When I make myself imagine what it is like to be one of those women who live at home, faithfully serving their husbands – women who have not a single exciting prospect in life yet who believe that they are perfectly happy – I am filled with scorn. Often they are of quite good birth, yet have had no opportunity to find out what the world is like. –THE PILLOW BOOK OF SEI SHONAGON

I quote this because it’s a good example of what Florence King called a female misogynist. The few women who aren’t suited to women’s roles have only scorn and incomprehension of the majority who are.

Feminism and the Brian Nichols Case: Aiding and Abetting by Nicholas Stix

Without the marriage of political convenience of feminism and anti-white racism, Brian Nichols would never have been in Fulton County Superior Court on March 11, and four people would still be alive today.

It is due to feminism that a female, Deputy Cynthia Hall, was given the responsibility for guarding a male suspect charged with violent crimes, and who had already been caught with weapons on his person.

I’ve found something good to say about Obama.

Obama’s War on Women

Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: “His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000.” It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.

Men With Traditional Views on Sex Roles Earn More Money

The article scrambles to assure us that it’s only because of attitudes that become self-fulfilling prophecies, but we know better.

A movie for us!

I haven’t seen it yet, I just found out about it, but get a load of this:

Domestic Disturbance

Susan Morrison is getting married to wealthy industrialist Rick Barnes. Danny, her teenage son with ex-husband Frank, isn’t happy about this; he stows away in Rick’s car one night, planning to go to Frank’s house. But while there, he witnesses Rick murdering mysterious stranger Ray Coleman. Problem is, Rick’s managed to dispose of most of the evidence, and he’s considered a pillar of the community, while Danny has a history of lying. Frank believes him, though, and does some investigating of his own, as Rick’s shady past slowly catches up to him and his new family.

Netflix has it. The reviews were very mixed, but at least for a change it’s the interloping stepfather who’s the psycho, instead of the usual crap about a horrible wife-beating man stalking his wife and kids when she leaves him and kidnapping the kids, etc.

Arguing with Women: An Exercise in Futility

Recently I made a brief post on a forum, a completely non-ideological, non-political post. I’m sure no one reading this will be surprised that at least two women (before I stopped following it) managed to find something to be offended about. It was basically, When I mentioned that such-and-such trivial event happened to Group A, why oh why didn’t I mention that something similar happens to Group B?

They’ve got such bad “inclusion disease” that they even apply it to the most trivial of contexts, and get mad if it’s left out of those trivial contexts.

I only answered a couple of the comments before ignoring the thread, but I observed the same crap as usual. None of them brought in any real facts, they just emoted. With women, you can’t really expect much else. They genuinely don’t understand the difference between logic and their emotions. A few months ago, I made a political remark somewhere and some bimbo flamed me. She did not bring out any reasons that I was wrong such as “this study shows the bad effect your proposal would have on society” or “that conflicts with the Seventh Amendment” – indeed, I doubt she cared at all about the effect on society at large; her entire argument consisted of the whine that my saying these things she didn’t agree with was wrong because it made her “feel marginalized”. And she demanded that everyone else reading bring her metaphorical smelling salts after she had endured the ordeal of hearing someone advocate things she didn’t agree with. Incredibly, after all this, she declared that she had “won” the argument and “proven” me wrong. She genuinely believed that the degree of emotion she felt constituted a reasoned argument.

Back to the more recent incident. I griped about this mildly to a female friend of mine. I regarded this as one of those minor annoyances of everyday life, to be griped at in the same category as “And I had to wait a long time at the Taco Bell drivethrough, and I misplaced my red pen.” She, however, took it as an opportunity to Explain to me why these dames took umbrage at my trivial internet post. It was because I hadn’t explained beforehand that I was making generalizations (most women on the internet are terrified of generalizations) and assured them that I know that other groups get something similar, bla bla. She was going to lecture me at length about this but I stopped her.

Fact is, I post in a lot of different places on the Net, and I get sick of women expecting me to babysit them this way. This almost never happens with men, just women. Any sane adult understands what generalizations are and doesn’t need to have her hand held while she’s seeing one and given a lollipop afterwards to comfort her from the ordeal. But then, few women are sane adults.

You know, it’s partly because most women aren’t very good at thinking abstractly. This has been well known for some time. I didn’t used to believe it, because my father and my one serious boyfriend before I came out were both very smart, but terrible at abstractions, and I’m great at them. I would make an abstract statement, they would focus on some incredibly trivial concrete detail and follow it to the exclusion of all else. When I tried to remind them of what I was actually talking about, they would look at me blankly and insist that I was completely wrong because said trivial detail was the entirety of the issue and I was talking as if there were something else involved. But years of further observation, and my study of the differences between men and women, prove that this is just one of those statistical anomalies. Men are taller than women. I’m a woman, and I’ve met men shorter than me. This doesn’t change the general fact: men are taller than women. Similarly, my own facility with abstractions is part of what has always made people know there was something odd about me; subsconsciously, they know that is not a normal thing for a female to be good at. It was also one of the causes of the dislike my teachers felt for me; none of them were capable of thinking in abstractions, and no adult likes encountering a nine-year-old who is mentally superior to her (or him). But back to the inappropriate feminine outrage because of a two-sentence, nonpolitical statement a complete stranger made on a web forum followed by perhaps a few dozen people.

There is an old Arab proverb: “The discontented woman asks for toasted snow.”

Women evolved this habit to compensate for being the weaker sex. They are designed to get irritated and emotional at little things because their power to nag, withhold sex, have hysterics, etc. is their only real clout in a relationship. I’ll even go further and say that it’s a good thing they have it. Men usually have better judgment than women, but occasionally a woman will make a better decision than her husband, and this gives her a chance of enforcing it. In addition, it has the very real survival value of testing their man’s devotion to the relationship. A man who will put up with a bit of nagging will probably not run off when they have small children to feed. In addition, she’s hoping he will put his foot down after a certain amount of nagging so that she can be reassured that she has a real man who can defend her from invading Vikings.

However, this habit also means that women as a group are not fit for power in wider society. Turned loose on the world, they will waste everyone’s time and energy by demanding that the simplest statement be hedged about with qualifications and warnings and acknowledgements, bla bla.

The irritating experience reminded me again that arguing with women about such issues as child custody or alimony is not going to do any good. Even comparatively rational women, being presented with all the facts, will nonetheless still not comprehend the injustices which are being done to men. This may be because perceiving this would threaten her own survival, or it may be simply that she has heard so much propaganda in the other direction that reading one web page with the actual facts isn’t going to penetrate. Women are highly dependent on the approval of the group for their survival, so very few of them are able to think for themselves. But most of all, I think that they won’t be convinced unless an argument inspires the needed emotional response. They read our pages now and feel bad, feel criticized, feel attacked; therefore, our arguments are bad. Has nothing to do with facts or logic. When an argument makes them feel good, they figure it must be true and moral. They can’t really help this, but it does mean that it’s the responsibility of men to run society so as to protect them from their own folly.

Don’t waste your time or energy arguing with women. It won’t work. Convince enough men, and at the same time deprive certain men of the benefits of pandering to women (i.e. politicians who give women things in return for votes), and feminism will evaporate.

An excellent review of Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody.

Another myth deconstructed by Baskerville is that fathers commonly commit child abuse, incest, and wife-beating. In reality, this is rare. Mothers are more likely to use violence on fathers, and children are most subjected to abuse in single-parent households headed by a woman.

Remember Caitlin Moran’s How can we cure sexism? Limit the supply of women? She claimed that the solution to sexism was for women to abort most of their daughters, on the theory that with fewer women around, the few would have more power in society.

Aside from the incredible inhumanity of such a proposal, historically women are more oppressed during times when there is a shortage of women. Plus, as we are now seeing in China and the Islamic world, men who have no hope of getting marriage, sex or children have little motivation not to become delinquent.

As witness this example from history:

Viking Age Triggered by Shortage of Wives?

Sept. 17, 2008 — During the Viking Age from the late eighth to the mid-eleventh centuries, Scandinavians tore across Europe attacking, robbing and terrorizing locals. According to a new study, the young warriors were driven to seek their fortunes to better their chances of finding wives.

The odd twist to the story, said researcher James Barrett, is that it was the selective killing of female newborns that led to a shortage of Scandinavian women in the first place, resulting later in intense competition over eligible women.

“Selective female infanticide was recorded as part of pagan Scandinavian practice in later medieval sources, such as the Icelandic sagas,” Barrett, who is deputy director of Cambridge University’s McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, told Discovery News.

The Brooms of Bloomsbury

Virginia Woolf famously dreamed of a room of one’s own in which to work uninterrupted. But even a room needs to be dusted, the linen changed, the laundry done, the food bought and prepared. As Alison Light notes in “Mrs. Woolf and the Servants”: “Without all the domestic care and hard work which servants provided there would have been no art, no writing, no ‘Bloomsbury.’ “

Woolf needed her servants — they tended to her most intimate needs every day, especially during her frequent illnesses — but she also resented her need to pay attention to them. What she would have loved, she wrote in her journal, was an efficiency flat, “entirely controlled by one woman, a vacuum cleaner, & electric stoves.”

In other words, this arch-feminist needed the modern conveniences invented by men in order to have her “independence”. That, or else the stable patriarchal social order which provided servants for her.

Dr Paul Irwing: ‘There are twice as many men as women with an IQ of 120-plus’

All the research I’ve done points to a gender difference in general cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points. The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus as there are women….

The results of both studies were a shock to me. I find prejudice abhorrent. I’ve always taught sex differences from a left-wing point of view, that women are every bit as good as men. My findings don’t fit my view of the world at all. Girls often do better than boys at school. There has to be some female compensating factor, most importantly the ability to process speech sounds, which means women read faster and more accurately and have an advantage in basic writing tasks. And women work harder than men and are more conscientious so they do things technic-ally correctly. Men are often quite original but deficient in what is technically demanded.

Mine, by the way, is above 120.

The Brooms of Bloomsbury

Virginia Woolf famously dreamed of a room of one’s own in which to work uninterrupted. But even a room needs to be dusted, the linen changed, the laundry done, the food bought and prepared. As Alison Light notes in “Mrs. Woolf and the Servants”: “Without all the domestic care and hard work which servants provided there would have been no art, no writing, no ‘Bloomsbury.’ “

Woolf needed her servants — they tended to her most intimate needs every day, especially during her frequent illnesses — but she also resented her need to pay attention to them. What she would have loved, she wrote in her journal, was an efficiency flat, “entirely controlled by one woman, a vacuum cleaner, & electric stoves.”

In other words, this arch-feminist needed the modern conveniences invented by men in order to have her “independence”. That, or else the stable patriarchal social order which provided servants for her.

Dr Paul Irwing: ‘There are twice as many men as women with an IQ of 120-plus’

All the research I’ve done points to a gender difference in general cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points. The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus as there are women….

The results of both studies were a shock to me. I find prejudice abhorrent. I’ve always taught sex differences from a left-wing point of view, that women are every bit as good as men. My findings don’t fit my view of the world at all. Girls often do better than boys at school. There has to be some female compensating factor, most importantly the ability to process speech sounds, which means women read faster and more accurately and have an advantage in basic writing tasks. And women work harder than men and are more conscientious so they do things technic-ally correctly. Men are often quite original but deficient in what is technically demanded.

Mine, by the way, is above 120.