Guardian: On the Genetic Superiority of Women
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
From The Guardian:
The Better Half by Sharon Moalem review – on the genetic superiority of women
Women live longer than men. We know Covid-19 is killing more men than women. This book is an antidote to the myth of the ‘weaker sex’
Gina Rippon, Fri 10 Apr 2020
Let’s hear it for the female of the species and (more guardedly) for her second X-chromosome! Female superiority in colour vision, immune response, longevity, even basic survival from birth to death are illustrated in Sharon Moalem’s The Better Half. After decades, if not centuries, of bad press for women and their vulnerable biology, this book argues that in fact “almost everything that is biologically difficult to do in life … is done better by females”.
Notwithstanding his first name, Sharon Moalem is a man. He is an accomplished guy, but his Wikipedia page is written in a curiously boastful tone better suited to a college application.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Moalem
Alan Jay Loewe, too, had a couple of things to say, on the same subject, though somewhat more tangentially than Irving Berlin.
He had changed very little since the 1964 film version, but what struck me (seeing him live on stage) was how he practically oozed confidence, charm and that smug sense of superiority, traits that are so central to the role of Henry Higgins.
Rex Harrison was the perfect embodiment of a bygone attitude men had about women, one that only occasionally pops up in our culture now.
I suspect, like our fellow contributor Whiskey, that many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison's natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.Replies: @Corvinus, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Jack D, @Keypusher
I notice he offered no evidence or scholarly support of any kind to back up his ideas.
Journalism in the 21st century:
Make claim
Attach adjective like “genetic” or “X chromosomal” to it
>fact
Why would the blogger give such sophormoric crud a platform?
These sorts of messages--attempting to diminish or sometimes delegitimize men, particularly white men--have become much more common in the mainstream press/media these days. Steve could certainly have ignored this for another post on Corona-Chan.
But it's interesting to note them, especially when someone--shock! yet another Jewish guy--is pushing it up a notch to $$$ and status.
Why do you think The Guardian covers subjects like video games in such an obnoxious manner -- decrying things like "princess rescue" in Super Mario Bros.? Do you honestly think their soccer-mom audience knows or cares anything about video games? Not in the least. They know their readers do enjoy reading portrayals of their perceived social inferiors as racist, sexist, and overweight losers; it makes them feel better about their own shortcomings, which are many (childless, unhappy, lonely, unaccomplished). It's the same reason why trash television shows like Jerry Springer and Maury exist: mediocre people feel better when they are allowed to look down on their perceived inferiors.
In this case, despite decades of handouts and special treatment and being told they're the bestest ever, the needle hasn't moved too much in favor of female over male accomplishment. Males dominate basically everything of value, and they know it. They even had to get a man to write this book. Lol. Pick any field, anything that's important. The best movie directors and screen writers? Not even close. Men dominate. Nobel Prize winners? Most are men. Famous authority figures? Men. Wikipedia? One third of the English section was written by a single guy. Fighter pilots? 97+% are men. Famous scientists? Mostly guys. etc.
All that's readily observable and contradictory to what the true identitarian believers have been told since primary school: you are the bestest ever, held down only due to sexism. Then they are given an equal chance and find out that maybe the competition isn't really so privileged after all. Doubt arises. You then start seeing stories of women questioning the identitarian narrative: "Maybe I should just try to be a decent person instead of wrapping up my sense of self-worth in irrelevant things like how many women fighter pilots there are, something that totally doesn't affect me in the least? Like men count the number of RNs and demand more of those jobs or anything."
Guardian: Then who will buy our birdcage lining? No, no. This won't do. Bring in someone -- a guy who probably wrote his own Wikipedia entry -- to reassure the faithful.
It's akin to a religious revival after the faith starts to wane. And the faith has indeed been waning. In the last decade we've seen the humiliating failure of many different women promoted by the mainstream media -- Hollywood directors, CEOs, presidential candidates. That's ... inconvenient for the narrative. Women are supposed to equally interested in doing things that Guardian readers are tangentially interested in -- well, not actually interested in doing themselves, but rather hearing about other members of their group doing.It's an exercise in taking things out of context to please upper-middle class wine aunts. Ignore all that stuff about women suffering injuries at much higher rates and requiring much greater healthcare services, including mental health, on average. Your eyes are lying. Wahmen tuff. Here, let this guy mansplain it to you in a way that makes you feel smart and totally secure in your position in middle-management.Replies: @Kim
It’s late. Alan Jay Lerner.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17996697-the-privileged-sex
Note the author.
It’s laughable that women are so massively insecure that every single article comparing the sexes must be skewed towards making them feel like they win, or, if that cannot be managed, that its at least a draw.
Not insecure, narcissistic, which is far worse.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Women are better at figuring out people.
Women are better at cultivating relationships.
Men are better at figuring out things, and making productive improvements.
Men are better at fighting and defense.
Men are massive better at getting women pregnant.
It's almost like men and women are ... complimentary.
We *fit together* so well, so joyously.
If you notice people trying to cultivate nonsense grievances, trying to discourage women and men from their traditional roles, their complementarity, trying to keep white men and women from getting together and making babies ... maybe those people are not your friends?Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Ancient Briton
OFF TOPIC:
I thought “gender” was supposed to be a social construct and human genetics is strictly for Nazis.
In a couple of weeks, *another* Day One. And so on.
It's always Day One with these people.
The time to the most recent common female common ancestor of all humans is double that to the most recent common male ancestor. Most men fail at getting their genes very far, so they cannot play safe. Women are like the superior player of a game who can afford to play the percentages with a balanced strategy. Hence, women are passive.
Sort of. Okay, not really.Replies: @fish
It’s incontrovertible.
“the John von Neumann Professor”
That sounds like a pretty good job.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FtNWzlfEQgY
RIP.
John Horton Conway, a group theorist, was a very big deal, but didn’t figure much in the popular imagination after the 1970s.
When I was a math major in the 1970s, he was probably the best known living mathematician of his generation to undergrad math majors, but in later decades, John Nash, whom the movie A Beautiful Mind was about, and Andrew Wiles, who solved Fermat’s centuries-old last theorem, figured more in the popular imagination. That is, to the extent that the public thinks about mathematicians at all.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-conways-life-in-games-20150828/Perhaps I should pull my copy of Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays off the shelf and spend some time with it.
Not good. Who will be next? Ronald Graham?...Replies: @adreadline
I’m reminded of the Samuel Johnson quote: “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.”
Men are superior to women:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/g1bn8w/men_are_superior_to_women/
If all a woman does in life is raise children, she’s a success; if all a man does is raise children, he’s a loser.
Wrong. Women’s desire to get pregnant exceeds men’s desire to impregnate them. No need for exotic evolutionary speculations.
Statistically less than half of men who have existed have living descendants, which implies that either they mysteriously weren’t interested in sexual activity, or more likely fertile women weren’t available to them for any number of reasons. The other poster’s analysis of how this reflects risk-taking strategy therefore has merit.Replies: @gabriel alberton, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Michael S
That's very funny. Women are pretty fussy about who impregnates them.
For men, it's the journey not the destination.
Rural incel detected. Sad.
https://i.imgur.com/idZ4Ry4.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_MoalemReplies: @IHTG, @Shan'neqious Washington, @Oscar Peterson, @jbwilson24
Sharon is a unisex name in Hebrew.
For the vast majority of evolutionary history pregnancy and sex weren’t easily separated. So your position implies that women just wanted sex more than men were willing to give it to them.
Statistically less than half of men who have existed have living descendants, which implies that either they mysteriously weren’t interested in sexual activity, or more likely fertile women weren’t available to them for any number of reasons. The other poster’s analysis of how this reflects risk-taking strategy therefore has merit.
Oh, men were interested in sex - and they scratched that itch via coitus interruptus, prostitutes, and good old fashioned self-love. A man can fully enjoy all his bodily functions whilst holed up in a closet by himself; women, not so much.
Physical sex drive, emotional longing for children, and selectiveness in partners are all different and largely unrelated phenomena. Women having sex with fewer men does not mean they are having less sex on average - in fact, notwithstanding homosexuality it's a statistical certainty that they are the same. Equating women's tendency to seek out the top alpha (and do anything to get him in bed) with women being naturally pure and chaste is, literally, the blue pill.
Women are not passive, they just have very different strategies from men that tend to appear very subtle to us, but are not actually that subtle to other women, which is why intrasexual competition plays out as visible "cattiness".Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Moral Stone
EFT
I think the answer that leftists would give you is that intellectual coherence, objective measurement of things, dna analysis, all the natural science (plus math), experiments etc. are means the white cis and heterosexual patriarchy and must therefore be disbanded, because they oppress minorities.
“It’s laughable that women are so massively insecure that every single article comparing the sexes must be skewed towards making them feel like they win, or, if that cannot be managed, that its at least a draw.”
Not insecure, narcissistic, which is far worse.
In 1981, my parents took me and my siblings to see an aging Rex Harrison perform in a touring production of MFL at the Fisher Theater in Detroit.
He had changed very little since the 1964 film version, but what struck me (seeing him live on stage) was how he practically oozed confidence, charm and that smug sense of superiority, traits that are so central to the role of Henry Higgins.
Rex Harrison was the perfect embodiment of a bygone attitude men had about women, one that only occasionally pops up in our culture now.
I suspect, like our fellow contributor Whiskey, that many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison’s natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.
Assuming that men in general today lack those qualities.Replies: @fish
The guy was a building handyman in an expensive NYC apartment building, and one day he was doing routine maintenance in one of the units when he injured himself badly with a power tool, severing an artery and spraying blood all over the place.
Suddenly Rex Harrison appeared from another room in a dressing gown (turns out it was his place). Rex exclaimed "My dear man!" and immediately took control of the situation, administering expert emergency first aid and coordinating ambulance and police support etc.
When my friend got home from the hospital, he told us all -- "Guess who saved my life! Doctor Fucking Doolittle! Maybe he really is a doctor..."
Higgins only PRETENDS to be unflappable. When Eliza leaves him, he is anything but detached.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/theater/my-fair-lady-new-haven-rex-harrison-julie-andrews.html
“Social construction of gender” was the “proven” reality of the day before yesterday. Today is Day One, though, so all is forgotten.
In a couple of weeks, *another* Day One. And so on.
It’s always Day One with these people.
I once worked in a steel mill. I could not even imagine a woman working there. One might say that they could work in the front office, but that would be maybe 4 or 5 positions tops. The company could not exist without men.
Women are superior? This is great news! It means we can stop giving them preferential treatment in admission to professions where they’re underrepresented, such as naval aviator.
“Women’s desire to get pregnant exceeds men’s desire to impregnate them.”
That’s very funny. Women are pretty fussy about who impregnates them.
I think it was P. J. O’Rourke who said that women live longer than men; that’s our revenge.
An elaborate and ineffective pickup line. Anecdotal and I can’t remember the details, but the last time I saw a “women are superior” newspaper fluff piece, commenters pointed out that the writer had just been dumped.
>superior color vision
Wow, just wow.
Uh … you may have noticed, that focus of men’s “desire” in the reproductive process is generally not way downrange at “pregnancy”.
For men, it’s the journey not the destination.
Because this is the world we live in.
These sorts of messages–attempting to diminish or sometimes delegitimize men, particularly white men–have become much more common in the mainstream press/media these days. Steve could certainly have ignored this for another post on Corona-Chan.
But it’s interesting to note them, especially when someone–shock! yet another Jewish guy–is pushing it up a notch to $$$ and status.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/g1bn8w/men_are_superior_to_women/Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
Need to sign in to see it, as reddit deems it higher offensive.
Women are massively better at getting pregnant, bearing and nursing and caring for children.
Women are better at figuring out people.
Women are better at cultivating relationships.
Men are better at figuring out things, and making productive improvements.
Men are better at fighting and defense.
Men are massive better at getting women pregnant.
It’s almost like men and women are … complimentary.
We *fit together* so well, so joyously.
If you notice people trying to cultivate nonsense grievances, trying to discourage women and men from their traditional roles, their complementarity, trying to keep white men and women from getting together and making babies … maybe those people are not your friends?
All this “women are superior” malarkey is necessary to buck them up so they will join the work force instead of staying home. This essentially doubled the size of the workforce, and enabled Big Corp to reduce wages.
A win for capitalism!
But then, it turns out that women are different from and inferior to men in a wide variety of respects. If all you need to do is fill an office in the off-chance that a body might be needed, that’s one thing. But if original work, or mentally difficult work is needed, and you’ve got mostly women, you’re screwed.
So what’s a capitalist to do?
Hire foreign men! It turns out that, in spite of the fact that most computer science degree holders from India are women, American companies hire Indian men by at least three to one. There is work to be done, after all.
Yeah, but I don’t have to pass something the size of a small watermelon through an orifice not much bigger than the size of my sphincter, so they can have a few extra years.
So basically: “In the poker game of life, women are the rake.”
Sort of. Okay, not really.
I dig “the blogger”: has a pleasingly robo-autistic ring to it. Very socially distant.
What is this hate speech linking XX chromosomes to the female gender? Don’t they know that genetics doesn’t matter? It’s all about self identity.
https://i.imgur.com/idZ4Ry4.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_MoalemReplies: @IHTG, @Shan'neqious Washington, @Oscar Peterson, @jbwilson24
Judging from his name and appearance, he is most likely of Sephardic, probably Syrian Jewish descent. Sharon is a unisex Hebrew name, probably more commonly given to males. Agree with you on the wikipedo hagiography.
Statistically less than half of men who have existed have living descendants, which implies that either they mysteriously weren’t interested in sexual activity, or more likely fertile women weren’t available to them for any number of reasons. The other poster’s analysis of how this reflects risk-taking strategy therefore has merit.Replies: @gabriel alberton, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Michael S
Indeed, there seems to be evidence there have been multiple bottlenecks throughout the last few hundred thousand years when it comes to male lineages, like this Genome Research paper suggested.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25770088/
Some media outlets, hearing what they want to hear, exaggerate the (valid) conclusions.
But we should be aware Mr. Mateen himself led a study that came to different conclusions and has fathered about 27 children (all male, of course) despite being not that interested in women (at least, not as much as they’re interested in him).
What’s interesting is that it’s OK to say that women are superior to men, but that you can get into trouble for saying that men and women are different.
If this is true it would be evidence of notably higher selection pressures on women throughout history.
Sort of. Okay, not really.Replies: @fish
Still…..that’s a pretty good saying!
That’s like saying a man eats because he desires defecation.
Women are better at figuring out people.
Women are better at cultivating relationships.
Men are better at figuring out things, and making productive improvements.
Men are better at fighting and defense.
Men are massive better at getting women pregnant.
It's almost like men and women are ... complimentary.
We *fit together* so well, so joyously.
If you notice people trying to cultivate nonsense grievances, trying to discourage women and men from their traditional roles, their complementarity, trying to keep white men and women from getting together and making babies ... maybe those people are not your friends?Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Ancient Briton
That’s liberalism in a nutshell – cultivating resentment and blaming someone else for one’s group’s differences, inabilities and failures.
More of the same sort of thing from Forbes. Women love hearing this stuff.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/?fbclid=IwAR1NEtVy5ybW41IVnvHA0HpvtW60sHKK4xG0OEVtZDMtn3Y6dmKPI7sJJic#255430b53dec
It's a strain, actually.
Like opening a jar of pickles, lol
This is very old news. Ova are more precious than sperm.
Statistically less than half of men who have existed have living descendants, which implies that either they mysteriously weren’t interested in sexual activity, or more likely fertile women weren’t available to them for any number of reasons. The other poster’s analysis of how this reflects risk-taking strategy therefore has merit.Replies: @gabriel alberton, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Michael S
“Statistically less than half of men who have existed have living descendants, which implies that either they mysteriously weren’t interested in sexual activity, or more likely fertile women weren’t available to them for any number of reasons.”
Oh, men were interested in sex – and they scratched that itch via coitus interruptus, prostitutes, and good old fashioned self-love. A man can fully enjoy all his bodily functions whilst holed up in a closet by himself; women, not so much.
“That’s like saying a man eats because he desires defecation.”
LOL. Try saying that to a woman. For bonus points, say it to your mom.
For extra mega fun, if you have children, say it to your wife.
A variation of that is “why do Jewish men die before their wives? Because they want to.”
This isn’t even new. Not in any regard, including (((author))). The previous version had a better patina of science, too. Let’s briefly review the bio of distinguished Englishman Ashley Montagu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu
Ruth Benedict was of course one of the students of (((Franz Boas))) and also Margaret Mead’s girlfriend. Franz did great damage to the actual science of anthropology and Margaret wrote a popular romance novel called “Coming of age in Samoa” that all the smart set pretended was “science”…further damaging the actual science of anthropology. But there are no conspiracies…
Among other things that book proves that mountains do not exist, because there’s no sufficiently clear demarcation between “plains” and “hills” and “mountain”.
Every single time? Well, not every single time. But more than random chance. Far, far more than random chance.
Attach adjective like "genetic" or "X chromosomal" to it
>factReplies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Admittedly, this writing style, the tone, of a pseudo-triumphalism, where “Everyone knows this is this because of what has occurred, so case is closed” is more of a British thing. The Brits tend to do this a whole bunch a lot in their news articles, books, etc when discussing certain topics. Rather than present their evidence per se which actually might bolster their claims, they simply assert it. Not referring to scholarly tomes such as Nature, or The Lancet, obviously.
Specifically referring to more at the popular culture level, or at a basic everyday middlebrow reporting level, as found often in the Economist or The Spectator.
It’s like, everyone’s in the queue, waiting for the person in charge to state what’s what. Once it’s stated, well, there’s nothing more to be said, is there now?
Quite different of course for the US, where if one does not present any type of facts to bolster one’s statement, well, then, why the hell should that person’s word be taken at face value?
Apparently the Brits do take a lot at face value. Questioning one’s betters and all that simply isn’t their type of thing. Of course, they did tend to take the unpleasantness goings on in Rotterdam for near well a decade, a la “nothing to see here folks, things are fine, and that’s that.”
Ironically it took a woman to get to the bottom of the mystery there.
Funny hearing idiot reporters mention the x chromosome when they obviously don’t understand the consequences for intelligence pseudo-dominance has. One of which is the much greater variability in intelligence, which means most of the really top-notch minds that are born are going to be male. If you are curious on a detailed account of the affects of sex-linked inheritance and intelligence, please download and read this FREE ebook on the topic:
https://atavisionary.com/free-book-smart-and-sexy-the-evolutionary-origins-and-biological-underpinnings-of-cognitive-differences-between-the-sexes/
Direct link:
https://atavisionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Smart-and-Sexy-Roderick-Kaine-2016-Arktos.pdf
Given that we’re so inferior, I think we deserve a lot of credit for oppressing women all the time. Clearly, we’ve done a lot with our meager talents, and they’ve squandered theirs.
Women are genetically the safe bet, because you a population needs most of them to survive to grow. Men are the risky, but highly rewarded bet. Both more likely to fail spectacularly or win spectacularly.
When I was in college, ‘way back in the misty past, girls (oops, I mean “women”) loved to quip, “A man is nothing more than a Dispo Pipet.”
Statistically less than half of men who have existed have living descendants, which implies that either they mysteriously weren’t interested in sexual activity, or more likely fertile women weren’t available to them for any number of reasons. The other poster’s analysis of how this reflects risk-taking strategy therefore has merit.Replies: @gabriel alberton, @Je Suis Omar Mateen, @Michael S
That doesn’t demonstrate what you think it does. Unless you’ve ever had a powerful craving for steak and decided to settle for a McDonald’s hamburger instead.
Physical sex drive, emotional longing for children, and selectiveness in partners are all different and largely unrelated phenomena. Women having sex with fewer men does not mean they are having less sex on average – in fact, notwithstanding homosexuality it’s a statistical certainty that they are the same. Equating women’s tendency to seek out the top alpha (and do anything to get him in bed) with women being naturally pure and chaste is, literally, the blue pill.
Women are not passive, they just have very different strategies from men that tend to appear very subtle to us, but are not actually that subtle to other women, which is why intrasexual competition plays out as visible “cattiness”.
Leaving aside the all-too-common “journalistic” abuse of the term myth to mean “fallacy” or “misconception”, this is old, old news. It was noted after the atomic bombings that women were more likely to survive them than were men, though obviously this effect would be exaggerated by the healthiest men serving at the front.
Girls may have out-survived boys there. This is certainly true about the first year of life. Old news.
Boys have always been more expendible.
Not insecure, narcissistic, which is far worse.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
It took a woman to say that.
Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly the same, but women are better.
Feminism has always been, at its heart, an attack on women as they are.
I always thought it was just a power grab that feminists dressed up as the right to equal rights for women. Which right there is problematic, as they say nowadays, because the one thing men and women are not is equal.
I've been the only female in otherwise all-male groups at work and socializing and I've been one woman in a group of women at work and socializing. I've been treated with far more respect and acceptance from groups of men than from groups of women, regardless of age, education and class. As you all know by now, I don't use feminine wiles to score points, I don't passively agree with you in a stereotypically feminine way and I don't hesitate to disagree with you.
The innate malice most women reflexively exhibit toward any woman who doesn't fall into lockstep with them makes me very angry. I can't begin to imagine how you all feel.
(I do have several women friends, all of whom are conservative and who get along just fine with men.)Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Reg Cæsar, @Meretricious
1. There are no significant differences between men and women- none.
2. Women are superior to men in every possible way.
3. Women must strive to be identical to men in every possible way.Replies: @Joseph Doaks
The current cultural zeitgeist encourages women/girls/females, insisting on all opportunities for them, to be the same as men, even so far as preferential discrimination against men to ensure such. While at the same time claiming (and organizing the culture) that men, in reality, are defective women, and therefore should be more like women.
That the glaring contradiction is ignored says much about the culture.Replies: @anon
He had changed very little since the 1964 film version, but what struck me (seeing him live on stage) was how he practically oozed confidence, charm and that smug sense of superiority, traits that are so central to the role of Henry Higgins.
Rex Harrison was the perfect embodiment of a bygone attitude men had about women, one that only occasionally pops up in our culture now.
I suspect, like our fellow contributor Whiskey, that many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison's natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.Replies: @Corvinus, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Jack D, @Keypusher
“many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison’s natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.”
Assuming that men in general today lack those qualities.
Women used to have shorter life expectancies than men, due to deaths in pregnancy and childbirth. But then a bunch of scientists – virtually all of them men – went and developed technologies that cut maternal death rates. So men are responsible for the fact that women live longer.
Aren’t most of these advantages – to borrow a phrase – social constructs?
How much of female superiority in overall longevity and “basic survival from birth to death” is a product of the social roles into which women are shepherded? I’m thinking in the first place of comparisons of frequency of men and women respectively filling the most dangerous occupations, and also of the social premium put on women (which feminists caterwaul against) where, for instance, it is seen as a gentleman’s duty to escort a woman to safety (i.e. to her home, to her car etc.)?
And isn’t there a trade off between superior color vision which would be useful in gathering berries or tubers on the one hand and acuity in perceiving detail and moving objects which would be more useful in hunting or inter-tribal warfare on the other?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120903221050.htm
That seems to be a wash, at best, and one that is complimentary based upon the division of labor between the sexes in early hunter-gatherer societies.
It would also seem that a superior immune response might have something to do with necessity as the consequence of being the receptive partner in sexual relations, or perhaps lower innate immune response being a fitness test for males.
All well and good until you need a pickle jar opened.
https://i.imgur.com/idZ4Ry4.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_MoalemReplies: @IHTG, @Shan'neqious Washington, @Oscar Peterson, @jbwilson24
So I guess we pronounce it as in “Ariel Sharon.”
He had changed very little since the 1964 film version, but what struck me (seeing him live on stage) was how he practically oozed confidence, charm and that smug sense of superiority, traits that are so central to the role of Henry Higgins.
Rex Harrison was the perfect embodiment of a bygone attitude men had about women, one that only occasionally pops up in our culture now.
I suspect, like our fellow contributor Whiskey, that many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison's natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.Replies: @Corvinus, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Jack D, @Keypusher
As a strange little aside, Rex Harrison once saved the life of a friend of mine.
The guy was a building handyman in an expensive NYC apartment building, and one day he was doing routine maintenance in one of the units when he injured himself badly with a power tool, severing an artery and spraying blood all over the place.
Suddenly Rex Harrison appeared from another room in a dressing gown (turns out it was his place). Rex exclaimed “My dear man!” and immediately took control of the situation, administering expert emergency first aid and coordinating ambulance and police support etc.
When my friend got home from the hospital, he told us all — “Guess who saved my life! Doctor Fucking Doolittle! Maybe he really is a doctor…”
So Sharon Moalem is a medical “entrepreneur” who has a good understanding of how to sell authoritative-sounding schlock to the public. Well, that’s nice. This certainly sounds like it could be another NYT best-seller for the good doctor given the impact that COVID-19 is making. Timing is everything!
The book seems to consist largely of taking random characteristics that don’t seem to have much application in the real world–like being able to detect 100 million shades of color vs only 1 million–and cobbling them together into a faux-controversial case that makes some shekels for him and enhances his reputation for…something. The book looks to be very much of the breathless “Everything you thought about X is wrong!” model so beloved of our ludicrous media.
Apparently (from the Guardian article), the book suggests some sort of female superiority in ultra-marathoning. Well, maybe they’ve finally found a sport that women are better in. But I remember the predictions in the 1980s that women were going at some point to become faster than men in conventional long-distance races like the 10K. This was because the East Germans and Soviet women seemed to be closing the gap with men’s times. Now, of course, we know that steroids were the reason, and no one thinks women are ever going to run the 10K faster than men.
It will be interesting to see if the gender differential in COVID-19 mortality becomes the basis for some sort of feminist triumphalism. As I’ve noted before, there is something almost comical in considering that if the gender fatality rates for this virus were reversed, the usual complaints about how the patriarchal medical establishment doesn’t care about women’s medical needs would be in full roar.
Conway also participated in Numberphile videos and podcasts. So he could get down with the masses, too, at least that segment drawn to entertaining mathematical explanations.
Numberphile is the neatest thing to come out of Nottingham since Robin Hood. Here are their tributes to their late colleague, including one from fellow Liverpudlian Tony Padilla:
https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/john-conway-tribute
Never mind 4-D chess; try Conway checkers, or soldiers:
That’s cool….just don’t decide you need Dispo Pipet’s income after the fact when you decide you don’t want to schlep to the office any longer and think learning to bake cookies and do art projects with Dispo Pipet’s progeny sounds just swell!
Assuming that men in general today lack those qualities.Replies: @fish
…and yet here you are.
Exactly, I'm not lacking those qualities. It took bravery on your part to acknowledge it.
Women are better at figuring out people.
Women are better at cultivating relationships.
Men are better at figuring out things, and making productive improvements.
Men are better at fighting and defense.
Men are massive better at getting women pregnant.
It's almost like men and women are ... complimentary.
We *fit together* so well, so joyously.
If you notice people trying to cultivate nonsense grievances, trying to discourage women and men from their traditional roles, their complementarity, trying to keep white men and women from getting together and making babies ... maybe those people are not your friends?Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Ancient Briton
…complementary
Physical sex drive, emotional longing for children, and selectiveness in partners are all different and largely unrelated phenomena. Women having sex with fewer men does not mean they are having less sex on average - in fact, notwithstanding homosexuality it's a statistical certainty that they are the same. Equating women's tendency to seek out the top alpha (and do anything to get him in bed) with women being naturally pure and chaste is, literally, the blue pill.
Women are not passive, they just have very different strategies from men that tend to appear very subtle to us, but are not actually that subtle to other women, which is why intrasexual competition plays out as visible "cattiness".Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Moral Stone
Paul Newman is said to have remarked “why would I go out for hamburger when I have steak at home” when asked about whether he cheated on Joanne Woodward. I say sometimes you just really, really want a Double-Double.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned this quote from the article. I wonder why they don’t want to admit any about brain differences. It’s not like brain differences could explain disparities instead of oppression narratives, right?
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Male_and_female_brain_anatomy
I'm embarrassed that I missed it.
I wonder why they don’t want to admit any about brain differences.
Because it directly attacks the blank slate fundamental premise of feminism: that men and women are the same except for boobs / babies. Therefore any inequality in any area of life must be due to evil, patriarchal oppression rather than different innate abilities.
To be specific, if it is acknowledged that women as a group aren't as good at spatial visualization as men, then the fact that the majority of engineers are men is no longer a result of Sexism! and Patriarchy! but just a natural result of evolutionary differences.
That's heretical crimethink and must be suppressed. We have the irony of neurological research confirming what was common knowledge until the last 50-100 years, but we are prohibited from discussing it too much.
Lets not forget explosive ordinance disposal.
Why do many men die before their spouses??? Because they want to.
“…and yet here you are”
Exactly, I’m not lacking those qualities. It took bravery on your part to acknowledge it.
I really do believe some days Steve needs a laugh. I laughed with him today. In this instance such “sophomoric crud” has been elevatated to levity.
Physical sex drive, emotional longing for children, and selectiveness in partners are all different and largely unrelated phenomena. Women having sex with fewer men does not mean they are having less sex on average - in fact, notwithstanding homosexuality it's a statistical certainty that they are the same. Equating women's tendency to seek out the top alpha (and do anything to get him in bed) with women being naturally pure and chaste is, literally, the blue pill.
Women are not passive, they just have very different strategies from men that tend to appear very subtle to us, but are not actually that subtle to other women, which is why intrasexual competition plays out as visible "cattiness".Replies: @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Moral Stone
That 80% of women but only 40% of men (last I checked the genomics journals) have extant descendants strongly implies harem-style mating arrangements. My statement that many or most men didn’t have access to fertile women evolutionarily speaking is not at odds with this, and it appears we agree on this point, so I’m not sure what you think I don’t understand in my statement.
From the movie Rounders.
Until this century, that is. Now equal rights for women is Western Progressive dogma and we have learned that all traditional patriarchal societies throughout history were misguided, oppressive and evil.
He had changed very little since the 1964 film version, but what struck me (seeing him live on stage) was how he practically oozed confidence, charm and that smug sense of superiority, traits that are so central to the role of Henry Higgins.
Rex Harrison was the perfect embodiment of a bygone attitude men had about women, one that only occasionally pops up in our culture now.
I suspect, like our fellow contributor Whiskey, that many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison's natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.Replies: @Corvinus, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Jack D, @Keypusher
I don’t know whether you are referring to Harrison the man (who was married six times so many he was a little TOO detached from (or maybe ATtached to) women) or to the character he played (Henry Higgins).
Higgins only PRETENDS to be unflappable. When Eliza leaves him, he is anything but detached.
https://i.imgur.com/idZ4Ry4.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_MoalemReplies: @IHTG, @Shan'neqious Washington, @Oscar Peterson, @jbwilson24
“He is an accomplished guy, but his Wikipedia page is written in a curiously boastful tone better suited to a college application.”
Jewish ethnic networking helps with that. I’ve seen worse cases.
He looks interesting, but I’ve never been impressed by the intellectual firepower of people in the biological sciences. So few of them have even a cursory understanding of mathematics, logic, or statistics. Usually they scrape by with a dumbed down ‘statistics for biologists’ course, instead of learning stats and probability theory to a high level (e.g., measure theory).
Took a couple of grad courses at a major university with a well-regarded biological sciences program, and I was shocked at how little the PhD students knew about deductive or inductive inference, scientific methodology, etc.
Harem style mating arrangements are one way but not the only way that you achieve this result. If half of men have 2 wives (a very small harem I guess) and half have none, this works. If, a tribe is conquered and all of the men and all of the male children are slaughtered and the surviving females are impregnated by the conquerors, that works. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Reality is some combination of the above methods.
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/diodorus/alexander-sacks-persepolis/
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned this quote from the article.
I’m embarrassed that I missed it.
I wonder why they don’t want to admit any about brain differences.
Because it directly attacks the blank slate fundamental premise of feminism: that men and women are the same except for boobs / babies. Therefore any inequality in any area of life must be due to evil, patriarchal oppression rather than different innate abilities.
To be specific, if it is acknowledged that women as a group aren’t as good at spatial visualization as men, then the fact that the majority of engineers are men is no longer a result of Sexism! and Patriarchy! but just a natural result of evolutionary differences.
That’s heretical crimethink and must be suppressed. We have the irony of neurological research confirming what was common knowledge until the last 50-100 years, but we are prohibited from discussing it too much.
“Feminism has always been, at its heart, an attack on women as they are.”
I always thought it was just a power grab that feminists dressed up as the right to equal rights for women. Which right there is problematic, as they say nowadays, because the one thing men and women are not is equal.
I’ve been the only female in otherwise all-male groups at work and socializing and I’ve been one woman in a group of women at work and socializing. I’ve been treated with far more respect and acceptance from groups of men than from groups of women, regardless of age, education and class. As you all know by now, I don’t use feminine wiles to score points, I don’t passively agree with you in a stereotypically feminine way and I don’t hesitate to disagree with you.
The innate malice most women reflexively exhibit toward any woman who doesn’t fall into lockstep with them makes me very angry. I can’t begin to imagine how you all feel.
(I do have several women friends, all of whom are conservative and who get along just fine with men.)
Exactly the same thing, however, is to be observed among men, except that women regard all other women as their competitors, whereas men as a rule only have this feeling towards other men in the same profession. Have you, reader, ever been so imprudent as to praise an artist to another artist? Have you ever praised a politician to another politician of the same party? Have you ever praised an Egyptologist to another Egyptologist? If you have, it is a hundred to one that you will have produced an explosion of jealousy.
In the correspondence of Leibniz and Huygens there are a number of letters lamenting the supposed fact that Newton had become insane. 'Is it not sad,' they write to each other, 'that the incomparable genius of Mr. Newton should have become overclouded by the loss of reason?' And these two eminent men, in one letter after another, wept crocodile tears with obvious relish. As a matter of fact, the event which they were hypocritically lamenting had not taken place, though a few examples of eccentric behaviour had given rise to the rumour.
Bertrand Russell: The Conquest of HappinessReplies: @Kylie
No.
Because Guardian readers are sanctimonious upper-middle class wannabes who assuage their mediocrity by laughing at the misfortune of others. In this case, over minor things like death and disease. The editors and publisher know this. They are simply playing to the crowd: people of middling intellect who aren’t very smart but desperately want to think they are smart — Dan Brown fans, New York Times readers, Jennifer Rubin “conservatives” …
Why do you think The Guardian covers subjects like video games in such an obnoxious manner — decrying things like “princess rescue” in Super Mario Bros.? Do you honestly think their soccer-mom audience knows or cares anything about video games? Not in the least. They know their readers do enjoy reading portrayals of their perceived social inferiors as racist, sexist, and overweight losers; it makes them feel better about their own shortcomings, which are many (childless, unhappy, lonely, unaccomplished). It’s the same reason why trash television shows like Jerry Springer and Maury exist: mediocre people feel better when they are allowed to look down on their perceived inferiors.
In this case, despite decades of handouts and special treatment and being told they’re the bestest ever, the needle hasn’t moved too much in favor of female over male accomplishment. Males dominate basically everything of value, and they know it. They even had to get a man to write this book. Lol. Pick any field, anything that’s important. The best movie directors and screen writers? Not even close. Men dominate. Nobel Prize winners? Most are men. Famous authority figures? Men. Wikipedia? One third of the English section was written by a single guy. Fighter pilots? 97+% are men. Famous scientists? Mostly guys. etc.
All that’s readily observable and contradictory to what the true identitarian believers have been told since primary school: you are the bestest ever, held down only due to sexism. Then they are given an equal chance and find out that maybe the competition isn’t really so privileged after all. Doubt arises. You then start seeing stories of women questioning the identitarian narrative: “Maybe I should just try to be a decent person instead of wrapping up my sense of self-worth in irrelevant things like how many women fighter pilots there are, something that totally doesn’t affect me in the least? Like men count the number of RNs and demand more of those jobs or anything.”
Guardian: Then who will buy our birdcage lining? No, no. This won’t do. Bring in someone — a guy who probably wrote his own Wikipedia entry — to reassure the faithful.
It’s akin to a religious revival after the faith starts to wane. And the faith has indeed been waning. In the last decade we’ve seen the humiliating failure of many different women promoted by the mainstream media — Hollywood directors, CEOs, presidential candidates. That’s … inconvenient for the narrative. Women are supposed to equally interested in doing things that Guardian readers are tangentially interested in — well, not actually interested in doing themselves, but rather hearing about other members of their group doing.
It’s an exercise in taking things out of context to please upper-middle class wine aunts. Ignore all that stuff about women suffering injuries at much higher rates and requiring much greater healthcare services, including mental health, on average. Your eyes are lying. Wahmen tuff. Here, let this guy mansplain it to you in a way that makes you feel smart and totally secure in your position in middle-management.
Hey, never forget, “Anything a women can do, a man can do better, including being a woman!”
Good point.
https://atavisionary.com/free-book-smart-and-sexy-the-evolutionary-origins-and-biological-underpinnings-of-cognitive-differences-between-the-sexes/
Direct link:
https://atavisionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Smart-and-Sexy-Roderick-Kaine-2016-Arktos.pdfReplies: @Stan Adams
If you are curious on a detailed account of the effects of mentioning this fact in public, please Google Larry Summers Harvard.
I always thought it was just a power grab that feminists dressed up as the right to equal rights for women. Which right there is problematic, as they say nowadays, because the one thing men and women are not is equal.
I've been the only female in otherwise all-male groups at work and socializing and I've been one woman in a group of women at work and socializing. I've been treated with far more respect and acceptance from groups of men than from groups of women, regardless of age, education and class. As you all know by now, I don't use feminine wiles to score points, I don't passively agree with you in a stereotypically feminine way and I don't hesitate to disagree with you.
The innate malice most women reflexively exhibit toward any woman who doesn't fall into lockstep with them makes me very angry. I can't begin to imagine how you all feel.
(I do have several women friends, all of whom are conservative and who get along just fine with men.)Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Reg Cæsar, @Meretricious
Among average respectable women envy plays an extraordinarily large part. If you are sitting in the underground and a well-dressed woman happens to walk along the car, watch the eyes of the other women. You will see that every one of then, with the possible exception of those who are better dressed, will watch the woman with malevolent glances, and will be struggling to draw inferences derogatory to her. The love of scandal is an expression of this general malevolence: any story against another woman is instantly believed, even on the flimsiest evidence. A lofty morality serves the same purpose: those who have a chance to sin against it are envied, and it is considered virtuous to punish them for their sins. This particular form of virtue is certainly its own reward.
Exactly the same thing, however, is to be observed among men, except that women regard all other women as their competitors, whereas men as a rule only have this feeling towards other men in the same profession. Have you, reader, ever been so imprudent as to praise an artist to another artist? Have you ever praised a politician to another politician of the same party? Have you ever praised an Egyptologist to another Egyptologist? If you have, it is a hundred to one that you will have produced an explosion of jealousy.
In the correspondence of Leibniz and Huygens there are a number of letters lamenting the supposed fact that Newton had become insane. ‘Is it not sad,’ they write to each other, ‘that the incomparable genius of Mr. Newton should have become overclouded by the loss of reason?’ And these two eminent men, in one letter after another, wept crocodile tears with obvious relish. As a matter of fact, the event which they were hypocritically lamenting had not taken place, though a few examples of eccentric behaviour had given rise to the rumour.
Bertrand Russell: The Conquest of Happiness
Yes, I've observed that response in other women. I don't feel that way, though, nor do I understand it. I'd much rather look at a well-dressed woman than a frump,
We spend 30-40% more on women’s health care throughout their entire lifetimes, not just when they are pregnant. This is a major reason they outlive men by roughly 5 years. 1900 men outlived women by about 5 years.
I have been wondering when a lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court demanding absolute equality in health care spending. The law mandates equal premiums for health insurance. We have title IX and all the rest. My guess is that most liberals would shit in their pants over this type of equality.
I’m 58 years old, and I learned that females are biologically superior to males around the age of ten.
Let’s refine that a little. Modern feminism is in fact founded on three axioms:
1. There are no significant differences between men and women- none.
2. Women are superior to men in every possible way.
3. Women must strive to be identical to men in every possible way.
WTF is this guy talking about?
For decades, if not centuries, women have had, by & large, the best press anybody could ever hope for.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I had a female colleague tell me what kind of soap I had used in the morning, so there’s that.
So I guess if you are engaging in extracurricular activities, it will pay to bath afterwards.
Yeah, I don’t think so. The development of the birth control pill 60 years ago–and it’s widespread use in Western countries–suggests otherwise.
Uncle Jack has said it here in response, but I’ll chime in.
The current cultural zeitgeist encourages women/girls/females, insisting on all opportunities for them, to be the same as men, even so far as preferential discrimination against men to ensure such. While at the same time claiming (and organizing the culture) that men, in reality, are defective women, and therefore should be more like women.
That the glaring contradiction is ignored says much about the culture.
It isn't so much ignored as not Noticed. Because Noticing makes the cognitive dissonance more painful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Er, Rotterdam is not in England.
1. There are no significant differences between men and women- none.
2. Women are superior to men in every possible way.
3. Women must strive to be identical to men in every possible way.Replies: @Joseph Doaks
Which is a perfect example of feminine reasoning!
Mr Roger Devlin made the excellent point that the reason we see headlines like “women are better at X than men” but never “men are better at Y than women” is, ironically, because of old fashioned chivalry and deference towards women.
Exactly the same thing, however, is to be observed among men, except that women regard all other women as their competitors, whereas men as a rule only have this feeling towards other men in the same profession. Have you, reader, ever been so imprudent as to praise an artist to another artist? Have you ever praised a politician to another politician of the same party? Have you ever praised an Egyptologist to another Egyptologist? If you have, it is a hundred to one that you will have produced an explosion of jealousy.
In the correspondence of Leibniz and Huygens there are a number of letters lamenting the supposed fact that Newton had become insane. 'Is it not sad,' they write to each other, 'that the incomparable genius of Mr. Newton should have become overclouded by the loss of reason?' And these two eminent men, in one letter after another, wept crocodile tears with obvious relish. As a matter of fact, the event which they were hypocritically lamenting had not taken place, though a few examples of eccentric behaviour had given rise to the rumour.
Bertrand Russell: The Conquest of HappinessReplies: @Kylie
“If you are sitting in the underground and a well-dressed woman happens to walk along the car, watch the eyes of the other women. You will see that every one of then, with the possible exception of those who are better dressed, will watch the woman with malevolent glances, and will be struggling to draw inferences derogatory to her.”
Yes, I’ve observed that response in other women. I don’t feel that way, though, nor do I understand it. I’d much rather look at a well-dressed woman than a frump,
The current cultural zeitgeist encourages women/girls/females, insisting on all opportunities for them, to be the same as men, even so far as preferential discrimination against men to ensure such. While at the same time claiming (and organizing the culture) that men, in reality, are defective women, and therefore should be more like women.
That the glaring contradiction is ignored says much about the culture.Replies: @anon
That the glaring contradiction is ignored says much about the culture.
It isn’t so much ignored as not Noticed. Because Noticing makes the cognitive dissonance more painful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Women’s desire to get pregnant exceeds men’s desire to impregnate them.
Rural incel detected. Sad.
I’m guessing “Rotherham” got auto-corrected to “Rotterdam.”
Why do you think The Guardian covers subjects like video games in such an obnoxious manner -- decrying things like "princess rescue" in Super Mario Bros.? Do you honestly think their soccer-mom audience knows or cares anything about video games? Not in the least. They know their readers do enjoy reading portrayals of their perceived social inferiors as racist, sexist, and overweight losers; it makes them feel better about their own shortcomings, which are many (childless, unhappy, lonely, unaccomplished). It's the same reason why trash television shows like Jerry Springer and Maury exist: mediocre people feel better when they are allowed to look down on their perceived inferiors.
In this case, despite decades of handouts and special treatment and being told they're the bestest ever, the needle hasn't moved too much in favor of female over male accomplishment. Males dominate basically everything of value, and they know it. They even had to get a man to write this book. Lol. Pick any field, anything that's important. The best movie directors and screen writers? Not even close. Men dominate. Nobel Prize winners? Most are men. Famous authority figures? Men. Wikipedia? One third of the English section was written by a single guy. Fighter pilots? 97+% are men. Famous scientists? Mostly guys. etc.
All that's readily observable and contradictory to what the true identitarian believers have been told since primary school: you are the bestest ever, held down only due to sexism. Then they are given an equal chance and find out that maybe the competition isn't really so privileged after all. Doubt arises. You then start seeing stories of women questioning the identitarian narrative: "Maybe I should just try to be a decent person instead of wrapping up my sense of self-worth in irrelevant things like how many women fighter pilots there are, something that totally doesn't affect me in the least? Like men count the number of RNs and demand more of those jobs or anything."
Guardian: Then who will buy our birdcage lining? No, no. This won't do. Bring in someone -- a guy who probably wrote his own Wikipedia entry -- to reassure the faithful.
It's akin to a religious revival after the faith starts to wane. And the faith has indeed been waning. In the last decade we've seen the humiliating failure of many different women promoted by the mainstream media -- Hollywood directors, CEOs, presidential candidates. That's ... inconvenient for the narrative. Women are supposed to equally interested in doing things that Guardian readers are tangentially interested in -- well, not actually interested in doing themselves, but rather hearing about other members of their group doing.It's an exercise in taking things out of context to please upper-middle class wine aunts. Ignore all that stuff about women suffering injuries at much higher rates and requiring much greater healthcare services, including mental health, on average. Your eyes are lying. Wahmen tuff. Here, let this guy mansplain it to you in a way that makes you feel smart and totally secure in your position in middle-management.Replies: @Kim
Your reply is great, but what I meant was, why would iSteve retail this crud?
He had changed very little since the 1964 film version, but what struck me (seeing him live on stage) was how he practically oozed confidence, charm and that smug sense of superiority, traits that are so central to the role of Henry Higgins.
Rex Harrison was the perfect embodiment of a bygone attitude men had about women, one that only occasionally pops up in our culture now.
I suspect, like our fellow contributor Whiskey, that many, many women would secretly be happier if more men had Rex Harrison's natural self assurance, unflappability, and detachment in their relations with the women in their lives.Replies: @Corvinus, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Jack D, @Keypusher
He was acting. The real Rex Harrison almost torpedoed My Fair Lady in previews because he was afraid to go on stage, in contrast to his 20-year-old costar.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/theater/my-fair-lady-new-haven-rex-harrison-julie-andrews.html
I come here to see how bitter little men react to articles like this.
I have been wondering when a lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court demanding absolute equality in health care spending. The law mandates equal premiums for health insurance. We have title IX and all the rest. My guess is that most liberals would shit in their pants over this type of equality.Replies: @Keypusher
The hell you say. Back in 1700 someone noticed that 105 males were born for every 100 females in London. Turns out to be true everywhere in the world. Men die quicker. That’s biology, not health care spending.
Well, everything except opening jars. And getting things off the top shelf. And carrying the heavy stuff.
Like so:
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/diodorus/alexander-sacks-persepolis/
I always thought it was just a power grab that feminists dressed up as the right to equal rights for women. Which right there is problematic, as they say nowadays, because the one thing men and women are not is equal.
I've been the only female in otherwise all-male groups at work and socializing and I've been one woman in a group of women at work and socializing. I've been treated with far more respect and acceptance from groups of men than from groups of women, regardless of age, education and class. As you all know by now, I don't use feminine wiles to score points, I don't passively agree with you in a stereotypically feminine way and I don't hesitate to disagree with you.
The innate malice most women reflexively exhibit toward any woman who doesn't fall into lockstep with them makes me very angry. I can't begin to imagine how you all feel.
(I do have several women friends, all of whom are conservative and who get along just fine with men.)Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Reg Cæsar, @Meretricious
“The years that a woman subtracts from her age are not lost. They are added to the ages of other women.” — Diane de Poitiers
Yes, but the time a woman spends doing that arithmetic is time she's wasted counting on her fingers when she could have spent it talking to an interesting man.
The female longevity thing is true only after male OBGYNs pushed female midwives to the side and figured out, after thousands of years of human childbirth, how to keep it from killing a sizable proportion of young mothers.
“”The years that a woman subtracts from her age are not lost. They are added to the ages of other women.’— Diane de Poitiers”
Yes, but the time a woman spends doing that arithmetic is time she’s wasted counting on her fingers when she could have spent it talking to an interesting man.
You see the phrase ‘it is understood’ quite frequently in UK media products.
This 2015 article seems like a good way to remember him:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-conways-life-in-games-20150828/
Perhaps I should pull my copy of Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays off the shelf and spend some time with it.
Hmm. That clip is like a 1950’s version of an MTV Spring Break wet t-shirt contest circa 1990’s. Especially near the end where they’re all splashing around in the water and all wet. How many dudes saw that movie in the theater with their wives then went home and made babies? It was the middle of the baby boom…
I always thought it was just a power grab that feminists dressed up as the right to equal rights for women. Which right there is problematic, as they say nowadays, because the one thing men and women are not is equal.
I've been the only female in otherwise all-male groups at work and socializing and I've been one woman in a group of women at work and socializing. I've been treated with far more respect and acceptance from groups of men than from groups of women, regardless of age, education and class. As you all know by now, I don't use feminine wiles to score points, I don't passively agree with you in a stereotypically feminine way and I don't hesitate to disagree with you.
The innate malice most women reflexively exhibit toward any woman who doesn't fall into lockstep with them makes me very angry. I can't begin to imagine how you all feel.
(I do have several women friends, all of whom are conservative and who get along just fine with men.)Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Reg Cæsar, @Meretricious
Why can’t I find a single woman like you IRL?
>superior color vision
Wow, just wow.Replies: @Meretricious
“Never give up cards for women. Women would never dream of showing up for a man who would give up cards for women.” (John Huston)
Girls may have out-survived boys there. This is certainly true about the first year of life. Old news.
Boys have always been more expendible.Replies: @Meretricious
Have I been misspelling that word ?
“Now equal rights for women is Western Progressive dogma…”
Not “Western Progressive dogma”. Rather, it is a philosophy rooted in the Enlightenment and the Second Great Awakening and embraced by liberals and conservatives alike.
“and we have learned”
Who is this “we”?
“that all traditional patriarchal societies throughout history were misguided, oppressive and evil.”
And there is legitimacy in that assessment.
He died on the 11th, but for some reason it was only announced several days later. The English Wikipedia apparently doesn’t consider Conway worthy of being featured under “recent deaths” on the front page.
Not good. Who will be next? Ronald Graham?…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/?fbclid=IwAR1NEtVy5ybW41IVnvHA0HpvtW60sHKK4xG0OEVtZDMtn3Y6dmKPI7sJJic#255430b53decReplies: @sayless
“Women love hearing this stuff.”
It’s a strain, actually.
Freud was right about penis envy
No. The one time the Kindle should have corrected me, it failed to.
A couple of women have an interesting hypothesis:
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-18/do-testicles-make-men-more-vulnerable-to-coronavirus
Not good. Who will be next? Ronald Graham?...Replies: @adreadline
Rest in peace, Ronald Graham.