Wednesday, September 28, 2016

I'm going to say no

I don't think the author of this piece quite grasps what "the selfish gene" actually is:
If it’s been said once, it’s been said a thousand times, nice guys finish last. But why is it that women choose dominance every time over niceness, dooming notions of sexual equality to dismal failure?

The Selfish Gene” theory could explain the tendency of women not only to marry up, but to completely disregard the bottom 4/5 of men as potential suitors as The Pareto Principle suggests and eyewitness evidence in any club in America will illustrate. Here’s a simple definition of The Selfish Gene:

A lineage is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).

This theory is bad news for men in a sexual market that has shifted to look more like a jungle than a civilization since the advent of “women’s liberation” a.k.a. feminism. The Realtalk translation of that very effete sounding definition of The Selfish Gene works out to: Women want to fuck the winners, and they will fuck over the losers.

Women have evolved to disregard and even harbor contempt for “inferior” DNA. In a cruel world in which survival of the fittest has been the rule from day one over 4 billion years ago when life began to form in the slime, being a nice boy doesn’t cut it. Women, more than men, are beholden to the influences of The Selfish Gene, and though we may lament its effects on our sexual and familial prospects as men there are sound biological reasons women have evolved to be ruthless when it comes to choosing sexual partners.
As much as it pains me to say this, a little reading of Richard Dawkins is in order here. Selfish gene theory will not explain hypergamy because there is no known hypergamous gene or even combination of genes that lead women to behave in this manner.

Indeed, the "quality" theory underlying hypergamy tends to conflict with the idea of the selfish gene.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Donald Trump and diversity

Dr. Helen explains why she is supporting Donald Trump for President:
In 2008, during election night, my husband Glenn and I did some commentary for PJTV and I remember PJTV host Bill Whittle asking me if the election of Obama would reduce the anger of liberals to which I said, "no, it would probably enhance it because now they feel entitled and emboldened to be even nastier." If one thinks of liberal bias and anger in behavioral terms, winning the presidential election would reinforce the self-entitled behavior of liberals even further:

In operant conditioning, positive reinforcement involves the addition of a reinforcing stimulus following a behavior that makes it more likely that the behavior will occur again in the future. When a favorable outcome, event, or reward occurs after an action, that particular response or behavior will be strengthened.

So, what does all this psychological jargon mean for the individual in regards to politics? It means that liberal bias and anger against those of us who do not go along with the liberal agenda could increase and in ways that cost people their jobs, livelihoods, relationships etc. A Trump election means that people (mostly liberal) will stop to think about the consequences of their acts more with the other side in power. The fact is, the media, schools, universities and much of society in general these days is driven by liberal thought and with a liberal president and Justice Department at the helm, people feel very free to engage in acts against dissidents without as much restraint.

How does this play out? It means that there will be fewer conservatives allowed in the media, in schools and universities and in all institutions that are left-leaning which is to say most of them. If a conservative (one of the few) happens to be within earshot of a liberal, it is possible that they may lose their job, their reputation, and their livelihoods.

But with president Trump, though liberals may be angry at conservatives and try to get them fired, harassed, mobbed or jailed, they will try a little less or maybe not at all if they feel that they will not be backed up by the Justice Department or other liberal henchmen (or women). And for those who are not conservative and think you are safe if liberal, not so fast. Fewer conservatives in the liberal crosshairs means fewer targets; then they start picking off their own.

Don't be surprised if you find out that your fellow liberals will take you down too, and you will have nowhere to turn since the government and your office is all on the same side.
There are other, even more important reasons, such as the opportunity for immigration restrictions, to support Donald Trump. But this is a non-trivial one. And one can only imagine how much further amok feminists would be permitted to run under a Hillary administration.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Home invasions

This is why you don't ever permit unattached men and women to move into your home:
A vicar has been betrayed after taking in a destitute alcoholic who then embarked on an affair with his wife of 29 years. Ivan Mascarenhas, 49, moved in with Matthew and Sandra Taylor in Northamptonshire, after he began drinking again and was thrown out by his wife. The vicar of St Mary's in Rushden took pity on him and gave him a spare room while he found his feet. And Rev Taylor even praised Ivan in church for battling alcoholism, not knowing that he was sleeping with his wife.
You're not being a "good samaritan" by taking someone into your home. The Good Samaritan put up the waylaid man at an inn. He wasn't foolish enough to bring the man into his home.

If you want to help someone, give them money. Don't sacrifice your marriage on their behalf, no matter how bravely they are addressing their substance abuse problem or how badly they were abused by their boyfriend.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Depraved do-gooders

How much "international aid work" is nothing more than a vehicle for mudsharking by left-wing women and gay pedophiles?
Calais aid workers volunteering in the Jungle have been accused of having sex with migrants, some of whom are believed to be underage, according to a whistle blower.

The revelations have caused a furious row on Facebook, with some volunteers claiming the allegations should have remained secret and criticised the whistle blower for expressing his concerns.

It was claimed that female volunteers were more likely to have sex with male migrants than any other combination.  One volunteer was described as having 'a bad reputation' for sleeping with male refugees and was asked to leave the camp. One male volunteer had to be 'persuaded by other male volunteers' against returning due to his 'inappropriate behaviour with female refugees'.

According to the original post, the whistle blower claimed: 'I have heard of boys, believed to be under the age of consent, having sex with volunteers. I have heard stories of men using the prostitutes in the Jungle too. I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day. And I also know, that I'm only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse.'

Several volunteers severely criticised the whistleblower for discussing the abuse allegations in an open forum.  However, one volunteer defended him claiming: 'It always really worries me that we're more concerned with the press/our reputation than we are with the sexual abuse itself.'

According to the Independent, some volunteers believe sexual relationships between aid workers and refugees is 'natural' while others believe it breaks the 'usual codes of conduct'.
It's not enough that they are depraved, but they seek to conceal their depravity in a false cloak of do-gooder saintliness.

Friday, September 23, 2016

How the West was weird

Every now and then, I encounter a post that makes me realize how little I know, and how there are entire realms of thought that never, ever, cross my mind:
A great deal of weirdness in conservative life can be explained by the theory that smarter women were more likely to end up out in the West/frontier and also be able to offset the consequences of marrying a relatively lunkish guy because their domestic labors were monetized.  They also could afford to take the chance of marrying a lunk because he didn’t need to be all that clever to make it in the West.

Over time as the domestic sphere lost its financially remunerative aspects, the general pattern was established, but that just left such women scrambling to compensate in other ways, leaving them prey to scams and schemes because they had income pressure but no easy way to integrate it into their increasingly narrow domestic sphere.
It's true that the romantic heroes of the West tend to be taciturn and competent rather than facile and intelligent. But I have no idea what significance that might hold or how it has shaped modern society, nor have I ever given the matter a moment's thought.

However, we do know that intelligence tends to flow through the maternal line. So, it's an interesting line of thought, even if it is one that I am unlikely to pursue myself.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Black Lives Matter attacks white girls

Minding your own business doesn't matter anymore because many American blacks simply hate whites. They don't care who you are, what you think, or what you're doing. This is the age of identity politics:
Stockton police are searching for the suspects in a vicious attack that happened on Friday against two teenaged sisters.

Police say a group of protestors wearing Black Lives Matter shirts held a vigil and a protest near the intersection of Pacific and Yokuts avenues.

Protestors were remembering Colby Friday, an African-American man who was shot and killed by Stockton police in August after he ignored an officer’s commands to drop his handgun.

Police say two Caucasian girls left a local restaurant and passed by the protest when they were attacked by the protestors.

What was supposed to be a peaceful protest remembering Colby Friday turned into a vicious brawl directed against two sisters, and now, investigators are looking for suspects.
On the plus side, the experience should suffice to dissuade them from any mudsharking in the future

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

The degree gap

Why isn't it an urgent problem requiring redress that men are now less educated than women?
Women earned more doctoral degrees than men in 2015 – the seventh year in a row this has occurred. They also earned more master's degrees and outnumber men in graduate school.

Politicians who like to mislead on the gender wage gap (more accurately referred to as an "earnings" gap due to choices men and women make in their careers) will point out that women are earning more degrees but still earning less pay. To look at the charts compiled by American Enterprise Institute Scholar Mark Perry, one would see part of the reason.

Women earned more degrees than men, and made up a majority of degrees in seven out of 11 different fields. But the fields where men outnumbered women are some of the highest-paid ones, including business, engineering, mathematics and physical sciences. Women outnumbered men in majors such as arts and humanities, education and social sciences.

One potentially high-paying field where women outnumbered men was health sciences, but one would have to look at what careers men and women went into upon graduating to see whether there was truly pay discrimination. For example, it might be the case that women in health sciences tend to go into nursing, whereas men tend to become doctors or surgeons.

Perry predicts that modern feminists and the media won't report these new findings, or, if they do, will focus solely on the sex disparity in science, technology, engineering and math fields.

"Additionally, there will be no calls for government studies or increased government funding to address the significant gender disparities favoring women in graduate schools, and nobody will refer to the gender graduate school enrollment and degree gaps favoring women as a problem or a 'crisis,'" Perry wrote.

Perry also posed the question that if female under-representation is supposedly proof of gender discrimination, wouldn't male under-representation also be proof of gender discrimination, but against men?
As Instapundit wryly noted, when these overeducated but low-paid women with useless degrees can't pay back their student loans, it will, of course, be both the fault of those less-educated men and their responsibility to fix it.