Women are Frivolous

Women are Frivolous

From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that men would have an interest in things like justice from a theoretical perspective. A man in prehistoric times may have served on a tribal council and have had to come to a fair decision based on objective criteria; a woman dealt mainly with her family and would put feelings over reason. Males would have to form alliances with other tribes, build things to deal with the forces of nature, figure out a practical way to get the mammoth down, etc. Females gossiped and took care of children. They never evolved the mental tools to go beyond the personal. That’s why something that is true but unpopular like race realism will appeal more to men than women. A man (some of us) has the potential to ask “Is this true?” while a woman can’t go beyond “Is this the correct thing to believe for the status of me and my kids?”

I’ve had men and women disagree with my positions on race, but have only seen women refer to my beliefs as “stupid.” This used to puzzle me because they couldn’t articulate a reason why. I eventually came to realize that the connotations that the word has for me are different than the ones it has for females. When I say a belief is “stupid” I mean that there are actual reasons for not believing it. When a woman says a belief is “stupid” she means that it’s not the correct thing to believe if you want to have friends. In that sense race realism can be stupid from a social stand point while also being true. But a woman doesn’t think in terms of what we call truth and doesn’t use it as a barometer to decide what is or isn’t “stupid.”

That explains why feminists like to dismiss antifeminists as “ignorant”. I don’t think feminists actually know the definition of the word “ignorant”, but even if some of them do, it doesn’t make any sense. Do they actually imagine that we have somehow managed to evade their ubiquitous and constant brainwashing? That somehow the glad tidings that women are equal to men have not reached our ears? And how is providing mountains of scientific, statistical and historical evidence for our viewpoints – something which they cannot do, as all the evidence is on our side – “ignorant”? I had assumed that it was simply a word they had heard someplace and adopted as a generic putdown. Now I know what they actually mean: that I’m too ignorant to know that I have to pretend to believe their propaganda in order to conform and not be banished from the tribe and eaten by tigers.

Well, girls, I’m not. I know perfectly well that if I regurgitated your silly lies, my life would be a lot easier and I would “fit in” way better. I simply am too honest to do so, something a feminist can’t possibly comprehend.

The answer isn’t to treat female writers “equally” to male ones. It’s a healthy society understanding that women aren’t meant to think about serious issues.

I read this post last night and it popped into my head this morning. As I got ready for the day I found myself mentally reviewing my blogreader, and I realized that it is almost exclusively male.

Now, as long-time readers may have gathered, my blogreader constantly changes. Some bloggers, you read them for a couple of months and you’ve already absorbed what they have to offer and don’t really need to keep reading unless you just enjoy their style. Vox Popoli is one such; read one month of him and you’ll get the message. Also, I’ll get interested in a subject and read several blogs about it for a few months, then when my curiosity is satisfied I’ll drop most of them except for the few that are still stimulating. And when I do that, now that I think of it, the female bloggers are always dropped at that point. Their blogs are always the most trivial.

Case in point: last year for a few months I read the saner “race realist” blogs, mainly because a lot of MRAs are also “race realists” so I wanted to learn what they had to say. Most liberals, I think, believe you shouldn’t even read verboten ideas because it might get on you, but conservatives, who are used to having a large bullshit filter to screen out the lies liberals constantly promote in schools and the media, know that they can read people they disagree with and not become “infected”. The main thing I learned is that my guess that liberal encouragement of nonwhite crime, via such things as their defense of violent criminals as “victims” of “racism” and their welfare programs which make female-headed household proliferate, is going to cause a resurgence of racism, was correct. Those blogs are full of statistics about black-on-white and Latino-on-white crime, and any white person who looks at those figures is going to start wondering if the current gospel about race is the truth. The current alien-in-chief’s unabashed plans to steal even more money from white people to give to nonwhites is only going to hasten the revival of racism. Which is fine with liberals, because if racism really were gone, they’d be out of a racket. They need victims who need their help in order to stay in power.

Anyway, while I was exploring the race realist blogosphere, I can only recall two female bloggers in that category who I followed. One was Cordelia For Lear, who IIRC was very smart but there was some major stuff (besides race) that I disagreed with her about, I don’t remember what. The other was latte island, whose blog consists chiefly of posts like, “I was in a store today and saw a black person acting obnoxious.” I can’t recall any abstractions ever appearing in her blog, except when she once declared that feminism made education available to women, which pretty much proves my point.

When my curiosity was satisfied, I kept a few of the HBD bloggers on my reader and dropped the rest. The ones I kept were the ones who frequently posted interesting information or theories about things other than race, including the biological differences between the sexes, or original data analysis – things female bloggers are unlikely to post. Neither of the female bloggers made the cut. It’s been the same with many other topics I explored.

So when I sat down at my computer today, I checked my blogreader for female bloggers. I follow some blogs because they post beautiful pictures or because they are relevant to my hobbies; a few of those bloggers are women. Putting pretty pictures on the web does not require original thought. I excluded “amusement” blogs and checked my folders of political, scientific, and philosophical blogs.

And by the way, I don’t look at whether a blogger is male or female before I add them to my blogroll. I read a few posts to see if they’re worth a look without taking into account the sex, race, religion, or anything else of the blogger. One blog I especially enjoy, I wasn’t sure what sex the blogger was until I had been following it for six months – turned out to be a man.

Want to know how many female bloggers I consider worthy of my time?



6 Responses to “Women are Frivolous”

  1. silly girl Says:

    If you think about it, conservatism protected folks who on their own might have made really bad decisions. Some liberal policies give confused people the rope to hang themselves. Consider self disciplined, intelligent caring couples that have three or four kids. They will be "successful" from a biological perspective. Then consider a single mom with only one child. From the biological perspective, she is less "successful" because she leaves fewer offspring. While women on average score lower on morality whenever they are tested, it will be interesting to see if the more moral traits are being selected because the people who choose to marry and stay married have more children than those who are less able to maintain a stable family. Since women who have ever had an abortion also have fewer children on average, there may be a selection process at work against those who are psychologically inclined against their offspring. Since those with fewer children also produce fewer male children, there could be a proportional rise in the type of men who are able to marry and stay married.

    So basically forcing people to behave in a more moral fashion reduces the natural selection for those who do it voluntarily. The question for society is where to enforce the laws to maximize the natural advantage. Too much social support for bad behavior will allow those with bad behavior to increase their number. Too little social support for them will cause them to emulate the more successful types and also increase their number.

    I make this argument as an illustration of the "nature" version of human behavior, not as an endorsement of it.

    If in fact we have found the "sweet spot" where policies work in concert with natural forces to increase the number of responsible, moral and intelligent while reducing the number of the others, it will be a while before we will be able to verify it. Our view is somewhat obscured by illegal immigration which allows far too many criminals into the country. In previous immigrant waves, the immigrants were closely screened so we got fewer criminals although of course not zero. However if our largely liberal policies really are the "sweet spot" that allow certain genes to commit evolutionary suicide, we will have to wait to see. If they aren't, we could be screwed. =)

  2. Thursday Says:

    Megan McArdle is pretty good, as is Alias Clio.

  3. Carl Says:

    If you haven't already, you should probably trawl through the "best of" at mancoat.

    The actual forum kinda sucks now and is going round in circles, and for me filled up with too many conspiracy nuts (mostly anti-semite) who don't want to understand or get to the bottom of anything.

    But there was a time when most of the MRA bloggers visited the forum and the blogs themselves just disseminated what went on at the forum. That's not really the case any more but it still feels like a lot of places are merely regurgitating what the old men at mancoat taught us 4+ years ago. It's amazing how much tail chasing can be prevented by one sentence from an old man who has spent the last 40 years thinking it over.

    Some people complain about how little MRAs have achieved in terms of changing actual laws, but it's amazing in terms of the number of memes/ideas/whatever we have spread. We're the new Gramscis.

  4. globalman100 Says:

    "for me filled up with too many conspiracy nuts"
    Carl, what do you mean 'nuts'?

    Feminism was created by the Illuminati as one component of bringing about the New World Order. If you think that's 'nuts' try http://www.henrymakow.com. It's well and truely proven. The chaos that is being created is deliberate.

    The bit I really like is that the reason men had to be so badly abused was to drive them away from the 'women and children' so the w&c would be easier to kill when the time comes. Well, have you heard of 'swine flu vaccins' or 'tami-flu'? There is a gigantic genocide going on that most people don't even know about. And w&c are the worst hit because they are smaller and weaker than men.

    Women have already lost….only question is how badly.

  5. globalman100 Says:

    "Some people complain about how little MRAs have achieved in terms of changing actual laws"

    The 'laws' do not need to be changed. We have discovered the lawful remedy for feminism. Try http://www.thinkfree.ca and watch Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception.

    It is now just a matter of education. Common Law is fair. Men have every right to not consent to statutes. And all 'feminist laws' are statutes. The MRAs are a bit slow to pick this up as they are still 'fighting for equal rights' more being able to come to grips with actually having them.

  6. LPF Says:

    If she isn't one that already came and went, you might try Dr Helen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: