The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Women and Science
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

An academic woman tweeted a job opening in Anti-Racist Feminist Biology, which has led to much comment. Evolutionary anthropologist Littlefoot has defended the possibility (if not necessarily probability) of feminist biology being a potential actual thing.

He and I both cite the UC Davis primatologist and evolutionary anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy as an example of the upside of what female interest in female topics can bring to the table.

Blaffer Hrdy is married, has three daughters, and with her husband runs a sizable walnut orchard near UC Davis. Thus she has a lot of experience in what has been one of the more common roles of human beings over the last 10,000 years: being a farm wife-mother.

Her 1999 book Mother Nature features many insights into questions that interested many women over the millennia, such as getting daughters to do their chores around the farm. In her experience, it’s much easier to persuade an 11-year-old daughter to do the kind of farm chores that she will do when she is a farm wife-mother herself than it is to persuade a 15-year-old daughter. Pre-adolescent daughters tend to be helpful and interested in practicing skills they will use as grown-ups.

By 15, however, daughters tend to roll their eyes at chores and complain endlessly so they can go back to lolling about and/or working on their make-up. Why? According to Hrdy, they are conserving their energy and attention for their entry into the mating market.

Is this exactly true? I don’t know. I’m not a farm wife-mother. But without the contributions of an academic farm wife-mother, I never would have thought about it.

 
Hide 183 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Altai says:

  2. Evolutionary anthropologist Littlefoot has defended the possibility (if not necessarily probability) of feminist biology being a potential actual thing.

    Let’s stipulate for argument’s sake that it is: Is the Anti-Racist sub-topic of it an actual thing?

    By 15, however, daughters tend to roll their eyes at chores and complain endlessly so they can go back to lolling about and/or working on their make-up. Why? According to Hrdy, they are conserving their energy and attention for their entry into the mating market.

    What a Schlamiel. They’re not “conserving thier energy” for mating, they are blissfully pouring their energies into the mating game, because they know sex is more fun than housework or farmwork.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  3. anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:

    LOL!

  4. Is this exactly true? I don’t know. I’m not a farm wife-mother. But without the contributions of an academic farm wife-mother, I never would have thought about it.

    I’m not a joiner, I’m not a member of the Farm Wife-Mother Party or the Hair Club For Men, but let’s look at what’s happened to the national morals since WWII.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    , @Kronos
  5. Hrdy is Harvard and I reject Harvardism. Kaus and Unz and some others excepted.

    Fun Fun Fun to till Gilpin took Hrdy’s vowel away.

  6. Can the “mating market” and “practicing skills related to the adult world” be related in some way?

    I had just moved into a suburban locale when the neighbor’s adult daughter saw me doing outdoor chores — it could have been raking leaves — and offered to help, which I steadfastly refused.

    My mother, may the Lord’s face shine upon her now, took me aside to explain, as she regarded me as a guy who needed such things explained, that this young woman was “expressing interest.” I replied that my way of responding was to refuse a woman’s help in yard chores, “What kind of man puts the woman in his life to work raking leaves or operating a lawn mower”?

    Let’s just say nothing ever “developed” and maybe having the neighbors as in-laws would have been too much a real-life version of the Everyone Loves Raymond TV sit-com?

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    , @Anon
  7. The only vaguely feminist evolutionary theory I respect is the Aquatic Ape theory, which seems to deserve more credit than mainstream science gives it. It’s only vaguely feminist because the leading advocate is a woman, and it’s often seen as in opposition to man-as-all-powerful-hunter savannah theory, which can be a bit cartoonishly Tarzan-like.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  8. SFG says:

    I’d argue having women in fields like evo-bio has value for the reasons you described above.

    Feminism, in its current incarnation, holds to various antiscientific creeds (absence of intrinsic biological differences, all differences in gender achievement (except those that favor women, of course) are due to oppression, you can change your sex) that hamper the discovery of the universe, particularly the human variety. In particular it seems heavily filled with nonreproductively oriented women (gay or straight), which was a historical minority of the population. (Though never zero–look at nuns in various cultures…)

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  9. Steve2 says:

    Anecdotes are not data.

    The claims may be true, but opinions are not science.

    What is the opportunity cost of this work?

    Is there a negative benefit associated with promotion of these methods?

    Who pays for this kind of work?

    Does this work only happen in California?

  10. Anon7 says:

    “…they are conserving their energy and attention for their entry into the mating market.”

    It’s no coincidence that girls tend to fall seriously behind boys in everything STEM when they hit puberty. Suddenly, young women find that there is an easier way to get that toner cartridge replaced, or solve for x, or carry heavy boxes…

    But not unless they pay more attention to “useless” feminine tasks like understanding fashion and makeup. And only men who have never watched over their wives’ and daughter’s shoulders as they were mesmerized by Keeping Up With The Kardashians can fail to understand the profundity of “lolling about”.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  11. Agree with SFG.

    Women are less oriented toward rational thinking, but they can do science. And there is probably some benefit to having a few in evo-bio fields thinking about human development from women’s perspective.

    The real problem here is feminism and particulary the set of beliefs that came in with 2nd wave Jewish feminism–women as oppressed minority. Out of that flows just an oozing river infected pus “thought”.

    • Agree: Rosie
  12. Is this exactly true? I don’t know. I’m not a farm wife-mother. But without the contributions of an academic farm wife-mother, I never would have thought about it.

    …and this is how distortion of “diversity” into an axiomatically good principle began. I doubt you’ll fall down this rabbit hole, but your comment is a great example to examine.

    Can viewpoints from people who’ve lived an entirely different life experience be useful? Yes, they can be useful, or even instrumental, to a breakthrough. That doesn’t mean they always are, of course, but it’s silly to deny that different perspectives can be helpful. Academia was probably ground zero for this, since its goal is the pursuit of knowledge—anything that helps is going to be instantly adopted. And it probably did help many different fields in many different ways.

    People elsewhere notice this and adopt it in their own fields, and diversity again is probably successful. The problem begins when people start to view this pattern (hey, we intentionally hired someone “diverse” and it actually helped!) as law, and then this law as an axiom. Just because diversity has the potential for being useful does not mean that it always is going to be useful. It’s akin to the housing market bubble in the 2000’s; housing prices have been going up for the past few years, ergo housing prices will always continue to rise. I think David Hume had a problem with this line of thought, something about the “Problem of Induction”…

    • Replies: @sayless
  13. guest says:

    What you’re describing is not “feminist biology.” It’s a woman making an anthropological inference, or whatever. Which by the sound of it could fit perfectly within Man’s Science.

    Don’t let’s start calling things feminist just because a girl’s doing it. Even if that girl happens to identify as feminist.

  14. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    feminist biology being a potential actual thing.

    Sure. But not a useful thing. Nor a scientific thing. Just a thing.Like, oh, astrology.
    Feminist rejection of “cause and effect” is problematic to actual science.

  15. ricpic says:

    What does assessing the relative cooperativeness of 11 year olds versus 15 year olds have to do with science?

  16. Anon[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Well, why not? Why should Britain have a statue to a man who helped wreck the British Empire? It was nonsense to put it up in the first place.

    People in India would be better off with the British still in charge.

  17. George says:

    “Her 1999 book ” His 1899 book The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions answered that question.

    The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions
    Chapter 7: Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture
    Thorstein Veblen

    Her sphere is within the household, which she should “beautify,” and of which she should be the “chief ornament.” The male head of the household is not currently spoken of as its ornament. This feature taken in conjunction with the other fact that propriety requires more unremitting attention to expensive display in the dress and other paraphernalia of women, goes to enforce the view already implied in what has gone before. By virtue of its descent from a patriarchal past, our social system makes it the woman’s function in an especial degree to put in evidence her household’s ability to pay.

    https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Veblen/Veblen_1899/Veblen_1899_07.html

    I am not scholar enough to come up with a bible (old or new testament or Torah) reference, but maybe Jezabel?

    Jezebel put on make-up and a formal wig with adornments and looked out of a window, taunting him. Bromiley says that it should be looked at less as an attempt at seduction than the public appearance of the queen mother, invested with the authority of the royal house and cult, confronting a rebellious commander.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel

    Samson and Delilah – Multiple warnings about men not falling for fancy ladies could be seen as career advice for pretty teenage girls.

  18. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:

    “Conserving their energy and attention”

    Regaining energy and attention would take no more than a week.

    Maybe “becoming more of a burden and less of a asset to her parents so they will become more and more interested in finding a way to get rid of her to some neighbor boy who will whip her nubile ass and get her workng again.”

  19. Farming tends to make you practical about science. Gay males, unbreedable females? Cull’em. Gender diverse? “Freemartins” often don’t breed, so fatten up and sell. Urban/suburban dwellers have trouble grasping that kind of simple reality.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  20. Tony says:

    I find the spelling of her married name really annoying. Put a freakin vowel in there.

    • Agree: sayless
    • Replies: @reactionry
    , @Reg Cæsar
  21. Bryan says:

    Interesting. I think I recall one of the characters in “Anna Karennina” doing something similar – not Anna. Tolstoy said she just lazed around the house after the marriage doing nothing much at all. Then, she got pregnant. He made pretty much the same point – she was resting up.

    It struck me as a fascinating observation at the time.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  22. Redman says:

    As a father with 7 and 9 year old daughters, I think things may have changed. At least if you grow up in an urban metropolis like NYC.

    My 9 year old does no chores and acts like she’s 15 right now. She’s still innocent, but is already mimicking the hypersexed, superwoman role models of pop culture.

    I’d consider limiting her “screen time” but I’m not sure that would be the right choice. She already knows more about my iPhone, iPad and other assorted iGadgets than I ever will.

  23. lhtness says:

    Hrdy is virtually the only example I’ve ever heard cited as an example of the benefits of getting more women in science, and the important perspectives this can bring.

  24. Forbes says:
    @Altai

    How is structural racism/sexism defined and measured?
    How are environmental stressors defined and measured?
    How is influence on reproductive function determined?
    What are gender diverse people? Can someone be many gendered?
    Do gender diverse people have a reproductive function?

    So many questions, so little time…

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  25. Tipsy says:

    Hrdy means “Proud” in Czech. That is all.

    • Replies: @sayless
  26. @Altai

    No. In fact, by left leaning standards, you would probably consider me to be quite racist. I am also male and very proud of my masculinity. I think I would be able to add much needed diversity to your department. To whom should I mail my resume?

  27. the tweet is from a U of I prof (University of Intersectionality)
    heaven forbid it should be confused with the University of Illinois.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  28. @Altai

    Dr. Kate [email protected]

    Associate professor at the University of Illinois. Harassment, discrimination, stress, and menstrual cycles.

    @periodpodcast2 in spare time. She/her/hers.

    Poor woman has PTSD from the monthly ravishings of Captain Bloodsnatch.

  29. Well from the Physics Department we have a little different twist on this subject:

    http://www.technicianonline.com/news/article_5c074268-e599-11e9-ba20-8be2176a102d.html

  30. Lovely, isn’t it, how she sets down a political test for anyone who wants to do, ostensibly, biology?

  31. megabar says:

    The explanation that currently makes the most sense to me is that during teenage years, children start to pull apart from their family as an evolutionary nudge to start their own lives and families.

    Thus, teens are embarrassed by their family, rebel to varying degrees, and even keep different hours (teens naturally stay up later than older adults).

    I saw a documentary on tigers. In it, the adult female mom and her litter all slept in a big furry pile every night, with each child tiger happy and content. As they entered young adulthood, the children would start to pick fights which each other with increased frequency until they no longer tolerated each other, and left to find their own territory.

    As social creatures, humans don’t do this to the same extent. But there are similarities, and I think for similar reasons.

  32. In the 1930s I grew up in a farming community, and nearly all my female classmates were the daughters of farmers, as were their mothers and grandmothers. Almost certainly during those dark times they could only look forward to become farm mothers themselves. But WWII changed all that. As we know, women became an active part of the industrial workforce that produced the armament for that war. And as a direct result of the war the factories producing armaments were quick to re-tool and manufacture farm equipment that replaced the labor intensive farming methods of the 30s. The farm mother as we knew her has almost disappeared from my former part of the world.

  33. “In her experience, it’s much easier to persuade an 11-year-old daughter to do the kind of farm chores that she will do when she is a farm wife-mother herself than it is to persuade a 15-year-old daughter. Pre-adolescent daughters tend to be helpful and interested in practicing skills they will use as grown-ups.

    By 15, however, daughters tend to roll their eyes at chores and complain endlessly so they can go back to lolling about and/or working on their make-up. Why? According to Hrdy, they are conserving their energy and attention for their entry into the mating market.”

    You could say the same thing for an 11/15 year old boy.

  34. ‘… I’m not a farm wife-mother…’

    So you claim.

    • Replies: @anon
  35. Anyway, ‘Hrdy’ is obviously avoiding making that decidedly politically-incorrect leap.

    Yes, eleven year old farm girls want to learn from mommy about their future role.

    …fifteen year old girls (or certain parts of them, anyway) think they should be playing that role now — not still studying it.

  36. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is 73 years old, and represents a type that is likely not very common among the current generation of feminists. She’s a Texas oil fortune heiress with an elite East Coast education. An obviously bright and creative lady, with no natural personal sense of social victimhood, she set out to research something useful and of practical value to women. Her anthropological research was not driven by ideology.

    I’m sure the oil fortune came in handy when she decided to become a lady farmer in her ‘50s. I expect her orchard uses migrant labor but none is evident in the pictures on its website. Perhaps walnut farming is highly mechanized?

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    , @Sbalfa
  37. @Charles Pewitt

    Perhaps when the walnut market goes back up again, Mrs. Hrdy will be able to afford a vowel. Until then, DON”T KNOCK HER. and just spin the wheel.

    Thank you for the laughs, Mr. Prewitt!

  38. @Simply Simon

    Dear sir

    You are one of my favorite commenters on this blog.

    I particularly enjoy your stories of a bygone America.

    I am only a young man, but my grandfather, with whom I am very close, grew up on a farm. He was born in 1935. I’m sure he’ll be happy to know of someone else who remembers the smell of horse harnesses.

    Have a great day!

    • Agree: Dtbb
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
  39. @Alexander Turok

    … tend to roll their eyes at chores and complain endlessly so they can go back to lolling about and/or working on their make-up.

    You could say the same thing for an 11/15 year old boy.

    Uhhh, not in my family. I guess we are just old fashioned.

  40. I guess, being a woman, she does have a little bit more insight on this bit of sociology/psychology, but this is pretty damn normal pop science compared to that ad I read in commenter Altai’s tweet. I would hope Mrs. Vowel-challenged would agree with me on this, being a normal person, excepting the name.

    I got it! It’s a title for the next book in the series: The Hrdy Boys: Search for the missing vowel.

  41. @Forbes

    Can someone be many gendered?

    Lo-o-o-o-ve
    is a many-gendered thing.
    It’s the adipose that often grows
    ’round the ding-a-ling…

  42. @Charles Pewitt

    Hrdy is Harvard…

    Hrdy is Hrvrd, their branch campus in Bratislava.

    • LOL: jim jones
  43. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    He could choose to identify as a farm wife-mother if he wanted to, of course. If not here, then in his spare time.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  44. @Anon7

    or solve for x

    They already have x, twice over. It’s y they’re after.

  45. BB753 says:

    I’ll say it again: women don’t belong in College, neither as students or teachers. Intelligent women should be raising at least 4 children by the time they reach 28 years old. Anything else is a waste of time, resources, energy and bad for the gene pool.

    • Agree: Thomm
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  46. @Simply Simon

    We still have the Carter Family recordings.

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
  47. @Almost Missouri

    And then they came for Mahatma Gandhi:

    The naked teenage girls were okay, it seems. But say what everyone thinks about Bantus…

  48. slumber_j says:
    @PiltdownMan

    My son’s godmother, a college friend of my wife’s, married a Blaffer descendant. We’ve been known to call him The Baffler.

  49. @Steve2

    Anecdotes are not data.

    Anecdotes are data. You just need 31 of them, randomly selected, compute their mean, appeal to the Central Limit Theorem, and now you not only have data, it is normally distributed! (Well, the mean is, anyway.)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  50. Peterike says:
    @Simply Simon

    “But WWII changed all that. As we know, women became an active part of the industrial workforce that produced the armament for that war.“

    Women moving into the work force in large numbers. Yet another way that the only people who won WWII were the Jews.

  51. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    So that is what Idrissa Akuna Elba looks like when he is angry.

  52. @Charles Pewitt

    Vowels will be the next thing to go on the chopping block because they are audio-assuming letters.

    I mean, if the lower case u wants to identify as a lower case i, who are we to say it isn’t a tiny dick?

  53. @Redneck farmer

    It seems that we’ve forgotten that what we are called upon to do here on Earth is to recreate the Garden. And this means imposing order on the chaos of Nature.

    “But put there no deformed creature, nor impotent, nor mad, neither wicked, nor deceitful, nor rancorous, nor jealous, nor a man with irregular teeth, nor a leper…”

    Advice given by Mazda to Yima in the pre-Islamic Iranian, Aryan Avestic scriptures on how to persevere through the disastrous climatic upheaval that is to come. An Aryan equivalent of God’s advice to Noah.

  54. Rosie says:
    @BB753

    I’ll say it again: women don’t belong in College, neither as students or teachers. Intelligent women should be raising at least 4 children by the time they reach 28 years old. Anything else is a waste of time, resources, energy and bad for the gene pool.

    This this comment appears here and noone raises an objection is a disgrace to the dissident Right.

  55. Sbalfa says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Uhh, see all those machines in the photos on the website, including the yellow tree shaker with the jaws gripping the tree? Highly mechanized.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
  56. Anon 2 says:

    Interesting fact: Israel has only 6 Nobel laureates. Nothing to write home about.

    Wikipedia lists 12 but 6 cannot be counted because they were born outside
    of Israel, e.g., Shimon Peres (born in Poland as Szymon Perski)

  57. jpp says:
    @Altai

    One interesting feature of the tweet to which Altai links in the #1 response is the inclusion of the specific diction “anti-racist”, for which it is dubious that this represents a simple colloquial cobbling together of words intended to convey opposition to racism. Rather, this seems like a direct invocation of Ibram Kendi’s slogan. Ever since Kendi’s risible penny dreadful “How to be an Anti-Racist” was published to fawning reviews from The Guardian, NY Times, etc, I’ve experienced that the term “Anti-Racist” has tremendously proliferated throughout SJW internet sphere, with the implicit associated expectations that we are to understand that the utterance of this locution comprises a specific nod to Kendi and that we are to construe Kendi’s ideas with sincere gravitas.

  58. @Redman

    Sounds like you need to move my friend.

  59. Anonymous[751] • Disclaimer says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    I had an anthropology professor who liked to say, “Man, the hunter? What we should talk more about is Man, the Hunted. Pre-technological man was in deep trouble in Africa. …

  60. @ThreeCranes

    Well, we have an election coming up in November 2020. Plenty of time to figure what Mazda was saying, even though Mazda is likely a Wankel who thinks rotary rather than reciprocating or tubular.

    • Replies: @anon
  61. @Rosie

    Exception granted, Rosie. Women have always been teachers, no one should dispute that. In today’s world, intelligent women are very likely better off bearing and teaching their own children rather than teaching to the public weal. Because their own children may not be valued at mint, or at all.

    • Replies: @anon
  62. @Sbalfa

    Thanks for confirming what the pictures seemed to indicate. There’s a good video online by the California walnut growers association.

    I see that in China, the worlds biggest walnut producing country by far, the economics are such that there a greater component of labor in the process, which makes sense, given the access to low-wage labor.

  63. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Anecdotes are data. You just need 31 of them, randomly selected

  64. anon[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Neil Templeton

    Plenty of time to figure what Mazda was saying

    I think it was “hmmmmmmm”

    • Replies: @donvonburg
  65. anon[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    This this comment appears here and noone raises an objection is a disgrace to the dissident Right.

    Lol @ your ruffled feathers. We’re not in a girly groupthink henhouse, differences of opinion are acceptable to men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  66. @Rosie

    This this comment appears here and noone raises an objection is a disgrace to the dissident Right.

    Not necessarily. A woman between the 51st and, say, 98th percentile on any intellectual or creative scale is much likelier to make a greater contribution to the world with her uterus than with her mind, as impressive as the latter may be.

    The question is not what she should be permitted to do, but what the rest of should sacrifice to give her support.

    If she wants to go to graduate or law school, fine, let her. But let’s not pretend it’s about anything other than her own entertainment.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    , @Rosie
  67. @Tony

    Vanna White Privilege?

    • Replies: @reactionry
    , @donvonburg
  68. Anon[324] • Disclaimer says:

    It would be a wonderful troll, as well as a genuine contribution to science, for a non-woke university to launch a “Gender Studies” department staffed exclusively by hard-core biologists, medical doctors and epidemiologists, psychologists, geneticists, quant economists, data-driven quantitative sociologists and anthropologists, evidence-based historians, and so on. In other words, treating it like it were a real discipline, subject to the scientific method.

    Then apply this approach to Black Studies.

  69. @ThreeCranes

    The stuff you learn here.

    I’d never heard of a “freemartin”, but having looked it up, I immediately thought of the female of a pair of mixed twins I know. Tall, thin, unfeminine build, loud, sexually aggressive from all accounts, no kids but she was married twice and apparently tried. Her brother is gay but straight acting and successful in the insurance business. Maybe they did get their hormones mixed up in utero.

    On the other hand the youth pastor in our church also has a twin sister. Both married young and started families right away: he’s a beefy young Robert Mitchum type and she is short, curvy, pudgy, very girlish.

    • Replies: @Flip
  70. @anon

    The rotary engine was not here to stay, alas.

  71. El Dato says:
    @Altai

    Then Trofim Lysenko shows up, identifying as female.

  72. @Inquiring Mind

    My mother regarded me as a guy who needed such things explained.

    I’m with your mother on this one.

  73. lolling about

    I didn’t realize this was a word. I thought it meant laughing out loud.

    15-year-old girls may be useless at home, but at school girls that age are useful. They are very eager to please their teachers.

  74. @Reg Cæsar

    Well, law school means finding a future high earning corporate lawyer so you don’t need to practice law, and stay home with the kids.

  75. @reactionry

    [I’d like to solve the puzzle for “Began in 1965” –
    WH-TE G-NOC-DE]

    I guessed that there would be thousands of returns from Google for “Vanna White Privilege,” but there were only five. As of 1:20 am, 10-16-2019 there were no hits for “Vanna White Genocide.”

    I’m not sure if I ever got around to posting, “None Dare Call It Genocide,”* but see “None Dare Call It Replacement”* by Jim Goad:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/none-dare-call-it-replacement/

    Goad Googled (as had I and surely many other iSteve readers ) “white genocide.” The gist of the first page of results should not be surprising.

    * A take-off on John A. Stormer’s “None Dare Call It Treason.” I’ve never read the thing, but it, or at least its catchy title, was somewhat famous in the 60s. Before Googling in recent years I had thought that the book had been written by Phyllis Schlafly. It was probably the old National Lampoon magazine (or less likely, MAD magazine) which came up with “Nun Dare Call It Treason.”

    * “Replacement” – made famous by Renaud Camus in his “The Great Replacement.” Jeepers, I thought it was the Brits; not the Frogs, who were famous for understatement.

  76. sayless says:
    @al-Gharaniq

    The Problem of Induction:

    Russell’s Chicken:

    Every day the farmer’s wife comes out and gives grain to the chicken.
    Then one day she comes out and wrings its neck.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  77. @Almost Missouri

    Wasn’t sure this would ever become publicly known, but today’s generation has probably never seen the Gandhi film made by Attenbourough in 1982, which venerated him so much. I guess in that sense not surprising that he was attacked, he was after all a high caste Brahmin and a lawyer who represented wealthy Indian merchants in South Africa.

  78. * A take-off on John A. Stormer’s “None Dare Call It Treason.” I’ve never read the thing, but it, or at least its catchy title, was somewhat famous in the 60s. Before Googling in recent years I had thought that the book had been written by Phyllis Schlafly. It was probably the old National Lampoon magazine (or less likely, MAD magazine) which came up with “Nun Dare Call It Treason.”

    A book well worth reading if you can find it. It was distributed in the tens of millions by the JBS and similar groups in the LBJ sixties, almost always in paperback, so most were either culled by used book dealers or simply fell apart.

    The specifics are now obsolete, even quaint, but the principles well worth considering.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  79. @reactionry

    I hear she did a good job of playing Sally Bowles in Cabaret, but then again, anyone would as compared to Minnelli.

  80. sayless says:
    @Tipsy

    Yes, Hrdy is a real name, but English speakers/readers will have to pause and work out the (or a) pronunciation. Erdy? Herdy? Hardy?
    —which is distracting and makes unnecessary work for the reader. Practically no one who reads this name is going to know how to pronounce it right off the bat. And nowadays mispronouncing someone’s name can put them in a snit, which is a pain. (Even asking someone how to pronounce their name can put them in a snit…). Recent example from some town hall,

    “Yes, Shea, and your question?”
    “My name is Shee-ah, not Shay. That was violent.”

    Anyway, I can understand why people might resist phoneticising their family name, but it would be simpler if they did.

  81. sayless says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Come on Errican you’re making that up.

  82. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Lol @ your ruffled feathers. We’re not in a girly groupthink henhouse, differences of opinion are acceptable to men.

    Differences of opinion are acceptable to women as well, but there doesn’t seem to be any difference of opinion. I don’t believe I have ever seen groupthink so extreme as the dissident right on the woman question.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @res
  83. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    If she wants to go to graduate or law school, fine, let her. But let’s not pretend it’s about anything other than her own entertainment.

    I don’t understand. Does the fact that a woman is capable of bearing children render meaningless anything else she ever does?

    How many children do you want us to have? We’re told around here we’re no good for childbearing past thirty, thirty-five years before retirement age.

  84. @SFG

    “it seems heavily filled with nonreproductively oriented women (gay or straight), which was a historical minority of the population. (Though never zero–look at nuns in various cultures…)”

    Interesting idea – feminist academia as the modern nunnery, with the prayers and psalms of the Canonical Hours (Matins, Lauds, Prime etc) replaced by gibberish papers, either unread or only cited in other gibberish papers.

    (Some nuns did good secular work like caring for the sick, so the analogy isn’t exact.)

  85. @Alexander Turok

    True, but I would add that a 15yo boy will work hard for someone else, simultaneously making a father angry and proud.

  86. “Does the fact that a woman is capable of bearing children render meaningless anything else she ever does?”

    Not at all. But bearing and raising children is incredibly important – the most important job IMHO.

    Just because someone doesn’t jump on a post doesn’t imply tacit agreement with everything in it, especially when it’s an opinion offered, not the putting forward of a fact.

    My wife’s very good at her people-centred job, which is great for the people she deals with. But I cherish the years she spent away from that job raising our children.

  87. eah says:

    Women and Science Police Work

    • Replies: @Rouetheday
  88. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753

    I’ll say it again: women don’t belong in College, neither as students or teachers. Intelligent women should be raising at least 4 children by the time they reach 28 years old. Anything else is a waste of time, resources, energy and bad for the gene pool.

    Please explain yourself.

    • Replies: @BB753
  89. It is hard for any parent to get any teenager to do anything. They know everything and you are just a dorky adult. I don’t know if there is an evolutionary aspect to this.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  90. @Rosie

    Does the fact that a woman is capable of bearing children render meaningless anything else she ever does?

    Relative value. Men work (by and large) to support women and families. Old strategy, dates back to the Neolithic (although I’ll admit that other primates don’t use that strategy). No family, no work.

    Women are capable of producing families. These families are so immensely valuable that women themselves who only _potentially_ have families, are valued more than men without families, and that also goes back to the Neolithic.

    So, from men’s point of view, women are making a choice that the men (in bulk) would not make — to work but not have families. Men without families will (in bulk) not work unless they are enslaved. The men are of the opinion that women are making the wrong choice for the men and for themselves, and this is something that most spinsters agree with.
    Note that women _in the West_ are attributed enough value that, along with the Western ideas if individualism and freedom, women are encouraged to make exactly that choice — work at other than family creation and maintenance. In fact, it’s very nearly compulsory.

    Long term, Turkey and Egypt show the results of this policy: groups that educate women are simply out-bred by those who do not. That’s why the Islamic countries have reverted to basic Islam — the Islamic communities that encouraged women not to have children were badly outnumbered after about 50 years.

    Such sterilization projects (that’s what they are in practice) are typical of societies a few generations after their breakouts [1]. The usual result is the replacement of the ethnic group that broke out, and the return of conditions so competitive that women had to remain in fortified structures / compounds just to continue breathing.

    And back to your original question:

    Q: Does the fact that a woman is capable of bearing children render meaningless anything else she ever does?

    A; Well, on the time scales above pretty much anything anybody does is rendered meaningless _except_ women having and raising families, and the works of a very few genius level men.
    If you are giving up something that _has_ long term importance in favor of something that _has no_ long term significance, under the assertion that you want to do something that has significance, well, the argument isn’t impressive.
    In actual practice, feminism amounts to elimination of women’s obligations to even existing family while extending family’s obligations towards women. Under the partial birth abortion laws, for example, even a baby being born is obliged to die at the woman’s simple request. All in favor of something that has no long term (or, usually, short term) significance.
    It’s one of the reasons women are abandoning feminism. Unfortunately, feminism has destroyed most of the framework needed to stabilize marriage, and existing marriages are being held together by sheer willpower while the welfare, legal, academic, and media establishments are trying to destroy them and their children.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Greek, Roman, Islamic societies in Persia just before the Mongol conquest.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  91. @anon

    ‘He could choose to identify as a farm wife-mother…’

    I’d suggest ‘rural spouse-maternal figure’ as less gender-obsessive.

    …I wonder if you can get paid for this? I seem to have a gift.

  92. @Rosie

    ‘… How many children do you want us to have? ‘

    Five — since you ask. After all, these days most of ’em are probably going to live. Five is a fine, sensible number.

    …I actually come in somewhere between you and Caesar. If a woman wants to play Julia Morgan or Marie Curie or Berthe Morisot, fine. I’ll applaud and support her. Really. I don’t feel any need to demand she devote herself to having children instead — if the career is actually her preference.

    What I object to is women being actually encouraged to forgo marriage and children in favor of a career. For one thing, women, even more than men, are inclined to do as they’re told. This means that tell them to forgo children and have a career instead, and they’ll do just that in great numbers, even if left to their own devices they’d probably just have gone ahead and had some kids starting about twenty or so.

    …and particularly since those most susceptible to this ‘have a career’ pressure tend to be from the better half of our population, that way lies demographic catastrophe.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  93. @Rosie

    It’s an odd simile, but I think women having careers should be like taking a second wife is in Morocco.

    If Moroccans are polled, they’re ferociously against doing away with polygamy. After all, it’s enshrined in the Quran — and being a Moroccan appears to be all about being definitely Muslim.

    The thing is, as a practical matter, Moroccans almost never practice it. Between one thing and another, virtually all marriages in Morocco are monogamous. As I recall, only something like one out of every four thousand unions are polygamous.

    But Moroccans want to be able to do it should they choose to.

    That’s the way I feel about women opting for a career rather than children.

  94. BB753 says:
    @Rosie

    I knew you’d show up Rosie! Truth hurts, but at this point in Western history, when it comes to survival, our feelings don’t matter.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  95. @Neil Templeton

    The Carter family singing gospel songs and recording those songs on 78RPM vinyl were very popular in my neck of the woods. You would know that June Carter married Johnny Cash and is still alive, although he has long passed away.

    • Replies: @res
  96. @Alexander Turok

    ‘…You could say the same thing for an 11/15 year old boy.’

    In my experience, not really.

    I didn’t have a particularly good relationship with our son — difficult child, to put it mildly.

    But he was always happy to work for me…unpaid, of course. He was just given to breaking my balls if we weren’t working.

    I think the relationship and status implied in ‘helping mommy’ is different than that associated with ‘helping dad.’ It gets nebulous, but the former implies that one is a child, and needs to be taught. The latter suggests that one is respected in at least a qualified sense, and being treated as a peer.

  97. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Thanks JB for your kind remarks. When one grows as old as I he has to be careful not to become too preachy. One word of advice I tell all my friends is to write down the story of their life–everyone has a story to tell that may well be of great interest to posterity. I have taken the time to write dozens of stories of my experiences and by the miracle of the internet can pass them on to anyone, any time.
    BTW, enjoy as much time with your grandfather as possible. My maternal grandfather was born in 1860 and lived until 1958, and regret now that I did not spend more time listening to his tales.

  98. Dan Hayes says:
    @donvonburg

    Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
    Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

    Sir John Harington, Epigrams, Book iv, Epistle 5

  99. AndrewR says:
    @Rosie

    Such a shame you’re forced to read this blog then…

    • Replies: @Rosie
  100. El Dato says:
    @sayless

    That’s called a Black Swan.

  101. Rosie says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Long term, Turkey and Egypt show the results of this policy: groups that educate women are simply out-bred by those who do not.

    Are men entitled to any consideration as individuals, or are they also fruit flies, without purpose other than breeding and then dying?

    What you are posing here is a false dilemma.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  102. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    What I object to is women being actually encouraged to forgo marriage and children in favor of a career. For one thing, women, even more than men, are inclined to do as they’re told. This means that tell them to forgo children and have a career instead, and they’ll do just that in great numbers, even if left to their own devices they’d probably just have gone ahead and had some kids starting about twenty or so.

    Women are not encouraged to have a career “instead” of a family. They are told they can have both. You may disagree with that, but at least be honest about it.

    Now, as I have pointed out, in the dissident right, women are told that

    (1) we are useless for childbearing after thirty, and

    (2) that we don’t have time for a career.

    Both cannot be true. It is necessary to pick one or the other.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Colin Wright
  103. Rosie says:
    @BB753

    I knew you’d show up Rosie! Truth hurts, but at this point in Western history, when it comes to survival, our feelings don’t matter.

    The trouble for you is that you have no basis for your assertion that survival necessitates the extreme measures you advocate, for reasons, I suspect, having nothing whatever to do with survival.

    If you care at all about White survival, you wouldn’t carry on saying things deliberately calculated to outrage one-third of the voting public.

    • Replies: @BB753
  104. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    OPOnce again, the Mozart family:

    Mrs. Mozart had seven children and died young. Only two survived.

    Times change.

  105. res says:
    @Rosie

    Differences of opinion are acceptable to women as well

    That you think there are no meaningful differences on average between men and women in this area says a great deal about your perceptiveness IMHO.

    In an effort to make this something more than “he said, she said” I include a link and excerpt after the more. Additional data points welcomed.

    [MORE]

    https://www.intechopen.com/books/contemporary-leadership-challenges/leadership-and-gender-differences-are-men-and-women-leading-in-the-same-way-

    5.5. Approval style
    This refers to a defensive approach, based on the need to be accepted by others. While it is absolutely normal to want to be approved, the tendency to understand this as a need inevitably leads to a series of problems related to low self-esteem, too much attention to the others’ opinions, and difficulties in conflictual situations and in negotiations. Affiliative managers are not good leaders because they tend to be undecided, to postpone discussions, to avoid conflicts, and not to act immediately.

    In order to reduce the need for approval, people should focus on:

    – Being more self-oriented and expressing their own opinions

    – Practicing direct approach of confrontations

    – Reflecting on the need for approval and on its causes

    – Recognizing their strengths and the fact that they are valuable persons for what they are and not because the others like them or approve them.

    The results of our research showed that women tend to feel the need for approval stronger than men and they should work more on diminishing it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  106. res says:
    @Simply Simon

    You would know that June Carter married Johnny Cash and is still alive, although he has long passed away.

    I thought June actually predeceased Johnny by four months?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Carter_Cash
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cash

    P.S. I would like to echo the appreciation expressed by others for your comments here. Thank you for offering your perspectives.

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
  107. @Mike Zwick

    It is hard for any parent to get any teenager to do anything. They know everything and you are just a dorky adult. I don’t know if there is an evolutionary aspect to this.

    And consider over the millennia how many of the really obnoxious ones were killed by their parents without issue?!

  108. Anon[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @Inquiring Mind

    You gotta go for the bang first, and then work out the details later brah. That’s just how it works nowadays. Women don’t care about serious men anymore, because men aren’t taken seriously. Girls just wanna have fun, and if you aren’t fun then HARD PASS. IMO

  109. Rosie says:
    @res

    That you think there are no meaningful differences on average between men and women in this area says a great deal about your perceptiveness IMHO.

    When did I say that? Oh right, I didn’t.

    • Replies: @res
  110. Rosie says:
    @AndrewR

    Such a shame you’re forced to read this blog then…

    Indeed. Unfortunately, you all have proven that you can’t be left without a babysitter.

  111. @Rosie

    ‘Now, as I have pointed out, in the dissident right, women are told that

    (1) we are useless for childbearing after thirty, and

    (2) that we don’t have time for a career.

    Both cannot be true. It is necessary to pick one or the other.’

    Not that I agree with it completely, but you misstate the argument.

    You might well not have children after thirty; you still have to raise them.

    And while there do seem to be women who manage to have both kids and a career, I honestly wonder if they’re really happier for it.

    Where would one find the time? My wife frequently helped me with my moving business, but she basically took care of the house and kids. Conversely, while I’d certainly do the home improvement thing and take the kids to do this and that, it all really wasn’t my primary function.

    Work some sixty-hour-a-week career thing while raising three children or whatever? I won’t forbid anyone from doing it, but it doesn’t strike me as something to encourage people to try.

    …and in fact, they don’t try it, and that’s the point. The classes that women who ‘pursue careers’ are drawn from are precisely those classes where the women are ceasing to have children.

    It’s kind of like taking up smoking. You may well smoke two packs a day and live to be ninety — but statistically, it’s a bad idea.

  112. nebulafox says:

    OK, radical proposal: women just tend to be saner than men.

    I’m not kidding. It’s a pretty observable fact throughout human history that, for better or for worse, men are more often found at the extremes of human nature. There’s probably a reason why most autistics, bipolars, ADHDers, schizophrenics, sociopaths tend to be male. A lot of women who get PhDs in the sciences took a good, hard look at the postdoc trail ahead of them and decided they’d rather have a stable job and a family rather than be applauded for a paper that only 12 people know about at a conference in France. Plenty of men come to the same decision. It’s just that there are a lot more men than women who have a mental profile that would make them indifferent or at least less likely to value normal family life at the expense of getting to do science. It’s not impossible to do, but way harder than in other life paths.

    (It’s also noteworthy that there are countries where you’ll find more women in science or technology-but they rarely (India, China, Iran, Russia) tend to be paragons of women’s rights, culturally speaking. Part of this is that these countries tend to culturally value tech and science, but this still indicates very un-PC things about what sex prefers which careers when they have the relative freedom to choose. I think it’d be wonderful if we had more women in science and tech. I don’t what the solution is to America’s problems, but I suspect training more scientists and engineers-and making the jobs for them!-is likely to help as opposed to training more lawyers or service workers. But anybody who thinks it’ll ever be 50/50 based on genuine preference alone is delusional.)

    There’s also biology: men can feasibly start families in their early 40s. It won’t be as physically easy to keep up with the kids and they’ll be more at risk for disorders, but there’s no issue siring the kids assuming a fertile partner-helped by the fact that women are usually more open to dating older men. For women, though, biology means that if you are over 35, want kids, and don’t have them in the picture yet, you are going to have to make some hard and fast decisions. There are countries that reconcile parenthood to a scientific career *far* better than the USA does. So, there are things that can be done about it, and this is probably a good first step to attracting more women to science. Unfortunately, it is a matter of dull policy changes rather than getting to blame hapless male geeks (who are rarely genuinely asked whether they’d like a more equitable sex ratio at school and work-guess what the answer would be!) for being raging misogynists, so I doubt the Twitterati would be very interested in going after it.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  113. @res

    You were right about June preceding Cash, in 2003. Hard to believe I could be so far off. Obviously before 2003, while we were staying at a Holiday Inn in Memphis Tenn, my wife met the Cash’s who were attending a high school reunion in one of the ballrooms. Much to my chagrin my wife “crashed” the reunion because she wanted so much to meet Mr Cash. She said she watched while John was hugging his lady classmates and that June looked beautiful at the time.

    • Replies: @res
  114. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753

    Get the heck out of here.

    My father and mother would have never met if she didn’t go to college and major in STEM.

    My father was insanely lucky to land one of the few female students in his major.

    Not just my brother and I, but like half of our friends would never have been born if our parents didn’t meet and marry in college.

    If a high IQ woman doesn’t go to an elite college to meet high IQ men from similarly good families, she’ll just choose to be a spinster. You don’t get it. High IQ women are the most risk averse people on earth. A high IQ woman will refuse to marry or have children at all if she herself is in poor health, is uneducated, was unable to meet a compatible high IQ man who will treat her well and not cheat on her or beat her, if she’s under 25 years of age, and doesn’t have financial resources to raise offspring in UMC conditions.

  115. res says:
    @Rosie

    When did I say that? Oh right, I didn’t.

    Here is the exact quote from your comment in full (emphasis mine).

    Lol @ your ruffled feathers. We’re not in a girly groupthink henhouse, differences of opinion are acceptable to men.

    Differences of opinion are acceptable to women as well, but there doesn’t seem to be any difference of opinion. I don’t believe I have ever seen groupthink so extreme as the dissident right on the woman question.

    If you don’t think that implies “no meaningful differences on average between men and women in this area” then how exactly should I interpret it?

    It will be fun to watch you walk that back. This was a bad hill to choose to die on. It might be useful for you to make more effort to remember which commenters here are analytical enough to argue with you effectively.

    P.S. To be even more explicit. “Differences of opinion are acceptable to women as well” is equating men and women and implying that any differences that do exist in that area are unimportant to the conversation (otherwise why would you consider it a rebuttal to the comment you were responding to?). You might consider reading up on this before responding: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

    • Replies: @Rosie
  116. res says:
    @Simply Simon

    Thanks for adding that story. Have you seen the recent PBS Country Music series? There is some PC (it is Ken Burns after all, but he is good at the miniseries genre), but the Carter family and Johnny Cash are both major focuses of the series. Sounds like you might enjoy it.
    https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/country-music/

    P.S. One theme of the series is how much the Country musicians appreciate their fans. Which fits right in with your account.

  117. @Rosie

    Does the fact that a woman is capable of bearing children render meaningless anything else she ever does?

    No, not “meaningless”. (Don’t be hysterical. You only feed the stereotypes you oppose.) Just less critical.

    Again, this is statistical, not absolute. Even the Vatican encouraged vocations.

    The recordings left by Susannah McCorkle (the first “baby boomer”) probably compensate for her lack of children. I was going to add Elis Regina, but learned that she in fact had three. And all are professional musicians like their mom.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
  118. @Tony

    I find the spelling of her married name really annoying. Put a freakin vowel in there.

    Czech your privilege, buddy.

    • LOL: kaganovitch
  119. Rosie says:
    @res

    It will be fun to watch you walk that back. This was a bad hill to choose to die on. It might be useful for you to make more effort to remember which commenters here are analytical enough to argue with you effectively.

    I see I have overestimated you in the past.

    The fact that we have and accept differences of opinion in no way implies that we Express ourselves in exactly the same way. I n any event, it’s iro ic that this entire website makes painfully obvious that men are as prone to groupthink as women, only for different reasons. We are more conflict-averse. You are hypersensitive about any suggestion that you’re less of a badass than the other guy. Perhaps groupthink is the wrong word. That would be far less pernicious than the purity spirals (dick-swinging contests) I have watched make a damned laughingstock of the dissident right over the years.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @anon
    , @res
  120. @egregiousphilbin

    the tweet is from a U of I prof (University of Intersectionality)
    heaven forbid it should be confused with the University of Illinois.

    Or even IUPUI.

  121. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    No, not “meaningless”. (Don’t be hysterical. You only feed the stereotypes you oppose.) Just less critical.

    This is nothing personal, Reg, because almost everyone around here does the same, but perhaps you ought to consider the context when you evaluate my comments. BB whatever his name is said: “Women don’t belong in college.” This is an attack on my humanity insofar as it denies that I have needs that other mammals do not, for enrichment, elevation, education.
    If getting upset about that makes me “hysterical” then so be it.

    • Replies: @anon
  122. @Rosie

    I n any event, it’s iro ic that this entire website makes painfully obvious that men are as prone to groupthink as women, only for different reasons. We are more conflict-averse.

    In public. In private, in marriage, it’s the polar opposite. Just an hour or so ago, I was reading the final chapter in Helen Smith’s Men on Strike, where she makes both these points.

    Dr Smith encourages men to stand up to their wives rather than the more common response of retreating to the garage or the basement. But she also suggests not allowing them to say demeaning things in public, because “Women hate being called out in front of others…”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @res
  123. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Neil Templeton

    Women have always been teachers, no one should dispute that.

    “Teaching their own children” and “Running up tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt in college to become certified to teach other people’s children” aren’t quite the same thing. They don’t even make all that great of a motte / bailey combo.

    Back in the 19th century, when “Last of the Mohicans” was a best seller, “teacher” in the non-household sense meant “schoolmaster“. It was only later that “teacher” became “schoolmarm”.

    Given the damage that the party college experience does to many women – the excessive booze, the cock carousel, the inflation of already inflated sense of entitlement – there are reasons to keep women out of college, especially the bright ones.

    n today’s world, intelligent women are very likely better off bearing and teaching their own children rather than teaching to the public weal. Because their own children may not be valued at mint, or at all.

    That is true, and furthermore some of the most educated people I’ve known did not have a college degree. What they had was intelligence and a whole lot of books. Including Fenimore Cooper – an author read by common people in the 1820’s, but today not seen below the college level. Odd, that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Corvinus
  124. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Dr Smith encourages men to stand up to their wives rather than the more common response of retreating to the garage or the basement. But she also suggests not allowing them to say demeaning things in public, because “Women hate being called out in front of others…”

    Lemme guess. She provided no evidence for that assertion.

    Anyway, yes men should “stand up to their wives,” if by that you mean having a discussion about how to resolve a conflict rather than saying “yes, dear” and then going off and doing whatever they want anyway.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  125. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    BB whatever his name is said: “Women don’t belong in college.” This is an attack on my humanity insofar as it denies that I have needs that other mammals do not, for enrichment, elevation, education.

    Lol @ your ruffled feathers. Are you really so uneducated and insecure that you cannot discern the difference between “attack on my humanity” and “different opinion”? Is your view of civilization so narrow that you cannot see opportunities for enrichment, elevation and education all around you, not just in some class taught by some bored grad student in a poorly air conditioned building?

    I’ve known educated women who never graduated from college, or even went to college. What did they do? They went to the public library and read the great books, they went to night classes and studied other languages, they went to their local symphony, they went to art museums and so forth and so on.

    They didn’t just sit around and cry “Poor, poor, oppressed me, another attack on my humanity!” like some women I could name.

    Really, ‘attack on my humanity’…if text in a comments box by some stranger on the internet is your idea of an “attack on your humanity”, you’re much too emotionally fragile for anything serious in this world, most especially a true college-level discussion.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  126. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    We are more conflict-averse.

    Writes the notorious troll. Thanks for the laugh!

  127. res says:
    @Rosie

    I see I have overestimated you in the past.

    Interesting. Any cogent rebuttal to my points to offer along with that? Or are you just making a moral judgment? I guess it was foolish of me to include that bit because it gave you a chance to avoid responding to my point. But I let your reflexive (and stereotypical) denial in comment 114 annoy me.

    I n any event, it’s iro ic that this entire

    When you find yourself making multiple typing mistakes (and failing to catch them yourself) like that it means it might be a good time to take a breath. I know it does for me anyway ; )

    If you truly want to argue against feminine stereotypes you see being asserted here, you might try the following.

    1. Do less to embody them in your own comments (comment 115 is a good example of this).
    2. Use less we/you absolutist language. You know how much you hate it when men do that, right?
    3. Go on about the corresponding male stereotypes less.

    Interacting with you frustrates me because you are thoughtful and passionate enough to make your case and it seems to me you have significant common cause with many (not all, of course) here. But anytime someone makes a “women should be in the home” type comment here you go ballistic (IMHO the people you are responding to often see this as confirmation of their point, BTW) and start arguing the opposite extreme.

    Surely there is a happy medium here somewhere? I agree BB753’s comment 48 was egregious, but how responsive do you expect everyone here to be? You responded 1:40 later but I have no idea when his comment made it out of moderation (not everyone is on auto approve).

    Do you disagree that American society would do well to back off on the “You go girl. Don’t worry about having children. You can always do it later.” style rhetoric? I have a family member who was rather unhappy to discover it does not always work like that.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  128. res says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    But she also suggests not allowing them to say demeaning things in public, because “Women hate being called out in front of others…”

    That’s good advice. Thanks. I’m not one to demean (intentionally, anyway), but I assume criticism (even if intended to be constructive) falls in the same category.

    P.S. Overall, how strongly would you recommend Men on Strike?

  129. Rosie says:
    @anon

    I’ve known educated women who never graduated from college, or even went to college. What did they do? They went to the public library and read the great books, they went to night classes and studied other languages, they went to their local symphony, they went to art museums and so forth and so on.

    How nice. I do the same, but then if I had never gone to college, I never would have developed the interests I have now in the working milieu of my childhood.

    Nobody here has ever asked me for my opinion on how to get intelligent women to marry younger and have more kids, because wat would I know?

    I’ll offer my opinion unsolicited:

    Ability grouping would go a long way. Intelligent girls should be around intelligent boys, not mediocre punks who have an urge to humiliate and cut them down at every turn to bolster their own ego.

    • Replies: @res
    , @anon
  130. @eah

    NOTE TO SELF: It’s time to seriously consider moving to Cheshire to start a cushy new life as a criminal.

  131. Rosie says:
    @res

    Do you disagree that American society would do well to back off on the “You go girl. Don’t worry about having children. You can always do it later.” style rhetoric? I have a family member who was rather unhappy to discover it does not always work like that.

    I am of two minds on this. There are risks to having children too young as well as waiting too long.

    My mother had me very young, too young. She told me she felt she missed out on a lot, but she also told me that she felt I imposed discipline that she needed at that time in her life, and of course she wouldn’t change anything in retrospect. She made it very clear to me that she would rather I wait.

    The main benefit of waiting is that you don’t feel deprived of anything. By the time I had my first child, I had travelled, read many books, thought many thoughts, etc. I’d done the career thing. I was ready for something new and grand. Motherhood was the only thing that fit the bill at the time. I was fortunate to have a large family even though I didn’t start as early as I should have.

    If young women feel rushed into motherhood before they are ready, there is a very real risk they will view it as something you need to get put of the way early so you can get on with your life. I never saw it that way. Once I started, I just kept having them and didn’t stop until I couldn’t physically continue.

    I certainly don’t claim to have any easy answers, but many comments around here are extreme and uncompromising.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Counterinsurgency
  132. res says:
    @Rosie

    Ability grouping would go a long way. Intelligent girls should be around intelligent boys, not mediocre punks who have an urge to humiliate and cut them down at every turn to bolster their own ego.

    I tend to agree with that overall, but am not sure about how directly it affects “how to get intelligent women to marry younger and have more kids.” What about the idea that those girls will be instilled with the same academic goals as the boys in their group?

    Perhaps the most extreme example of ability grouping would be elite colleges. How is that working out for the fertility of those women?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Counterinsurgency
  133. res says:
    @Rosie

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. It sounds like you are (reasonably) happy with your choice, which makes for a good positive message to offer. I would think your “I didn’t start as early as I should have.” statement would mean you would have some sympathy for those arguing for women to have children earlier?

    For discussion purposes, let’s propose the following as possible ages to have a first child:
    15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45

    I would say 15 and 45 are better avoided. Though either case might work out OK in the long run, they don’t seem like good bets.

    In a society with more realistic college attendance (what percentage of college graduates now are comparable to high school graduates of 60 years ago?) 20 could be a reasonable choice, but that does not work well with college.

    The rest are full of tradeoffs and individual decisions. And sometimes things just work out a certain way for whatever reasons.

    Then there is the question of possible ages for the last child and how those two choices interact. Would you rather have small children earlier or later in a career?

    I certainly don’t claim to have any easy answers, but many comments around here are extreme and uncompromising.

    Agreed. But being equally extreme and uncompromising in our responses does not help things IMHO. I honestly wonder how many of the most extreme comments are sincere and how many at least partly meant to be provocative. And hopefully my own comments make clear I don’t advocate just rolling over and taking it. How about trying something like “strong and sensible” rather than “extreme and uncompromising”?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  134. Rosie says:
    @res

    What about the idea that those girls will be instilled with the same academic goals as the boys in their group?

    Res, now you’re sounding like a blank slater. Teenage girls are boy crazy!

    Perhaps the most extreme example of ability grouping would be elite colleges. How is that working out for the fertility of those women?

    I suspect a great deal better than it would be if they never had an opportunity to meet appropriate young men.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  135. Rosie says:
    @res

    15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45

    15: catastrophic
    20: not ideal, but fine
    25: perfect
    30: not ideal, but fine
    35: problematic, a woman’s biology might cut her off before she feels her family is complete.
    40: What were you thinking!?!
    45: Too late!

    Would you rather have small children earlier or later in a career?

    Here is what I would tell my 20 year old self: Finish college. If you want to continue your education, consider part-time graduate or professional school and have your kids while you’re doing that. You only need childcare for a few hours a week.

  136. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Yes, teaching used to be a male occupation, often done by younger men who were training to become lawyers or ministers. Secretary also used to be a male occupation, and was valuable as an apprentice type position for men to learn the ropes of management and administration while assisting executives and managers. The greater importance and prestige it used to enjoy is why we call Cabinet officials Secretary of their various departments. It wasn’t the office ornament position it became once it turned into a female position.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  137. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    SMCC was a great singer and a truly screwed up woman with a family history of mental illness, depression, and suicide. So her not breeding was probably a genetic win.

    And while she was not in any likelihood “the first baby boomer”, she was born the first day of eligibility, and might have had the most successful music career of anyone born that day. She didn’t sell a lot of records when alive but they continue to be about as popular now as ever.

  138. @Rosie

    What you are posing here is a false dilemma.

    OK, so what are the two lemmas in this case?

    Counterinsurgency

  139. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    If a high IQ woman doesn’t go to an elite college to meet high IQ men from similarly good families, she’ll just choose to be a spinster. You don’t get it. High IQ women are the most risk averse people on earth. A high IQ woman will refuse to marry or have children at all if she herself is in poor health, is uneducated, was unable to meet a compatible high IQ man who will treat her well and not cheat on her or beat her, if she’s under 25 years of age, and doesn’t have financial resources to raise offspring in UMC conditions.

    What you’re describing are women who are by disposition relatively less fertile and more sterile and have lower reproductive drives. If this is true, then high IQ men would be combining their genes with those associated with lower fertility.

    R.A. Fisher discussed something similar when he wrote about the lineages of great men dieing out because they married heiresses with less fertile dispositions:

    https://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/06/r-fisher-social-selection-of-fertility.html

    In his book on Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, Galton considers the problem presented by the generally acknowledged fact that the families of great men tend, with unusual frequency, to die out. Of thirty-one peerages received by the judges of England, twelve were already extinct. Galton examined the family history of these thirty- one peerages, and lit upon an explanation which he rightly describes as ‘Simple, adequate and novel’. A considerable proportion of the new peers and of their sons had married heiresses…

    There must be some general cause which prevents the average intelligence in a civilized community from advancing beyond a certain point. That cause seems to me to be the grading of society according to a standard of wealth. This puts in the same class the children of comparatively infertile parents and the men of ability, and their inter- marriage has the result of uniting sterility and ability.

  140. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Anon375 thinks women should neither be entitled to a share of their husband’s wealth nor have any opportunity to earn their own. IOW, women should be poor and powerless forever because civilization depends on it or something.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  141. @Rosie

    Lemme guess. She provided no evidence for that assertion.

    She has a psychiatric practice. Is that “anecdotal”? By the way, her book is well-footnoted.

    But, yeah, she deals in stereotypes, too. You know those… blacks are more emotional, East Asians are smart, tall guys are better at basketball, men are more criminal than women…

    Where indeed do people come up with these ideas? Can’t be their lying eyes.

  142. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    Reg Caesar
    But she also suggests not allowing them to say demeaning things in public, because “Women hate being called out in front of others…”

    That’s good advice. Thanks. I’m not one to demean (intentionally, anyway), but I assume criticism (even if intended to be constructive) falls in the same category.

    These are good ideas, however do not expect any woman to reciprocate – to restrain her tongue in public is not natural, it must be taught. If not by her mother, then by you.

    I see this in some cities from time to time: some woman verbally tearing the hide off of a man for some infraction or other. A man foolish enough to put up with it, while standing in front of a business establishment with people walking by. Just once I’d like to see some guy like that simply turn, start walking and not look back. So far, not so.

  143. @res

    P.S. Overall, how strongly would you recommend Men on Strike?

    I’m surprised it was even published, let alone visible on the shelf in a college town’s public library. That’s how I came across it.

    She makes some fascinating points. E.g., women were once under coverture, which she opposes, but now the concept has effectively been applied to men through the courts. She mocks male feminist allies as “white knights” or “Uncle Tims”.

    Uncle Tims are just trying to get laid or otherwise curry favor with women. But white knights are just being gentlemanly, so she’s too harsh. She’s anti-sexist, while I prefer civilized sexism, so guys like me will have disagreements.

    You can check out her blog at PJ Media. Good luck finding her book. I was just lucky.

    Madonna at 60: Still Blaming the Patriarchy

    Is Circumcision Healthy, Outdated or Dangerous?

    Not Surprising: Google Underpaying Men

    OT or not, this was also at PJ today:

    VIDEO: Fed-Up Working-Class London Commuters Drag Extinction Rebellion Protesters Off Trains

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  144. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    How nice.

    It was and is nice. Autodidacts of either sex can be very interesting people.
    Have you ever considered dialing back on your passive-aggressive sarcasm?

    I do the same, but then if I had never gone to college, I never would have developed the interests I have now in the working milieu of my childhood.

    You can’t know that. One of my relatives dropped out of high school, it wasn’t until he was pushing 60 that he became interested in reading great books and going to the symphony.

    Ability grouping would go a long way. Intelligent girls should be around intelligent boys,

    That has been done in a variety of ways in the last 400 years. I’m sure you’ve read the fiction of Jane Austen, so I need not bore you with details from early 19th century England. Suffice to say that the goal can be met without sending 18 year old girls 1,000 miles away from home to pot-and-alcohol-saturated dormitories where random sexual hookups are the norm and the student health center always has a big supply of Plan B in stock.. It’s not a binary “black or white” decision, “Party U. or The Handmaid’s Tale” no matter how hard feminists like you keep trying to pretend otherwise.

    not mediocre punks who have an urge to humiliate and cut them down at every turn to bolster their own ego.

    Lol.
    You are not in high school any more. Isn’t it long past time to let go of those grudges?

  145. @nebulafox

    ‘OK, radical proposal: women just tend to be saner than men…’

    …obviously, posted by someone who has never been to Spain.

    It’s a wonderful country — except for Spanish women.

    They’re all crazy. It gets to be a pain in the ass.

  146. @Rosie

    ‘Anon375 thinks women should neither be entitled to a share of their husband’s wealth nor have any opportunity to earn their own. IOW, women should be poor and powerless forever because civilization depends on it or something.’

    Maybe civilization does depend on it. What then?

    …besides, if there’s one thing all cultures have in common, it’s that the men are convinced the women are exerting power in various devious ways. ‘Everyone thinks _____ women are all demure and submissive. It’s not really true: they’re actually incredibly manipulative and always in control.’

    I’ve heard that a few times. It’s kinda like blacks. White people think they’re the only ones blacks hate and victimize.

    Oh no…

    And ditto for women. White men think they’re the only ones fighting a losing battle against female domination. Au contraire…

    • Replies: @Rosie
  147. @Rosie

    ‘Res, now you’re sounding like a blank slater. Teenage girls are boy crazy!’

    …as opposed to teenage boys, who are of course completely indifferent to the opposite sex.

    Of course, boys, in a rather pathetically misdirected attempt to get girls’ attention, seek to excel in some activity to get it. Girls, meanwhile, look on critically, or if they’re attracted, appreciatively.

    It worked. Now we get girls being pushed to achieve — but the question becomes why?

    We had — and have had, in innumerable permutations — cultures that took account of the dynamic between the sexes…and accommodated it and put it to use in various ways.

    No m0re. Now we’re to structure society without regard to it.

    Here’s a prediction. It won’t work.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  148. Ian M. says:
    @Bryan

    That scene in Anna Karenina is exactly what came to my mind as well after reading this post. The character is Kitty, Levin’s new bride. Here is the passage:

    [S]he has no serious interests at all. She’s not interested in my [Levin’s] own business, in the farming, or the peasants, or in music, which she knows a good deal about, or in reading. She does nothing and is completely satisfied!

    At heart Levin condemned this; he still did not realize that she was preparing for that period of activity that was bound to arrive for her, when she would be simultaneously her husband’s wife and mistress of a house, and bear, nurse, and bring up their children. It did not occur to him that she knew this instinctively and as she prepared herself for this fearful task she did not reproach herself for the carefree moments of happy love that she was enjoying now as she merrily built her future nest.

  149. Here’s the review of “Men on Strike” that I wrote for the Wall Street Journal in 2013:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324577904578559501706287178

    It’s mostly behind the WSJ’s paywall, which is forever.

    I think Dr. Smith expends too much sympathy in her book on the guy who goes to the hospital to visit his sick parents, has a nooner in an empty patient room with a nurse he’s never seen before but happens to meet in the hallway, and then is shocked, shocked that he has to pay child support for the kid produced by that adventure.

  150. Anonymous[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    This is where I lost sympathy for the ‘critical mass’ people some years ago. Sure, protest your cause, go annoy powerful people, but don’t stop ordinary people getting to work . That’s low, shitty behavior.

  151. BB753 says:
    @Rosie

    Those measures aren’t extreme. It’s basically resetting the system to what it was pre 1914, the year Western Civilization collapsed. Women shouldn’t vote either.
    All it takes for White Survival is to destroy liberalism. Also, I’m not really a WN, more a reactionary than anything else. But I’d rather be replaced by the Chinese than Africans, if it comes to that.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  152. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    Maybe civilization does depend on it. What then?

    Then we’re SOL, because repression of women tends to spiral out of control until you get this…

    https://people.com/human-interest/baby-found-buried-alive-chances-survival/

  153. Rosie says:
    @BB753

    It’s basically resetting the system to what it was pre 1914, the year Western Civilization collapsed.

    As a result of White men’s inability to refrain from killing each other by the millions.

    We’re not taking that rap. You can GFY.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  154. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    It worked. Now we get girls being pushed to achieve — but the question becomes why?

    Part of the reason:

    Men’s failure to be reliable providers. Our own fathers have encouraged us to pursue independence precisely because they didn’t want us to live under the thumb of some brute. Most men weren’t brutes, but some were, and that was enough.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  155. Flip says:
    @donvonburg

    I remember reading about a study of historical Swedish birth records of mixed boy/girl twins and the girls were significantly less likely to have married or have had children, and this was ascribed to male hormones from their brother in utero.

  156. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You’ve said before that the standards of 1950s America, let alone pre-1914 Western civilization, were intolerably sexist and patriarchal.

    1950s America was right before the feminist and sexual revolutions of the 60s, so if the standards of the 50s are unacceptable, then you’re arguing for, at minimum, the standards ushered in by the feminist and sexual revolutions of the 60s.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  157. @Rosie

    ‘Part of the reason:

    Men’s failure to be reliable providers. Our own fathers have encouraged us to pursue independence precisely because they didn’t want us to live under the thumb of some brute. Most men weren’t brutes, but some were, and that was enough.’

    I’m skeptical of that argument. Wouldn’t the rational response be to take care in one’s choice of a husband?

    That would be a good justification for ‘nice girls” traditional caution, incidentally.

    What you’re proposing is somewhat akin to living in a cave on the grounds that a wood house might catch fire. How about just being careful with the fire?

    Rather than fathers, isn’t it more the case that ‘official’ ideology — schools, the media, teachers — have been pushing the idea that women should seek careers rather than get married for about thirty years now?

    Then too, rather than it being a matter of ‘some brute,’ marriages seemed to start breaking down all the time, starting in about the thirties. My dad was born in 1914 — he was married three times, and working on his fourth when he died. My grandfather on my mother’s side was married at least three times. A neighbor born about 1925 was married three times.

    People being on their second marriage is actually pretty routine these days. My wife and I once met a finanicial advisor who assumed this was my second marriage.

    At some point, marriage started becoming serial rather than permanent. So that be a reason for a woman to choose a career — after all, she might well get married at twenty, but she may find herself single and losing her looks twenty years down the road. It’d be good to have something more enthralling than answering phones to do.

    …but I really don’t think eighteen year old girls think that way. I know at least this eighteen year old boy didn’t. I went to college because it was expected of me — both by myself and others. I’d guess girls do the same and choose a career for the same reason — because they’re told to.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Corvinus
  158. @Anonymous

    So if high IQ genes are in a woman, those genes are in trouble. No kids, and the genes die with the woman’s body. Which means that the entire genome loses those particular genes. Dutton’s _The Genius Famine_ points out that IQ has arguably dropped 15 points since the early 1800s (other authors usually say 10 points). Dutton never mentions the “smart women don’t reproduce” argument; maybe he should have.

    Counterinsurgency

  159. @res

    You might also be interested in the videos of Karen Straughan on YouTube. The ones detailing political infighting at conferences aren’t that good, but try searching for “Karen Straughan Female Hypoagency” and “Karen Straughan The Problem” for a couple of videos worth watching.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @res
  160. @Anonymous

    ‘You’ve said before that the standards of 1950s America, let alone pre-1914 Western civilization, were intolerably sexist and patriarchal.’

    Part of the problem here is that even if one does object to the current arrangements, one has to have a clear and realistic alternative in mind before one goes about knocking them apart.

    I can decide I don’t like the upstairs bathroom. It’d be a good idea, though, to know exactly what I’m going to want to put in instead before I tear everything out.

    …and there, I could simply realize my error and put everything back. When it comes to a functioning society, I seriously wonder if we can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I sympathize and even join in some of these socially reactionary rants — but are they even realistic? Can we go back?

  161. @res

    a) The elite colleges appear to be intended to sterilize anybody who has the misfortune to attend them. Drop that goal and the men/women attending will tend to marry each other. There is a lot of marriage within class; I would almost say that these are the most stable marriages.

    b) It is very hard to communicate over an IQ gap of about 20 points, and communication tends to (for non-enemies) easier as IQs get closer. Higher IQs tend to be infrequent. Some way of grouping by cognitive ability during family formation years should increase marriage rates, if it’s not accompanied by anti-marriage propaganda and enforcement.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  162. @Rosie

    This marriage pattern is typical of West Europe populations, and has been the pattern for several tens of thousands of years. See: Kevin MacDonald, _Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition_, 2019, available Amzon.com
    Small wonder that you want to continue this pattern. I do also; it’s responsible for industrial civilization among other things.

    Counterinsurgency

  163. Goddard says:
    @Redman

    Time to up your parenting game, Daddy.

  164. anon[423] • Disclaimer says:

    Women + science + 1980’s equals

  165. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    Rather than fathers, isn’t it more the case that ‘official’ ideology — schools, the media, teachers — have been pushing the idea that women should seek careers rather than get married for about thirty years now?

    No, you’re wrong. It’s fathers as well. Nobody wants their 30 year old daughter showing up back home with three kids in tow.

    And no women who end up with bad husbands are not to blame, at least not all the time. Men can bait and switch. They can also develop drug and alcohol problems after marriage. There is even evidence that they are more likely to cheat when the units digit of their age is 9. They decide life is too short for monogamy.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/men-more-likely-to-cheat-when-age-ends-in-9-2016-8

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  166. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “Given the damage that the college experience does to many women – the excessive booze, the cock carousel, the inflation of already inflated sense of entitlement – there are reasons to keep women out of college, especially the bright ones.”

    Assuming that there is this damage that occurs. Of course, if you want to be consistent, the college experience equally applies for men and women as far as the drinking, carousing, and excessive ego. Perhaps you are a result of that experience yourself and are still in recovery mode.

    “there are reasons to keep women out of college, especially the bright ones.”

    Half-baked reasons, assuredly.

  167. Corvinus says:
    @Colin Wright

    “I’m skeptical of that argument.”

    Naturally you would be, since accepting it means you are largely responsible for this “crisis”.

    “Wouldn’t the rational response be to take care in one’s choice of a husband? Rather than fathers, isn’t it more the case that ‘official’ ideology — schools, the media, teachers — have been pushing the idea that women should seek careers rather than get married for about thirty years now?”

    The rational response is for men and women to decide for themselves who to marry, when to marry, and for what reasons to marry.

    “At some point, marriage started becoming serial rather than permanent.”

    With the advent of industrialism and the expansion of capitalistic enterprise.

    “So that be a reason for a woman to choose a career — after all, she might well get married at twenty, but she may find herself single and losing her looks twenty years down the road. It’d be good to have something more enthralling than answering phones to do.”

    Not your choice to make for someone. Their life, not your life.

    “I’d guess girls do the same and choose a career for the same reason — because they’re told to.”

    Nothing wrong with that in the least.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  168. Corvinus says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    “Some way of grouping by cognitive ability during family formation years should increase marriage rates…”

    How do you propose to accomplish this goal? What metrics are involved? How do you plan on selling it to the masses? What counter arguments must you come up with when confronted with push back?

    You make this grandiose statement, and then you offer no follow up. Pray tell, are you a Jewish Harvard graduate?

  169. @Corvinus

    ‘… Nothing wrong with that in the least.’

    We need an ‘idiot’ button. As birthrates plunge below replacement level, Corvinus argues there’s nothing wrong with urging women to have careers rather than children.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  170. Corvinus says:
    @Colin Wright

    “We need an ‘idiot’ button.”

    With your picture on it.

    “As birthrates plunge below replacement level…”

    Hate fact to bring it to your attention, but tens of millions of white normies have more pressing matters to attend to, nor do think of your concern as being something they must immediate address.

    Pray tell, was this question part of your vetting process for marriage–“In light of declining white birthrates, how do you propose to solve this dire problem?” I imagine it was a hit with the ladies, eh? [rolling of eyes]

    “Corvinus argues there’s nothing wrong with urging women to have careers rather than children.””

    Here is my actual position–There is nothing inherently wrong with men and women choosing to go their own path in life, whether it be marriage/career/children, or marriage/career/no children, or singlehood/career. To each their own. That is their liberty.

    But your elitist attitude and virtue signaling is much appreciated.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  171. @Corvinus

    ‘Here is my actual position–There is nothing inherently wrong with men and women choosing to go their own path in life, whether it be marriage/career/children, or marriage/career/no children, or singlehood/career. To each their own. That is their liberty.’

    Gee, Corvinus — I didn’t disagree with that.

    But then, you wouldn’t have read what I actually wrote. That’s part of being an idiot.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  172. Corvinus says:
    @Colin Wright

    I did read what you wrote and promptly corrected you.

  173. @Rosie

    ‘No, you’re wrong. It’s fathers as well. Nobody wants their 30 year old daughter showing up back home with three kids in tow.

    And no women who end up with bad husbands are not to blame, at least not all the time. Men can bait and switch. They can also develop drug and alcohol problems after marriage…’

    Add various other changing factors — like the impact of technology and labor-saving devices. It used to be that somebody really did need to stay home — collect kindling, heat water to wash clothes, deal with nine children-two-of-whom-were-sick, etc, etc, etc, ETC. Women must have been too damned busy to worry about how they wanted to be emancipated and get to go down into the coal mine too.

    Etc. Etc. To tell the awful truth, I think all of these are valid arguments — but in the end, you’d throw out the baby with the bathwater (pun!) Not getting married on account of now you can and look at all the things that could go wrong is simply a way of spelling an end to your personal genetic line.

    It all is an equation with multiple variables. I’d say my point is that the media, educational establishment, etc. are putting their thumb on the scale, though — and for no particularly good reason.

    The ability of most people to make intelligent personal decisions is questionable — and late adolescents/young adults even more so.

    However, that’s not a reason to push them towards the choice that ultimately, is bad for us all. To the extent possible, they should be allowed to make an intelligent choice on their own — not just told ‘you should choose the career.’

    • Replies: @Rosie
  174. @The Alarmist

    They’re not “conserving thier energy” for mating, they are blissfully pouring their energies into the mating game, because they know sex is more fun than housework or farmwork.

    True, but wildly understating the case. They would (and in fact do) play the game this way even if they liked sex less than housework or farmwork.

    Because the many things they get along the way toward providing (or promising, or just teasing) sex are things they value very highly indeed. These things are tangible and intangible, and they are almost beyond number.

    Ugly girls, unless they are rich, have to work for a living (as virtually all men do). A more horrifying prospect can hardly be imagined by a teenage girl, or a pretty woman.

  175. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    Not getting married on account of now you can and look at all the things that could go wrong is simply a way of spelling an end to your personal genetic line.

    I couldn’t agree more. I’m not saying this is a valid reason not to get married. What I am saying is that women are less likely to accept economic dependence when the law does not protect them, as is increasingly the case. Lifelong alimony is no longer a matter of course.

    Still, I would never discourage anyone from marrying or even being a SAHM. There are ways of mitigating the risk.

  176. res says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Thanks. Looks interesting. Queued one up for when I have half an hour to watch.

  177. BB753 says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s self-explanatory: the best and most rewarding job an intelligent woman can achieve is giving birth and raising intelligent children.

  178. BB753 says:
    @Anonymous

    In the old days, there were other venues than College for an intelligent woman to meet an intelligent suitor. Society balls, charity work, society dinners, arranged marriages, etc.
    Now, all we have left for men and women to meet are clubs and College campus life, both promiscuous, rampant with alcohol and drug, superficial affairs. In such an environment, it’s not clear intelligent men and women will ever meet. Remember, this is the 21Th century, where even gay marriage is “conservative”. Today’s conservatives are yesterday’s liberals, and today’s liberals are yesterday’s wackos.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS