor's or Higher Degree by Birth Cohort and Age, with Regression Lines
At age 33 (earliest data available for the 1935 cohort) we see (roughly, by eye) the following percentages by birth year. I added implied year of measurement to make it easier to think about this.
1935 1968 9%
1945 1978 18%
1955 1988 24%
1965 1998 27%
1975 2008 36%
So for Anon's cohorts:We are looking at roughly the difference between 18% and 25% of women graduating college. A difference worth noting, but not as large as I think Anon implied. This is less of a difference than I expected before I looked at the data.
Having the data for some college would improve this analysis. Anyone?Replies: @Rosie
My point wasn’t that more women aren’t going to college. Obviously, they are. My point was simply that higher education wasn’t seen as an exclusively male pursuit before the 1970s as implied in comment number 9.
IOW, college attendance wasn’t normalized for women in the ’70s. It was “normalized” long before that.
In fact, enrollment was closer to parity in the first few decades of the twentieth century than it was in the middle decades. Could this have had something to do with the GI bill?
https://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/course131/gkk_jep.pdfIf you look at that paper, Figures 1-3 present the data in three different ways. Figure 3 is your graphic. Here are the respective figure titles.
Figure 1 College Graduation Rates (by 35 years) for Men and Women: Cohorts Born from 1876 to 1975
Figure 2 Ratio of Male-to-Female College Rates: Birth Cohorts from 1876 to 1975 (three-year centered moving averages measured at 35 years of age)
Figure 3 Difference between Male and Female College Rates: Birth Cohorts from 1876 to 1975 (three-year centered moving averages measured at 35 years of age)Figure 1 is useful for showing the overall trend of college graduation rates for both sexes. The low rates from 1870-1920 are a big part of what makes your use of Figure 3 misleading.Figure 2 is useful because it most clearly shows the male/female ratio for both any college and BA degree. I think this is the best graphic to use for addressing your points.Figure 3 is useful for showing the percentage differences. For example, consider what it implies about the number of men and women attending/graduating college and the marriage pool.Figure 1 appears in this 2014 WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/women-are-dominating-men-at-college-blame-sexism/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RIDZVLSCRA453BOAW63CCNDANY.png?w=1440I did not see Figure 2 anywhere, but this graphic from an earlier paper by the lead author adds Figure 2 style graduation ratios to the Figure 1 data.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23725131_Exploring_the_Present_Through_the_Pasthttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claudia_Goldin/publication/23725131/figure/fig2/AS:394407099551747@1471045388413/College-graduation-rates-for-men-and-women-LHS-by-age-35-years-and-the-ratio-of-women.pngI think the authors chose their three figures well. They each give a different view of the data and are more informative as a group.This excerpt from the paper (it brackets Figure 3) elaborates on your points:I am not sure if it is obvious to everyone, but the x axis in these graphics is birth year and should be offset 35 years for the year of measurement (and perhaps more like 25 years for assessing when the trend happened for the bulk of the cohort).Replies: @Rosie
He must now repent and appease the gods of Woke that they may, in their beneficence, overlook his privilege and grant him respite through the Valley of the Cancelled.
Peace.
The graphic you gave is misleading because of the way it uses differences rather than the absolute rates for men and women. I am not sure where you got it (it helps if you give sources), but the original source was this 2006 paper:
https://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/course131/gkk_jep.pdf
If you look at that paper, Figures 1-3 present the data in three different ways. Figure 3 is your graphic. Here are the respective figure titles.
Figure 1 College Graduation Rates (by 35 years) for Men and Women: Cohorts Born from 1876 to 1975
Figure 2 Ratio of Male-to-Female College Rates: Birth Cohorts from 1876 to 1975 (three-year centered moving averages measured at 35 years of age)
Figure 3 Difference between Male and Female College Rates: Birth Cohorts from 1876 to 1975 (three-year centered moving averages measured at 35 years of age)
Figure 1 is useful for showing the overall trend of college graduation rates for both sexes. The low rates from 1870-1920 are a big part of what makes your use of Figure 3 misleading.
Figure 2 is useful because it most clearly shows the male/female ratio for both any college and BA degree. I think this is the best graphic to use for addressing your points.
Figure 3 is useful for showing the percentage differences. For example, consider what it implies about the number of men and women attending/graduating college and the marriage pool.
Figure 1 appears in this 2014 WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/women-are-dominating-men-at-college-blame-sexism/
I did not see Figure 2 anywhere, but this graphic from an earlier paper by the lead author adds Figure 2 style graduation ratios to the Figure 1 data.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23725131_Exploring_the_Present_Through_the_Past
I think the authors chose their three figures well. They each give a different view of the data and are more informative as a group.
This excerpt from the paper (it brackets Figure 3) elaborates on your points:
I am not sure if it is obvious to everyone, but the x axis in these graphics is birth year and should be offset 35 years for the year of measurement (and perhaps more like 25 years for assessing when the trend happened for the bulk of the cohort).
Again, I'm not saying that enrollment in college didn't dramatically increase for women as well as men, but that's not the point. The point is simply that women's higher education was not a third wave feminist novelty.Replies: @Anonymous
"Breed like rabbits" is hyperbole, but the trend we see is dysgenic enough for concern. Not to mention the issue of people not having kids because they feel they can't afford it while subsidizing the children of others through their taxes.Replies: @iffen, @Corvinus
The upper classes have been fretting about the breeding of the rabbits forever. Forever getting all hand wringy about who’s having babies and who’s not. Are we getting more of the good sort or the bad sort? Proles don’t make the “big” decisions. How will having a decreasing fertility for proles cause the upper class decision makers to make better decisions? Proles try to copy the next class up and try to get into that class–not the other way around. Proles did not create the situation whereby GM and Ford not only can’t make passenger cars in Germany or Japan while German and Japanese automakers can make passenger cars in the US, but US auto manufacturers can’t even make passenger cars in the US. Proles weren’t the ones that decided that it would be okay to prescribe opioids for chronic pain instead of just for temporary acute pain as long as it was prescribed in small dosages. Please tell me how having fewer proles will cause the ruling class to make better decisions.
“The difference is that the colleges are not supposed to be pushing an ideology of any type. They are supposed to be for educating students to the facts and allowing open research.”
I would agree on some level that there is an emphasis on more liberal thought and the shutting down of certain opinions, but that is a feature, not a bug, of universities in the modern age. Recall that prior to the 1960’s, universities were more conservative in nature with their standards and cultural norms.
Of course, it begs the question if race realism and patriarchy are indeed “facts”, and that certain avenues to pursue research (think Charles Murray) are based on immutable truths. Of course, I do believe that he should be able to peddle his wares, as well as enable conservative ideas to have equal access, hell, even flourish, on college campuses.
“The same is true for the press. They are supposed to be reporting, not pushing an ideology.”
I would say that corporate media on both the left and the right are to blame, as well as being unable to tell the distinct difference between “reporting” and “opinion pieces”. But the New York Times and Fox News do report facts and do have stories that are well sourced. This “Fake News” mantra of the left and the right is just fodder for confirmation bias.
“Most White people are unable to see through left-wing propaganda in the media and schools and this is especially true for women.”
That’s more of an opinion rather than fact. Otherwise, what you are implying is that high IQ whites with high time preferences are essentially being easily duped and manipulated. IF that be the case, I don’t buy it.
“The social sciences are really just targeting female empathy and don’t care if White men buy into it or not.”
Maybe. Then again, probably not.
“White men are just as much of the problem for buying into libertarian garbage…”
You are making an assumption here.
"Breed like rabbits" is hyperbole, but the trend we see is dysgenic enough for concern. Not to mention the issue of people not having kids because they feel they can't afford it while subsidizing the children of others through their taxes.Replies: @iffen, @Corvinus
“So you think the under $10,000 group having a birth rate 50% higher than the over $200,000 group is not significant?”
It is significant, but to the point where there are mandated policies made to ensure that “lower class types” and the “mentally challenged”–however one attempts to classify them–are outright prohibited, at worst, or gently coerced, at best, to have limited or no control over their own reproductive capabilities? Under what authority or power is one afforded to make that specific decision for other people?
Galton proposed that such young couples be given financial inducement to have children, while those of weak intellect would be given "a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods" and "the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised."
These latter steps, although none of them are coercive in the manner described by Molyneux, have needless to say, not been implemented. The intellectual elite is still not as fecund as might be hoped, due to feminism and contraception, while the underclass, though frequent patrons of abortionists, still breed like rabbits. As for "emigrants and refugees from other lands," the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them - to invite and welcome only "the better sort" would be racist!Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus
“Molyneux is wrong – eugenics, as originally conceived by Sir Francis Galton, involved little more than bringing people of marriageable age together based on superior intellect rather than on other criteria.”
Except people do not operate on that premise. Trying approaching a women and discover what transpires when you ask the question “Do you have the required intellect to breed with me in the future should we marry and procreate?”
“which have replaced debutante balls and other such opportunities for younger members of the elite to meet future mates of comparable quality.”
To each their own.
“while those of weak intellect would be given “a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods” and “the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised.”
Sounds elitist to me. No thank you.
“As for “emigrants and refugees from other lands,” the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them – to invite and welcome only “the better sort” would be racist!”
Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed in that fashion by nativists and WASPs in the late 1800’s. Were these “Heritage Americans” correct in their assessment in the inferior intellectual capabilities of Poles, Slavs, and Italians? How did these three groups respond to such a charge?
https://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/course131/gkk_jep.pdfIf you look at that paper, Figures 1-3 present the data in three different ways. Figure 3 is your graphic. Here are the respective figure titles.
Figure 1 College Graduation Rates (by 35 years) for Men and Women: Cohorts Born from 1876 to 1975
Figure 2 Ratio of Male-to-Female College Rates: Birth Cohorts from 1876 to 1975 (three-year centered moving averages measured at 35 years of age)
Figure 3 Difference between Male and Female College Rates: Birth Cohorts from 1876 to 1975 (three-year centered moving averages measured at 35 years of age)Figure 1 is useful for showing the overall trend of college graduation rates for both sexes. The low rates from 1870-1920 are a big part of what makes your use of Figure 3 misleading.Figure 2 is useful because it most clearly shows the male/female ratio for both any college and BA degree. I think this is the best graphic to use for addressing your points.Figure 3 is useful for showing the percentage differences. For example, consider what it implies about the number of men and women attending/graduating college and the marriage pool.Figure 1 appears in this 2014 WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/women-are-dominating-men-at-college-blame-sexism/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RIDZVLSCRA453BOAW63CCNDANY.png?w=1440I did not see Figure 2 anywhere, but this graphic from an earlier paper by the lead author adds Figure 2 style graduation ratios to the Figure 1 data.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23725131_Exploring_the_Present_Through_the_Pasthttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claudia_Goldin/publication/23725131/figure/fig2/AS:394407099551747@1471045388413/College-graduation-rates-for-men-and-women-LHS-by-age-35-years-and-the-ratio-of-women.pngI think the authors chose their three figures well. They each give a different view of the data and are more informative as a group.This excerpt from the paper (it brackets Figure 3) elaborates on your points:I am not sure if it is obvious to everyone, but the x axis in these graphics is birth year and should be offset 35 years for the year of measurement (and perhaps more like 25 years for assessing when the trend happened for the bulk of the cohort).Replies: @Rosie
The difference is precisely the relevant point, though. You can’t claim that women’s attendance at college wasn’t “normalized” until the ’70s when women had been going to college in numbers nearly equal to men decades before.
Again, I’m not saying that enrollment in college didn’t dramatically increase for women as well as men, but that’s not the point. The point is simply that women’s higher education was not a third wave feminist novelty.
If women today were excluded from universities like Harvard and largely relegated to vocational type institutions that trained teachers and nurses and to women's colleges that were glorified finishing schools for girls from wealthy families, would we say that women's college attendance was equal to that of men? Of course not, because there would be a significant qualitative difference.
This qualitative difference obtained in the past. Calling everything "higher education" and "college" obscures this fact.Replies: @Rosie
So how do you rectify your position with the Christian axiom that all life is sacred and that we are made in His image? Consider that "the secular juggernaut in the form of eugenics, birth control, and population control all bear on how we regard human life and human origins. If we are products of the primordial ooze, then we have no rights other than those our betters confer on us".Replies: @Kratoklastes
Oh, that’s an easy one: when trying to arrive at a best-response to a hypothetical situation, I have no obligation to refer to stupid collections of internally-inconsistent primitive horse-shit. (If for no other reason that it’s far more likely to hinder, than to help).
Your turn…
If “all life is sacred”, why do supposedly Jesus-freak politicians from the US and NATO spend so much time deliberately killing brown children, with the overwhelming support of US Evangelicals and other ‘pro-life’ retards?
(My answer: they don’t believe what they pretend to believe. You can tell by the way they live their actual lives.)
Gobbledygook.
"If “all life is sacred”, why do supposedly Jesus-freak politicians from the US and NATO spend so much time deliberately killing brown children, with the overwhelming support of US Evangelicals and other ‘pro-life’ retards?"
That's an entirely different topic. Focus on the one at hand. So, would it be fair to say that you value an infant who is "normal" compared to one who has an obvious physical and/or mental handicap? Furthermore, why do you believe the decision made by parents to "keep" that "deformed" child, had they been informed by their physician of said condition, are "mildly retarded"?
Of course one could also ask how come liberals who claim to be fanatically antiracist aren't bothered by the mass slaughter by the US/NATO of brown children in their own countries?
The answer is that hypocrisy is almost universal. Neither Christians not liberals live by the principles they claim to espouse. It seems that Americans, regardless of religion or political affiliation, just really like the idea of the US killing non-Americans.
Also true: give a person a survey question that has a response that is the 'obvious' socially-acceptable response, and a goodly chunk of people will choose that over the response that best-fits their actual preference.
Also true: put people who give the 'obvious' socially-acceptable survey answer, in a real-life situation where they're facing the thing they were questioned about ... and they will reveal their actual preferences.
Surveys are pointless if you're trying to determine facts, intentions or preferences.
They are moderately useful if you're trying to get a guess about beliefs, so long as the belief is non-controversial.
A good counter-example (where surveys are even shit at determining beliefs)...
A lot of people who straight-up don't believe in any god, will refer to themselves as 'agnostic' with respect to the foreskin-obsessed psychopath in the Abrahamic Trilogy of primitive drivel.
This tendency is far more marked in the US (and in people with career exposure to the US).
For the most part, soi-disant agnostics' non-belief in Kali or Vishnu or Bastet or Hephaestus is significantly more adamantine... their claimed agnosticism about the Old Testament Sky Maniac is a social hedge, not an actual belief .Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar, @dfordoom
You were “that shit” once.
(I’ll be civil and use were and once.)
Did you know that the abortion liberalization bill that Gov Reagan signed in California (and later regretted) did not give the woman a “choice”, but only expanded the scope of the hospital committees that actually made the decision? (Just try suggesting “hospital committees” to today’s feminist, and see what happens! Though they are the rule in some European countries to this day.)
Reagan’s main influence on the bill was in removing fetal abnormality as an excuse for abortion. He would have vetoed it had such language remained.
The head of Australian bioethics site MercatorNet just published a Voltairean defense of infanticide advocate Peter Singer’s right to speak:
In defence of Peter Singer
But your ancestors left babies to die on rocks, so he may be talking past you.
Your turn...
If "all life is sacred", why do supposedly Jesus-freak politicians from the US and NATO spend so much time deliberately killing brown children, with the overwhelming support of US Evangelicals and other 'pro-life' retards?
(My answer: they don't believe what they pretend to believe. You can tell by the way they live their actual lives.)Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom
“Oh, that’s an easy one: when trying to arrive at a best-response to a hypothetical situation, I have no obligation to refer to stupid collections of internally-inconsistent primitive horse-shit.”
Gobbledygook.
“If “all life is sacred”, why do supposedly Jesus-freak politicians from the US and NATO spend so much time deliberately killing brown children, with the overwhelming support of US Evangelicals and other ‘pro-life’ retards?”
That’s an entirely different topic. Focus on the one at hand. So, would it be fair to say that you value an infant who is “normal” compared to one who has an obvious physical and/or mental handicap? Furthermore, why do you believe the decision made by parents to “keep” that “deformed” child, had they been informed by their physician of said condition, are “mildly retarded”?
You deliberately chose a graph that obfuscates these facts.
Cornell was one of the first serious universities to allow women. It allowed women beginning in 1870, but female enrollment was basically non-existent until much later, rising significantly in the 1970s which is also when the other Ivy League colleges started admitting women.
https://brancra.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cornell_enrollment_1.pngReplies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @dfordoom
“Most women’s “colleges” were not serious academic institutions like men’s colleges, but finishing schools for wealthy ladies.”
You are woefully misinformed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_colleges_in_the_United_States
Again, don't know the future, just talking from past trends. I mean the Christian population is growing steadily:
"China's Christians keep the faith, rattling the country's leaders
Growing ranks of churchgoers outnumber Communist Party members...At one of these, members congregate secretly to study parts of the Bible not discussed at official churches. The weekly gathering attracts government employees and members of the military who are unwilling to reveal their beliefs. An expert at a government think tank says the congregation has many corporate CEOs and employees, as well as highly educated people seeking greater religious freedom."
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/China-s-Christians-keep-the-faith-rattling-the-country-s-leaders
Is that going to work itself out nice and easy? I don't know. What if another dude thinks he is a brother of Christ incarnated and starts a Taiping-style rebellion and when the dust clears 40 million are dead?
Peace.Replies: @songbird
Well, the way I view it, the Taiping Rebellion was influenced by a few things that aren’t really active now. The population pressures aren’t the same. The regime back then were Manchus – not Han.
Actually, what I think is perhaps an interesting prediction of political change involving China is small-scale and directed outward. It involves the possible end of cheap consumer goods, as wages rise. There might not be a country to replace them – not one with about a 105 IQ average. If people have trouble getting cheap TVs, etc., then they might finally start to realize how much worse off we are now economically. Might lead to political upsets. Or maybe not, maybe automation is all that matters.
Again, I'm not saying that enrollment in college didn't dramatically increase for women as well as men, but that's not the point. The point is simply that women's higher education was not a third wave feminist novelty.Replies: @Anonymous
Yes, you can.
If women today were excluded from universities like Harvard and largely relegated to vocational type institutions that trained teachers and nurses and to women’s colleges that were glorified finishing schools for girls from wealthy families, would we say that women’s college attendance was equal to that of men? Of course not, because there would be a significant qualitative difference.
This qualitative difference obtained in the past. Calling everything “higher education” and “college” obscures this fact.
1. There is no evidence that nursing and teaching colleges were in fact "glorified vocational schools." The fact that paid employment was anticipated doesn't mean serious academic work wasn't part of the curriculum. Even now, nurses have to study humanities in addition to a very difficult series of science courses.
2. You have not offered any evidence to the effect that women's colleges were women’s colleges "were glorified finishing schools for girls from wealthy families." And even if you had such evidence, it would prove nothing but that feminists of the era had a very legitimate grievance regarding women's education.Replies: @Anonymous
Actually, what I think is perhaps an interesting prediction of political change involving China is small-scale and directed outward. It involves the possible end of cheap consumer goods, as wages rise. There might not be a country to replace them - not one with about a 105 IQ average. If people have trouble getting cheap TVs, etc., then they might finally start to realize how much worse off we are now economically. Might lead to political upsets. Or maybe not, maybe automation is all that matters.Replies: @Philip Owen
Ethiopia.
I'm slightly agnostic because plant design can be outsourced, and sewing takes a certain amount of skill, pretty comparable to anything on an assembly line.
But it is interesting how there doesn't appear to be much of a downward pressure on wages in Singapore, even with Iskandar nearby and Malaysia having an IQ fairly above African levels.
If women today were excluded from universities like Harvard and largely relegated to vocational type institutions that trained teachers and nurses and to women's colleges that were glorified finishing schools for girls from wealthy families, would we say that women's college attendance was equal to that of men? Of course not, because there would be a significant qualitative difference.
This qualitative difference obtained in the past. Calling everything "higher education" and "college" obscures this fact.Replies: @Rosie
You have two problems:
1. There is no evidence that nursing and teaching colleges were in fact “glorified vocational schools.” The fact that paid employment was anticipated doesn’t mean serious academic work wasn’t part of the curriculum. Even now, nurses have to study humanities in addition to a very difficult series of science courses.
2. You have not offered any evidence to the effect that women’s colleges were women’s colleges “were glorified finishing schools for girls from wealthy families.” And even if you had such evidence, it would prove nothing but that feminists of the era had a very legitimate grievance regarding women’s education.
There was a qualitative difference between the post-secondary education available to men and women.
Just imagine what would happen today if most girls who continued their studies after high school did so almost exclusively in nursing and teacher training colleges, while boys were allowed to attend traditional colleges. Nobody would say it's equal because both boys and girls were able to go to "college".This is not a controversial view. And yes, it is why there was feminist agitation for decades to make colleges coed and to promote women in higher education.
Also true: give a person a survey question that has a response that is the 'obvious' socially-acceptable response, and a goodly chunk of people will choose that over the response that best-fits their actual preference.
Also true: put people who give the 'obvious' socially-acceptable survey answer, in a real-life situation where they're facing the thing they were questioned about ... and they will reveal their actual preferences.
Surveys are pointless if you're trying to determine facts, intentions or preferences.
They are moderately useful if you're trying to get a guess about beliefs, so long as the belief is non-controversial.
A good counter-example (where surveys are even shit at determining beliefs)...
A lot of people who straight-up don't believe in any god, will refer to themselves as 'agnostic' with respect to the foreskin-obsessed psychopath in the Abrahamic Trilogy of primitive drivel.
This tendency is far more marked in the US (and in people with career exposure to the US).
For the most part, soi-disant agnostics' non-belief in Kali or Vishnu or Bastet or Hephaestus is significantly more adamantine... their claimed agnosticism about the Old Testament Sky Maniac is a social hedge, not an actual belief .Replies: @Corvinus, @Reg Cæsar, @dfordoom
Yep. But people still believe surveys. Because surveys have lots of numbers and graphs and stuff, so they must be Science!
Yep. Surveys relating to religious beliefs are even more useless than other surveys. And particularly in the US such surveys ludicrously overestimate the number of Christians. Even in the US people who are Christian in any meaningful sense comprise a very small minority of the population.
Surveys are pure fantasy.
You deliberately chose a graph that obfuscates these facts.
Cornell was one of the first serious universities to allow women. It allowed women beginning in 1870, but female enrollment was basically non-existent until much later, rising significantly in the 1970s which is also when the other Ivy League colleges started admitting women.
https://brancra.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cornell_enrollment_1.pngReplies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @dfordoom
To a large extent I’m sure that’s true. Women’s colleges were not exactly churning out huge numbers of female physicists and engineers in those days.
Until the late 60s that kind of college education-lite did little harm and was probably a net social benefit. Up until the late 60s you could say that of humanities courses in general. Once the SJWs gained control humanities courses became a menace to society.
And women, who have more of an instinct for social conformity than men, seem to be particularly vulnerable to SJW indoctrination in college.
Law schools are possibly the greatest social menace of all.
Some people seem to think that clothing is about their maximum potential.
I’m slightly agnostic because plant design can be outsourced, and sewing takes a certain amount of skill, pretty comparable to anything on an assembly line.
But it is interesting how there doesn’t appear to be much of a downward pressure on wages in Singapore, even with Iskandar nearby and Malaysia having an IQ fairly above African levels.
It’s worth remembering that the original purpose of universities was to enforce religious and theological orthodoxy. They were never originally intended to encourage free enquiry. Remember that even as recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism.
The purpose of a university was to encourage group-think and intellectual conformity.
The idea of a university as a place that encourages open research and free thought was a temporary historical aberration. Universities have now returned to their historical function – enforcing orthodoxy and rooting out heresy.
We might want to think about whether universities are actually a good idea.
That is also not true historically. Newspapers always served the purpose of propaganda. Nobody in history has ever started a newspaper for any purpose other than promoting his own political/ideological views, or the political/ideological views of some group of which he was a member.
The press has always been political.
The original idea of a “free press” was that anyone should be able to start a newspaper in order to promote a particular political viewpoint. It was hoped that there would be a number of different newspapers which would all push slightly different political lines, but it was assumed that all newspapers would be political/ideological propaganda.
The idea of objective reporting was a lie right from the start. It was intended to mislead people into thinking that the press was something other than propaganda.
Definitely not true for teaching or nursing schools which would have been the bulk of them.Replies: @dfordoom
Yes, I’d agree with that.
Although undoubtedly there were quite a few women who were attracted to nursing by the prospect of marrying a doctor.
It is significant, but to the point where there are mandated policies made to ensure that "lower class types" and the "mentally challenged"--however one attempts to classify them--are outright prohibited, at worst, or gently coerced, at best, to have limited or no control over their own reproductive capabilities? Under what authority or power is one afforded to make that specific decision for other people?Replies: @res
You seem to have ignored the rest of my comment (i.e. the part you did not quote). The implicit point was that the issue is our current policies encouraging reproduction of people who would be less able to afford those additional children without the subsidies. But at least your last sentence is still relevant, just with a different meaning.
P.S. Nice to see that you are still unable to respond to my comments without using techniques like selective quoting and strawmanning.
No, I just focused on what was most relevant.
"The implicit point was that the issue is our current policies encouraging reproduction of people who would be less able to afford those additional children without the subsidies.
As opposed to those who advocate federal courses of action that would encourage reproduction of the "right" people?
"Nice to see that you are still unable to respond to my comments without using techniques like selective quoting and strawmanning."
It's great to NOTICE you make those same charges without supplying the requisite examples.Replies: @res
Another important false consciousness is the various brands of etiolated "Judeo-Christianity" that plague present-day America. Christianity in and of itself is not necessarily bad for a society, but the rubbish that most churches peddle these days certainly is, whether it's Evangelical Zionist lunacy or the homosexual gospel of the "mainline" churches. Even counting the destructiveness of the controlled media, the forces of darkness may well have won their greatest victory when they managed first to subvert, and then to co-opt mainstream Christianity.Replies: @John Johnson
Another important false consciousness is the various brands of etiolated “Judeo-Christianity” that plague present-day America. Christianity in and of itself is not necessarily bad for a society, but the rubbish that most churches peddle these days certainly is
Agreed and it seems that some protestant churches will emulate just about anything in the media to appear modern or progressive.
Interestingly the most liberal churches have the greatest declines in attendance.
Christianity can be good for society but not when it is allowed to run wild with a culture based in deceit and destruction.
Even counting the destructiveness of the controlled media, the forces of darkness may well have won their greatest victory when they managed first to subvert, and then to co-opt mainstream Christianity.
Possibly. Christianity was already having problems with direction but it certainly has been subverted by liberalism.
It could still backfire for liberals however if it leads to a secular right. Liberals don’t get that Christian conservatives are playing nice. I’d rather see a populist movement that promotes a healthy form of Christianity but we could see a 1920s Germany type situation where a secular right emerges that doesn’t play by the rules.
Until the late 60s that kind of college education-lite did little harm and was probably a net social benefit. Up until the late 60s you could say that of humanities courses in general. Once the SJWs gained control humanities courses became a menace to society.
And women, who have more of an instinct for social conformity than men, seem to be particularly vulnerable to SJW indoctrination in college.
Law schools are possibly the greatest social menace of all.Replies: @Rosie
C’mon Doom. Engineering and physics aren’t the only worthwhile academic pursuits.
What is the point of speculating about this? I know several nurses, and their chief motivation was supporting themselves while doing something meaningful and important, not marrying a doctor.
Indeed, lots of nurses wind up marrying…other nurses.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/296593Replies: @Talha
I think the point is that women are not attracted to the same things in higher education as men are. They are much more likely to gravitate towards the humanities or the soft sciences.
And in the past I think it's reasonable to assume that a much larger proportion of women than men saw higher education as something interesting and fun and worthwhile as part of being a more rounded person (the old concept of a liberal education), or as a kind of social accomplishment which would give them an advantage in the marriage market. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with any of that.
Whereas in the past men were much more likely to see a college education as a way of getting a high-powered job.
I think the person who made the original point about women's colleges was talking about what were essentially women's liberal arts colleges rather than nursing or teacher's colleges.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the idea of women's liberal arts colleges being essentially finishing schools. In the past such colleges would offer an actual education. Today a liberal education simply means SJW indoctrination.Replies: @Rosie
43% of men studying nursing marry another nursing major. ( This even surprised me.)
https://m.slashdot.org/story/296593
Peace.
The press has always been political.
The original idea of a "free press" was that anyone should be able to start a newspaper in order to promote a particular political viewpoint. It was hoped that there would be a number of different newspapers which would all push slightly different political lines, but it was assumed that all newspapers would be political/ideological propaganda.
The idea of objective reporting was a lie right from the start. It was intended to mislead people into thinking that the press was something other than propaganda.Replies: @John Johnson
That is also not true historically. Newspapers always served the purpose of propaganda. Nobody in history has ever started a newspaper for any purpose other than promoting his own political/ideological views, or the political/ideological views of some group of which he was a member.
Yes historically newspapers have been opinion pieces for the state or the wealthy but it is a question of degree. CNN has always been left leaning but nothing like Pravda during the Soviet Union.
Journalists are taught that they are supposed to keep their opinions to the editorial pages. They take classes on how to strive for objectivity.
So you make a good point but I’m not giving them a pass. Journalists at CNN and FOX know the entire industry is dirty. They know that journalistic standards could be higher but choose to promote politics. We see this even when they become wealthy and no longer depend on checks from the network. They can’t resist promoting an agenda.
And when you look at the positions the media takes on issues like globalism and immigration, amazingly in every single case those positions are perfectly aligned with the interests of the plutocrats. So on those issues the media is also massively biased towards the Right.
The so-called leftist bias of the media is only evident in regard to fringe issues like transsexual bathroom rights. And, amazingly, it just so happens that it is in the interests of the plutocrats to keep us distracted with such fringe issues. Whenever the media adopts a supposedly leftist stance, such as hostility to Christianity, that stance always turns out to be in the interests of the plutocrats (the plutocracy hates Christianity because Christianity distracts people from their assigned social duties as interchangeable economic units of production and consumption).
The "left-wing bias" of the media is in fact a clever illusion.
How many times is this completely unsubstantiated and brain-dead canard going to be repeated before somebody does something simple like Google total fertility rates by income?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @res, @dfordoom
You’re correct of course. But people believe what they want to believe. They believe whatever is consistent with their prejudices and hatreds and ideological positions. Right-wingers of a certain type will continue to believe that the poor are breeding like rabbits.
Stop trying to muddy the water with irrelevant stuff like facts!
https://m.slashdot.org/story/296593Replies: @Talha
Really? Talk about a target-rich environment!
Peace.
Your turn...
If "all life is sacred", why do supposedly Jesus-freak politicians from the US and NATO spend so much time deliberately killing brown children, with the overwhelming support of US Evangelicals and other 'pro-life' retards?
(My answer: they don't believe what they pretend to believe. You can tell by the way they live their actual lives.)Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom
Yeah, that is a good point.
Of course one could also ask how come liberals who claim to be fanatically antiracist aren’t bothered by the mass slaughter by the US/NATO of brown children in their own countries?
The answer is that hypocrisy is almost universal. Neither Christians not liberals live by the principles they claim to espouse. It seems that Americans, regardless of religion or political affiliation, just really like the idea of the US killing non-Americans.
In an ideal world that would be true. Fifty or sixty years ago it was true. Today the humanities are no more than a sludgepit of social justice nonsense. But it shouldn’t be that way. I like the humanities. I’m more of a humanities guy than a STEM guy. I just think it’s a tragedy that the humanities area has been so corrupted.
I think the point is that women are not attracted to the same things in higher education as men are. They are much more likely to gravitate towards the humanities or the soft sciences.
And in the past I think it’s reasonable to assume that a much larger proportion of women than men saw higher education as something interesting and fun and worthwhile as part of being a more rounded person (the old concept of a liberal education), or as a kind of social accomplishment which would give them an advantage in the marriage market. Which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with any of that.
Whereas in the past men were much more likely to see a college education as a way of getting a high-powered job.
I think the person who made the original point about women’s colleges was talking about what were essentially women’s liberal arts colleges rather than nursing or teacher’s colleges.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with the idea of women’s liberal arts colleges being essentially finishing schools. In the past such colleges would offer an actual education. Today a liberal education simply means SJW indoctrination.
I am being quite serious.
The pyrnt, Edith, is that a crude birth rate of 66.44 (that of the lowest income group), amounts, after some reasonable assumptions, to a completed fertility rate of about 1.99, which isn’t even above replacement, and which destines the affected demographic to eventual extinction no less than do the bleaker birthrates of effete Europeans. “Going extinct” is kind of a funny definition of “breeding like rabbits,” don’t you think?
Or as Clint Eastwood put it, “Dying ain’t much of a living, boy.”
Of course, I also have to take issue with the whole planted axiom that income levels are a good proxy for reproductive fitness in the first place. I’m sure you can think of a bunch of reasons why that’s not necessarily the case, but that’s another whole post.
What’s worth noting is that on the only issues that matter to the ruling class, economic issues, the media has never been more strongly biased towards the Right than it is today.
And when you look at the positions the media takes on issues like globalism and immigration, amazingly in every single case those positions are perfectly aligned with the interests of the plutocrats. So on those issues the media is also massively biased towards the Right.
The so-called leftist bias of the media is only evident in regard to fringe issues like transsexual bathroom rights. And, amazingly, it just so happens that it is in the interests of the plutocrats to keep us distracted with such fringe issues. Whenever the media adopts a supposedly leftist stance, such as hostility to Christianity, that stance always turns out to be in the interests of the plutocrats (the plutocracy hates Christianity because Christianity distracts people from their assigned social duties as interchangeable economic units of production and consumption).
The “left-wing bias” of the media is in fact a clever illusion.
The pyrnt, Edith, is that a crude birth rate of 66.44 (that of the lowest income group), amounts, after some reasonable assumptions, to a completed fertility rate of about 1.99, which isn't even above replacement, and which destines the affected demographic to eventual extinction no less than do the bleaker birthrates of effete Europeans. "Going extinct" is kind of a funny definition of "breeding like rabbits," don't you think?
Or as Clint Eastwood put it, "Dying ain't much of a living, boy."
Of course, I also have to take issue with the whole planted axiom that income levels are a good proxy for reproductive fitness in the first place. I'm sure you can think of a bunch of reasons why that's not necessarily the case, but that's another whole post.Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @Alden
The population at the lowest income level is still reproducing faster than those at higher income levels, which means that by the time they go extinct, their social and economic betters will already have done. Is that not a dismal prospect?
To say that you “have to take issue with the whole planted axiom that income levels are a good proxy for reproductive fitness in the first place” is entirely dependent on what you mean by “reproductive fitness.” I suppose that reproductive fitness could be understood to mean fecundity, in which case the discussion assumes another direction entirely. If fecundity be the sole desideratum, an adolescent negress with an IQ of 85 is probably ideal, judging by the data.
However, my concern is, rather, with the fitness to give birth to educable children and with parents’ fitness to raise and educate such children, not merely the capability to farrow large broods.
However, income levels are generally proportionate to levels of education, which are generally proportionate to native intelligence. If what we want is a more intelligent class of citizen, what we should do is to encourage the affluent to have more children and the poor to have fewer.
One possibility would be to introduce a modern version of the jus trium liberorum, so structured that most of its benefit would go to persons whose taxable incomes reached the higher brackets. A similarly structured tax benefit could be used to encourage mothers of the same class to stay at home with their children.
I dated a nurse for a couple months one time. I asked her if a lot of nurses married doctors and she said no. I asked why not and she laughed and said nurses work with them all day and know what they are like.
Liberal dysgenics on the other hand...
There is a real problem with intelligent women being convinced that they shouldn't have children for the sake of climate change.
Some may argue that overall this is good since it means liberals have fewer children.
But the problem is that liberalism itself is indoctrination. The system takes intelligent women and lies to them in the colleges. The social sciences especially take advantage of female empathy and convince them of all kinds of egalitarian fiction.
I don't know what the answer is but I have seen it first hand. There is a huge problem with bitter childless liberal women thinking their unhappiness is caused by Trump or the patriarchy. It's not pretty and they spend a lot of their time supporting the same egalitarian fiction they were taught.Replies: @Rosie, @Corvinus, @Alden
How many children do you have? Or you one of those misogynist women hating Men of UNZ with no wife, child or sex life repeating the same ignorant nonsense?
Colleges do not and never have taught women to not have children because of climate change. At one time, 60- 40 years ago women and men were propagandized to have fewer children because of over population.
Liberals however, soon realized that over population came from the third world, not advanced countries. Since liberals hate Whites and love blacks and browns, liberals shut up about over population about 35 years ago.
You should be embarrassed to display your ignorance on the internet, especially your ignorance that it takes both a woman and a man to conceive a child.
Another childless sad bachelor loser bloviating about the mis deeds of women.
The pyrnt, Edith, is that a crude birth rate of 66.44 (that of the lowest income group), amounts, after some reasonable assumptions, to a completed fertility rate of about 1.99, which isn't even above replacement, and which destines the affected demographic to eventual extinction no less than do the bleaker birthrates of effete Europeans. "Going extinct" is kind of a funny definition of "breeding like rabbits," don't you think?
Or as Clint Eastwood put it, "Dying ain't much of a living, boy."
Of course, I also have to take issue with the whole planted axiom that income levels are a good proxy for reproductive fitness in the first place. I'm sure you can think of a bunch of reasons why that's not necessarily the case, but that's another whole post.Replies: @Crawfurdmuir, @Alden
Reproductive fitness is birthing healthy children who grow to healthy adulthood with a minimum of effort on the part of the parents.
Except people do not operate on that premise. Trying approaching a women and discover what transpires when you ask the question "Do you have the required intellect to breed with me in the future should we marry and procreate?"
"which have replaced debutante balls and other such opportunities for younger members of the elite to meet future mates of comparable quality."
To each their own.
"while those of weak intellect would be given “a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods” and “the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised.”
Sounds elitist to me. No thank you.
"As for “emigrants and refugees from other lands,” the powers-that-be seem to want the most ignorant and illiterate of them – to invite and welcome only “the better sort” would be racist!"
Southern and Eastern Europeans were viewed in that fashion by nativists and WASPs in the late 1800's. Were these "Heritage Americans" correct in their assessment in the inferior intellectual capabilities of Poles, Slavs, and Italians? How did these three groups respond to such a charge?Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
Of course, that’s not how assortative mating at elite universities works, and you know it. Young people of high intellectual capacity are simply brought together in a shared environment, and nature takes its course. This is leading – indeed, already has led – to a distinctly new type of hereditary elite. Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2033, published in 1958, has proven prophetic.
To Galton’s comment that ” “the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands [would be] invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised,” you responded:
Yet all that Galton suggests are just the same kind of merit-based immigration criteria that obtain in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand today. What’s wrong with that? Those countries do not impress an objective observer as particularly “elitist.”
Your question about certain groups of immigrants in the late nineteenth century omits to consider the significant difference between conditions now as compared to those of that time. Then, we had an open frontier, and no social safety net. Immigrants at the time knew this, and did not expect more than an opportunity to succeed – or fail – on their own. Many did fail. Surprising numbers in fact returned to their countries of origin. Those that remained had withstood the challenge of independence.
Now we have a domestic population several times larger than we did then, no open frontier, and a well-developed generous social welfare state. Indeed, the last of these is the main attraction for a large number of immigrants. Look at the outcry from entirely predictable quarters when the “public charge” rule was extended to include non-cash social welfare benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps.
The immigration of limited numbers of qualified foreigners may be beneficial, but the United States cannot afford to absorb all of the world’s poor. At the very least we need to revive the longstanding practice of requiring an immigrant to find a sponsor, who will guarantee that the immigrant will not become a public charge.
Exactly. That's what I stated--people in general do not ask during their initial stages of dating "What is your genetic makeup"?
"Young people of high intellectual capacity are simply brought together in a shared environment, and nature takes its course."
Nature, as in a drive to meet someone who has desirable qualities, and nurture, as in those traits they personally find interesting.
"Yet all that Galton suggests are just the same kind of merit-based immigration criteria that obtain in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand today."
That is a separate issue. The focus here is how men and women come together.
"Your question about certain groups of immigrants in the late nineteenth century omits to consider the significant difference between conditions now as compared to those of that time."
Then, we had an open frontier..."
By 1890, that frontier had been tamed, according to Frederick Jackson Turner. Besides, most immigrants flocked to the city for employment.
And, the fact remains that Eastern and Southern European stock constituted a direct threat to nativists.
"and no social safety net."
No federal aid, to be certain. But there were the Hull Houses of the world, as well as community groups who would assist newcomers.
"Immigrants at the time knew this, and did not expect more than an opportunity to succeed – or fail – on their own."
Today's immigrants hold a similar perspective.
"Now we have a domestic population several times larger than we did then, no open frontier, and a well-developed generous social welfare state."
I have been on record that I am open to significantly curbing immigration. But I am opposed to this notion that certain groups--Africans and Muslims--are other than capable of becoming immersed in the American experience.
It’s 2020, not 1950.
Is there anyway to find some commenters 60 and under? Or some 90 year olds aware of what’s been happening since 1950?
“You seem to have ignored the rest of my comment (i.e. the part you did not quote).”
No, I just focused on what was most relevant.
“The implicit point was that the issue is our current policies encouraging reproduction of people who would be less able to afford those additional children without the subsidies.
As opposed to those who advocate federal courses of action that would encourage reproduction of the “right” people?
“Nice to see that you are still unable to respond to my comments without using techniques like selective quoting and strawmanning.”
It’s great to NOTICE you make those same charges without supplying the requisite examples.
1. There is no evidence that nursing and teaching colleges were in fact "glorified vocational schools." The fact that paid employment was anticipated doesn't mean serious academic work wasn't part of the curriculum. Even now, nurses have to study humanities in addition to a very difficult series of science courses.
2. You have not offered any evidence to the effect that women's colleges were women’s colleges "were glorified finishing schools for girls from wealthy families." And even if you had such evidence, it would prove nothing but that feminists of the era had a very legitimate grievance regarding women's education.Replies: @Anonymous
I wrote that the women’s colleges, not nursing and teaching colleges, were “glorified finishing schools”. Nursing and teaching colleges were actual vocational schools.
There was a qualitative difference between the post-secondary education available to men and women.
Just imagine what would happen today if most girls who continued their studies after high school did so almost exclusively in nursing and teacher training colleges, while boys were allowed to attend traditional colleges. Nobody would say it’s equal because both boys and girls were able to go to “college”.
This is not a controversial view. And yes, it is why there was feminist agitation for decades to make colleges coed and to promote women in higher education.
No, I just focused on what was most relevant.
"The implicit point was that the issue is our current policies encouraging reproduction of people who would be less able to afford those additional children without the subsidies.
As opposed to those who advocate federal courses of action that would encourage reproduction of the "right" people?
"Nice to see that you are still unable to respond to my comments without using techniques like selective quoting and strawmanning."
It's great to NOTICE you make those same charges without supplying the requisite examples.Replies: @res
LOL! The part you failed to quote was relevant because it made clear I was talking about something different than you implied. Stop being obtuse.
Yes. There is a significant difference between saying let’s stop subsidizing one group of people and saying let’s subsidize another group of people.
Because the comment I was replying to was a sufficient example. You are not obtuse. You are just either stupid or shamefully disingenuous (of course, both is always a possibility).
Don’t. Feed. The. Troll.
I think the point is that women are not attracted to the same things in higher education as men are. They are much more likely to gravitate towards the humanities or the soft sciences.
And in the past I think it's reasonable to assume that a much larger proportion of women than men saw higher education as something interesting and fun and worthwhile as part of being a more rounded person (the old concept of a liberal education), or as a kind of social accomplishment which would give them an advantage in the marriage market. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with any of that.
Whereas in the past men were much more likely to see a college education as a way of getting a high-powered job.
I think the person who made the original point about women's colleges was talking about what were essentially women's liberal arts colleges rather than nursing or teacher's colleges.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the idea of women's liberal arts colleges being essentially finishing schools. In the past such colleges would offer an actual education. Today a liberal education simply means SJW indoctrination.Replies: @Rosie
I agree with all of that. Even today, women with a college degree are more likely to bot only get married, but to stay married. That speaks very well of men, and puts paid to the idea that quality men see women as sex objects only.
Interesting. I too have heard that doctors are horrible to work with. Maybe they exhaust their supply of civility with their patients and then unload on their subordinates?
Colleges do not and never have taught women to not have children because of climate change. At one time, 60- 40 years ago women and men were propagandized to have fewer children because of over population.
Liberals however, soon realized that over population came from the third world, not advanced countries. Since liberals hate Whites and love blacks and browns, liberals shut up about over population about 35 years ago.
You should be embarrassed to display your ignorance on the internet, especially your ignorance that it takes both a woman and a man to conceive a child.
Another childless sad bachelor loser bloviating about the mis deeds of women.Replies: @Rosie
Given what we put up with in these parts, it’s understandable that we jump to conclusions. But Mr. Johnson’s a’ight.
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpgReplies: @UK, @Anon, @res, @Mario Partisan
Anon[392] writes:
In response you write, “Nonsense,” and post the following chart in support of that assessment of Anon’s comment:
It seems to me, though, that your chart actually supports Anon’s point. Here is how I read the chart:
The vertical axis is male minus female, i.e. positive values indicate college attendance is skewed towards males, and negative values indicate otherwise.
The horizontal axis is birth year, so college freshmen year is about 18 years after birth date.
What does the chart show? It shows that male/female balance was only modestly biased towards men for those born up until 1910, i.e. those entering college in the late 1920s, after which there is a trend towards male dominance. Male dominance in college attendance is stable for those born from 1925 to 1950 (i.e. for the 1943 to 1968 freshmen classes.) From then on, the decline in the bias favoring men is monotonic, with men and women reaching gender parity in about birth year 1955 (freshmen class of 1973). The end of the chart is birth year 1975 (freshmen class of 1993) with women having reached the level of dominance that men had on college campuses from the 1940s through 1960s.
In short, it seems that Anon’s comment is not nonsense, but is instead supported by the chart you posted.
Am I missing something?
I actually think the chart is interesting. For those who think the late 1800s to early 1900s were a time of Victorian patriarchy, the chart is a wake up. That time was not as nearly skewed towards men as we might imagine.
On the other hand, male dominance reaches a more or less stable plateau around the freshmen classes of the mid 1940s, coinciding with the return of the GIs from the front and the GI bill. In other words, it seems that peak male dominance is related to the generation of men who were compensated for their sacrifice with the offer of a college education. Patriarchy!? Or maybe it’s just throwing a bone to the men who managed not to come home in a box.
But notice, the decline towards parity and then pro-female bias begins in birth year 1950, i.e. for those born during the baby boom and entering college in the 1970s. In other words, it was those very men who got the GI bill that fathered the women who would start to overtake men in college attendance.
Interestingly, while college attendance overall is now biased towards women, the STEM fields are still biased towards men. (I know, it must be all those sexist nerds in chemical engineering who hate the idea of having a cute girl to study with.) What gives? Well, the transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy has meant that almost all people feel the need to enter college just to get into the middle class. But men who want to make a decent living, but don’t have the desire or inclination to do college (STEM or otherwise) have the trades as an alternative to college, yet another no BS sector women have little inclination to pursue (for full disclosure I went to college not the trades.) This might explain the skewness towards women overall.
What might explain the lack of college-related “sexism” during the Victorian period? At that time, college attendance was probably confined to the upper classes, and while industrialization was happening quickly, we had not yet entered the era of intense scientific research and high-tech engineering. In short, college was meant to refine the children of the rich, not so much about producing legions of engineers. In other words, the content was much more oriented to the softer subjects that women are more inclined to show an interest in, thus explaining the lack of strong bias towards men. Of course, I wasn’t there, so I’m quite open to hearing counter arguments.
https://images.slideplayer.com/13/4144389/slides/slide_4.jpg
It seems to me, though, that your chart actually supports Anon’s point. Here is how I read the chart:
The vertical axis is male minus female, i.e. positive values indicate college attendance is skewed towards males, and negative values indicate otherwise.
The horizontal axis is birth year, so college freshmen year is about 18 years after birth date.
What does the chart show? It shows that male/female balance was only modestly biased towards men for those born up until 1910, i.e. those entering college in the late 1920s, after which there is a trend towards male dominance. Male dominance in college attendance is stable for those born from 1925 to 1950 (i.e. for the 1943 to 1968 freshmen classes.) From then on, the decline in the bias favoring men is monotonic, with men and women reaching gender parity in about birth year 1955 (freshmen class of 1973). The end of the chart is birth year 1975 (freshmen class of 1993) with women having reached the level of dominance that men had on college campuses from the 1940s through 1960s.
In short, it seems that Anon’s comment is not nonsense, but is instead supported by the chart you posted.
Am I missing something?
I actually think the chart is interesting. For those who think the late 1800s to early 1900s were a time of Victorian patriarchy, the chart is a wake up. That time was not as nearly skewed towards men as we might imagine.
On the other hand, male dominance reaches a more or less stable plateau around the freshmen classes of the mid 1940s, coinciding with the return of the GIs from the front and the GI bill. In other words, it seems that peak male dominance is related to the generation of men who were compensated for their sacrifice with the offer of a college education. Patriarchy!? Or maybe it’s just throwing a bone to the men who managed not to come home in a box.
But notice, the decline towards parity and then pro-female bias begins in birth year 1950, i.e. for those born during the baby boom and entering college in the 1970s. In other words, it was those very men who got the GI bill that fathered the women who would start to overtake men in college attendance.
Interestingly, while college attendance overall is now biased towards women, the STEM fields are still biased towards men. (I know, it must be all those sexist nerds in chemical engineering who hate the idea of having a cute girl to study with.) What gives? Well, the transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy has meant that almost all people feel the need to enter college just to get into the middle class. But men who want to make a decent living, but don’t have the desire or inclination to do college (STEM or otherwise) have the trades as an alternative to college, yet another no BS sector women have little inclination to pursue (for full disclosure I went to college not the trades.) This might explain the skewness towards women overall.
What might explain the lack of college-related “sexism” during the Victorian period? At that time, college attendance was probably confined to the upper classes, and while industrialization was happening quickly, we had not yet entered the era of intense scientific research and high-tech engineering. In short, college was meant to refine the children of the rich, not so much about producing legions of engineers. In other words, the content was much more oriented to the softer subjects that women are more inclined to show an interest in, thus explaining the lack of strong bias towards men. Of course, I wasn’t there, so I’m quite open to hearing counter arguments.Replies: @Rosie
No. I’m not sure why you bothered writing this.
That was my whole point. You can’t normalize women’s attendance at college unless it is abnormal, and it wasn’t abnormal, not even in mid century.
I note for the record here that men going stark raving mad and slaughtering each other by the tens of millions is cited as evidence of their selfless, sacrificial nature, for which they deserve special privileges.
T'is always thus.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Mario Partisan
Women were excluded from major private universities and even major state schools like the University of Virginia until the late 60s and 70s. These institutions were considered the "real" colleges, so women's college attendance wasn't considered normalized until women were attending them in similar or greater numbers as men were.
Even separate women's colleges were controversial in much of the country:
http://voicesandvisibilityuva.org/about-these-portraits/women-at-uva-history/Alumni and students generally opposed allowing women into colleges in the late 60s and 70s. It was imposed by the administration, social pressure, anti-discrimination lawsuits by outfits like the ACLU, and by the federal government with Title IX passing in 1972.Replies: @Rosie
Note that one could just as well say that midcentury Male dominance was abnormal, because the GI bill disproportionately benefitted men, fairly or not is a separate question.
I note for the record here that men going stark raving mad and slaughtering each other by the tens of millions is cited as evidence of their selfless, sacrificial nature, for which they deserve special privileges.
T’is always thus.
And yes, men must take responsibility for this.
Unfortunately I don't see any prospect of our species giving up its love of war.Replies: @Mr. Rational
Now, I think it was reasonable to assume that your reply was in regards to the time periods referenced by Anon. But now, you imply that your “whole point” was in reference to the late 1800s/early 1900s, which Anon never came close to mentioning. I don’t see the utility of accusing someone of spewing nonsense when they are not discussing an historical period that you have not made clear you are referencing.Once again, clarity is lacking. What century? You quote me referencing the 1800s, but “mid” implies you are referencing the 20th. “Abnormal” can mean many things, but I would imagine has two possible meanings in this context: 1) substantially different from the historical average (time abnormality); 2) skewness towards one gender and away from the “normal” 50/50 demographic breakdown (cross sectional abnormality). But, if mid century refers to the middle of the 20th, then women’s college attendance during the period was “abnormal” in comparison to the historical average and “abnormal” in the sense that attendance was skewed towards men, unlike the before and after.
Taking your “nonsense,” your chart and your reply to me together, it seems to me that your “point” is that women being in college should not surprise or dismay anybody. Now, I agree that genuine female success should not dismay anybody. One would have to be a real Neanderthal to think so. But, it should not come as a surprise that some people do not realize how balanced college attendance was during the late 18 – early 1900s, given that no living people have any experience with that era, whereas most people have “experience” going back to the 1950s, either directly or through parents or grandparents, when men dominated campuses. So, the post 1970s era appears to most people to be at odds with the past, and your point was “not so much.”
Ironically, when I stated that I actually learned this from your chart (thank you), your response was “why did you bother caring about that.” Moreover, you made no attempt to make it known to Anon that this was your point. I’ll let Comrade Ulyanov give you some friendly advice:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jul/02.htmThat was my point!Don’t get me wrong; peace is the single issue that I really care about. As you might imagine my bias on issues of economy is decidedly towards the left, but I’ll happily support a Ron Paul against a war-mongering pinko.
But let’s be real. Allowing oneself to be drafted and sent across the oceans to fight and die is selfless and sacrificial. And when governments enlist their young men in these crimes, they are exploiting the natural instincts that the forces of evolution have instilled in men to put their families, communities and tribes before themselves. And yes, from the beginning of man, that has meant fighting. And if you think your sisters of yore and today are not responsible for the aggressive nature of many dudes out there, think again. Female mating choices have had a decisive impact on the average male psyche. Doubt me? Go crash a high school after-game party.
(And yes, the “selfish” draft card burners of the 1960s were absolutely in the right.)Replies: @Rosie
What if women were only allowed to attend Hamburger University, and as many women or more women attended Hamburger U. as men attended college? Would you say in that case women’s attendance at college wasn’t abnormal, because they were going to “university” in similar or greater numbers as men were?
Women were excluded from major private universities and even major state schools like the University of Virginia until the late 60s and 70s. These institutions were considered the “real” colleges, so women’s college attendance wasn’t considered normalized until women were attending them in similar or greater numbers as men were.
Even separate women’s colleges were controversial in much of the country:
http://voicesandvisibilityuva.org/about-these-portraits/women-at-uva-history/
Alumni and students generally opposed allowing women into colleges in the late 60s and 70s. It was imposed by the administration, social pressure, anti-discrimination lawsuits by outfits like the ACLU, and by the federal government with Title IX passing in 1972.
I note for the record here that men going stark raving mad and slaughtering each other by the tens of millions is cited as evidence of their selfless, sacrificial nature, for which they deserve special privileges.
T'is always thus.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Mario Partisan
T’is always thus.
The Faces of Helens have instigated thousands of wars.
Money is supposed to be the root of all evil, but we know who et the first bite.
Peace.
I note for the record here that men going stark raving mad and slaughtering each other by the tens of millions is cited as evidence of their selfless, sacrificial nature, for which they deserve special privileges.
T'is always thus.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Mario Partisan
You do have a point there. And even the bloodbaths of the 20th century have not diminished the enthusiasm for war. We’re an incredibly violent species, and modern white Europeans have been among the most violent societies in all of history.
And yes, men must take responsibility for this.
Unfortunately I don’t see any prospect of our species giving up its love of war.
The voices of Karens have chided millions of managers.
Peace.
And yes, men must take responsibility for this.
Unfortunately I don't see any prospect of our species giving up its love of war.Replies: @Mr. Rational
None of the English or Americans who did the fighting in WWII chose to go to war. War was chosen for them, against massive popular opposition.
You mis-spelled (((banksters))).
And all the wars fought since Vietnam have been fought by volunteers.
All the pointless sordid colonial wars the British fought during the 19th century were fought by volunteers.
Men love war.Replies: @Talha, @iffen
My relatives who fought in WW2 volunteered, with great enthusiasm. They were beside themselves with excitement. It was the same with WW1. My relatives who fought in that war were gung-ho volunteers as well. I think you’ll find that the British and American armed forces included plenty of volunteers as well.
And all the wars fought since Vietnam have been fought by volunteers.
All the pointless sordid colonial wars the British fought during the 19th century were fought by volunteers.
Men love war.
It's unfortunate that modern war is so destructive; there was a kind of art (you can even see it in the various ways different cultures ornamented their arms and armor) and chivalry to two armies meeting on the battle plain (sometimes that stretched miles long) and trying to outmaneuver or just exhaust the other side into surrender or a rout. A chess match with very high stakes.
Peace.Replies: @dfordoom
And all the wars fought since Vietnam have been fought by volunteers.
All the pointless sordid colonial wars the British fought during the 19th century were fought by volunteers.
Men love war.Replies: @Talha, @iffen
It’s just that part of us that has the natural instinct for combat and competitiveness. My high school age son went over to his friend’s house recently for something with a bunch of his friends. I asked him what they did there and wrestling was one of the things they did. Just young men trying to figure out the pecking order. I used to watch the younger kids in the mosque in the hallway so other parents could listen to the lecture; invariably the boys would start either fighting or wrestling – and my rule was (no punching, no kicking) wrestle all you want.
It’s unfortunate that modern war is so destructive; there was a kind of art (you can even see it in the various ways different cultures ornamented their arms and armor) and chivalry to two armies meeting on the battle plain (sometimes that stretched miles long) and trying to outmaneuver or just exhaust the other side into surrender or a rout. A chess match with very high stakes.
Peace.
I have no idea how to answer this question, since it seems like they are suggesting my desire not to be saddled with having to raise some drooling imbecile, is going to lead to the action of my encouraging my wife to get an abortion. And yet while I would surely “want” my wife to have an abortion in some selfish sense, I would not actually encourage her to get one (and would instead discourage her), because I am not some amoral automaton driven solely by my one personal desires. Abortion is still murder, even if I don’t want the kid. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don’t want to do. Raising a defective kid would merely be an extreme example of the phenomenon.
And all the wars fought since Vietnam have been fought by volunteers.
All the pointless sordid colonial wars the British fought during the 19th century were fought by volunteers.
Men love war.Replies: @Talha, @iffen
Men love war.
I note for the record here that men going stark raving mad and slaughtering each other by the tens of millions is cited as evidence of their selfless, sacrificial nature, for which they deserve special privileges.
T'is always thus.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Mario Partisan
Forgive me, but it was not fully clear what your point was, and now it is even less clear. My comment was in response to your reply to Anon. Your “nonsense” comment was in regards to a short statement that actually had three parts:
Part #1 was a reference to women born from 1945 to 1950 (freshmen class 1963 to 1973). Part 2 references a transition period of the 1970s and part 3 describes what many people observe today, college campuses skewed towards female students. To this you reply “nonsense” and post your chart. A one word/chart response to a three part statement can be interpreted as a rejection of the whole or a rejection of only parts. It wasn’t clear what part(s) you were rejecting, but to reiterate, the chart you posted validates Anon’s statement.
Now, I think it was reasonable to assume that your reply was in regards to the time periods referenced by Anon. But now, you imply that your “whole point” was in reference to the late 1800s/early 1900s, which Anon never came close to mentioning. I don’t see the utility of accusing someone of spewing nonsense when they are not discussing an historical period that you have not made clear you are referencing.
Once again, clarity is lacking. What century? You quote me referencing the 1800s, but “mid” implies you are referencing the 20th. “Abnormal” can mean many things, but I would imagine has two possible meanings in this context: 1) substantially different from the historical average (time abnormality); 2) skewness towards one gender and away from the “normal” 50/50 demographic breakdown (cross sectional abnormality). But, if mid century refers to the middle of the 20th, then women’s college attendance during the period was “abnormal” in comparison to the historical average and “abnormal” in the sense that attendance was skewed towards men, unlike the before and after.
Taking your “nonsense,” your chart and your reply to me together, it seems to me that your “point” is that women being in college should not surprise or dismay anybody. Now, I agree that genuine female success should not dismay anybody. One would have to be a real Neanderthal to think so. But, it should not come as a surprise that some people do not realize how balanced college attendance was during the late 18 – early 1900s, given that no living people have any experience with that era, whereas most people have “experience” going back to the 1950s, either directly or through parents or grandparents, when men dominated campuses. So, the post 1970s era appears to most people to be at odds with the past, and your point was “not so much.”
Ironically, when I stated that I actually learned this from your chart (thank you), your response was “why did you bother caring about that.” Moreover, you made no attempt to make it known to Anon that this was your point. I’ll let Comrade Ulyanov give you some friendly advice:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jul/02.htm
That was my point!
Don’t get me wrong; peace is the single issue that I really care about. As you might imagine my bias on issues of economy is decidedly towards the left, but I’ll happily support a Ron Paul against a war-mongering pinko.
But let’s be real. Allowing oneself to be drafted and sent across the oceans to fight and die is selfless and sacrificial. And when governments enlist their young men in these crimes, they are exploiting the natural instincts that the forces of evolution have instilled in men to put their families, communities and tribes before themselves. And yes, from the beginning of man, that has meant fighting. And if you think your sisters of yore and today are not responsible for the aggressive nature of many dudes out there, think again. Female mating choices have had a decisive impact on the average male psyche. Doubt me? Go crash a high school after-game party.
(And yes, the “selfish” draft card burners of the 1960s were absolutely in the right.)
Unz.com is crawling with Neanderthals. In fact, they may outnumber homo sapiens around here.Hmmm. I suppose that if men are hell bent on killing each other, a woman would be best to hook up with a killer than a killee. Better still would be men not killing each other, wasting our own self-sacrificing efforts of years raising our sons.That's ok. I've been to enough rock concerts to know what women want.If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should ask your interlocutor for clarification before refuting something they didn't say in a five-paragraph essay. I am a busy mom. I have to write short comments when I have time. They're not always clear and precise. I do the best I can with the short blocks of time that I have. Try to cut me some slack.Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Mario Partisan
It's unfortunate that modern war is so destructive; there was a kind of art (you can even see it in the various ways different cultures ornamented their arms and armor) and chivalry to two armies meeting on the battle plain (sometimes that stretched miles long) and trying to outmaneuver or just exhaust the other side into surrender or a rout. A chess match with very high stakes.
Peace.Replies: @dfordoom
Apparently there was a battle (an actual pitched battle not a skirmish) during the condottieri period in Italy in I think the fifteenth century. The result was two men injured. That was the casualty count. The condottieri were of course mercenaries. They were paid to fight but they did not necessarily believe they were paid to die!
For many men in the time period, war was the most exciting thing to happen in their lives. People’s lives were usually a lot narrower as recently as a century ago.
Even today, you’ll find a lot of men who genuinely prefer war to peace, though they are usually intelligent enough to not state this around women or reporters. The essence of human civilization can be summed up as to channel this deeply male impulse in a productive fashion, preferably off the battle-field. War has a curious, dualistic aspect of horror, but also fascination. This is nothing new. It is seen in human literature 3,000 years ago as much as it is today. Our societies have changed. Our underlying nature, both the good and the bad, has not.
Do we hate or love war? The answer… both.
>War was chosen for them, against massive popular opposition.
There was a massive shift in popular opinion through 1940 and 1941, partly because of government efforts, but also because of just how beyond the pale Axis behavior had become. And in the end, nobody forced Tokyo to bomb Pearl or Hitler to declare war on the United States, however rational the internal logic seemed to both regimes.
WWI is a better example: had it not been for London’s propaganda savvy conjoined with powerful ideological undercurrents among American elites (and yes, Wall Street would have been in serious trouble had London been forced to cut a deal with Berlin, which played a role) and intellectual classes, and a level of strategic and diplomatic incompetence in Berlin that would have had Bismarck rolling in his grave, the US would not have entered the war. That would have meant a decidedly different ending to that war, as I’ve talked about ad nauseum in other posts.
Women were excluded from major private universities and even major state schools like the University of Virginia until the late 60s and 70s. These institutions were considered the "real" colleges, so women's college attendance wasn't considered normalized until women were attending them in similar or greater numbers as men were.
Even separate women's colleges were controversial in much of the country:
http://voicesandvisibilityuva.org/about-these-portraits/women-at-uva-history/Alumni and students generally opposed allowing women into colleges in the late 60s and 70s. It was imposed by the administration, social pressure, anti-discrimination lawsuits by outfits like the ACLU, and by the federal government with Title IX passing in 1972.Replies: @Rosie
Unz misogynist: ” Women were really oppressed back in the day.
Rosie: Not really.
Unz misogynist: Crypto feminist! Heretic! Burn the Witch!
Just another one of the very bizarre discussions I’ve had here at Unz.
In all seriousness, if you want to use the term “normalized” in a counterintuitive and (ahem) abnormal way, go right ahead. But you’re not fooling anyone. All this pilpul and bickering over semantics has a familiar (((ring))) to it.
It’s almost like….Nah.
I understand that you want women excluded from higher education, therefore, you want to post date it until right around the time all the trouble started. You will split hairs and quibble in order to justify this transparent sleight of hand, but as I said, you’re not fooling anyone.
“Of course, that’s not how assortative mating at elite universities works, and you know it.”
Exactly. That’s what I stated–people in general do not ask during their initial stages of dating “What is your genetic makeup”?
“Young people of high intellectual capacity are simply brought together in a shared environment, and nature takes its course.”
Nature, as in a drive to meet someone who has desirable qualities, and nurture, as in those traits they personally find interesting.
“Yet all that Galton suggests are just the same kind of merit-based immigration criteria that obtain in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand today.”
That is a separate issue. The focus here is how men and women come together.
“Your question about certain groups of immigrants in the late nineteenth century omits to consider the significant difference between conditions now as compared to those of that time.”
Then, we had an open frontier…”
By 1890, that frontier had been tamed, according to Frederick Jackson Turner. Besides, most immigrants flocked to the city for employment.
And, the fact remains that Eastern and Southern European stock constituted a direct threat to nativists.
“and no social safety net.”
No federal aid, to be certain. But there were the Hull Houses of the world, as well as community groups who would assist newcomers.
“Immigrants at the time knew this, and did not expect more than an opportunity to succeed – or fail – on their own.”
Today’s immigrants hold a similar perspective.
“Now we have a domestic population several times larger than we did then, no open frontier, and a well-developed generous social welfare state.”
I have been on record that I am open to significantly curbing immigration. But I am opposed to this notion that certain groups–Africans and Muslims–are other than capable of becoming immersed in the American experience.
Now, I think it was reasonable to assume that your reply was in regards to the time periods referenced by Anon. But now, you imply that your “whole point” was in reference to the late 1800s/early 1900s, which Anon never came close to mentioning. I don’t see the utility of accusing someone of spewing nonsense when they are not discussing an historical period that you have not made clear you are referencing.Once again, clarity is lacking. What century? You quote me referencing the 1800s, but “mid” implies you are referencing the 20th. “Abnormal” can mean many things, but I would imagine has two possible meanings in this context: 1) substantially different from the historical average (time abnormality); 2) skewness towards one gender and away from the “normal” 50/50 demographic breakdown (cross sectional abnormality). But, if mid century refers to the middle of the 20th, then women’s college attendance during the period was “abnormal” in comparison to the historical average and “abnormal” in the sense that attendance was skewed towards men, unlike the before and after.
Taking your “nonsense,” your chart and your reply to me together, it seems to me that your “point” is that women being in college should not surprise or dismay anybody. Now, I agree that genuine female success should not dismay anybody. One would have to be a real Neanderthal to think so. But, it should not come as a surprise that some people do not realize how balanced college attendance was during the late 18 – early 1900s, given that no living people have any experience with that era, whereas most people have “experience” going back to the 1950s, either directly or through parents or grandparents, when men dominated campuses. So, the post 1970s era appears to most people to be at odds with the past, and your point was “not so much.”
Ironically, when I stated that I actually learned this from your chart (thank you), your response was “why did you bother caring about that.” Moreover, you made no attempt to make it known to Anon that this was your point. I’ll let Comrade Ulyanov give you some friendly advice:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jul/02.htmThat was my point!Don’t get me wrong; peace is the single issue that I really care about. As you might imagine my bias on issues of economy is decidedly towards the left, but I’ll happily support a Ron Paul against a war-mongering pinko.
But let’s be real. Allowing oneself to be drafted and sent across the oceans to fight and die is selfless and sacrificial. And when governments enlist their young men in these crimes, they are exploiting the natural instincts that the forces of evolution have instilled in men to put their families, communities and tribes before themselves. And yes, from the beginning of man, that has meant fighting. And if you think your sisters of yore and today are not responsible for the aggressive nature of many dudes out there, think again. Female mating choices have had a decisive impact on the average male psyche. Doubt me? Go crash a high school after-game party.
(And yes, the “selfish” draft card burners of the 1960s were absolutely in the right.)Replies: @Rosie
Unz.com is crawling with Neanderthals. In fact, they may outnumber homo sapiens around here.
Hmmm. I suppose that if men are hell bent on killing each other, a woman would be best to hook up with a killer than a killee. Better still would be men not killing each other, wasting our own self-sacrificing efforts of years raising our sons.
That’s ok. I’ve been to enough rock concerts to know what women want.
If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should ask your interlocutor for clarification before refuting something they didn’t say in a five-paragraph essay. I am a busy mom. I have to write short comments when I have time. They’re not always clear and precise. I do the best I can with the short blocks of time that I have. Try to cut me some slack.
I actually had to start writing out a reply to your 1st reply before I actually understood what your “point” was, and then I acknowledged it was a valid one and thanked you for your chart, which in my first post I acknowledged was interesting. That might construed by some as “cutting slack.”
And by the way: your chart response to Anon was “refuting” something “he” didn’t say.
That’s all fine. We all have our own styles, conditioned by personality, time budgets, etc. At the end of the day we come to this place for some sort of entertainment and hopefully informed/educating banter. Your chart was informative and a positive contribution, surrounded by an ocean of snarky fog, which provoked a comradely brow beating. It’s how an “old red” like me rolls (I’m a reagan baby.)
My style is obviously very different. I only have 41 comments on this website, but 26,000 words. I rarely choose to jump into the fray, although I read UR regularly. When I do it’s usually because I believe a perspective is lacking or have a desire to work some thoughts out and get some feedback. I only write when I have a point to make and have the time to convey it carefully. And even when I am replying to someone, the post is not intended only for the replyee.
Your personality is a bit feisty, which attracts back and forth, and I imagine a lot of guys would find it both exhilarating and exhausting. It might have something to do with you being a busy mom. Good for you.Maybe. I think we all need to understand that we are at a unique place on the web. Mr. Unz’s site is exactly what it says it is. It is a place for the “excluded” on all sorts of topics and issues. It is, sadly, an oasis of honest and engaging dialogue, in an intellectual desert. Those of us who come here (and are not typing away in a computer lab on the eastern mediterranean) do so for the freshness of perspectives that it offers. Mr. Unz is doing a great thing here.
(And that’s ignoring the small voice in my head that wonders if this isn’t an intel gathering site planning state-funded camping trips for us. Sorry Mr. Unz, but you are that good, and if so, CIA should raise your pay :))
But, given the nature of UR, you are going to get a lot of people commenting who have a kind of chip on their shoulder of some kind or another, and that includes myself and I suspect you as well. Some of them are going to be guys who have had a tough time growing up in a quasi-gynocracy and feel the need to vent. It is good that they have place to do so and I would encourage you to understand what lies underneath some of the language.
And I think you are owed the same courtesy.Spot on! I think part of the problem of the modern west is that people are all sitting around pointing fingers at each other, in this case men at women and vice versa. At the end of the day, we have all been thrust onto this planet, and the “nature” of men and women is the result of a dialectical dance between us that neither party is to blame for. Nature has shaped our two psyches so that we can work together on the basis of comparative advantage, with each sex specializing in a set of skills they are relatively best at and with personalities conducive to our roles.
Part of the problem is that our genetics were formed during millennia of technological stasis, while the modern world is changing at a break-neck pace. While I think Mr. Guyenot did a good job demonstrating the true nature of the tapeworm, the tapeworm still had some insights:Man has taken himself out of his natural state in which things made sense for us, and we are now trying to navigate an unknown sea. We didn’t will anything of this. We did it to ourselves, but we are not responsible for it, as strange as that is to write. And we are struggling to figure out how our biological natures fit in to a world that is anything but natural and in which men and women are now competing rather than cooperating. The fact that a parasitic elite wants us at each other’s throats doesn’t help.That doesn’t really contradict my point about a lot of women liking aggressive dudes. Individual women vary in what gets them bothered, a lot like running backs, others like rock stars, and a small group like famous chess champions.
But what is common in these examples…they are in the spot light and have command over an audience. The fact is, if there was a dude who could give everyone a good beat down, play like Roger Waters and dominate the chess board, that dude would get all the girls. The dilemma for women is that those traits rarely, if ever, coincide in the same bloke, so women have to choose, and they often struggle between the bad boy and the stable provider. The conditions of the modern world seem to be increasingly pushing them into the fickle arms of former, and we are all worse off for it.
Anyway, its Saturday and I should have some fun. Nice chatting Rosie. Cheers!Replies: @Rosie
Unz.com is crawling with Neanderthals. In fact, they may outnumber homo sapiens around here.Hmmm. I suppose that if men are hell bent on killing each other, a woman would be best to hook up with a killer than a killee. Better still would be men not killing each other, wasting our own self-sacrificing efforts of years raising our sons.That's ok. I've been to enough rock concerts to know what women want.If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should ask your interlocutor for clarification before refuting something they didn't say in a five-paragraph essay. I am a busy mom. I have to write short comments when I have time. They're not always clear and precise. I do the best I can with the short blocks of time that I have. Try to cut me some slack.Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Mario Partisan
BTW, a thought experiment for the unz commentariat:
Imagine your sister, happily married to a “nice guy” she wouldn’t trade for the world, has a chance to cuckold him with Magnus Carlsen (estimated IQ ~190), with complete certainty that hubby will never find out. Suppose her period is due in 13 days. Should she go for it?
I gotta tell ya. I think Mr. Rosie is the cat’s meow, but Magnus? I dunno…
While I'm sure he's above average in intelligence, Carlsen is unlikely to have a super high IQ significantly above that of what intelligent professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants and so forth have.
Chess is a sport, not some pure measure of intelligence.
Garry Kasparov was also a chess grandmaster and considered to be one of the greatest of all time. He was also said to have an IQ of 190 but when he was actually tested it was around 135 or so.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-on-his-che-careerReplies: @Rosie
Peace.Replies: @Rosie
Also, in the traditional view of marriage, a woman is "given away" by her father or other male relation to her husband and joins the husband's family. So if she is already married, a brother is not supposed to have responsibility and authority over his sister.
Traditionally, men are allowed to assert their natural sovereignty in reaction to adultery, and this is the origin of the legal notion of "crime of passion", in which men are absolved of homicidal crimes or receive much more lenient charges for killing spouses and their lovers in the event of adultery.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
Unz.com is crawling with Neanderthals. In fact, they may outnumber homo sapiens around here.Hmmm. I suppose that if men are hell bent on killing each other, a woman would be best to hook up with a killer than a killee. Better still would be men not killing each other, wasting our own self-sacrificing efforts of years raising our sons.That's ok. I've been to enough rock concerts to know what women want.If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should ask your interlocutor for clarification before refuting something they didn't say in a five-paragraph essay. I am a busy mom. I have to write short comments when I have time. They're not always clear and precise. I do the best I can with the short blocks of time that I have. Try to cut me some slack.Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Mario Partisan
Neanderthals is people too.
Carlsen does not have an IQ of 190. There are no legitimate IQ tests designed and administered by professional psychometricians that go above 160.
While I’m sure he’s above average in intelligence, Carlsen is unlikely to have a super high IQ significantly above that of what intelligent professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants and so forth have.
Chess is a sport, not some pure measure of intelligence.
Garry Kasparov was also a chess grandmaster and considered to be one of the greatest of all time. He was also said to have an IQ of 190 but when he was actually tested it was around 135 or so.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-on-his-che-career
Other than the fear of God, I personally can’t see a good reason not to.
Peace.
Peace.Replies: @Rosie
I’m pretty sure even God would make an exception for Magnus.
While I'm sure he's above average in intelligence, Carlsen is unlikely to have a super high IQ significantly above that of what intelligent professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants and so forth have.
Chess is a sport, not some pure measure of intelligence.
Garry Kasparov was also a chess grandmaster and considered to be one of the greatest of all time. He was also said to have an IQ of 190 but when he was actually tested it was around 135 or so.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-on-his-che-careerReplies: @Rosie
I guess. All I know is that I consider chess to be absolutely essential for all gifted children to study. It may be the only thing they ever really have to work hard at. It teaches grit.
God made Magnus, trust me – He isn’t impressed. Magnus is one tiny blood clot away in the right spot from becoming a complete bed-ridden vegetable.
“And come not near to adultery. Indeed, it is an abomination and an evil way.” (17:32)
And if one is willing to make these exceptions (sexceptions…?), then they can’t really complain if hubby hits up some action in Vegas and it stays in Vegas.
Peace.
Unz.com is crawling with Neanderthals. In fact, they may outnumber homo sapiens around here.Hmmm. I suppose that if men are hell bent on killing each other, a woman would be best to hook up with a killer than a killee. Better still would be men not killing each other, wasting our own self-sacrificing efforts of years raising our sons.That's ok. I've been to enough rock concerts to know what women want.If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should ask your interlocutor for clarification before refuting something they didn't say in a five-paragraph essay. I am a busy mom. I have to write short comments when I have time. They're not always clear and precise. I do the best I can with the short blocks of time that I have. Try to cut me some slack.Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Mario Partisan
Rosie, you’re a hit!
My face is a getting a tad blue, but if I need to say it again: my first reply to you was an attempt at respectful clarification. You posted a chart, strongly implying that it made some argument against a statement that it validated. You didn’t cut anyone any slack and dismissed a “guy” with “nonsense.” I made sure to carefully look at your chart to make sure I wasn’t misreading it, and even asked for clarification: “Am I missing something?” It wasn’t sarcasm. Of course you still accuse me of not asking for clarification. Some slack you are cutting people around here.
I actually had to start writing out a reply to your 1st reply before I actually understood what your “point” was, and then I acknowledged it was a valid one and thanked you for your chart, which in my first post I acknowledged was interesting. That might construed by some as “cutting slack.”
And by the way: your chart response to Anon was “refuting” something “he” didn’t say.
That’s all fine. We all have our own styles, conditioned by personality, time budgets, etc. At the end of the day we come to this place for some sort of entertainment and hopefully informed/educating banter. Your chart was informative and a positive contribution, surrounded by an ocean of snarky fog, which provoked a comradely brow beating. It’s how an “old red” like me rolls (I’m a reagan baby.)
My style is obviously very different. I only have 41 comments on this website, but 26,000 words. I rarely choose to jump into the fray, although I read UR regularly. When I do it’s usually because I believe a perspective is lacking or have a desire to work some thoughts out and get some feedback. I only write when I have a point to make and have the time to convey it carefully. And even when I am replying to someone, the post is not intended only for the replyee.
Your personality is a bit feisty, which attracts back and forth, and I imagine a lot of guys would find it both exhilarating and exhausting. It might have something to do with you being a busy mom. Good for you.
Maybe. I think we all need to understand that we are at a unique place on the web. Mr. Unz’s site is exactly what it says it is. It is a place for the “excluded” on all sorts of topics and issues. It is, sadly, an oasis of honest and engaging dialogue, in an intellectual desert. Those of us who come here (and are not typing away in a computer lab on the eastern mediterranean) do so for the freshness of perspectives that it offers. Mr. Unz is doing a great thing here.
(And that’s ignoring the small voice in my head that wonders if this isn’t an intel gathering site planning state-funded camping trips for us. Sorry Mr. Unz, but you are that good, and if so, CIA should raise your pay :))
But, given the nature of UR, you are going to get a lot of people commenting who have a kind of chip on their shoulder of some kind or another, and that includes myself and I suspect you as well. Some of them are going to be guys who have had a tough time growing up in a quasi-gynocracy and feel the need to vent. It is good that they have place to do so and I would encourage you to understand what lies underneath some of the language.
And I think you are owed the same courtesy.
Spot on! I think part of the problem of the modern west is that people are all sitting around pointing fingers at each other, in this case men at women and vice versa. At the end of the day, we have all been thrust onto this planet, and the “nature” of men and women is the result of a dialectical dance between us that neither party is to blame for. Nature has shaped our two psyches so that we can work together on the basis of comparative advantage, with each sex specializing in a set of skills they are relatively best at and with personalities conducive to our roles.
Part of the problem is that our genetics were formed during millennia of technological stasis, while the modern world is changing at a break-neck pace. While I think Mr. Guyenot did a good job demonstrating the true nature of the tapeworm, the tapeworm still had some insights:
Man has taken himself out of his natural state in which things made sense for us, and we are now trying to navigate an unknown sea. We didn’t will anything of this. We did it to ourselves, but we are not responsible for it, as strange as that is to write. And we are struggling to figure out how our biological natures fit in to a world that is anything but natural and in which men and women are now competing rather than cooperating. The fact that a parasitic elite wants us at each other’s throats doesn’t help.
That doesn’t really contradict my point about a lot of women liking aggressive dudes. Individual women vary in what gets them bothered, a lot like running backs, others like rock stars, and a small group like famous chess champions.
But what is common in these examples…they are in the spot light and have command over an audience. The fact is, if there was a dude who could give everyone a good beat down, play like Roger Waters and dominate the chess board, that dude would get all the girls. The dilemma for women is that those traits rarely, if ever, coincide in the same bloke, so women have to choose, and they often struggle between the bad boy and the stable provider. The conditions of the modern world seem to be increasingly pushing them into the fickle arms of former, and we are all worse off for it.
Anyway, its Saturday and I should have some fun. Nice chatting Rosie. Cheers!
I actually had to start writing out a reply to your 1st reply before I actually understood what your “point” was, and then I acknowledged it was a valid one and thanked you for your chart, which in my first post I acknowledged was interesting. That might construed by some as “cutting slack.”
And by the way: your chart response to Anon was “refuting” something “he” didn’t say.
That’s all fine. We all have our own styles, conditioned by personality, time budgets, etc. At the end of the day we come to this place for some sort of entertainment and hopefully informed/educating banter. Your chart was informative and a positive contribution, surrounded by an ocean of snarky fog, which provoked a comradely brow beating. It’s how an “old red” like me rolls (I’m a reagan baby.)
My style is obviously very different. I only have 41 comments on this website, but 26,000 words. I rarely choose to jump into the fray, although I read UR regularly. When I do it’s usually because I believe a perspective is lacking or have a desire to work some thoughts out and get some feedback. I only write when I have a point to make and have the time to convey it carefully. And even when I am replying to someone, the post is not intended only for the replyee.
Your personality is a bit feisty, which attracts back and forth, and I imagine a lot of guys would find it both exhilarating and exhausting. It might have something to do with you being a busy mom. Good for you.Maybe. I think we all need to understand that we are at a unique place on the web. Mr. Unz’s site is exactly what it says it is. It is a place for the “excluded” on all sorts of topics and issues. It is, sadly, an oasis of honest and engaging dialogue, in an intellectual desert. Those of us who come here (and are not typing away in a computer lab on the eastern mediterranean) do so for the freshness of perspectives that it offers. Mr. Unz is doing a great thing here.
(And that’s ignoring the small voice in my head that wonders if this isn’t an intel gathering site planning state-funded camping trips for us. Sorry Mr. Unz, but you are that good, and if so, CIA should raise your pay :))
But, given the nature of UR, you are going to get a lot of people commenting who have a kind of chip on their shoulder of some kind or another, and that includes myself and I suspect you as well. Some of them are going to be guys who have had a tough time growing up in a quasi-gynocracy and feel the need to vent. It is good that they have place to do so and I would encourage you to understand what lies underneath some of the language.
And I think you are owed the same courtesy.Spot on! I think part of the problem of the modern west is that people are all sitting around pointing fingers at each other, in this case men at women and vice versa. At the end of the day, we have all been thrust onto this planet, and the “nature” of men and women is the result of a dialectical dance between us that neither party is to blame for. Nature has shaped our two psyches so that we can work together on the basis of comparative advantage, with each sex specializing in a set of skills they are relatively best at and with personalities conducive to our roles.
Part of the problem is that our genetics were formed during millennia of technological stasis, while the modern world is changing at a break-neck pace. While I think Mr. Guyenot did a good job demonstrating the true nature of the tapeworm, the tapeworm still had some insights:Man has taken himself out of his natural state in which things made sense for us, and we are now trying to navigate an unknown sea. We didn’t will anything of this. We did it to ourselves, but we are not responsible for it, as strange as that is to write. And we are struggling to figure out how our biological natures fit in to a world that is anything but natural and in which men and women are now competing rather than cooperating. The fact that a parasitic elite wants us at each other’s throats doesn’t help.That doesn’t really contradict my point about a lot of women liking aggressive dudes. Individual women vary in what gets them bothered, a lot like running backs, others like rock stars, and a small group like famous chess champions.
But what is common in these examples…they are in the spot light and have command over an audience. The fact is, if there was a dude who could give everyone a good beat down, play like Roger Waters and dominate the chess board, that dude would get all the girls. The dilemma for women is that those traits rarely, if ever, coincide in the same bloke, so women have to choose, and they often struggle between the bad boy and the stable provider. The conditions of the modern world seem to be increasingly pushing them into the fickle arms of former, and we are all worse off for it.
Anyway, its Saturday and I should have some fun. Nice chatting Rosie. Cheers!Replies: @Rosie
Damn right! But note the ruthless, psychopathic violence is only hot when it’s chivalrous, i.e. in the service of the protection of the weak. (Think Batman, James Bond…)
I’m not seeing this, and note that it is an empirical question, not a matter of personal opinion.
And he liked his women subservient. Bond's sadomasochistic sexual tastes were downplayed in the movies. Although it's still fairly obvious in the real Bond movies (the ones with Connery). But lots of women were turned on by that.
You do remember the infamous line in Casino Royale (the book, not the rubbish movie), that "the conquest of her body ... would each time have the sweet tang of rape."Replies: @Rosie
Is this where someone inserts the hamster wheel gif?
James Bond may not be the best example. I can’t recall Bond ever caring much about the weak. He cared a lot about the ruling class though.
And he liked his women subservient. Bond’s sadomasochistic sexual tastes were downplayed in the movies. Although it’s still fairly obvious in the real Bond movies (the ones with Connery). But lots of women were turned on by that.
You do remember the infamous line in Casino Royale (the book, not the rubbish movie), that “the conquest of her body … would each time have the sweet tang of rape.”
Anyway, I personally have a fascination with a certain kind of psychopath. I find them, on the one hand, repugnant and totally alien. On the other hand, if only villains are willing and able to be violent and ruthless, where does that leave the rest of us? At the mercy of the villains, I suppose.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
Presumably in this thought experiment Carlsen is supposed to represent a better catch than the “nice guy”. But in this situation, you wouldn’t just be promoting Carlsen’s traits, but also the underhandedness, deception, cuckoldry traits of the sister who would be inclined to behave this way.
Also, in the traditional view of marriage, a woman is “given away” by her father or other male relation to her husband and joins the husband’s family. So if she is already married, a brother is not supposed to have responsibility and authority over his sister.
Traditionally, men are allowed to assert their natural sovereignty in reaction to adultery, and this is the origin of the legal notion of “crime of passion”, in which men are absolved of homicidal crimes or receive much more lenient charges for killing spouses and their lovers in the event of adultery.
Also, in the traditional view of marriage, a woman is "given away" by her father or other male relation to her husband and joins the husband's family. So if she is already married, a brother is not supposed to have responsibility and authority over his sister.
Traditionally, men are allowed to assert their natural sovereignty in reaction to adultery, and this is the origin of the legal notion of "crime of passion", in which men are absolved of homicidal crimes or receive much more lenient charges for killing spouses and their lovers in the event of adultery.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
It may be the origin, but they are very different. Any premeditation and you’re guilty of murder. It’s really just a specific instance of a more general rule.
The question is an ethical one. Male authority has nothing to do with it.
At any rate, I was describing traditional legal norms, not contemporary debased ones. Traditionally, there was much less focus on premeditation in the event of killing due to adultery. Adultery was considered egregious enough that even if premeditation was involved it was considered excusable. And in societies with jury trials, juries could acquit men who kill in those situations, even with premeditation.Then why does your thought experiment posit one's sister, rather than a random woman?Replies: @Rosie
And he liked his women subservient. Bond's sadomasochistic sexual tastes were downplayed in the movies. Although it's still fairly obvious in the real Bond movies (the ones with Connery). But lots of women were turned on by that.
You do remember the infamous line in Casino Royale (the book, not the rubbish movie), that "the conquest of her body ... would each time have the sweet tang of rape."Replies: @Rosie
I see.
Anyway, I personally have a fascination with a certain kind of psychopath. I find them, on the one hand, repugnant and totally alien. On the other hand, if only villains are willing and able to be violent and ruthless, where does that leave the rest of us? At the mercy of the villains, I suppose.
The post-war period also saw the rise of moral relativism. Instead of good guys and bad guys we started to believe there were just bad guys and worse guys.
It had an effect on politics as well. People don't vote for the candidate they like and admire, they vote for the candidate or party they hate least.
The idea of the sexy bad boy also seems to have been a product of the post-war period. And the idea of the hero who is dangerous and sexy (such as Bond). Maybe women started to feel that there weren't any sexy good boys or non-dangerous heroes any more. So the new-style anti-heroes appealed to both men and women, for different reasons. Both men and women stopped believing in actual heroes.
Anyway, I personally have a fascination with a certain kind of psychopath. I find them, on the one hand, repugnant and totally alien. On the other hand, if only villains are willing and able to be violent and ruthless, where does that leave the rest of us? At the mercy of the villains, I suppose.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
I think most of us do. Psychopaths do things that others only fantasise about. They do things that should be left in the world of fantasy, but there is a fascination to people who dare to do such things in reality. It’s the fascination we have for creatures like sharks and cobras.
That’s been the theme of a lot of western, and especially American, pop culture for the past half century. The idea that we need monsters like Dirty Harry to save us from worse monsters. I guess Bond fits into that category. In fact you could argue that it was a concept introduced into pop culture by Ian Fleming and Mickey Spillane. And they both sold hundreds of millions of books so it was an idea that the West was ready to embrace. Perhaps it was a reaction to the horrors of World War 2. Old-fashioned chivalrous heroes went out of fashion. How could an old-fashioned hero cope with someone like Hitler?
The post-war period also saw the rise of moral relativism. Instead of good guys and bad guys we started to believe there were just bad guys and worse guys.
It had an effect on politics as well. People don’t vote for the candidate they like and admire, they vote for the candidate or party they hate least.
The idea of the sexy bad boy also seems to have been a product of the post-war period. And the idea of the hero who is dangerous and sexy (such as Bond). Maybe women started to feel that there weren’t any sexy good boys or non-dangerous heroes any more. So the new-style anti-heroes appealed to both men and women, for different reasons. Both men and women stopped believing in actual heroes.
Women want having sex to “mean something.” They want having sex to contribute to world peace; think Sabine Women or Ann Dunham and the thousands like her. They want having sex to have a “pay-off” of status, wealth, economic security, emotional security, etc.
Men just want to have sex.
Men also want sex to mean something as well. As in a story to tell their buddies, or to replay in their minds how the event unfolded in their twilight years, or to compare their experiences with their fellow PUA’s, or to use it as way to obtain wealth, status, and power.
I’m not sure what you mean here.
At any rate, I was describing traditional legal norms, not contemporary debased ones. Traditionally, there was much less focus on premeditation in the event of killing due to adultery. Adultery was considered egregious enough that even if premeditation was involved it was considered excusable. And in societies with jury trials, juries could acquit men who kill in those situations, even with premeditation.
Then why does your thought experiment posit one’s sister, rather than a random woman?
At any rate, I was describing traditional legal norms, not contemporary debased ones. Traditionally, there was much less focus on premeditation in the event of killing due to adultery. Adultery was considered egregious enough that even if premeditation was involved it was considered excusable. And in societies with jury trials, juries could acquit men who kill in those situations, even with premeditation.Then why does your thought experiment posit one's sister, rather than a random woman?Replies: @Rosie
Because of the genetic interest in a sister’s offspring.
In that case, I already gave the answer:
1) You wouldn’t just be promoting Carlsen’s traits, but also the underhandedness, deception, cuckoldry traits of the sister who would be inclined to behave this way.
2) Sisters are "given away" and join another man's family and patriline.Replies: @Rosie
So then it’s not just an “ethical question” like you said. The woman being one’s sister is critical to your scenario.
In that case, I already gave the answer:
1) You wouldn’t just be promoting Carlsen’s traits, but also the underhandedness, deception, cuckoldry traits of the sister who would be inclined to behave this way.
2) Sisters are “given away” and join another man’s family and patriline.
And there is a very serious dilemma, potentially with the fate of civilization depending on mem being able to set aside their own, narrow genetic interests as individuals in favor of the good of the whole race.
Do me care about eugenics only insofar as they can use it to justify controlling women, or do they sincerely care about it enough to make sacrifices themselves?Lol, no. Daughters are entitled to an equal share in an intestate's estate.
Patrilinealism is an abject failure, totally unworkable. It requires a bride price to induce parents to raise daughters for someone else's family, and effectively reduces women to commodities, so no, GFY.
It does track similarly, but taken in isolation, it’s difficult to think of a more literally “eugenic” question than this one.
In that case, I already gave the answer:
1) You wouldn’t just be promoting Carlsen’s traits, but also the underhandedness, deception, cuckoldry traits of the sister who would be inclined to behave this way.
2) Sisters are "given away" and join another man's family and patriline.Replies: @Rosie
Yes, it is an ethical question. The nature of the dilemma is easier to see when one has a genetic interest in the offspring, but it is there either way.
And there is a very serious dilemma, potentially with the fate of civilization depending on mem being able to set aside their own, narrow genetic interests as individuals in favor of the good of the whole race.
Do me care about eugenics only insofar as they can use it to justify controlling women, or do they sincerely care about it enough to make sacrifices themselves?
Lol, no. Daughters are entitled to an equal share in an intestate’s estate.
Patrilinealism is an abject failure, totally unworkable. It requires a bride price to induce parents to raise daughters for someone else’s family, and effectively reduces women to commodities, so no, GFY.
Class correlates fairly weakly with fertility. The big two are educational attainment especially among women (inversely, and much more than IQ or income), and positively with religiosity.
IOW, how do the fertility rates of women with the same educational attainment and the same degree of religiosity compare?
I also wonder how age at first marriage affects fertility within an educational bracket. I would assume that women with no marriage prospects would be more likely to pursue higher degrees. Therefore, the higher educational brackets are already disproportionately populated by women having difficulty in the marriage market. That's probably not true for the vast majority, but enough to explain at least part of the inverse fertility correlation.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
How do you sort out the extent to which more education reduces religiosity, which reduces fertility?
IOW, how do the fertility rates of women with the same educational attainment and the same degree of religiosity compare?
I also wonder how age at first marriage affects fertility within an educational bracket. I would assume that women with no marriage prospects would be more likely to pursue higher degrees. Therefore, the higher educational brackets are already disproportionately populated by women having difficulty in the marriage market. That’s probably not true for the vast majority, but enough to explain at least part of the inverse fertility correlation.
But note the ruthless, psychopathic violence is only hot when it’s chivalrous, i.e. in the service of the protection of the weak.
Is this where someone inserts the hamster wheel gif?
Also, in the traditional view of marriage, a woman is "given away" by her father or other male relation to her husband and joins the husband's family. So if she is already married, a brother is not supposed to have responsibility and authority over his sister.
Traditionally, men are allowed to assert their natural sovereignty in reaction to adultery, and this is the origin of the legal notion of "crime of passion", in which men are absolved of homicidal crimes or receive much more lenient charges for killing spouses and their lovers in the event of adultery.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
Cuckolding a man is the most vile thing that can be done to him. Instead of hoodwinking a guy who would care (and who could provide for and love a child that is actually his own), why not just marry an omega male who’d be happy to have his wife inseminated by Hercules? There are some men like that who exist.
It is interesting how some of their habits were analogous to how they raised and bred their horses.
Peace.
Anyway, I personally have a fascination with a certain kind of psychopath. I find them, on the one hand, repugnant and totally alien. On the other hand, if only villains are willing and able to be violent and ruthless, where does that leave the rest of us? At the mercy of the villains, I suppose.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
There are people in this very UR commentariat community who are quite capable of violence and ruthlessness, when necessary, who are not psychopathic. You get into spats with one of them from time to time!
Of course psychopaths, having no empathy, always think that their use of violence is justified. They will even try to claim they are acting in self-defence. We have people right here on UR who think Hitler was just acting in self-defence.
Psychopathy is pretty common among politicians and political activists.Replies: @Talha, @Mr. Rational
IOW, how do the fertility rates of women with the same educational attainment and the same degree of religiosity compare?
I also wonder how age at first marriage affects fertility within an educational bracket. I would assume that women with no marriage prospects would be more likely to pursue higher degrees. Therefore, the higher educational brackets are already disproportionately populated by women having difficulty in the marriage market. That's probably not true for the vast majority, but enough to explain at least part of the inverse fertility correlation.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Good questions, thanks. We’ve looked at the multivariate correlation to fertility between educational attainment and intelligence, and it’s the former that inversely correlates with fertility much more than the latter. Not sure about religiosity, though. On it!
Try to hold it in the road, okay?
Isn’t thinking it’s OK to resort to violence and ruthlessness to achieve your ends pretty much a textbook definition of psychopathy? Whether the aim is to achieve personal ends or political ends doesn’t make much difference. For such people personal ends and political ends are pretty much the same thing.
Of course psychopaths, having no empathy, always think that their use of violence is justified. They will even try to claim they are acting in self-defence. We have people right here on UR who think Hitler was just acting in self-defence.
Psychopathy is pretty common among politicians and political activists.
Peace.
Interestingly, Prof. Robert Hoyland pointed out (in his work “Arabia and the Arabs”) that this was a practice among some of the pre-Islamic Arabs. Some of the men from lowly tribes would have their wife “visit” a man of a high tribe or would invite him over and leave the tent for a few days. Then they would raise this child as their own. In these cases (it wasn’t widespread, but it did occur) the impression that he was their son and the carrier of the patrilineal line was more important than the fact that he wasn’t.
It is interesting how some of their habits were analogous to how they raised and bred their horses.
Peace.
Of course psychopaths, having no empathy, always think that their use of violence is justified. They will even try to claim they are acting in self-defence. We have people right here on UR who think Hitler was just acting in self-defence.
Psychopathy is pretty common among politicians and political activists.Replies: @Talha, @Mr. Rational
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.” – Chapterhouse: Dune
Peace.
Of course psychopaths, having no empathy, always think that their use of violence is justified. They will even try to claim they are acting in self-defence. We have people right here on UR who think Hitler was just acting in self-defence.
Psychopathy is pretty common among politicians and political activists.Replies: @Talha, @Mr. Rational
Big Jew declared war on Germany in 1933.