Tom Martin on bias in Gender Studies

For those interested in the state of the world and evidence that hardly anyone claiming so is really interested in “equality”, I recommend Tom Martin’s page.

Tom sued (and was rejected) LSE for discrimination against men by offering only studies biased in women’s favour. The court rejected his claim, if I understand correctly, because they don’t believe he personally came to any harm (as would apparently have to be the case in a discrimination case) and they do not want to get involved in politics.

But do have a look at the PDFs at the top of the page, especially the line-by-line discussion of LSE’s 101 material.

What does “loving” mean?

Just a short thought: imagine a parent with several children. But there is one child that is his or her absolute favourite. The other children will be punished when they diss him in any way. college tuition and other support will only be paid for this one child.

Would that one child think that his parent is “loving”?

And isn’t that how Christians see their God?

To make sure: This is meant as a serious question. If your first reaction is “idiot” I would be thankful for you to take the time and tell me where the metaphor goes wrong.

oppression? ranting a little

After following a link to the Unknown History of Misandry today I have a pessimistic turn.
Things won’t get better.
Feminism won’t go away.
There are not enough red pills in the world to make MRM’s voice loud enough.

It was difficult enough to overcome McCarthy. And he was basically only one idiot bloke that exploited a fear based in U.S. culture. Feminism hooks into a genetically based fear, the fear of human male for his female.

It’s an automatic response:
“A female is threatened.” – “Oh, we better do something about it then”
Thoughts like “Really? How? Are you sure? Isn’t she just a bit hysterical?” come later or not at all for your average male.

Unknown History of Misandry documents that the problems MRM is concerned about are not new to the last 30 years but reach back at least as far as the suffrage movement.

Unfair custody, believed false allegations, all the rackets of today are a hundred years old and men are no nearer in overcoming them. If anything, we are farther away.

Because a hundred years ago it was only the case of some women knowing how to play man’s protective instincts. As soon as judge and/or jury was female their spiel collapsed.

Judge Rhea M Whitehead is quoted (1921):

A husband is going to get a square deal in my court. Too many men are convicted on sobby tales of wives

These days are gone. Today it is a rare woman that wasn’t indoctrinated with (or has overcome) the tale of the violent man and the innocent girl.

So what to do?

Recognize our own stupidity and keep working for a fairer world. What else?

And hope that this time the world’s way to deal with unstable societies (collapse, destroy, restart) can be averted.

“Hypergamy” and Mozart

Practically all blogs that write about modern women and Game mention hypergamy as a driving force of women’s decisions in the mating market. This is what makes a woman leave her good husband: the idea that she can do “better”.

I can’t remember much scientific proof of the conept †, most believe it because it seems so obvious. Everyone knows women like that.

There are some that see the mating market as exactly that: a market. One that obeys economic rules. And the basic rule is, roughly speaking: Everyone tries to get the best partner his or her resources can afford.

In that light “hypergamy” means nothing more than “best” for whatever category is relevant at the time to the specific individual.

“Trying to get the best” is hardly any different from what every PUA does, trying to seduce the most beautiful women. With the added twist that for a PUA, whatever else he is looking for besides “beauty”, “new” adds 500 points.
Thinks: Is that unique to males? Probably not. See below.

The insinuation in Game-circles is that “better” for women is not only “better than the other available males” but also in relation to herself. Thus she won’t settle for the best available male unless he is also in some relevant aspect better than her.

I buy into that without waiting for a study since I have yet to meet a woman who doesn’t look for a partner “to respect” or “to look up to” or “who can protect me” or “who I can lean to”.

Has it always been like this?

With that I come to the thing that made me start this post: while writing I am listening to Cosi Fan Tutte.

For those that are not that much into Mozart a short summary: Two soldiers, Ferrando and Guglielmo are engaged to Dorabella and Fiordiligi. They are so convinced of their spouses fidelity that they enter a bet with Don Alfonso, an old and cynical philosopher, that nothing could shift their women from being faithful.

To cut a long story short: The opera is called “They all do it”.

(My recommendation: go ahead and see/listen to it. AFAIC there is no more beautiful music. Especially the quintets and sextets :] consistently make me melt.)

The unfaitfulness comes about thus: Ferrando and Guglielmo pretend to have to go to war. Hardly gone they come back in the most wicked of all disguises: They wear a different hat and possibly fake moustaches. Of course no one recognizes them.

They say they are friends of Don Alfonso’s from somewhere far far away in the east.

Dorabella and Fiordiligi in the beginning are offended by the suggestion to entertain complete strangers until they by and by see the benefits of the two.

The most important of which is: They are here now, while no-one knows if their fiancés will come back alive.

This, the passing of a little time and the prospect of a little fun are all that Dorabella needs to submit to Guglielmo’s advances (Fiordiligi’s fiancé).

Dorabella seems to be more or less timeless.

Fiordiligi is a lot harder to persuade. In the end Ferrando has to insist that either she loves him or kills him (actually putting his rapier in her hand, pointing the tip to his breast) before she gives in.

It is the promise of … what? … that does it for Fiordiligi. The full Romeo & Juliet emotion, love or die.

Why is this so powerful?

It should be noted that Fiordiligli is attracted alright to “her laughing blonde one”. Also the strangers have been introduced as noblemen so there is no question of financial insecurities. But she as the proverbial True One does not abandon her fiancé just because someone enters the scene who would do.

First he has to show that he would rather die than be without her. That is what moves him from “eligible” to “chosen”.

Is it True Wuv?

Or security (because with a love like that he surely will never leave her)?

Or just plain and simple very very strong emotion? The biggest positive emotional fix a man can give to woman?

Aside: Which throws an interesting light on the development of Dorabella and Fiordiligi. After Ferrando and Guglielmo leave, the main emotion of the women is despair. Dorabella actually throws a fit (nice aria) and threatens to kill herself because she ostensibly can’t live without her love.

After the strangers start to woo them the main emotion is indignation. “How dare they!” That’s good, too.

But even the best indignation wears off. Especially as their maid Despina, who herself has quite flexible sexual morals, continually works on Dorabella and Fiordiligi that “soldiers are never true” and “they probably won’t come home anyway”.

Dorabella (who just a day previously wanted to kill herself) headlong jumps into the emotion of enjoying something new (See above. I guess it does work both ways. “new” adds 500 points).

Fiordiligi needs more, but she too has her emotional key.

————————–

That, to sum up, might be one key to hypergamy: “Makes her feel best.”

Which emotion does it for a given woman will depend.

In insecure times the most important emotion may well be “I feel secure” or even “I might survive”. The need for this emotion is seemingly so deep that the type of man who 50.000 years ago considerably improved the chances of survival, still get’s a bonus of 2000 points.

But in our times, when a woman does not need a man to survive (or anything immediately essential for that matter) what better emotions are there for her than “excited”, “sexy”, “desired” and “all woman”? *

Which shows, in my book, a sine qua non of all alpha-males: the ability to evoke these feelings in a woman.

But a relevant detail of “hyper” in hypergamy is still missing: the more-than-herself bit. In what way is Ferrando as suitor “more” than Fiordiligi?

Well, she wants to be true to her fiancé, she does her best to stay moral. But she has to admit that she is indeed attracted to that foreign man. She wavers which in itself makes her less than perfect, even if she would manage to not follow her impulse. And then she is confronted by a man who displays ultimate passion and (seemingly) ultimate sincerity.

He puts himself in the role of the perfect lover. Which she no longer is, since the moment she admitted her attraction to him.

† I found these two referred to by Heartiste and IIRC Hooking-up-smart:
http://paa2011.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=110915
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_solew.pdf

* For women with higher intellectual than sex drive** perhaps: “intellectually challenged”. For insecure women probably: “liked” or even “loved”.

** They do exist

Modern Religion

About a year ago I was looking for a specific book about Daoism in a larger bookstore in Graz. Browsing the “Religion” sections I came across “Christianity”, “Buddhism”, “Feminism”, “Islam”…

Laughing out loud I at first only enjoyed the idea. But in the following months I came to wonder if those bookstore employees weren’t a lot wiser* than I was. What was it that struck me as funny? We laugh at absurd juxtapositions but we also laugh when we realize a truth after an unexpected realization. Which one was this?

*They did also put Daoism under Philosophy, as it should be.

Feminism has a lot of attributes of religion. It is belief in incongruous, mostly unprovable ideas, it unites people to a group and thus divides the world into Us and Them, one of the main reasons seems to be to make believers feel good and wield political power to gain privileges for its believers.

I believe I will have to look into this idea over time. To start with, I just stumbled over a feminist anthology in which the author says:

But the more I thought about it, the more I put my actual, lived and activist feminism down to a period in my life of depression; and the decision I took to stop it, to move forward and to be happy. And I think a big part of this for me was in learning about and discovering sisterhood.

In the anthology that inspired this book, Click, one of the writers says that feminism was her consolation prize for surviving an eating disorder. I feel the same way, except that my form of self destructive behaviour wasn’t around food, but self harm.

I recognize those feelings from a girl (yes, she was young) I met twenty years ago on a bus trip. She had been lonely and confused and unhappy (we didn’t go too far into her mental history, but she said that much), but now was happy and no longer alone. And this change came about by her entering a christian sect. She invited me to one of their sermons. Being permanently curious, I went.

It was an exercise just short of brainwashing: We love each other, We are the Good People, stay with Us and you will never be alone, reject the hostile world, commit to Us and you’ll stay happy.

I’ll have to keep an open eye if there are any studies into these dynamics and to what extent feminists might as well belong to any old sect, speaking from their psychological needs.

You can find a very good report on the sect-like “You are with Us or against Us” mentality of feminists here.

Whatever you do, stay mindful of the dark side.

Getting to grips with basic terms: “sexism”

Since I started reading and thinking about gender issues and MRA and PUA etc. I came across certain terms that seem to be used so incongruently that I have a hard time to make any sense of them.

Still the biggest puzzler: “sexism”. Wikipedia defines:

Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Sexist attitudes are frequently based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles. Sexism is not just a matter of individual attitudes, but is built into many societal institutions. The term sexism is most often used in relation to discrimination against women, in the context of patriarchy.

Sexism involves hatred of, or prejudice towards, a gender as a whole or the application of gender stereotypes. Sexism is often associated with gender supremacy arguments

The important bits of the definition:

  1. prejudice based on sex
  2. discrimination based on sex
  3. conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
  4. Sexism is (…) built into many societal institutions.
  5. Sexism involves hatred of a gender as a whole
  6. Sexism involves prejudice towards a gender as a whole
  7. Sexism is often associated with gender supremacy arguments

Right…

————————–

1) It is epistomology 101 that you will never be in possession of all the facts (or all the opinions or in general: all the information that might be relevant).

Therefore it is impossibe to be ultimojudicial. Every judgement you make, by the very nature of human understanding, is prejudiced. You judge before you know everything you might need to know.

At first look this implies that “prejudice” is a word void of meaning.

But that is not the case, it is just a very slight misnomer. It should be too-early-judice. Or alternatively too-careless-judice.

This means that “This is prejudiced” is no Yes/No question. Any answer is an opinion that needs to be argued.

Most people accusing someone else to be prejudiced feel that they are absolutely right in doing so. Considering the “too-…” in my definition, they feel or think they are proper judges as to what “too early” or “too careless” in the given context means and that the other violated it.

Which means that any accusation of prejudice that hasn’t looked into and discussed the case that the other might indeed have given enough time and care regarding the context of his statement is prejudiced.

Basically what I want to say here: using “prejudice” as an accusation is a two edged sword. You can’t just claim. You have to argue to be not guilty of the same crime.

————————–

2) This opens a new can of worms. What does “discrimination” mean?

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on his or her membership – or perceived membership – in a certain group or category.

Ok, one doesn’t only have a prejudice but one also treats another according to that prejudice.

I wonder if the definition is missing something. Shouldn’t it be “to their disadvantage”?

Dictionary.com defines it thusly:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

No omission in wikipedia then.

————————–

3) This is aimed at the “Question: A woman has a car accident; who is guilty? Answer: The women. What was she doing outside the kitchen?” attitude.

No further questions for the moment.

————————–

4) OK. This probably involves the “discrimination” bit of the definition, i.e. institutions treat humans differently depending on which sex they have.

————————–

5) “Hatred” That’s new. But all in all nothing more than an exaggerated form of 1)

————————–

6) Isn‘t this the same as 1)?

————————–

7) X is better than Y. Got it. Also “All X are better than all Y”? Implying “No Y can be better than any given X”? Probably.

————————–

So, what would be examples of sexist attitudes/statements?

“I won’t let you drive my car because you are a woman” (1)

“Women can’t drive” (6)

“Men are violent” (6)

“If a man hits he does on average hit harder than a woman” (No sexism, but empirical evidence)

“Women like drama” (No sexism, but empirical evidence)

SCUM (3, 5, 6, 7)

Affirmative Action (2, 4)

Men liking pictures of scantily clad women – A silly person might argue for (3). But what stereotype or social role would that be? “Beautiful women are prettier than ugly ones”? “Sexy women are nicer to look at than plain women”? More likely something along the lines of “Women are expected to be sexy”. But if that is sexist then so is this: “Men should not cheat” or “Men should man up“. (A nice answer to the manning-up idea is here)

Men not being allowed to sit next to children on a plane (1, 2, 3, 4, 6)

to be continued

Musing about the idiom “domestic voilence”

I recently was told that every fourth woman in Germany has experienced violence in a domestic setting.

This seems to be almost common knowledge since the Ministry for Women created a poster campaign. I don’t think a lot of people could say how many men experience violence, domestic or otherwise. There is no Ministry for Men.

I was interested in a) how did they find this number? and b) what constitutes “violence”. As usual hardly anyone claiming something reveals the source. After some googling I found it: a report by the Robert Koch Institue, Berlin “Health Consequences of Violence, with special consideration of Domestic Violence against Women”.

The most important source of the report is a survey by the Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. According to the report of the RKI the only scientific venture into the topic to date.

They interviewed a large sample of women between 16 and 85, asking them if they had ever experienced violence. Since “violence” is a flexible term this was followed by more precise questions.

Somebody…

  • pushed me angrily
  • gave me a light slap
  • bit ro scratched me in a way that made me unconfortable or afraid
  • turned my arm in a way that made me unconfortable
  • kicked or pushed me in a hurtful way or touched me roughly
  • pushed me in a way that made me stumble or fall
  • slapped me roughly
  • threw something at me that might have hurt me
  • hit me with something that might have hurt me
  • seriously threatened me to attack me
  • seriously threatened me to kill me
  • hit me with fists in a way that hurt or made me afraid
  • beat me up
  • throttled me or tried to suffocate me
  • scalded me
  • theatened me with a weapon like a knife or a gun
  • hurt me with a weapon like a knife or a gun
  • physically attacked me in another way that made me afraid or hurt

In other words, an old woman who thinks she remembers being pushed once sixty years ago is a sample for “one in four”.

So far I find no explanation in the report for the dynamics behind the incidents. “How did you get into that situation where your partner slapped you?” is not asked.

The solution is not: How can we educate women* to avoid situations that create violence? But: How can we take the violence out of men or failing that criminalize them?

* This should be “people” but the Ministry for Women is not interested in the wellbeing of men, only in the protection of women.

————————–

I find this report especially interesting since I myself would be a perpetrator in that survey. Twice.

You would be hard pressed to find a more non-violent boyfriend than me in my twens. But I was guilty of two idiocies: I thought discussions were meant to follow logical arguments and I was Mister Save a Troubled Girl.

I remember two occasions were I got into a discussion with the then girlfriends who where, in retrospect, probably borderline. So I argued logically, trying to make a reasonably case of what I thought, trying to make sense of the statements of my opposite and failing miserably.

I remember despairing at the sense of futility. I wanted to make sense and create understanding. The girl (obviously) only wanted to create emotion. Which after a long time she got in the form of anger. What else can there be after a discussion like that. So I threw something, a glass IIRC, into some corner of the room. Definitely not the corner of the room she was sitting in but years later she may well remember the situation as “threw something at me that might have hurt me”.

————————–

Another example is Sean Connery who said in an interview “If you have tried everything else; she wanted the last word and you gave her the last word but she is not satisfied and pushes you further, yeah, then I think it is right [to slap her]”.

————————-

Heartiste quotes a report that says:

Research finds women feel happy when their husband or partner is upset.

The detailed study found that wives or girlfriends were pleased when their partner showed emotion because they believed it demonstrated a healthy relationship.

The survey, carried out by Harvard Medical School, also found that when men realised their wife was angry, the women reported being happier, although the men were not.

It revealed women most likely enjoyed spotting when their partner was dissatisfied because it showed his strong “engagement” or “investment” in their time together.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how many of the Domestic Violence reports are simply Woman-wants-drama gone wrong?

————————-

The Home Office in the UK comes to the same conclusion “One in four”, also counting pushes and minor slaps. You’ll find a good take on how things are more complicated than “Poor girl” here.
Good quote: “In general, men don’t get physical with women. For the same reason they don’t get physical with squirrels. Why would they?”

Live misandry

Being a direct target of misandry is somehow more real than reading about it. Who would have thought…

I was just leaving my dojo when a female voice yells “Scuse me? Hello?” so I yank the brakes of my bicycle and look at her in friendly inquiry.

I: “Yes?”

A woman, more fifty than forty, a solid 2 for those interested in these details, pushes her bicycle towards me.

She: “Do you know obscure-female-name-Crescent? It’s got to be here somewhere…”

I: “I don’t, but my mobile does.”

With that I start Google Maps, type in the address which takes some 20 seconds because I first have a typo, but in the end I see that obscure-female-name-Crescent is perhaps a quarter mile away, just off the road I have to take.

I: “Ah, easy, that’s almost exactly my way. I can accompany you, if you want.”

She: “…”
A sceptical look, verging on the hostile.

I: <chuckle> “Right. It’s simple, see. Turn left there, straight on, cross a big road and next on the right.” I start pushing the pedals again.

She, noticing something: “… er … do you drive on the sidewalk?”

I: “No. Good luck”

A few months ago I wouldn’t have thought anything of it. But now I bask in the experience what it feels like to be a rape-suspect.

Luckily not for real.

At least she didn’t have her pepper spray with her.

Howard Schwartz on Political Correctness and Entitlement

I am currently reading an excellent book: “Society against itself” by Howard Schwartz. I am not sure yet that I agree with his entire theory but the book is of the best kind of book: it motivates me to think long and hard about what it has to say. Whatever else, I am certain that I will be smarter or wiser after reading and thinking about it. And that certainty is alarmingly rare.

To give you an idea:

For a long time now I am feeling increasingly  uneasy about every new example of political correctness I come across. Something about PC feels completely wrong even if I so far could not put my finger on what exactly that is.

I know that I am not alone with that impression. “Political correctness gone mad” is a standing idiom in the UK.

Another thing I always wondered about is the fact that practically every author in the manosphere relates tales of “entitled” women. Apparently very many females in the US and the UK have an irrational sense of their own worth and thereby what they are entitled to.

Schwartz offers a theory that answers both questions: What is wrong with PC and what is wrong with girls* today.
(more…)

Communicating physically with children

Jezebel has this article today. While I am not righteous enough to read the entire thing, the topic as such is interesting.

I always found a push or a slap to be a highly efficient and effective way of communication. There is no better way to bring the message “You’ve just crossed a border” across.

I was slapped by my parents perhaps a dozen times, perhaps fewer. I can remember only one time when I could not see the justification. I did get the message “I just need you to behave right now”, though.

I am not talking about mutilating beating here. But slaps. Occasional ones. What is vile about them?

Sorry for my simpleton-like asking, the answer must be obvious, otherwise there would be no laws against slapping, would there? I just must have missed that part of the discussion where the evilness of physical communication was explained.

————————–

I wonder if this is related to the current trend to assume that a man hugging a child must be a pedophile.

Is all male physicality bad unless a female has given her written consent to endure experience it?

But then why is it bad when a woman slaps her child?

Probably because all violence is inherently male and when a female shows violent behaviour it is only the patriarchy acting through her. Or some such thing.