The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Media Demand Microsoft Speak Power to Truth
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Quartz:

Microsoft staff are openly questioning the value of diversity
By Dave Gershgorn April 19, 2019

Some Microsoft employees are openly questioning whether diversity is important, in a lengthy discussion on an internal online messaging board meant for communicating with CEO Satya Nadella.

Two posts on the board criticizing Microsoft diversity initiatives as “discriminatory hiring” and suggesting that women are less suited for engineering roles have elicited more than 800 comments, both affirming and criticizing the viewpoints, multiple Microsoft employees have told Quartz. The posts were written by a female Microsoft program manager. Quartz reached out to her directly for comment, and isn’t making her name public at this point, pending her response.

“Does Microsoft have any plans to end the current policy that financially incentivizes discriminatory hiring practices? To be clear, I am referring to the fact that senior leadership is awarded more money if they discriminate against Asians and white men,” read the original post by the Microsoft program manager on Yammer, a corporate messaging platform owned by Microsoft. The employee commented consistently throughout the thread, making similar arguments. Quartz reviewed lengthy sections of the internal discussion provided by Microsoft employees.

“I have an ever-increasing file of white male Microsoft employees who have faced outright and overt discrimination because they had the misfortune of being born both white and male. This is unacceptable,” the program manager wrote in a comment later. The Microsoft employees who spoke to Quartz said they weren’t aware of any action by the company in response, despite the comments being reported to Microsoft’s human resources department.

In other words, the Microsoft employees who are the sources for this article are outraged that this woman hasn’t been punished James Damore-style. They aren’t at all interested in what the woman revealed about Microsoft’s discrimination.

… The Microsoft author echoes former Google employee James Damore, who in 2017 wrote a memo that went internally viral at Google, leaning on pseudoscience to argue that women aren’t cut out for the tech industry. …

As the controversy around Google’s firing of Damore illustrated, it can be extremely contentious for companies to wade into disciplining employees for their personal views on such issues.

Poor Google. They suffered some bad publicity for firing James Damore.

“HR isn’t trying to enforce the inclusive culture that they’re talking about,” one Microsoft employee who read the latest posts by the program manager and responses to them told Quartz. “HR, Satya, all the leadership are sending out emails that they want to have an inclusive culture, but they’re not willing to take any action other than talk about it,” they said. “They allow people to post these damaging, stereotypical things about women and minorities, and they do nothing about it.”

Speak Power to Truth.

 
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Guess they’ll have to airlift in city goat Sadiq Khan to bleat “Diversity is our greatest strength! Diversity is our greatest strength!” Then, naturally, all questioning will cease.

  2. They aren’t at all interested in what the woman revealed about Microsoft’s discrimination.

    Or that depressing white men’s pay hurts her marital prospects.

  3. If this woman hasn’t been in a coma for the past three or four years, I hope she has a guaranteed income, I hope she just won the lottery. In fact that would be a great fantasy – someone who never has to work again just comes clean about some shitty thing at their job. And this gal – that in itself is kind of surprising – tears Microsoft and the entire concept of diversity a new asshole. But as it is she’ll probably be squashed. Someone well educated but just naive enough to think we can still tell the truth. We can no longer tell the truth. We can only be told the truth. That is rigorously enforced. And that comes from the top. Down.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @San Fernando Curt

    SFC wrote:


    And this gal – that in itself is kind of surprising – tears Microsoft and the entire concept of diversity a new asshole. But as it is she’ll probably be squashed.
     
    Maybe not: it would be rather weird if Microsoft fired a woman for complaining about discrimination in favor of women! Sort of like the female bio prof from Brazil who spoke out about the reality of human biology at Williams.

    Yes, they are taking a risk, but not as much as a white male would. And, given their position they may actually think they have a social obligation to tell the truth.

    Funny thing: some people, including some people who have a few intersectionality points themselves, actually think there is an obligation to tell the truth!

    Did you see the news that Meryl Streep of all people recently pointed out that "toxic masculinity" is a not entirely helpful way of viewing human nature?

    One by one, people on the Left who retain at least a shred of sanity decide that they have just had enough and that they simply have to speak up.

    There really is some good in human nature, you know.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @SFG

  4. At the other end of the country, both culturally and geographically, I knew in an instant the race of the mass murderer in Virginia Beach once the Chief of Police said they won’t issue photos or mention his name more than one time. It’s ‘DeWayne Craddock’ btw. Coulter’s Law on steroids. And his face exhibits that smug entitlement we’re getting used to seeing from that cohort.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/us/witness-virginia-beach-shooting/index.html
    https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/dewayne-craddock/

    I’m actually in favor of denying fame to mass murderers. But (silly me) I’d like the policy to apply to everyone, not just favored minorities.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Mr McKenna


    I knew in an instant the race of the mass murderer in Virginia Beach once the Chief of Police said they won’t issue photos or mention his name more than one time. It’s ‘DeWayne Craddock’ btw.
     
    I figured he was black because it was a workplace shoot 'em up. But when I saw his name I figured he must be white with last name Craddock. Craddock search in Bing images shows almost all white people. Yeah, I know DeWayne is a black name. He did not gun down only whites. Blacks were killed too.

    Replies: @Marty

  5. One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts ‘OFF WITH THEIR HEADS’ approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn’t agree with the liberal-left’s viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I’m talking to the wrong audience… I should be posting this on the NYT.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    @ConfirmationBias


    Anyway, I’m talking to the wrong audience… I should be posting this on the NYT.
     
    Yup. ;-)
    , @PhysicistDave
    @ConfirmationBias

    ConfirmationBias wrote:


    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.
     
    Yes, that is how it was sold to all of us back in the '60s, and that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy. I'm old enough to remember when that was not the case.

    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself. And, they are now destroying the whole concept of fairness that most Americans once shared.

    Replies: @SFG, @Ragno, @ThreeCranes

    , @Almost Missouri
    @ConfirmationBias

    Good morning Rip van Winkle.

    , @Anon7
    @ConfirmationBias

    This should have ended with the death of the Soviet Union in 1989.

    It’s like one of those movies where the good guys are escaping the infected zombies, but one of the zombies scratched the ankle of a good guy and now the infection will spread again.

    Every university has a diversity officer and a diversity division to assure that everything is correct, politically. And now, so do most big companies. It’s so Russian. It’s not enough that the military commander has made his plan, or that the factory executives have arrived at their business plans to make bathtubs or cars or software or whatever. Will these plans ensure the Worker’s Paradise envisioned by the Glorious Leaders of our movement?

    Diversity is a parasite that has attached itself to every company in America.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @ConfirmationBias


    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.
     
    The religious dogma of the Left states that all genders and ethnic groups are identical. So once you pledge faith to this false premise all disparities in outcome must, by definition, be proof that equal opportunity was denied. It's that simple. GIGO.

    Replies: @ConfirmationBias

    , @Art Deco
    @ConfirmationBias

    Actually, no one gives a rip that 97% of the people working in the building trades are men or that a similar % of elementary school staff are women. With an odd exception here and there (e.g. the Lily Ledbetter fandango) the only controversies concern (1) professional-managerial positions and (2) a subset of technical positions that have satisfactory salaries. And the object is invariably to reduce the population of white males in such positions, BAMN. And if there be any line of work where the pipeline of new entrants is dominated by women, it is not a controversy. Hearing any complaints about veterinary schools?

    Now, you and I both know that ordinary competition and ordinary expression of occupational preferences isn't going to give these creatures what they want. Getting them what they want requires abuse of power and discretion by HR twits, by legal counsel, by courts, and by administrative agencies.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

  6. despite the comments being reported to Microsoft’s human resources department

    “Cortana, report post!!”

    Are these people 10 years old? Why yes. Yes they are.

    #FreedomGas!

  7. @ConfirmationBias
    One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we're seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS' approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal-left's viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I'm talking to the wrong audience... I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @PhysicistDave, @Almost Missouri, @Anon7, @Hypnotoad666, @Art Deco

    Anyway, I’m talking to the wrong audience… I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Yup. 😉

  8. We Are All For Diversity, Until It Costs Us Money.

  9. @San Fernando Curt
    If this woman hasn't been in a coma for the past three or four years, I hope she has a guaranteed income, I hope she just won the lottery. In fact that would be a great fantasy - someone who never has to work again just comes clean about some shitty thing at their job. And this gal - that in itself is kind of surprising - tears Microsoft and the entire concept of diversity a new asshole. But as it is she'll probably be squashed. Someone well educated but just naive enough to think we can still tell the truth. We can no longer tell the truth. We can only be told the truth. That is rigorously enforced. And that comes from the top. Down.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    SFC wrote:

    And this gal – that in itself is kind of surprising – tears Microsoft and the entire concept of diversity a new asshole. But as it is she’ll probably be squashed.

    Maybe not: it would be rather weird if Microsoft fired a woman for complaining about discrimination in favor of women! Sort of like the female bio prof from Brazil who spoke out about the reality of human biology at Williams.

    Yes, they are taking a risk, but not as much as a white male would. And, given their position they may actually think they have a social obligation to tell the truth.

    Funny thing: some people, including some people who have a few intersectionality points themselves, actually think there is an obligation to tell the truth!

    Did you see the news that Meryl Streep of all people recently pointed out that “toxic masculinity” is a not entirely helpful way of viewing human nature?

    One by one, people on the Left who retain at least a shred of sanity decide that they have just had enough and that they simply have to speak up.

    There really is some good in human nature, you know.

    • Agree: Cortes, TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @PhysicistDave

    No there really isn’t. Streep did, however, receive an excellent upbringing (up from base human nature) that finally kicked in to at least slow down her rampage of snobbery that consumed her formerly good sense.

    , @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    True.

    I've actually accumulated enough savings I could survive a few years of unemployment and am debating whether to become politically active (create a Twitter account and try to get noticed by Quillette etc.; I would never run for office, I have no charisma), or start a family before it's too late (it's always biologically possible for a man to do that, but to date substantially younger you need a lot more charisma than I've got).

    I have a few intersectionality points (though not the high-value ones).

    Maybe start with the local GOP?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Lowe, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

  10. @ConfirmationBias
    One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we're seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS' approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal-left's viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I'm talking to the wrong audience... I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @PhysicistDave, @Almost Missouri, @Anon7, @Hypnotoad666, @Art Deco

    ConfirmationBias wrote:

    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.

    Yes, that is how it was sold to all of us back in the ’60s, and that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy. I’m old enough to remember when that was not the case.

    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself. And, they are now destroying the whole concept of fairness that most Americans once shared.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Exclusivity follows inclusivity, as the new tribe wipes out the old. Look at sci-fi, which has turned into a woke colony attacking white guys after being invented by socially inept white guys. (Is that cultural appropriation, SJWs?)

    As I get older, I see more and more people quite rationally figure they need to total up their identities and plump for whichever team supports them, and the only thing keeping me from joining them is impure blood. Fairness? Meritocracy? That America's gone. Sure, it's the one that went to the moon and won the Cold War, but it's still gone.

    In the end, it is to be expected, of course. Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us. The Chinese have got to think this whole thing is hilarious.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Logan, @anonymous, @PhysicistDave

    , @Ragno
    @PhysicistDave


    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself.
     
    It has a name, you know - this perverted caricature you speak of; and it's called Equality of Outcome.

    Anybody who didn't feel a full-body diarrhea-shiver just at the ominous sound of that particular public-policy wrinkle a few years ago, when it was prebundled with a dystopian theory-cum-objective called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing act, was either not paying attention (way too many of us) or choosing not to pay attention, in order to preserve their own dwndling sanity and happiness (a far smaller number that is still way too many of us).

    It's becoming clear that any answers to the question How do ordinary people topple Leviathan? all have a sobering followup question in common: how much are you willing to lose? I fear if the answer to that second question is anything besides "everything I have", it ain't gonna be enough even to budge him.

    , @ThreeCranes
    @PhysicistDave


    "that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy"
     
    My father was the son of a construction worker who was, as often as not, unemployed during the Depression. My dad had more than rocks in his head. He benefitted from the inception and use of Standardized Tests to identify intelligent, poor kids. He ended up Director of Research and Development of a large pharmaceutical corporation. To the end of his life, he donated yearly to one charity--the American Negro College Fund (we, his offspring, only found this out after he had died). Somewhere in his heart (and head) he realized that some young people only need an opportunity. This, before the 'basic concept of fairness" had become "a caricature of itself".
  11. SFG says:
    @PhysicistDave
    @ConfirmationBias

    ConfirmationBias wrote:


    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.
     
    Yes, that is how it was sold to all of us back in the '60s, and that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy. I'm old enough to remember when that was not the case.

    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself. And, they are now destroying the whole concept of fairness that most Americans once shared.

    Replies: @SFG, @Ragno, @ThreeCranes

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Exclusivity follows inclusivity, as the new tribe wipes out the old. Look at sci-fi, which has turned into a woke colony attacking white guys after being invented by socially inept white guys. (Is that cultural appropriation, SJWs?)

    As I get older, I see more and more people quite rationally figure they need to total up their identities and plump for whichever team supports them, and the only thing keeping me from joining them is impure blood. Fairness? Meritocracy? That America’s gone. Sure, it’s the one that went to the moon and won the Cold War, but it’s still gone.

    In the end, it is to be expected, of course. Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us. The Chinese have got to think this whole thing is hilarious.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @SFG

    Then get the women out. We’re not gone yet.

    , @Logan
    @SFG

    It's called in-group preference. The degree to which people side with members of their own group, however defined, as against members of another group, however defined.

    There has been some amazing research done here.

    American women side with women versus men 5:1.

    American men (those horrible misogynists) side with women 2:1.

    Nobody sides with men.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @anonymous
    @SFG

    "Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us."

    Those nations still retained some form of meritocracy and bourgeois values after their heyday but the future for us and them now will be a form of South Africa. I used to think it was Brazil with a white elite clinging to power. Either way, it leads to corruption, a lot of violent crime, and incompetence in maintaining infrastructure and trustable institutions. Think Baltimore. It's a matter of degrees.

    Those who still want traditional values will have to segregate themselves in homelands to isolate themselves from the progressive plague.

    , @PhysicistDave
    @SFG

    SFG wrote to me:


    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.
     
    Except most women still do not hate men -- as Sailer likes to quote, too much fraternizing between the sexes!

    And, yes, I do know that there is more animosity than there could be or should be because of the toxic aspects of feminism, but still most women do not hate men.

    The problem, I think, is the dynamics of our culture and especially the mass media: it's the "crazy ones" that become the face of any movement, presumably because they sell newspapers or, nowadays, serve as click-bait.

    The problem is that non-toxic feminism, the sort that merely pointed out that some women do love STEM and are good at it and so deserve a shot, was long ago pushed aside by the man-haters.

    Same thing for non-Asian minorities: most I have known personally are sensible people; indeed, I've known a few who are consciously conservative or libertarian. But, they are not as newsworthy as the crazies.

    How can it be that Al Sharpton is much better known than John McWhorter? McWhorter is, after all, a liberal Democrat. But McWhorter is also thoughtful and very smart (and sane). So, Sharpton is all over the media and you have to search out McWhorter.

    This is going to kill us if it goes on. How can the majority not see how absurd this is?
  12. @PhysicistDave
    @San Fernando Curt

    SFC wrote:


    And this gal – that in itself is kind of surprising – tears Microsoft and the entire concept of diversity a new asshole. But as it is she’ll probably be squashed.
     
    Maybe not: it would be rather weird if Microsoft fired a woman for complaining about discrimination in favor of women! Sort of like the female bio prof from Brazil who spoke out about the reality of human biology at Williams.

    Yes, they are taking a risk, but not as much as a white male would. And, given their position they may actually think they have a social obligation to tell the truth.

    Funny thing: some people, including some people who have a few intersectionality points themselves, actually think there is an obligation to tell the truth!

    Did you see the news that Meryl Streep of all people recently pointed out that "toxic masculinity" is a not entirely helpful way of viewing human nature?

    One by one, people on the Left who retain at least a shred of sanity decide that they have just had enough and that they simply have to speak up.

    There really is some good in human nature, you know.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @SFG

    No there really isn’t. Streep did, however, receive an excellent upbringing (up from base human nature) that finally kicked in to at least slow down her rampage of snobbery that consumed her formerly good sense.

  13. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Exclusivity follows inclusivity, as the new tribe wipes out the old. Look at sci-fi, which has turned into a woke colony attacking white guys after being invented by socially inept white guys. (Is that cultural appropriation, SJWs?)

    As I get older, I see more and more people quite rationally figure they need to total up their identities and plump for whichever team supports them, and the only thing keeping me from joining them is impure blood. Fairness? Meritocracy? That America's gone. Sure, it's the one that went to the moon and won the Cold War, but it's still gone.

    In the end, it is to be expected, of course. Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us. The Chinese have got to think this whole thing is hilarious.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Logan, @anonymous, @PhysicistDave

    Then get the women out. We’re not gone yet.

  14. SFG says:
    @PhysicistDave
    @San Fernando Curt

    SFC wrote:


    And this gal – that in itself is kind of surprising – tears Microsoft and the entire concept of diversity a new asshole. But as it is she’ll probably be squashed.
     
    Maybe not: it would be rather weird if Microsoft fired a woman for complaining about discrimination in favor of women! Sort of like the female bio prof from Brazil who spoke out about the reality of human biology at Williams.

    Yes, they are taking a risk, but not as much as a white male would. And, given their position they may actually think they have a social obligation to tell the truth.

    Funny thing: some people, including some people who have a few intersectionality points themselves, actually think there is an obligation to tell the truth!

    Did you see the news that Meryl Streep of all people recently pointed out that "toxic masculinity" is a not entirely helpful way of viewing human nature?

    One by one, people on the Left who retain at least a shred of sanity decide that they have just had enough and that they simply have to speak up.

    There really is some good in human nature, you know.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @SFG

    True.

    I’ve actually accumulated enough savings I could survive a few years of unemployment and am debating whether to become politically active (create a Twitter account and try to get noticed by Quillette etc.; I would never run for office, I have no charisma), or start a family before it’s too late (it’s always biologically possible for a man to do that, but to date substantially younger you need a lot more charisma than I’ve got).

    I have a few intersectionality points (though not the high-value ones).

    Maybe start with the local GOP?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @SFG

    Start a family.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Lowe
    @SFG

    How is this even a question for you. Start a family.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @AnotherDad
    @SFG

    SFG, you seem like a good guy.

    The other guys have already said it--start a family. This is the critical thing we need to keep us going and you can do a lot of good, influence a lot of people, your family and beyond, doing it.

    In fact, the lie, that biology, that reproduction, that lineage, do not matter and somehow our civilization just sails on, is the big lie, at the heart of the establishment/left/minoritarian project.


    A guy, intelligent--we know you cover that--hitting it in his career, personable, keeping himself in shape (and not objectively ugly) can indeed date younger, in some cases much younger. But you're always fighting against time and generally the quality of woman--or at least the selection of women with the character you want--is going to decline. And your own time to parent and enjoy a vigorous family life before you start becoming a bit tired is also in the mix.

    In contrast, you individually--unless you've put away DJT money!--aren't going to move the needle through political action. By all means get involved and be a reasonable, personable advocate for saving the West. But the big individual thing you'll do is have a family.


    Remember: These people desired the destruction, the extinction of our unique race, culture and civilization. They do not want you to reproduce. They want you despondent or obsequious. The best way you beat them--start a family and reproduce yourself, again and again and again and again.. (And practice inbetween.) You'll have no better time in your life ... and help save our civilization in the process.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @dfordoom
    @SFG


    or start a family before it’s too late
     
    Why would you want to do that? It's like playing Russian roulette except that instead of only one chamber containing a bullet all the chambers except one contain bullets. So your chances of blowing your brains out are five in six rather than one in six.

    If you can find a woman untainted by the poison of feminism (which is almost impossible) and if you have the resources to keep your kids insulated from the education system and if you believe you can keep them insulated from the equally pernicious influence of social media and if you can keep your kids away from college and if you have enough money to defend yourself when the system decides to target you for destruction (which means you'll need a very great deal of money) then it might be a good option. Otherwise you'll have kids and once they go to college they'll be turned into blue-haired SJW freaks.

    That's assuming you don't get divorce-raped and never see your kids again.

    But some people enjoy playing Russian roulette.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Rosie

  15. @ConfirmationBias
    One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we're seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS' approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal-left's viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I'm talking to the wrong audience... I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @PhysicistDave, @Almost Missouri, @Anon7, @Hypnotoad666, @Art Deco

    Good morning Rip van Winkle.

  16. @PhysicistDave
    @ConfirmationBias

    ConfirmationBias wrote:


    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.
     
    Yes, that is how it was sold to all of us back in the '60s, and that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy. I'm old enough to remember when that was not the case.

    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself. And, they are now destroying the whole concept of fairness that most Americans once shared.

    Replies: @SFG, @Ragno, @ThreeCranes

    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself.

    It has a name, you know – this perverted caricature you speak of; and it’s called Equality of Outcome.

    Anybody who didn’t feel a full-body diarrhea-shiver just at the ominous sound of that particular public-policy wrinkle a few years ago, when it was prebundled with a dystopian theory-cum-objective called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing act, was either not paying attention (way too many of us) or choosing not to pay attention, in order to preserve their own dwndling sanity and happiness (a far smaller number that is still way too many of us).

    It’s becoming clear that any answers to the question How do ordinary people topple Leviathan? all have a sobering followup question in common: how much are you willing to lose? I fear if the answer to that second question is anything besides “everything I have”, it ain’t gonna be enough even to budge him.

  17. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Exclusivity follows inclusivity, as the new tribe wipes out the old. Look at sci-fi, which has turned into a woke colony attacking white guys after being invented by socially inept white guys. (Is that cultural appropriation, SJWs?)

    As I get older, I see more and more people quite rationally figure they need to total up their identities and plump for whichever team supports them, and the only thing keeping me from joining them is impure blood. Fairness? Meritocracy? That America's gone. Sure, it's the one that went to the moon and won the Cold War, but it's still gone.

    In the end, it is to be expected, of course. Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us. The Chinese have got to think this whole thing is hilarious.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Logan, @anonymous, @PhysicistDave

    It’s called in-group preference. The degree to which people side with members of their own group, however defined, as against members of another group, however defined.

    There has been some amazing research done here.

    American women side with women versus men 5:1.

    American men (those horrible misogynists) side with women 2:1.

    Nobody sides with men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Logan


    There has been some amazing research done here.
     
    Let's see it.

    Replies: @Logan

  18. It’s incredible how long this has taken. Twenty-five years ago, I sat in a required seminar on Diversity at one of the Big Three automakers. My department head, who was English, objected.

    “Are you telling me that if I looked at pictures of the design teams for the four-door sedans sold in America, that the best, most popular, highest selling four-door sedan could be determined by the diversity of the design team that created it?”

    “It’s a trick question,” said the executive, “Because the best-selling, most popular and arguably best quality four-door sedan sold in America is the Toyota Camry, and I can asssure you that the design team for the Camry is the LEAST diverse group of people you could possibly imagine, consisting of Japanese men between 30 and 60 years of age!”

  19. @ConfirmationBias
    One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we're seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS' approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal-left's viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I'm talking to the wrong audience... I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @PhysicistDave, @Almost Missouri, @Anon7, @Hypnotoad666, @Art Deco

    This should have ended with the death of the Soviet Union in 1989.

    It’s like one of those movies where the good guys are escaping the infected zombies, but one of the zombies scratched the ankle of a good guy and now the infection will spread again.

    Every university has a diversity officer and a diversity division to assure that everything is correct, politically. And now, so do most big companies. It’s so Russian. It’s not enough that the military commander has made his plan, or that the factory executives have arrived at their business plans to make bathtubs or cars or software or whatever. Will these plans ensure the Worker’s Paradise envisioned by the Glorious Leaders of our movement?

    Diversity is a parasite that has attached itself to every company in America.

    • Agree: Intelligent Dasein
  20. Quartz reached out to her directly for comment, and isn’t making her name public at this point, pending her response.

    These people need to be Hedbo’d.

  21. @PhysicistDave
    @ConfirmationBias

    ConfirmationBias wrote:


    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.
     
    Yes, that is how it was sold to all of us back in the '60s, and that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy. I'm old enough to remember when that was not the case.

    But, the Left has taken a basic concept of fairness that most Americans were willing to buy into and twisted it into a perverted caricature of itself. And, they are now destroying the whole concept of fairness that most Americans once shared.

    Replies: @SFG, @Ragno, @ThreeCranes

    “that idea was a good one: a woman who loves STEM and is good at it should have the same shot as a guy”

    My father was the son of a construction worker who was, as often as not, unemployed during the Depression. My dad had more than rocks in his head. He benefitted from the inception and use of Standardized Tests to identify intelligent, poor kids. He ended up Director of Research and Development of a large pharmaceutical corporation. To the end of his life, he donated yearly to one charity–the American Negro College Fund (we, his offspring, only found this out after he had died). Somewhere in his heart (and head) he realized that some young people only need an opportunity. This, before the ‘basic concept of fairness” had become “a caricature of itself”.

  22. anonymous[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Exclusivity follows inclusivity, as the new tribe wipes out the old. Look at sci-fi, which has turned into a woke colony attacking white guys after being invented by socially inept white guys. (Is that cultural appropriation, SJWs?)

    As I get older, I see more and more people quite rationally figure they need to total up their identities and plump for whichever team supports them, and the only thing keeping me from joining them is impure blood. Fairness? Meritocracy? That America's gone. Sure, it's the one that went to the moon and won the Cold War, but it's still gone.

    In the end, it is to be expected, of course. Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us. The Chinese have got to think this whole thing is hilarious.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Logan, @anonymous, @PhysicistDave

    “Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us.”

    Those nations still retained some form of meritocracy and bourgeois values after their heyday but the future for us and them now will be a form of South Africa. I used to think it was Brazil with a white elite clinging to power. Either way, it leads to corruption, a lot of violent crime, and incompetence in maintaining infrastructure and trustable institutions. Think Baltimore. It’s a matter of degrees.

    Those who still want traditional values will have to segregate themselves in homelands to isolate themselves from the progressive plague.

    • Agree: bomag
  23. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    True.

    I've actually accumulated enough savings I could survive a few years of unemployment and am debating whether to become politically active (create a Twitter account and try to get noticed by Quillette etc.; I would never run for office, I have no charisma), or start a family before it's too late (it's always biologically possible for a man to do that, but to date substantially younger you need a lot more charisma than I've got).

    I have a few intersectionality points (though not the high-value ones).

    Maybe start with the local GOP?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Lowe, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    Start a family.

    • Agree: PV van der Byl
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    Start a family.
     
    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women--and family--will follow.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Rosie

  24. Sad martyr. How long before she is Damored? Thing is there is nothing White women in the mate market hate more than the White beta male. Anti White hate is just the White female mate market playing out in the total freedom modern women have. Welfare, higher earnings, no pressure to find the best acceptable man before others, ability to carousel. Beta males are a threat since a moment of weakness means a hook up and derails the quest for akpha.

    Look at abortion. It’s all about avoiding a beta male kid.

    Net the woman here is older and married. Invested in her husband. She defending him by proxy. If every White woman over 22 was bailout married to a White man anti White behavior would be smacked down hard.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Whiskey


    Anti White hate is just the White female mate market playing out in the total freedom modern women have. Welfare, higher earnings, no pressure to find the best acceptable man before others, ability to carousel.
     
    And here at unz.com, Whiskey is pushing forced prostitution again.
  25. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    True.

    I've actually accumulated enough savings I could survive a few years of unemployment and am debating whether to become politically active (create a Twitter account and try to get noticed by Quillette etc.; I would never run for office, I have no charisma), or start a family before it's too late (it's always biologically possible for a man to do that, but to date substantially younger you need a lot more charisma than I've got).

    I have a few intersectionality points (though not the high-value ones).

    Maybe start with the local GOP?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Lowe, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    How is this even a question for you. Start a family.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Lowe

    Why stop there? Join the FLDS and start a few of them. Or, as truckers and railroaders used to do once in a while, at least two, one at your domicile and one at your turnaround point. They busted a UP hogger for this a few months ago here in Kansas City. A wife and two kids here and a common-law wife and another two somewhere else.

    And donate sperm too.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  26. @Mr McKenna
    At the other end of the country, both culturally and geographically, I knew in an instant the race of the mass murderer in Virginia Beach once the Chief of Police said they won't issue photos or mention his name more than one time. It's 'DeWayne Craddock' btw. Coulter's Law on steroids. And his face exhibits that smug entitlement we're getting used to seeing from that cohort.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/us/witness-virginia-beach-shooting/index.html
    https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/dewayne-craddock/

    I'm actually in favor of denying fame to mass murderers. But (silly me) I'd like the policy to apply to everyone, not just favored minorities.

    Replies: @Clyde

    I knew in an instant the race of the mass murderer in Virginia Beach once the Chief of Police said they won’t issue photos or mention his name more than one time. It’s ‘DeWayne Craddock’ btw.

    I figured he was black because it was a workplace shoot ’em up. But when I saw his name I figured he must be white with last name Craddock. Craddock search in Bing images shows almost all white people. Yeah, I know DeWayne is a black name. He did not gun down only whites. Blacks were killed too.

    • Replies: @Marty
    @Clyde

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buicede01.shtml

  27. Anon[319] • Disclaimer says:

    I have an ever-increasing file of white male Microsoft employees who have faced outright and overt discrimination because they had the misfortune of being born both white and male.

    Twenty years ago, after finishing my MBA at a large, well-respected east coast university, Microsoft flew me out to Redmond, WA for a series of five interviews, then three more on the east coast. No job offer was forthcoming. I don’t think it was (solely) because I am a White male, but the job was going to involve extensive travel to South America and my Spanish, while more than passable, was only at about a 4th grade level. Back then, all my interviewees were decent-enough, likable White males. I didn’t see any noticeable number of Indians at Microsoft headquarters, including at lunch in the large cafeteria. I hear it’s much different now.

  28. The Microsoft author echoes former Google employee James Damore, who in 2017 wrote a memo that went internally viral at Google, leaning on pseudoscience to argue that women aren’t cut out for the tech industry. …

    I don’t think he said that. He said men, on the whole, are more suited to engineering than women, on the whole.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Rosie

    I don’t think he said that. He said men, on the whole, are more suited to engineering than women, on the whole.

    Of course, TPTB at Google know this perfectly well, because 75% of the degrees in computer science and IT and 85% of the degrees in engineering are awarded to men. And they know perfectly well that the women weren't run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance. And they know perfectly well that the ratio of men to women in graduating classes of students of computer science and IT has increased from 1.67 to 1 in 1984 to 3 to 1 today. And if anyone wants to know how this difference in propensities worked out in the life of one young woman, Megan McArdle's brief memoir of her time in IT is available for the perusal of anyone who cares to read it. Everyone's games are built on artifice, and in this case, it isn't an artifice useful to manage conflict and to pay your respects to the sensibilities of others, it's an artifice which buttresses ongoing abuse of power and institutional patronage.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @PhysicistDave

  29. @Whiskey
    Sad martyr. How long before she is Damored? Thing is there is nothing White women in the mate market hate more than the White beta male. Anti White hate is just the White female mate market playing out in the total freedom modern women have. Welfare, higher earnings, no pressure to find the best acceptable man before others, ability to carousel. Beta males are a threat since a moment of weakness means a hook up and derails the quest for akpha.

    Look at abortion. It's all about avoiding a beta male kid.

    Net the woman here is older and married. Invested in her husband. She defending him by proxy. If every White woman over 22 was bailout married to a White man anti White behavior would be smacked down hard.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Anti White hate is just the White female mate market playing out in the total freedom modern women have. Welfare, higher earnings, no pressure to find the best acceptable man before others, ability to carousel.

    And here at unz.com, Whiskey is pushing forced prostitution again.

  30. @Logan
    @SFG

    It's called in-group preference. The degree to which people side with members of their own group, however defined, as against members of another group, however defined.

    There has been some amazing research done here.

    American women side with women versus men 5:1.

    American men (those horrible misogynists) side with women 2:1.

    Nobody sides with men.

    Replies: @Rosie

    There has been some amazing research done here.

    Let’s see it.

    • Replies: @Logan
    @Rosie

    Fair enough. I'll try to find it, but I hope you realize I don't catalog the location of everything I read or view.

  31. @Rosie

    The Microsoft author echoes former Google employee James Damore, who in 2017 wrote a memo that went internally viral at Google, leaning on pseudoscience to argue that women aren’t cut out for the tech industry. …
     
    I don't think he said that. He said men, on the whole, are more suited to engineering than women, on the whole.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I don’t think he said that. He said men, on the whole, are more suited to engineering than women, on the whole.

    Of course, TPTB at Google know this perfectly well, because 75% of the degrees in computer science and IT and 85% of the degrees in engineering are awarded to men. And they know perfectly well that the women weren’t run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance. And they know perfectly well that the ratio of men to women in graduating classes of students of computer science and IT has increased from 1.67 to 1 in 1984 to 3 to 1 today. And if anyone wants to know how this difference in propensities worked out in the life of one young woman, Megan McArdle’s brief memoir of her time in IT is available for the perusal of anyone who cares to read it. Everyone’s games are built on artifice, and in this case, it isn’t an artifice useful to manage conflict and to pay your respects to the sensibilities of others, it’s an artifice which buttresses ongoing abuse of power and institutional patronage.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Art Deco


    And they know perfectly well that the women weren’t run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance.
     
    I can vividly remember all the official, on-campus resources devoted to women in STEM and getting more women into STEM that existed in the late '90s.

    They were bending over backwards to spoon-feed STEM curricula to young women back then. I can only imagine how much worse it's gotten since then.

    Replies: @ConfirmationBias

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Art Deco

    Art Deco wrote:


    And they know perfectly well that the ratio of men to women in graduating classes of students of computer science and IT has increased from 1.67 to 1 in 1984 to 3 to 1 today. And if anyone wants to know how this difference in propensities worked out in the life of one young woman, Megan McArdle’s brief memoir of her time in IT is available for the perusal of anyone who cares to read it.
     
    Yes. And let's be frank here: the reason that most women do not want to do computer science is because most computer-science jobs are stunningly boring.

    I like computer programming and am reasonably good at it. Every job I've had since the age of twenty involved some programming.

    But, I'd go nuts if I were doing it forty hours a week, twelve months a year, writing code for Bank of America's software systems (or, more likely, trying to fix the bugs put into that software by earlier programmers!).

    I know a guy who has an auto-transmission shop and have chatted with him about the ins-and-outs of auto-transmission technology. This is not my favorite subject, but I am pretty sure his job is more interesting than the daily work done by the majority of computer programmers!

    (I should add that the very high-level people, doing cutting-edge work in, say, artificial intelligence, have great jobs, but they are not the majority of comp-sci grads.)
  32. @Clyde
    @Mr McKenna


    I knew in an instant the race of the mass murderer in Virginia Beach once the Chief of Police said they won’t issue photos or mention his name more than one time. It’s ‘DeWayne Craddock’ btw.
     
    I figured he was black because it was a workplace shoot 'em up. But when I saw his name I figured he must be white with last name Craddock. Craddock search in Bing images shows almost all white people. Yeah, I know DeWayne is a black name. He did not gun down only whites. Blacks were killed too.

    Replies: @Marty

  33. @ConfirmationBias
    One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we're seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS' approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal-left's viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I'm talking to the wrong audience... I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @PhysicistDave, @Almost Missouri, @Anon7, @Hypnotoad666, @Art Deco

    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.

    The religious dogma of the Left states that all genders and ethnic groups are identical. So once you pledge faith to this false premise all disparities in outcome must, by definition, be proof that equal opportunity was denied. It’s that simple. GIGO.

    • Replies: @ConfirmationBias
    @Hypnotoad666

    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena? It’s an honest question, I truly don’t know. My inference is that this perversion of the quest for equal opportunity morphing into equal outcome in more recent.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

  34. American men (those horrible misogynists) side with women 2:1.

    That sounds more like “out-group preference.”

  35. @ConfirmationBias
    One of my biggest frustrations with the left (and I say this as a self-proclaimed liberal), is their insistence on silencing / cancelling / censoring anyone who will not stick to the narrative. I suspect the original intent of what we're seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot. The more the focus shifts to and stays on forcing a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a fair and objective approach, the more pushback there is going to be to this idiocy.

    Compounding the issue is this Queen of Hearts 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS' approach to censoring and disappearing anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal-left's viewpoints. It is far more beneficial to both sides, and especially to the liberalites, to hear the viewpoints of the other side with an open mind.

    You know what inclusivity actually means? Treating different types of people fairly and equally. Including white males. Anyway, I'm talking to the wrong audience... I should be posting this on the NYT.

    Replies: @Digital Samizdat, @PhysicistDave, @Almost Missouri, @Anon7, @Hypnotoad666, @Art Deco

    Actually, no one gives a rip that 97% of the people working in the building trades are men or that a similar % of elementary school staff are women. With an odd exception here and there (e.g. the Lily Ledbetter fandango) the only controversies concern (1) professional-managerial positions and (2) a subset of technical positions that have satisfactory salaries. And the object is invariably to reduce the population of white males in such positions, BAMN. And if there be any line of work where the pipeline of new entrants is dominated by women, it is not a controversy. Hearing any complaints about veterinary schools?

    Now, you and I both know that ordinary competition and ordinary expression of occupational preferences isn’t going to give these creatures what they want. Getting them what they want requires abuse of power and discretion by HR twits, by legal counsel, by courts, and by administrative agencies.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Art Deco


    Actually, no one gives a rip that 97% of the people working in the building trades are men or that a similar % of elementary school staff are women.
     
    How about making license plates for the state. 90% of those positions are filled by men. I haven't heard anyone argue that women need equal representation in that job position.

    http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/2012/02/10614339-large.jpg
  36. isn’t the actual function of these internal company discussions to get heretics to self identify, so they can be fired?

  37. @Art Deco
    @Rosie

    I don’t think he said that. He said men, on the whole, are more suited to engineering than women, on the whole.

    Of course, TPTB at Google know this perfectly well, because 75% of the degrees in computer science and IT and 85% of the degrees in engineering are awarded to men. And they know perfectly well that the women weren't run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance. And they know perfectly well that the ratio of men to women in graduating classes of students of computer science and IT has increased from 1.67 to 1 in 1984 to 3 to 1 today. And if anyone wants to know how this difference in propensities worked out in the life of one young woman, Megan McArdle's brief memoir of her time in IT is available for the perusal of anyone who cares to read it. Everyone's games are built on artifice, and in this case, it isn't an artifice useful to manage conflict and to pay your respects to the sensibilities of others, it's an artifice which buttresses ongoing abuse of power and institutional patronage.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @PhysicistDave

    And they know perfectly well that the women weren’t run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance.

    I can vividly remember all the official, on-campus resources devoted to women in STEM and getting more women into STEM that existed in the late ’90s.

    They were bending over backwards to spoon-feed STEM curricula to young women back then. I can only imagine how much worse it’s gotten since then.

    • Replies: @ConfirmationBias
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Ok but why is that a problem? I have no issue with spoon-feeding an alternative approach to kids and youth adults. For years, girls’ toys were dolls, kitchen sets, and stories about beautiful princesses being rescued. If there is effort to expand that range, that’s fine. Same is true of the kind of education they’re being exposed to. It might seem excessive, but maybe this is just the overcorrection needed before the needle swings back to natural balance.

    My primary issue is with enforcing an outcome.

  38. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:

    “isn’t the actual function of these internal company discussions to get heretics to self identify, so they can be fired?”

    There will be a few naive types who do so, but I would guess that these policies end up doing the opposite in the long run as people shut their mouths. Doing so inexorably implies to the ones shutting their mouths that they have good cause to do so: their heretical suspicions are right.

  39. Our ruling class knows groups can be played against each other. This can be used as control mechanism, or even to destroy regimes, the status quo. Caesar knew that and so conquered Gaul. The more groups there are, less likely any one of them can obtain strength measurable to that of the established class. Supporting diversity, our pashas support their own power. This country added perverse perk of moral superiority as diversity champion. It’s all but unbearable.

  40. So, this is totally weird, and I have no facts to back it up ( the usual, from me): In the last 2-3 years, Microsoft hired very good-looking (accidental), very smart guys: several sons of my friends, and friends of friends.

    If the workplace is now, where you meet your future spouse…where you can actually, plan your dream wedding, and, have that 1 chance of having children, would you not root for the guy in your office!?! It is always personal.

  41. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lowe
    @SFG

    How is this even a question for you. Start a family.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Why stop there? Join the FLDS and start a few of them. Or, as truckers and railroaders used to do once in a while, at least two, one at your domicile and one at your turnaround point. They busted a UP hogger for this a few months ago here in Kansas City. A wife and two kids here and a common-law wife and another two somewhere else.

    And donate sperm too.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    They busted a UP hogger for this a few months ago here in Kansas City. A wife and two kids here and a common-law wife and another two somewhere else. </blockquote

    What exactly did they "bust him" for?

    I can see busting him in say 1960. What are they claiming he's done exactly? Having an affair is illegal now? Having children out of wedlock?

    Sure the legal wife can divorce rape him. The 2nd wife probably too. But what the heck has he done that's illegal?

    Sounds like they busted him for being a white man--knocking up multiple women without being black.
     

     

    Replies: @Anonymous

  42. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius
    @SFG

    Start a family.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Start a family.

    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women–and family–will follow.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    Start a family.

    , @Rosie
    @Anonymous


    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women–and family–will follow.
     
    Wrong. Here we see the implicit (and hopefully unintentional) characterization of women as prostitutes sniffing out a meal ticket rather than loving helpmeets who can help you achieve your goals. A young wife's paycheck can help a man get established in the career he wants and lay the foundation for a prosperous future for the couple and their future children.

    It appears to me from personal observation that older, established men who marry much younger, poorer women never really respect their wives as fully as men who marry young and build a life in partnership with their spouse. At best, they see them as dependent children. At worst, well ...

    Replies: @Desiderius

  43. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Exclusivity follows inclusivity, as the new tribe wipes out the old. Look at sci-fi, which has turned into a woke colony attacking white guys after being invented by socially inept white guys. (Is that cultural appropriation, SJWs?)

    As I get older, I see more and more people quite rationally figure they need to total up their identities and plump for whichever team supports them, and the only thing keeping me from joining them is impure blood. Fairness? Meritocracy? That America's gone. Sure, it's the one that went to the moon and won the Cold War, but it's still gone.

    In the end, it is to be expected, of course. Every nation has its day in the sun, and we may well survive in some weaker form as the British, French, and Spanish did before us. The Chinese have got to think this whole thing is hilarious.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Logan, @anonymous, @PhysicistDave

    SFG wrote to me:

    I used to believe that, too. But seems like people are just too tribal. Get enough women in and they will try to drive out the men. That goes double for ethnicities, of course, which are biologically made to fight over turf.

    Except most women still do not hate men — as Sailer likes to quote, too much fraternizing between the sexes!

    And, yes, I do know that there is more animosity than there could be or should be because of the toxic aspects of feminism, but still most women do not hate men.

    The problem, I think, is the dynamics of our culture and especially the mass media: it’s the “crazy ones” that become the face of any movement, presumably because they sell newspapers or, nowadays, serve as click-bait.

    The problem is that non-toxic feminism, the sort that merely pointed out that some women do love STEM and are good at it and so deserve a shot, was long ago pushed aside by the man-haters.

    Same thing for non-Asian minorities: most I have known personally are sensible people; indeed, I’ve known a few who are consciously conservative or libertarian. But, they are not as newsworthy as the crazies.

    How can it be that Al Sharpton is much better known than John McWhorter? McWhorter is, after all, a liberal Democrat. But McWhorter is also thoughtful and very smart (and sane). So, Sharpton is all over the media and you have to search out McWhorter.

    This is going to kill us if it goes on. How can the majority not see how absurd this is?

  44. @Art Deco
    @Rosie

    I don’t think he said that. He said men, on the whole, are more suited to engineering than women, on the whole.

    Of course, TPTB at Google know this perfectly well, because 75% of the degrees in computer science and IT and 85% of the degrees in engineering are awarded to men. And they know perfectly well that the women weren't run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance. And they know perfectly well that the ratio of men to women in graduating classes of students of computer science and IT has increased from 1.67 to 1 in 1984 to 3 to 1 today. And if anyone wants to know how this difference in propensities worked out in the life of one young woman, Megan McArdle's brief memoir of her time in IT is available for the perusal of anyone who cares to read it. Everyone's games are built on artifice, and in this case, it isn't an artifice useful to manage conflict and to pay your respects to the sensibilities of others, it's an artifice which buttresses ongoing abuse of power and institutional patronage.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @PhysicistDave

    Art Deco wrote:

    And they know perfectly well that the ratio of men to women in graduating classes of students of computer science and IT has increased from 1.67 to 1 in 1984 to 3 to 1 today. And if anyone wants to know how this difference in propensities worked out in the life of one young woman, Megan McArdle’s brief memoir of her time in IT is available for the perusal of anyone who cares to read it.

    Yes. And let’s be frank here: the reason that most women do not want to do computer science is because most computer-science jobs are stunningly boring.

    I like computer programming and am reasonably good at it. Every job I’ve had since the age of twenty involved some programming.

    But, I’d go nuts if I were doing it forty hours a week, twelve months a year, writing code for Bank of America’s software systems (or, more likely, trying to fix the bugs put into that software by earlier programmers!).

    I know a guy who has an auto-transmission shop and have chatted with him about the ins-and-outs of auto-transmission technology. This is not my favorite subject, but I am pretty sure his job is more interesting than the daily work done by the majority of computer programmers!

    (I should add that the very high-level people, doing cutting-edge work in, say, artificial intelligence, have great jobs, but they are not the majority of comp-sci grads.)

  45. @Hypnotoad666
    @ConfirmationBias


    I suspect the original intent of what we’re seeing today stemmed from a motivation to seek equal opportunity not equal representation at all levels, functions and roles across genders, races, religions and whatnot.
     
    The religious dogma of the Left states that all genders and ethnic groups are identical. So once you pledge faith to this false premise all disparities in outcome must, by definition, be proof that equal opportunity was denied. It's that simple. GIGO.

    Replies: @ConfirmationBias

    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena? It’s an honest question, I truly don’t know. My inference is that this perversion of the quest for equal opportunity morphing into equal outcome in more recent.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @ConfirmationBias


    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena?
     
    IMHO, it's always been the core of Leftism. Back in the day, the same religious dogma was dedicated to eliminating all disparities in outcome between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes. The current version (Leftism 2.0), simply substitutes "POC" and "White" as the new classes whose outcomes must be equalized. Old wine in a new bottle.

    But with all that said, "wokeness" truly metastasized with the advent of social media.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  46. @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    Start a family.
     
    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women--and family--will follow.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Rosie

    Start a family.

  47. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    True.

    I've actually accumulated enough savings I could survive a few years of unemployment and am debating whether to become politically active (create a Twitter account and try to get noticed by Quillette etc.; I would never run for office, I have no charisma), or start a family before it's too late (it's always biologically possible for a man to do that, but to date substantially younger you need a lot more charisma than I've got).

    I have a few intersectionality points (though not the high-value ones).

    Maybe start with the local GOP?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Lowe, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    SFG, you seem like a good guy.

    The other guys have already said it–start a family. This is the critical thing we need to keep us going and you can do a lot of good, influence a lot of people, your family and beyond, doing it.

    In fact, the lie, that biology, that reproduction, that lineage, do not matter and somehow our civilization just sails on, is the big lie, at the heart of the establishment/left/minoritarian project.

    A guy, intelligent–we know you cover that–hitting it in his career, personable, keeping himself in shape (and not objectively ugly) can indeed date younger, in some cases much younger. But you’re always fighting against time and generally the quality of woman–or at least the selection of women with the character you want–is going to decline. And your own time to parent and enjoy a vigorous family life before you start becoming a bit tired is also in the mix.

    In contrast, you individually–unless you’ve put away DJT money!–aren’t going to move the needle through political action. By all means get involved and be a reasonable, personable advocate for saving the West. But the big individual thing you’ll do is have a family.

    Remember: These people desired the destruction, the extinction of our unique race, culture and civilization. They do not want you to reproduce. They want you despondent or obsequious. The best way you beat them–start a family and reproduce yourself, again and again and again and again.. (And practice inbetween.) You’ll have no better time in your life … and help save our civilization in the process.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad

    I “settled” for a late-30s divorcée with good family/upbringing and pleasant disposition. Immediate upgrade in quality of life (both of us). Then after we’d tried all the other options ended up getting the much younger after all via our egg donor.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  48. @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    Start a family.
     
    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women--and family--will follow.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Rosie

    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women–and family–will follow.

    Wrong. Here we see the implicit (and hopefully unintentional) characterization of women as prostitutes sniffing out a meal ticket rather than loving helpmeets who can help you achieve your goals. A young wife’s paycheck can help a man get established in the career he wants and lay the foundation for a prosperous future for the couple and their future children.

    It appears to me from personal observation that older, established men who marry much younger, poorer women never really respect their wives as fully as men who marry young and build a life in partnership with their spouse. At best, they see them as dependent children. At worst, well …

    • Agree: SimpleSong, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Rosie

    Preach sister!

    https://youtu.be/lCj0qwTHj8c

  49. @Anonymous
    @Lowe

    Why stop there? Join the FLDS and start a few of them. Or, as truckers and railroaders used to do once in a while, at least two, one at your domicile and one at your turnaround point. They busted a UP hogger for this a few months ago here in Kansas City. A wife and two kids here and a common-law wife and another two somewhere else.

    And donate sperm too.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    They busted a UP hogger for this a few months ago here in Kansas City. A wife and two kids here and a common-law wife and another two somewhere else. </blockquote

    What exactly did they "bust him" for?

    I can see busting him in say 1960. What are they claiming he's done exactly? Having an affair is illegal now? Having children out of wedlock?

    Sure the legal wife can divorce rape him. The 2nd wife probably too. But what the heck has he done that's illegal?

    Sounds like they busted him for being a white man–knocking up multiple women without being black.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    "Bigamy" would be the offense, but he never got a license or had a ceremony with the second 'wife', so he just gets both wives dumping him, cutting off access to his kids and reaming him royally when that railroad retirement starts coming in. What would otherwise be a fat retirement will be pretty crummy now.

  50. “[Damore] … leaning on pseudoscience to argue that women aren’t cut out for the tech industry.”

    This statement is a flat-out lie, as I’m sure its author Dave Gershgorn knows.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Paco Wové

    I doubt it. They’re JIT cognitioneers, and with no one to hold them accountable they’ve seen no reason to consider that question yet.

  51. @AnotherDad
    @SFG

    SFG, you seem like a good guy.

    The other guys have already said it--start a family. This is the critical thing we need to keep us going and you can do a lot of good, influence a lot of people, your family and beyond, doing it.

    In fact, the lie, that biology, that reproduction, that lineage, do not matter and somehow our civilization just sails on, is the big lie, at the heart of the establishment/left/minoritarian project.


    A guy, intelligent--we know you cover that--hitting it in his career, personable, keeping himself in shape (and not objectively ugly) can indeed date younger, in some cases much younger. But you're always fighting against time and generally the quality of woman--or at least the selection of women with the character you want--is going to decline. And your own time to parent and enjoy a vigorous family life before you start becoming a bit tired is also in the mix.

    In contrast, you individually--unless you've put away DJT money!--aren't going to move the needle through political action. By all means get involved and be a reasonable, personable advocate for saving the West. But the big individual thing you'll do is have a family.


    Remember: These people desired the destruction, the extinction of our unique race, culture and civilization. They do not want you to reproduce. They want you despondent or obsequious. The best way you beat them--start a family and reproduce yourself, again and again and again and again.. (And practice inbetween.) You'll have no better time in your life ... and help save our civilization in the process.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I “settled” for a late-30s divorcée with good family/upbringing and pleasant disposition. Immediate upgrade in quality of life (both of us). Then after we’d tried all the other options ended up getting the much younger after all via our egg donor.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    She’s also world-class in her field and I’ve been big help with that.

  52. @Paco Wové
    "[Damore] ... leaning on pseudoscience to argue that women aren’t cut out for the tech industry."

    This statement is a flat-out lie, as I'm sure its author Dave Gershgorn knows.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I doubt it. They’re JIT cognitioneers, and with no one to hold them accountable they’ve seen no reason to consider that question yet.

  53. @Rosie
    @Anonymous


    Wrong advice. First, it is a false dilemma. Second, a man must forge his own path (usually, in some degree in joint effort with other men, which may include the political). Women–and family–will follow.
     
    Wrong. Here we see the implicit (and hopefully unintentional) characterization of women as prostitutes sniffing out a meal ticket rather than loving helpmeets who can help you achieve your goals. A young wife's paycheck can help a man get established in the career he wants and lay the foundation for a prosperous future for the couple and their future children.

    It appears to me from personal observation that older, established men who marry much younger, poorer women never really respect their wives as fully as men who marry young and build a life in partnership with their spouse. At best, they see them as dependent children. At worst, well ...

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Preach sister!

    • LOL: Rosie
  54. @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad

    I “settled” for a late-30s divorcée with good family/upbringing and pleasant disposition. Immediate upgrade in quality of life (both of us). Then after we’d tried all the other options ended up getting the much younger after all via our egg donor.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    She’s also world-class in her field and I’ve been big help with that.

  55. @SFG
    @PhysicistDave

    True.

    I've actually accumulated enough savings I could survive a few years of unemployment and am debating whether to become politically active (create a Twitter account and try to get noticed by Quillette etc.; I would never run for office, I have no charisma), or start a family before it's too late (it's always biologically possible for a man to do that, but to date substantially younger you need a lot more charisma than I've got).

    I have a few intersectionality points (though not the high-value ones).

    Maybe start with the local GOP?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Lowe, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    or start a family before it’s too late

    Why would you want to do that? It’s like playing Russian roulette except that instead of only one chamber containing a bullet all the chambers except one contain bullets. So your chances of blowing your brains out are five in six rather than one in six.

    If you can find a woman untainted by the poison of feminism (which is almost impossible) and if you have the resources to keep your kids insulated from the education system and if you believe you can keep them insulated from the equally pernicious influence of social media and if you can keep your kids away from college and if you have enough money to defend yourself when the system decides to target you for destruction (which means you’ll need a very great deal of money) then it might be a good option. Otherwise you’ll have kids and once they go to college they’ll be turned into blue-haired SJW freaks.

    That’s assuming you don’t get divorce-raped and never see your kids again.

    But some people enjoy playing Russian roulette.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @dfordoom

    I'd try to get a Eastern European younger woman , they seem unfettered by feminism for the most part, and you import a white person. And have a reasonably sized family and raise them to be racially conscious. Once you understand race and what it is there is no real going back.

    , @Rosie
    @dfordoom

    Family formation is somewhat risky. Nothing can be done about that. You can choose to avoid that risk, but only at the cost of certainty of never having a happy family. That seems totally irrational to me.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  56. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    They busted a UP hogger for this a few months ago here in Kansas City. A wife and two kids here and a common-law wife and another two somewhere else. </blockquote

    What exactly did they "bust him" for?

    I can see busting him in say 1960. What are they claiming he's done exactly? Having an affair is illegal now? Having children out of wedlock?

    Sure the legal wife can divorce rape him. The 2nd wife probably too. But what the heck has he done that's illegal?

    Sounds like they busted him for being a white man--knocking up multiple women without being black.
     

     

    Replies: @Anonymous

    “Bigamy” would be the offense, but he never got a license or had a ceremony with the second ‘wife’, so he just gets both wives dumping him, cutting off access to his kids and reaming him royally when that railroad retirement starts coming in. What would otherwise be a fat retirement will be pretty crummy now.

  57. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @SFG


    or start a family before it’s too late
     
    Why would you want to do that? It's like playing Russian roulette except that instead of only one chamber containing a bullet all the chambers except one contain bullets. So your chances of blowing your brains out are five in six rather than one in six.

    If you can find a woman untainted by the poison of feminism (which is almost impossible) and if you have the resources to keep your kids insulated from the education system and if you believe you can keep them insulated from the equally pernicious influence of social media and if you can keep your kids away from college and if you have enough money to defend yourself when the system decides to target you for destruction (which means you'll need a very great deal of money) then it might be a good option. Otherwise you'll have kids and once they go to college they'll be turned into blue-haired SJW freaks.

    That's assuming you don't get divorce-raped and never see your kids again.

    But some people enjoy playing Russian roulette.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Rosie

    I’d try to get a Eastern European younger woman , they seem unfettered by feminism for the most part, and you import a white person. And have a reasonably sized family and raise them to be racially conscious. Once you understand race and what it is there is no real going back.

  58. @dfordoom
    @SFG


    or start a family before it’s too late
     
    Why would you want to do that? It's like playing Russian roulette except that instead of only one chamber containing a bullet all the chambers except one contain bullets. So your chances of blowing your brains out are five in six rather than one in six.

    If you can find a woman untainted by the poison of feminism (which is almost impossible) and if you have the resources to keep your kids insulated from the education system and if you believe you can keep them insulated from the equally pernicious influence of social media and if you can keep your kids away from college and if you have enough money to defend yourself when the system decides to target you for destruction (which means you'll need a very great deal of money) then it might be a good option. Otherwise you'll have kids and once they go to college they'll be turned into blue-haired SJW freaks.

    That's assuming you don't get divorce-raped and never see your kids again.

    But some people enjoy playing Russian roulette.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Rosie

    Family formation is somewhat risky. Nothing can be done about that. You can choose to avoid that risk, but only at the cost of certainty of never having a happy family. That seems totally irrational to me.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Family formation is somewhat risky. Nothing can be done about that. You can choose to avoid that risk, but only at the cost of certainty of never having a happy family. That seems totally irrational to me.
     
    Yes, family formation has always been risky. The difference is that these days the risks are so great. The chances of disaster are much greater, and the consequences of disaster are much greater.

    If it gets to the point where there's maybe a one in four chance of things working out then the risk is clearly not worth taking.

    Replies: @Rosie

  59. @ConfirmationBias
    @Hypnotoad666

    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena? It’s an honest question, I truly don’t know. My inference is that this perversion of the quest for equal opportunity morphing into equal outcome in more recent.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena?

    IMHO, it’s always been the core of Leftism. Back in the day, the same religious dogma was dedicated to eliminating all disparities in outcome between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes. The current version (Leftism 2.0), simply substitutes “POC” and “White” as the new classes whose outcomes must be equalized. Old wine in a new bottle.

    But with all that said, “wokeness” truly metastasized with the advent of social media.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Hypnotoad666



    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena?
     
    IMHO, it’s always been the core of Leftism.
     
    All political ideologies are substitute religions. That has always been the case. As religion has steadily declined in the West over the past couple of centuries political ideologies have taken its place.

    All political ideologies are substitute religions. Liberalism, marxism, environmentalism, HBD, free-market capitalism, libertarianism.

    Marxism was one of the more successful examples (successful in terms of making converts) but it's dead now. At the moment Social Justice (which is basically anti-marxism) is the dominant religion.
  60. @Art Deco
    @ConfirmationBias

    Actually, no one gives a rip that 97% of the people working in the building trades are men or that a similar % of elementary school staff are women. With an odd exception here and there (e.g. the Lily Ledbetter fandango) the only controversies concern (1) professional-managerial positions and (2) a subset of technical positions that have satisfactory salaries. And the object is invariably to reduce the population of white males in such positions, BAMN. And if there be any line of work where the pipeline of new entrants is dominated by women, it is not a controversy. Hearing any complaints about veterinary schools?

    Now, you and I both know that ordinary competition and ordinary expression of occupational preferences isn't going to give these creatures what they want. Getting them what they want requires abuse of power and discretion by HR twits, by legal counsel, by courts, and by administrative agencies.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Actually, no one gives a rip that 97% of the people working in the building trades are men or that a similar % of elementary school staff are women.

    How about making license plates for the state. 90% of those positions are filled by men. I haven’t heard anyone argue that women need equal representation in that job position.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  61. @Rosie
    @dfordoom

    Family formation is somewhat risky. Nothing can be done about that. You can choose to avoid that risk, but only at the cost of certainty of never having a happy family. That seems totally irrational to me.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Family formation is somewhat risky. Nothing can be done about that. You can choose to avoid that risk, but only at the cost of certainty of never having a happy family. That seems totally irrational to me.

    Yes, family formation has always been risky. The difference is that these days the risks are so great. The chances of disaster are much greater, and the consequences of disaster are much greater.

    If it gets to the point where there’s maybe a one in four chance of things working out then the risk is clearly not worth taking.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Yes, family formation has always been risky. The difference is that these days the risks are so great. The chances of disaster are much greater, and the consequences of disaster are much greater.
     
    No, the risks are just more evenly born between men and women, and you don't like that. Sorry.

    If it gets to the point where there’s maybe a one in four chance of things working out then the risk is clearly not worth taking.
     
    Your math is wrong, but in any event, your cowardice will doom you, dfordoom.

    Replies: @Gaslighting Hotep

  62. @Hypnotoad666
    @ConfirmationBias


    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena?
     
    IMHO, it's always been the core of Leftism. Back in the day, the same religious dogma was dedicated to eliminating all disparities in outcome between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes. The current version (Leftism 2.0), simply substitutes "POC" and "White" as the new classes whose outcomes must be equalized. Old wine in a new bottle.

    But with all that said, "wokeness" truly metastasized with the advent of social media.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Isn’t this so-called religious dogma a more recent phenomena?

    IMHO, it’s always been the core of Leftism.

    All political ideologies are substitute religions. That has always been the case. As religion has steadily declined in the West over the past couple of centuries political ideologies have taken its place.

    All political ideologies are substitute religions. Liberalism, marxism, environmentalism, HBD, free-market capitalism, libertarianism.

    Marxism was one of the more successful examples (successful in terms of making converts) but it’s dead now. At the moment Social Justice (which is basically anti-marxism) is the dominant religion.

  63. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Art Deco


    And they know perfectly well that the women weren’t run out of these programs by nefarious contrivance.
     
    I can vividly remember all the official, on-campus resources devoted to women in STEM and getting more women into STEM that existed in the late '90s.

    They were bending over backwards to spoon-feed STEM curricula to young women back then. I can only imagine how much worse it's gotten since then.

    Replies: @ConfirmationBias

    Ok but why is that a problem? I have no issue with spoon-feeding an alternative approach to kids and youth adults. For years, girls’ toys were dolls, kitchen sets, and stories about beautiful princesses being rescued. If there is effort to expand that range, that’s fine. Same is true of the kind of education they’re being exposed to. It might seem excessive, but maybe this is just the overcorrection needed before the needle swings back to natural balance.

    My primary issue is with enforcing an outcome.

  64. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Family formation is somewhat risky. Nothing can be done about that. You can choose to avoid that risk, but only at the cost of certainty of never having a happy family. That seems totally irrational to me.
     
    Yes, family formation has always been risky. The difference is that these days the risks are so great. The chances of disaster are much greater, and the consequences of disaster are much greater.

    If it gets to the point where there's maybe a one in four chance of things working out then the risk is clearly not worth taking.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Yes, family formation has always been risky. The difference is that these days the risks are so great. The chances of disaster are much greater, and the consequences of disaster are much greater.

    No, the risks are just more evenly born between men and women, and you don’t like that. Sorry.

    If it gets to the point where there’s maybe a one in four chance of things working out then the risk is clearly not worth taking.

    Your math is wrong, but in any event, your cowardice will doom you, dfordoom.

    • Replies: @Gaslighting Hotep
    @Rosie


    No, the risks are just more evenly born between men and women, and you don’t like that. Sorry.
     
    Your agenda of hatred is blinding you to the plain truth that the institution of family is finally buckling under decades of sustained assault.

    Replies: @Rosie

  65. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Yes, family formation has always been risky. The difference is that these days the risks are so great. The chances of disaster are much greater, and the consequences of disaster are much greater.
     
    No, the risks are just more evenly born between men and women, and you don't like that. Sorry.

    If it gets to the point where there’s maybe a one in four chance of things working out then the risk is clearly not worth taking.
     
    Your math is wrong, but in any event, your cowardice will doom you, dfordoom.

    Replies: @Gaslighting Hotep

    No, the risks are just more evenly born between men and women, and you don’t like that. Sorry.

    Your agenda of hatred is blinding you to the plain truth that the institution of family is finally buckling under decades of sustained assault.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Gaslighting Hotep


    Your agenda of hatred is blinding you to the plain truth that the institution of family is finally buckling under decades of sustained assault.
     
    If you have particular grievances, I'll be happy to hear them. If it's anything I haven't heard before, I'll be shocked.
  66. @Rosie
    @Logan


    There has been some amazing research done here.
     
    Let's see it.

    Replies: @Logan

    Fair enough. I’ll try to find it, but I hope you realize I don’t catalog the location of everything I read or view.

  67. @Gaslighting Hotep
    @Rosie


    No, the risks are just more evenly born between men and women, and you don’t like that. Sorry.
     
    Your agenda of hatred is blinding you to the plain truth that the institution of family is finally buckling under decades of sustained assault.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Your agenda of hatred is blinding you to the plain truth that the institution of family is finally buckling under decades of sustained assault.

    If you have particular grievances, I’ll be happy to hear them. If it’s anything I haven’t heard before, I’ll be shocked.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS