Sunday, March 31, 2013

He is Risen

He is the Alpha and the Omega. He encompasses all, within and without the socio-sexual hierarchy. And what is Christianity if not the very purest expression of Game? Is the Christian not, quite literally, to be a "little Christ", who despite his fallen nature attempts to emulate the perfect example provided by the ultimate and definitive natural?

Christ is Risen!

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Alpha Mail: is sigma the alpha of gamma?

The League of Bald-headed Men posits an interesting theory in light of the discussion of Thrift Shop Game:
An interesting ditty. It shows that the hipster irony culture has filtered down to the proles, wiggers and normals. 'I could take some Pro Wings, make them cool, sell those."

This hipster irony culture is pure gamma, it's the acme of gamma. "You made fun of me for being a geek, and now I'll make geekdom cool."  This goes hand in hand with my theory that "sigma is the alpha of gamma", ie that sigma is what happens when gammas enact their will to power. 
I, on the other hand, have tended to be of the opinion that sigma is what happens when OMEGAS successfully enact their will to power or otherwise transform themselves into sexual dominance.  Let's consider the evidence for the One Man Riot's theory, pro and con:

PRO:
  • Sigmas often appear to have intellectual interests more in common with the average gamma than those of the average alpha.
  • The gamma-sigma antipathy appears, in some circumstances, to be even greater than the gamma-alpha version. A product of similar traits clashing?
  • Neither sigmas nor gammas tend to be socially dominant.
  • Both sigmas and gammas often appear to be vengeful.
CON:
  • Gammas are extremely concerned with hierarchy.  Sigmas and Omegas are not.
  • Hipster irony culture is pure gamma, but it is extremely fashion-conscious and therefore hierarchical. While it may be the acme of gamma, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with sigma.
  • Gammas are bitter, jealous, approval-seeking, and rule-abiding. Sigmas are contemptuous, disdainful, and rule-breaking.
  • Gammas find conflict painful and tend to avoid it. Sigmas find conflict enjoyable and tend to thrive on it.
I'm sure I'm missing a lot of applicable observations; feel free to add more, either pro or con, in the comments.  In summary, while I don't think the League's theory is absurd, I don't think it holds up when considered in sufficient detail. And I can't honestly think of a single sigma of my acquaintance that I would have considered to have been a gamma in the past.

Speaking only of my own experience, I can say that one thing that separated me even as a pre-adolescent proto-sigma from the omegas and gammas alike was my supreme confidence in my intellect and in my athletic abilities.  The refusal of my age peers to value the former and the inability of my coaches to understand and utilize the latter never caused me to doubt either for even a millesecond.

So perhaps that imbalance may be a key to understanding why a sigma develops such indifference towards the hierarchy.  He is aware that he is objectively superior in one regard or another but also knows that the hierarchy is incapable of recognizing that superiority or valuing it fairly.  It also would explain the apparent similarity between the sigma and the gamma that The League has observed, the important difference being that the gamma's belief in his proper social rank is subjective and intrinsically delusional.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Sexual equality or freedom

It is no accident that many of the leading proponents of Game have backgrounds in economics.  This excellent post by Dalrock exemplifies why:
Through a combination of legal and social “reforms”, the US now has what appears on the surface to be a dual family structure but is in legal reality a single family structure organized around the concept of child support.  Where in the past a woman needed to secure a formal promise from a man in the form of marriage before she could expect him to support her and the children she bore, in this new structure the law declares that any man she has children by are bound to support her and her children whether she marries or not, and whether or not she honors her own marriage vows.
While men were motivated under the old family structure, they absolutely detest the new child support system of family formation.  Under the old system a man who married before fathering children could reasonably expect access to his children and the opportunity to direct their upbringing (in concert with his wife).  Under the new system the children are de facto considered the property of the mother, whom the state compels him to pay so she can direct their upbringing generally as she sees fit.  Since the new system has removed the incentive for men to work hard to provide for their families, it has to rely instead on threats of imprisonment to coerce men into earning “enough” income.  Where men used to take pride in the birth of their children and celebrate with cigars, large numbers of men now fear fatherhood more than anything.
Under the new rules even if a man chooses the structure of marriage he is always subject to being forced into the child support model for any or no reason by his wife.  No fault divorce laws are unilateral and openly celebrated by both social scientists and modern Christianity as a tool for wives to threaten their husbands.  Fathers have gone from being the respected head of household to deputy parent serving at the pleasure of their wives.
Fortunately for society the awareness of the reality of the new system has been slow to spread.  Most men are either uninformed about the true nature of the family court or assume that the woman they marry would never detonate their family for 30 pieces of silver.  Because of inertia men continue to earn more than women, and those who have studied the question (Hymowitz, Farrell) have found that this is due to men choosing to work harder, longer, and/or more difficult and dangerous jobs than women.  While the MIT economist is correct that men earn fewer degrees than women, those men who do earn degrees are far more likely than women to choose majors with real economic value.  However, the gender earnings gap is still shrinking, and this has the author of the NY Times business article both puzzled and worried:
The fall of men in the workplace is widely regarded by economists as one of the nation’s most important and puzzling trends. While men, on average, still earn more than women, the gap between them has narrowed considerably, particularly among more recent entrants to the labor force.
He should be worried, but he shouldn’t be puzzled.  The hard earned lesson of the twentieth century was that incentives work far better than coercion when it comes to generating economic value.  Yet despite winning the cold war the US and the western world has quietly elected to move from an incentives based family/economic structure (marriage) to one based on coercion (child support).
For all of its flaws - and they are manifold - even the generally poor level of economics training provided by the American university system teaches the student of economics to think in terms of incentives and probabilities.  Dalrock has clearly identified where most of the non-economics observers have gone wrong in failing to notice that the change in male behavior is not coincidental with the changes in female behavior, but rather, is a consequence of those changes.

And Dalrock points to the root behavioral issue here: "The more women delay, avoid, and abuse marriage the less men will be willing to generate the surplus economic output our economy depends on."

If history is a reasonable guide, as the negative consequences of the male refusal to generate the surplus output that provides for women and children increase, the societal powers will respond with attempts to coerce rather than abandon their destructive ideology.  And these attempts at coercion will fail, as do all such attempts to build a complex society on a foundation of force rather than mutual and voluntary benefit.

Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society.  This is not theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their democracies and their property rights.

I understand that many people believe women's rights are important.  But are they more important than property rights?  Are they more important than democracy? What those who support women's rights are understandably reluctant to accept is that equalitarianism necessarily requires the elimination of democracy, property rights, freedom of movement, and even, in the end, capitalism and most of the tenets of Western civilization.  But like it or not, that is the choice that has been made, and is being made, even today.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were no more mindless sexists than the Conscript Fathers of the Roman Senate.  They knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted.  It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed women's rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Thrift Shop and Game

The amusing and popular song by Macklemore is a veritable primer of Game.  It begins with irrational confidence: "Walk up to the club like, 'What up, I got a big cock!'"  Key word: like.  Whether he does or not is irrelevant, it's the being pumped up that allows him to successfully imitate the alphas, to such an extent that even the brothers who would normally disdain their Caucasian competition are forced to acknowledge him as their superior in style: "Damn! That's a cold ass honkey."

The language throughout is masculine.  The Thrift Shopper is not self-pitying, he's not lamenting his lack of money, indeed, he is triumphant over even the smallest victories, the most insignificant come-ups. Contrast with this the sad, pathetic figure of the gamma who has a good job, a house, and a nice car and still feels the deck stacked against him.  He's not shopping, he's "digging, he's "hunting", he is a literal man of action.

The peacocking aspect should be sufficiently obvious as to require no explication.

The Thrift Shopper is centered on himself and confident that others envy him.  He doesn't compare himself to those around him, but to the iconic John Wayne, and not to his own disadvantage either. It's not the clothes that make him cool, he is what makes the clothes cool.

I could take some Pro Wings, make them cool, sell those
The sneaker heads be like "Aw, he got the Velcros"


He even AMOGs the more fortunate who are foolish enough to spend $50 on a Gucci t-shirt and expect to derive some advantage from that.  He knows that distinguishing himself from the crowd is more important than having the right, most fashionable stuff.  And while those lower on the socio-sexual hierarchy will complain that he is a clown and has no rational basis for his superior attitude, the women will not care, but will flock to him.

And it inadvertently reveals the secret of what women actually mean when they advise: "Be Yourself" in order to attract women.  They're not lying, they are simply not being sufficiently clear due to their inability to fully understand what it is that appeals to them. What actually attracts them is not a man being himself, but rather believing in himself.

What the specific belief happens to be is almost irrelevant. 

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Black knighting and the BBC

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions. This tragic report of a belated apology demonstrates that black knighting is a legitimate and viable tactic even in the organizations that most firmly support the female imperative:
The BBC has been forced to apologise 'unreservedly' today after an investigation found it failed to support a journalist claiming he was being harassed at work, who then later killed himself. BBC Coventry and Warwickshire reporter Russell Joslin, 50, suffocated himself last October despite being on suicide watch at a psychiatric hospital. His family claimed he was driven to his death by the Corporation as they failed to take seriously allegations that he was being bullied by a female colleague...

BBC West Midlands insiders had claimed the conclusions of a previous internal BBC inquiry last year, headed by an independent person, into 'bullying' complaints were never made public, and little was done.

A long BBC statement in response to the report today states: 'The BBC extends our deepest sympathies to Russell's family, friends and colleagues.

'Russell was a respected and much loved member of the team at Radio Coventry and Warwickshire and he is greatly missed. We would also like to thank the Joslin family for their participation in this investigation at a very difficult time.

'The BBC acknowledges that aspects of the handling of Russell Joslin's case were not good enough. We have apologised unreservedly to the Joslin family.

'It is clear from the report that a number of factors, including workplace culture, made it more difficult for Russell to raise concerns.

'Disappointingly, the report also refers to behaviour which falls below the high standards we expect of all those who work for the BBC.

'We would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate that the BBC will not tolerate any form of bullying and/or harassment and is committed to providing a workplace in which the dignity of individuals is respected.

'Employees raising a bullying and harassment grievance should be able to do so without fear of victimisation.
Now, one might erroneously point to the fact that nothing was done in response to Mr. Joslin's complaints, but that was because Mr. Joslin was obviously a psychologically frail individual who was entirely incapable of standing on his rights as an employee and was totally unsuitable for the position in which he found himself as an inadvertant black knight.  The significant fact was that Mr. Joslin was not retaliated against by anyone but his harasser, and that the organization was forced to retreat from its do-nothing posture due to the intrinsic appearance of unfairness of enforcing the rules when women are victims and not enforcing them when men are.

This shows that going to the media is a valid tactic for a black knight; whereas HR will be inclined to sweep bad female behavior under the table, the marketing department and the executives know they can't afford to be caught doing it in public.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

A belated realization dawns

The grand visionaries of science fiction are gradually becoming aware, one by one, that their shiny sexy equalitarian scientopia isn't necessarily in the cards.
The Mad Scientist's Beautiful Daughter has her own TV Tropes page and now she has her own novel. Cassandra Rose Clarke, author of the YA adventure fantasy The Assassin's Curse has written a book where familiar science fiction stories are viewed through one woman's life. The Mad Scientist's Daughter is not for everyone — I suspect some fans might actually hate it. But it raises such good questions about the future, and the nature of science fiction storytelling itself, that it cannot be ignored....

For all that the book seems deep in conversation with many earlier science fiction books, it also seems to be trying to get to something in a certain brand of feminist retellings. Cat is a weaver and tapestry maker, an art form that has been disregarded as women's work. Artists and museums have recently begun to re-position weaving and tapestry as an early form of pixilated representation, noting the link between Jaquard looms' punch cards and early computer programming. Cat may be surrounded by cyberneticists, but she has taken up the simplified and distaff form of mechanical programming. There is also something of Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique in Cat's unfulfilling life as a housewife. The suggestion is that feminist thought and advances may be fleeting.

There is a host of books, particularly fantasy, where female characters grasp at a certain type of modern feminism from decidedly non-modern settings. What most of us don't want to consider is that societal pressures, the liberal use of force and threats from within families and institutions, could turn feminism into just a phase that dies out. We'd like to believe that our current system of liberal values is so obvious and natural that once introduced, it would come out on top. The Mad Scientist's Daughter presents the possibility that women's equality might not even survive a few hundred years.
Possibility?  More like certainty. Women's equality won't survive another 50 years.  It may not even survive another 20.  No ideology as fundamentally in conflict with biology, science, sexuality, and reality itself as feminism can hope to survive even the amount of societal influence it has achieved.  It is a parasitic ideology, and as such, is not capable of providing a basis for a sustainable society.

Monday, March 25, 2013

Clarity need not be bitter

In one of his more important posts to date, Dalrock addresses some of the inevitable problems when truthful observation destroys male fantasies about women and produces what he describes as Red Pill Bitterness:
Understanding women left him with at worst an intense hatred for women, and at best a greatly reduced ability to feel love for women.  The first is an overreaction to starting from a position of overlooking all sins committed by women.  If you nurtured a fantasy that women are innately good then seeing their sins for the first time is bound to be jarring.  This is especially true given that the widespread pass given to women has encouraged an immense amount of bad behavior.  If you are struggling with this be careful not to paint all women with the same brush, and to understand the pass which modern men have offered women for what it really is, cruelty dressed as kindness.

This doesn’t mean there is no place for anger at injustice, but to keep the larger picture in perspective.  This means not seeing “woman” as a faceless collective, but making a serious effort to see individual women for who they are.  The “red pill” helps us understand their different temptations from ours, but understanding this should help us empathize and relate to our own imperfection.  Key to this process is keeping in mind the importance of repentance. 
From the logical perspective, the metaphorical cracking of the pedestal should be no more troubling than the realization that girls are not, in fact, literally made out of sugar, spice, and everything nice. The distinction between what we want and what happens to be is no more earth-shattering when it applies to women and their behavior than to any other application of the is/ought problem.

And yet, it is emotionally difficult, if not shattering, for many men to realize that their paragons of virtue are no more virtuous than they are, that said paragons may actually, in fact, be considerably less virtuous from the male perspective than the man himself is.  And how can a man rely upon a woman to inspire him to be a better man when he is already a more noble and virtuous individual than she has shown herself to be?

The answer is that if a man is relying upon a woman for inspiration, he is utilizing an unreliable crutch. A woman may be the prize, but she should not be the purpose. The runner does not run the race for the strip of colored silk that is his reward, it is the race and the victory that are the reward and the prize is only a reminder of it; the value of this sort of victory is not derived from the prize.

Honor, as was said in the movie Rob Roy, is a man's gift to himself. Virtue is his duty to God. Neither of these things are sexually appealing to women, they do not derive from women, and in their male form, they are not even necessarily relevant to them. Bitterness is not only not justified, it is the result of a philosophical category error.

It should always be kept in mind that the sabotaging that so many men suffer in their formative years at the hands of well-meaning women, clueless naturals, and deluded BETA males is not intentional. One must forgive them, even as one learns to completely ignore their advice, because they quite literally do not know what they are doing.  After all, if it is difficult for a man to accept the observable reality of female lack of virtue with equanimity, how much harder, how much more shattering must it be, for a woman to do the same?

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Why are men silent?

Dr. Helen poses the question:
Perhaps this is why only women seem to be speaking up. It’s safer and they typically have a feminist bent anyway. Come on–The End of Men? Seriously? That’s easy. What’s hard is speaking up about the war against men in our culture, especially if one is a man with a career. Do you speak up when you see injustice against men in public, at work, or out in the world?
I disagree. The short answer to the question is that we're not silent.  We only appear to be missing from the public discourse because the female-obsessed media is completely ignoring the leading voices of men who are speaking out against the destructive incoherence and tyranny of sexual equalitarianism.  To understand how this process works, one need only look at the difference between the way in which Roissy and Susan Walsh have been treated by the media upon its discovery of the societal consequences of Game.  Now, it is no secret that I think highly of Susan. I believe she has taken on an important and difficult task.  And it is no criticism of Susan to note that Roissy has been around longer, Roissy is the more original thinker, and Roissy is the more influential writer. I also suspect the Chateau has a larger readership than Hooking Up Smart.  And yet, to whom does the media turn when it wants to discuss the ideas that the androsphere have been producing and kicking around for years?  Susan, naturally.

Meanwhile, Roosh only surfaces in the mainstream media courtesy of his appearance on the Southern Poverty Law Center's bogus list of so-called hate sites.

It's not Susan's fault. Not in the least. She's just doing her thing and she can hardly be expected to turn up her nose and slam the door when the media literally comes knocking.  But there are a number of men who are more influential in terms of how people are thinking about the societal consequences of Game than she is, and none of them are ever interviewed by the mainstream media even as the concepts they create and the terminology they coin leaks into it.  A link from Instapundit is about as mainstream as the coverage of any member of the androsphere can reasonably expect to receive.

This is not a complaint, it is merely an observation.  It is, in fact, no more than any theoretician of Game would expect.  But it is absurd to think that men are silent when there are dozens of them writing, speaking out, and being actively followed by tens of thousands of men and women.  Men are not silent, it is only that the mainstream media wants no part of any man who is not intellectually neutered, and is determined to hear no men, see no men, and say absolutely nothing about men that might, in some way, reflect insufficiently well on women.

But the cracks in the dam are showing. And when it breaks, there will be a deluge.

As to why men are disinclined to speak up on an individual level, that is because men dislike complaining and fear retribution both personal and professional.  I myself have lost both book contracts, (from Thomas Nelson and Lion Hudson), and jobs due to nothing more than intense dislike for my published opinions. However, as fewer and fewer men have anything they fear losing, and as awareness of Game grows throughout the male population, I believe the younger generation, which has been inoculated against the female imperative by constant exposure to it, will begin to speak out against the myriad of pretty little lies.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

The hallmark of the inferior

Laura Resnick proposes a simple test, and in doing so, inadvertently demonstrates why it is so hard to take people like her seriously:
I would propose the following simple test for everyone who wants to threaten someone else with rape and death:

Do =you= intend to rape, murder, and/or cause the death this person? Not in a “wishspeak” way, but in an “yes, it’s on my calendar for tonight” way?

If the answer is “yes,” then turn yourself in to the authorities, because you are a danger to society.

If is “no,” then just don’t say it. Not ever. Because threatening someone with a felony isn’t cool or funny or macho or a way to release your anger or express your disapproval; it’s just a good reason for the cops to find you and question you about your stated intent to commit a felony.

And if you want to call someone a “bitch,” slut,” “whore.” etc… Oh, come, ON. How LAME. How childish. How unimaginative. Why not give yourself a CHALLENGE? Replace every hostile schoolyard name you want to call a woman with a phrase that begins with, “The reason I don’t like your actions” or “my argument with what you’ve said is” or “what I dislike about your position on this matter is” and then finish the sentence with a substantive comment that’s devoid of sarcasm and facetiousness (because of you’re a name-caller, than these conversational techniques are WAY beyond your skill set) and completely eschews threats.

And if you can’t do THAT… then say nothing, because you clearly have NOTHING TO SAY.
It sounds nominally reasonable, if more than a little naive, and in truth, it is nothing more than the usual bien pensant posturing.  The important thing to note here is how Miz Resnick is firmly asserting that one should never joke about harming others, because it isn't cool or funny or macho.  Which is a little ironic in light of Miz Resnick's own admittedly felonious fantasies of last summer.

Whever I think “alpha male”… my daydream quickly becomes a Sweeney Todd nightmare in which I’m serving the remains to my dinner guests, disguised as some sort of heavy-seasoned stew beneath puff pastry, because I wound up killing said Alpha Male in sheer exasperation before sundown and need to get rid of the body….  Laura Resnick, August 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm
In addition to this, while Miz Resnick was more than eager to criticize unknown people on the Internet, she didn't see fit to criticize our fellow SFWA member, Lee Martindale, who wrote: "When I decided to run for re-election as SFWA South-Central Regional Director, someone asked me what I would do if Mr. Beale won the Presidential election. I replied, "Ask my friends to start a bail fund."

And yet, are we not reliably informed that threatening someone with a felony isn't cool or funny?  Are we not told that it is grounds for being questioned by the police.

The hallmark of the inferior being is not hypocrisy, or the mere appearance of hypocrisy.  Everyone with ideals fails to live up to them at some point or another.  One's failure to live up to a standard is not at all the same thing as denying the standard applies to oneself.  The hallmark of the inferior, the sure sign of the self-admitted inferior, is the individual who demands others live up to standards that he refuses to accept for himself.

If you do not hold yourself accountable to the same standards you apply to others, you are not only an anti-equalitarian, you are a self-declared and admitted inferior to those to whom you hold to those higher standards.

I don't know if Ms Resnick is a hypocrite, a failure to live up to her own standards, or a self-confessed inferior being.  But rather than speculate or call her names, I shall simply follow her advice.  The reason I don’t like her actions is that she purports to be my equal, and yet, she appears to hold me and many others to a standard she does not appear to apply to herself or to her fellow SFWA member.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Black knights

As is becoming abundantly clear in the wake of the PyCon debacle, women are not actually the primary problem with regards to the female tendency to upset every applecart in which they come into contact.  They can only wreak the havoc they do because their white knights condone, support, and defend their destructive behavior.

To counteract the deleterious influence of these white knights, black knights are needed.  By which I mean men who are capable of mastering the bureaucratic force to which women readily resort in the dark art of corporate ninjitsu.

What does that mean?  It means acting exactly like a woman would every single time a female coworker does something that would result in a complaint to the employment authority if a male coworker did it.  The purpose is not to get the female coworker fired, but rather, work towards shutting down the abusive system by utilizing it to its full extent.  When faced with absurdity, the correct response is to push the pedal to the metal and aucto ad absurdum.

Let me give you an example.  I can't provide any details, due to the organization's rules, but I can paint a general picture.  There was a discussion of a proposed system that was, due to its nature, intrinsically unfair.  Simply by expressing an intention to utilize the system to its fullest, which intention thereby illustrated its fundamental absurdity, was enough to convince at least some of the people involved that the whole concept was best abandoned.

Many, if not most, women make shameless use of their sexual power at work.  It is to their advantage and they are able to do so because men enjoy it and permit them to freely utilize it. This is short-sighted on the part of the men who are entirely vulnerable to the speech and thought police in HR.  So, the system has to be taken down, and it can easily be taken down in any organization by keeping two core HR principles in mind.

1.  women are not to be held responsible for their actions
2.  women are equal to men

Women are not able to restrain themselves any better than men can; they will inevitably make inappropriate comments and display themselves in inappropriate ways.  So, each time a female coworker crosses any of the clear HR-defined lines, in any way, the black knight will immediately go to his superior as well as HR and express how her behavior is making him uncomfortable and so forth.  You know the drill.

The average woman affected in this manner is going to be upset, humiliated, full of wrath and likely, as women are wont, to double down on her behavior.  Two or three complaints should be enough to provoke a vulgar, public outburst that even the most feminist HR department determined to see, hear, and speak no female evil will be unable to sweep under the rug.  Once she is gone or transferred, smile, be charming, and patiently await the next victim to step over the line.

Be sure to document every complaint and meeting.  That way, if the women in HR try to turn things around on the black knight, he will have a case for going directly after HR lest the corporation find itself facing an obvious wrongful termination situation in which the victim has been blamed.  Remember, the black knight doesn't make the rules, he merely masters them and apply them to his maximal benefit in every situation.

The various white knights will attempt to belittle and minimize every female violation of company policy, of course, that is what white knights do.  But it is the duty, to say nothing of the pleasure, of every black knight to subvert and defeat their best efforts.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Female-friendly industry

Every so often, the technology industry is given an object lesson in the foolishness of trying to be female-friendly.  The recent affair at PyCon, in which one, and possibly two, male developers lost their jobs for the crime of holding a private conversation within earshot of a woman, is only the most recent example.  But what got me thinking was the response of some technology white knights, who lamented how the woman's action "damages the reputation of everyone trying to make this industry more female-friendly."

And yet, what is the point of making an industry "more female-friendly"?  Consider the television, film, and publishing industries.  I don't think anyone would dispute that all three are considerably more "female-friendly" than they were 30 years ago.  And yet, all three of them are also suffering from declining revenues and observably reduced quality despite their female-friendliness.  Has Hollywood benefited from imitating When Harry Met Sally instead of Star Wars and The Godfather?  Has fiction improved because authors increasingly aspire to be the next JK Rowling or Anne Rice instead of the next JRR Tolkien or Frank Herbert?

Meanwhile, the supposedly female-unfriendly game and technology industries appear to be doing rather well in comparison, the current cyclical downturn in the game industry notwithstanding.  This leads to the obvious question: what is the expected benefit of these proposed female-friendly policies to either an industry or its consumers?

UPDATE: It appears game and technology companies are not the right place for would-be thought police to seek employment.

"Effective immediately, SendGrid has terminated the employment of Adria Richards. While we generally are sensitive and confidential with respect to employee matters, the situation has taken on a public nature. We have taken action that we believe is in the overall best interests of SendGrid, its employees, and our customers. As we continue to process the vast amount of information, we will post something more comprehensive."

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Guys, it's a metaphor

It would appear some of India's lawyers are less than perfectly clear on how they are expected to go about divorce-raping their clients:
A woman has alleged that she was raped by four men, including her estranged husband, inside a lawyer's chamber here, police said on Tuesday. The victim claimed that the incident took place in a chambers of the lawyer practicing in Patiala court complex. She claimed that her husband's lawyer called her to the court on pretext of settling her divorce petition. She claimed her husband and sister-in-law took her to the chamber where she was raped by the lawyer, his assistant and her husband and her husband's brother-in-law.
There are often negative consequences when people make the mistake of taking metaphors literally, but in this case, I suppose something probably got lost in translation.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The hunt for weakness

Sassy, a commenter at Susan's place, makes an important observation while discussing HUS's favorite television show:
One thing of female nature that I have noticed is that when we identify a form of weakness in a man, we keep our eyes out for further clues/confirmations of that weakness. Once ShoSho learned about his rather pathetic lifestyle, she continued to identify and mull over new clues. She could no longer see him as the man she fell for initially. He became a loser in her eyes, and her attraction to him began to wane. This culminated in her cheating on him.
This is true.  I have observed similar tendencies in women myself.  So, how can a man deal with this female tendency to hunt for his weaknesses?  The beta way, of course, would be to grandly reveal them all to her at once, complete with a romantic declaration of how she helps him want to be a better man and so forth.

Likely reaction: sneering contempt and reduced sexual atttraction.

What does Game theory suggest?  Game is rather like jujitsu, as it involves utilizing a woman's instinctive tendencies to serve a man's purposes rather than her own.  Consider the neg, which causes a woman to doubt her instinctive assumption of superiority vis-a-vis a man.  In like manner,  the obvious solution to the female tendency to hunt for weaknesses once identified is to make the woman doubt her ability to correctly identify weaknesses.

How can this be done?  Easily, by presenting false weaknesses to keep her instincts occupied. Not only will she miss genuine weaknesses by looking in the wrong direction for further confirmations of something that doesn't exist, but once she has traveled down the wrong path two or three times, she will be much less sure of herself if she does happen to latch onto a genuine weakness and therefore more inclined to simply let it go without disrupting the relationship.

No doubt most men will dislike the need to anticipate, misdirect, and obfuscate when they would like nothing better than to bare their souls and be accepted for whom they truly are, warts and all.  But the paradox of intersexual relations is that in order to be truly accepted, loved, and desired by a woman, a man must always keep a part of himself hidden well away from her.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Sleep is the wonder drug

This may sound a little strange, but after reading this article about the deleterious effect of crying babies and sleepless nights, I thought I'd mention some advice I give to every new father-to-be of my acquaintance:
As any parent will testify, sleepless nights caused by a crying baby can put a strain on the relationship. But research claims it is the prime reason for as many as one in three divorces or separations.... 30 per cent of those who had split up blamed sleepless nights caused by their children.  Some 11 per cent admitted pretending to be a sleep when their child woke-up so their partner would have to deal with them.
The sleep deprivation that accompanies babies for the first three months is brutal.  It's brutal for both parents, but it is particularly hard on the mothers, who are still recovering from childbirth and tend to be more sensitive to the child crying than the fathers.  So, approach it the way soldiers do: if you have even 15 minutes of downtime, sleep.  If she isn't doing anything vital, encourage her to go to bed and crash.

Adjust your schedule if you can so that you're already up to deal with the late night bottles; it's actually a lovely time to spend with your little son or daughter.  I got quite a bit of writing done during those months.

Forget things you'd like to do, forget about everything except the absolute priorities that cannot be put off for a few weeks.  Sleep comes first, her sleep in particular.  Keep in mind that a sleep-deprived new mother is about as charming and reasonable as a demon-tortured soul in Hell; she desperately needs sleep and craves it more than the average heroin addict is jonesing for the drug.  So make sure she gets it.  If it's easier on her, it will be easier on you.  This isn't about Game, this is about mutual survival.  She'll also bond better with the child if she isn't resenting him for causing her to feel like a zombie.

Also, both parents have to learn to let the baby cry himself to sleep.  Do it, and he'll be sleeping through the night months, if not years, sooner than if you let her rush in to settle him down every time he wakes up.  And worse, neither of you will learn to distinguish between the "I'm going to cry for ten minutes and conk out" cry and the various other cries, which are not a uniform symbol of distress but rather an informative mode of communication.

It's important.  It may even preserve your marriage during one of its natural stress points.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

The power of uncertainty

There are two things that one can glean from this graphic showing the frequency with which more than two thousand men report they have sex.  The first is that men tend to have much more sex if they are married or partnered than when they are single.  The second is that denying a wedding ring to a woman who is 30 or older tends to create enough uncertainty to inspire her to engage in more regular sexual relations than she otherwise would if she was married.

Consider how the percentages of men having sex 2 or more times per week switch once a woman passes the age of thirty:

Married:  43 percent (25-29), 32.6 percent (30-39)
Partnered: 33.4 percent (25-29), 45.5 percent (30-39)

Now, there are a number of potential explanations for this.  But Game provides the most obvious one, which is that the more secure a woman feels in her relationship, the more inclined she is to ignore a man's sexual desires and only indulge them when she happens to feel like it.

There is another, slightly more ominous explanation that is nearly as credible, which is that the roughly 11 percent difference is explained by women attempting to get pregnant.  However, the fact that 40.1 percent of Partnered men between 60-69 are in the 2+ category versus only 9.5 percent of the Married men lends support for the uncertainty hypothesis.

As is so often the case, it appears that following the recommendations provided by women tends to be sexually self-defeating for men.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Sanctifying the single mother

As Dalrock adroitly describes, the fact that many, if not most modern "Christian" churches are sanctifying single motherhood is an indication that they are practicing Churchianity, not a religion that is derived from the Bible:
[T]he insanity of the modern Christian position on out of wedlock births is so great that it is tempting to forget just how incredibly foolish it is.  It is difficult to process the fact that our leaders are so eager to excuse the rampant sinful and catastrophic choices women are making, choices which have lead us to a state where over forty percent of children are now born out of wedlock.

Except for the minuscule fraction of out of wedlock births due to rape, every single out of wedlock birth represents a case where a woman chose to bear a child by a man who wasn’t interested in marrying her or a man she wasn’t interested in marrying.  We also know that the choice of unfit fathers isn’t random.  This is exactly the kind of men women who are thinking with their genitals will choose.

Yet Christian men, especially Christian leaders, can’t bring themselves to call out this pervasive sin which is harming countless millions of children.  In fact, when an actress and single mother wrote a book touting the benefits of fatherless children, The 700 Club not only failed to call her out for her own sin and encouragement to other women to sin, they plugged the book.
Men are not the problem in the modern Church.  They can't be; they're not even there.  The problem is one that was identified nearly 2,000 years ago by the Apostle Paul, who also provided the antidote.  Show me a church that has female pastors and I'll show you a church that will deny the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ within 50 years.

When single mothers are more revered than the Virgin Mary, when the brave act of raising a little bastard or three is more lionized than the Magnificat, that is a certain sign that a church is spiritually dead.  Leave it behind and don't look back.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The science of alpha chasing

It would be hard to explain this seemingly contradictory female behavior sans game:
A new study reveals that the more women want sex, the more they up their standards when choosing a short-term mate. Researchers found that this is in direct contrast to statistics for men, after they study revealed that men are more likely to lower their standards the more "sexually hyperactive" they become.
This explains a phenomenon that quite rightly infuriates deltas and gammas.  When a women gets the itch she can't scratch and decides to go out and get laid, she's not going to turn to her faithful beta orbiters to help her out, she's going to go out and put out for a man from whom she can't reasonably hope for commitment.

Women always date up when it comes to matters of personal preference.  They only date down when they are pursuing material matters.  Keep this in mind if you are foolishly attempting to appeal to a woman's material instincts.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Caveat amator

You should probably keep this in mind when you're wondering how weak your woman's commitment to honesty runs.  The good news is that her Facebook posts offer a fairly reliable clue to her likely trustworthiness in other matters:
Researchers found that at least one in four women exaggerated or distorted what they are doing on social media once a month. The survey of 2000 women found they mostly pretended to be out on the town, when in fact they are home alone, and embellished about an exotic holiday or their job.

The most common reasons for women to write “fibs” included worrying their lives would seem “boring”, jealousy at seeing other people’s more exciting posts and wanting to impress their friends and acquaintances.... Almost one in five women even lied about their “relationship status”.
Another form of female dishonesty is the "See what a great time we're having" photo. It's Life as Performance Art.  And how meaningful is it to declare "I love my life" when you're actually saying "I love my fantasy life"?

It's about as convincing as Jon Lovitz talking about his wife, Morgan Fairchild, who he has seen naked.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Another strike against marriage?

At first glance, it appears a contract is no longer a contract if state marriage is involved:
A Long Island mother of three has become a postnuptial hero, after a prenup nearly cost her everything. In a landmark case, Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis, 39, won an appeal overturning a bizarre premarital agreement with her millionaire husband. Now she says she may be entitled to half of her ex’s worth when their divorce becomes final.
However, if one read the article, it is readily apparent that isn't actually the case.  A contract induced by fraud is intrinsically invalid.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Taking WRE too far

The fact that a television show is reaching the end of its run is no reason to turn it into a mockery of its former self:
Top Gear is an institution (not to mention an enormous golden goose for the BBC), but it is on the wane. The jokes aren’t as funny, the specials not as special. Most years the programme at least manages to provoke a decent outrage: damaging a salt pan, or insulting the Germans, or Muslims, or the disabled. Not this time. Viewers are deserting. Even the online commenters – perhaps the most devoted mob on the internet – are grumbling. Something has to change, but what?  Most obviously, it needs a new presenter. A woman, perhaps?
I'm sure that would work brilliantly. Did you ever notice that shows oriented towards men always seem to require female presenters, and yet one very seldom sees a male presenter replace a female one. I don't recall any male names being bandied about for The View lately.

What would a female version of Top Gear look like anyhow?

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Success and solipsism

This is a fascinating article in the New York Times.  In addition to showing how high-flying career success aids women's marriages, we learn the real meaning behind the failure of Lehman Bros.:
At an office party in 2005, one of my colleagues asked my then husband what I did on weekends. She knew me as someone with great intensity and energy. “Does she kayak, go rock climbing and then run a half marathon?” she joked. No, he answered simply, “she sleeps.” And that was true. When I wasn’t catching up on work, I spent my weekends recharging my batteries for the coming week. Work always came first, before my family, friends and marriage — which ended just a few years later....

I have spent several years now living a different version of my life, where I try to apply my energy to my new husband, Anthony, and the people whom I love and care about. But I can’t make up for lost time. Most important, although I now have stepchildren, I missed having a child of my own. I am 47 years old, and Anthony and I have been trying in vitro fertilization for several years....

I have also wondered where I would be today if Lehman Brothers hadn’t collapsed. In 2007, I did start to have my doubts about the way I was living my life. Or not really living it. But I felt locked in to my career. I had just been asked to be C.F.O. I had a responsibility. Without the crisis, I may never have been strong enough to step away. Perhaps I needed what felt at the time like some of the worst experiences in my life to come to a place where I could be grateful for the life I had. I had to learn to begin to appreciate what was left. 
I'm just grateful to learn that the real reason for the collapse of Lehman Bros. and the global financial crisis of 2008 was so that Erin Callan could learn An Important Life Lesson.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Sympathy

I think this would have been even funnier, as well as more realistic, if the fourth panel had been omitted.  Women don't feel bad for anyone but themselves when they drop a nice Delta or Gamma who treats them well in favor of a manipulative bad boy who treats them poorly.

I've never heard a woman express any genuine concern for the nice guy whose heart she's just broken, only for the pain she feels at having had to inflict pain upon the poor guy.  In general, if a woman causes pain to a third party, one is not expected to express sympathy for the third party, but rather for how bad causing that third party pain must make her feel.  Except, of course, in that the degree of the pain being caused reflects positively upon her desirability.

Good: "He'll probably never get over losing a woman as wonderful as you."
Better: "There is no way he'll ever land another woman as beautiful as you."
Best: "You definitely did the right thing.  But ending a relationship like that must be really hard for you."
Bad: "You know, dumping him out of the blue like that really hurt him badly."
Worse: "One day, he'll realize that the pain he's feeling now is a small price to pay for not having to put up with you anymore."

Friday, March 8, 2013

Game and homo economicus

Rollo brilliantly cuts to the core of what it is to be a man in the most pragmatic sense:
I was recently reading a forum thread I got a link back from and the topic was the timeless classic, “what make a man a man?” The predictable responses were all present: Confidence, Responsibility, Integrity, and all of the other subjectively definable esoteric attributes you’d expect. I thought about this question in terms of the difference in consumer influence of both men and women. I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.

To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing.

On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for themselves, there is no onus on her to produce anything more than she herself consumes. For all the fem-centric male professions of how rewarding being a stay-at-home Dad is, what eats away at them is the hindbrain awareness that he is not producing more than he consumes. This is the same awareness etching into a woman’s psyche when she’s the one doing the provisioning.
At the very least, it is a simple and straightforward concept with the potential to considerably clarify the issue.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

BETA of the Month: my vote

Roissy has revived his popular BETA of the Month post, and all three nominees are a doozy.  We are presented with three options:
  1. Catholic guy whose wife wants a divorce
  2. Elaborate proposal guy
  3. Widower whose adulterous wife was murdered while getting her groove back in Turkey.
All three men are sad sacks.  Whereas BETA #1 appears to be a normal low delta who simply can't except that debasing himself and accommodating his wife isn't going to regain her affection, he doesn't appear likely to be fine with her cheating, much less gallivanting off to foreign climes in search of vibrant alphas.  BETA #2 is cringe-making, to be sure, but while it is gamma to the core, it can't really be compared to the other two situations even if it wouldn't be terribly surprising to eventually learn that his marriage has gone the way of our first contestant's.

So, my vote is for BETA #3.  The fact that the intrepid widower hasn't come out and stated that his idiot wife got exactly what her behavior deserved only tends to underline his lowly rank on the socio-sexual totem pole and makes the deceased's behavior comprehensible, though not even remotely acceptable.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The "morality" of serial monogamy

This is where the moral flexibility championed by the relativists and moderates was guaranteed to eventually result.  I don't say "end", because it isn't the end, it is merely a waypoint on the descent to complete pagan immorality.
In the past marriage was for life and this left serial monogamists in a moral bind.  However, now the rules have changed.  Under the new definition of marriage so long as she waits until it is “official” she is fully within the letter and spirit of marriage to jump to another man.  Those who are moral sticklers would of course insist that she marry this new man before having sex with him, and when she is ready for the next man after that divorce husband number two and then marry husband number three, etc.
This is why divorce laws must be eliminated in the interest of preserving Western civilization.  While it remains state-sanctioned, marriage is reduced to nothing more than an elevated, legally-recognized boyfriend status.  If women are worried about not being able to exit a marriage, then they should not get married in the first place.  Neither abuse nor unhappiness are justifications for divorce.

This also demonstrates why the state should not be involved in marriage at all.  Let it sanction legal civil unions for any two or more people of either sex who wish to establish one and leave marriage up to the church.  The legal sanction of the state has not strengthened marriage, it has drastically weakened it.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Alpha Mail: Alpha is relative

In which the metaphorical apple strikes PA on the head, inspiring thoughts of gravity:
Let me quickly tell you how much I appreciate your thoughts at Alpha Game, and how they have profoundly influenced me since I began reading your work and realized, well, that you're spot-on correct, before I get on to personal nonsense. Over a couple of pints today I was meditating on the issue of ALPHAs and concluded (entirely anecdotally; no science involved whatsoever) that ALPHA-ism is both relative and circumstantial.

On "relative", here's what I mean: Within a limited circle of available males, the most ALPHA among them will be the "effective" ALPHA, regardless of his actual socio-sexual standing in the world at large.

An illustration: After high school (during which I was manifestly the most pedestal-worshiping gamma of gammas), I became (largely by accident) the de facto leader of a Christian/churchian youth group. Surrounded by males who were invariably gamma, delta or omega (at best), and in a proscribed circle in which everyone was pairing up and nobody was looking outside the group for partners (because partnership with unbelievers was frowned on and not many other Christian groups were in the immediate area), I was absolutely treated as ALPHA, without having to change my behaviour patterns at all. The eligible girls in the group were in competition with each other to earn my favour and I was surrounded at all times with women. It couldn't have been more different from my high school experience. I hadn't changed, but my competition had.

On "circumstantial", here's what I mean: When a natural beta or gamma is not particularly attracted to a woman and is just using her, he behaves like an ALPHA and is treated like an ALPHA.

An illustration: (I was going to get into my failed marriage here and realized, while entirely on point, talking about my experience would: (a) make me look like a heartless ass, which I was; and (b) demean somebody who was probably far less at fault than I.) Suffice to say that when a man is just looking for sex (or just adulation and an ego boost) and has no real, personal interest in the specific woman he's after apart from his own immediate gratification, he becomes an "effective" ALPHA even if it is not his natural mode. Women get that you can take or leave them at any moment, and respond to that with a willingness to please. Sad but true.
This is all correct.  Roissy has made it clear from the start in observational terms, and it is logically inevitable as well given that socio-sexual status is hierarchical.  This is why all the idea of any chest-pounding about "I am X" is pointless, because where we stand in any given hierarchy completely depends upon the particular hierarchy.

That being said, what defines us is how we rank in our normal daily work, school, and family hierarchies.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Alpha Mail: what's a woman to do?

AM asks how, as a thirty-something non-carousel rider, she is expected to navigate an increasingly difficult marriage marketplace:
I am a 32 year old woman of Indian descent that was raised in a extremely Christian and god-fearing household and am still single.

I need some advice on finding a husband. I really don't know what to do and thought you might have some suggestions. I was reading 3rd Millenium Men and they were listing 7 reasons Not to Seriously Date Girls over 30 (and I am 32). I am not disputing that the guy has given valid reasons for this. I am human. I can't help the fact that I am probably hitting the wall (though I and my family are relatively youthful looking, I don't or never got into the party lifestyle, rarely drink alcohol, eat relatively healthy and exercise so it might take longer), my fertility is declining and maybe a bit emotional but does that mean I have to prepare for a life of spinsterhood? This search isn't new, I have been at this for several years and it has become very discouraging, my mother started helping when I turned 25 as arranged marriages are very popular in our culture (and I am open to them). I promise, I was never one of those women that wanted to put off marriage and family for a career. I did go to college, but now have a low paying dead end office job. I really did want to get married and have children by now. I would have married in college if I found any guy that I liked that much.

The positives about me (I think) is that I have no ex boyfriends to speak of and have never had sex, as I think it is something important to save for marriage. I have never  I am relatively attractive and am not fat or have been overweight. I have waist length hair, no grays. While you might call this "Churchanity", I attend church every Sunday (and no there aren't any single guys remotely in my age range) and Bible Study Fellowship every Monday.

The negatives about me is that I am extremely shy and socially awkward. I have been diagnosed with ADHD, which I inherited, which I don't want to take drugs for but would change my diet. I rarely went out in college or in my twenties, not even to safe, Christian centered events. While people like me, I don't have any close friends. I can cook (or at least can easily learn to do so, I do cook and bake for my self and family) I am not the best housekeeper.

My mother says I should pray to god about this and look presentable, and that is the extent of it. Do you have anything that I might not have thought of, or should I got to the nearest animal shelter and adopt a dog and prepare for spinsterhood?
It's really up to AM.  If she is going to continue to be ruled by her shyness and social awkwardness, she probably is going to end up alone.  The rules have changed and the low deltas and gammas of the world are no longer expecting or even trying to find wives, not with the ready availability of Female Alternatives such as porn and games combined with a decade or more of invisible sexual maturity.

If she wants it, she has to be prepared to seek it out and find it.  There are plenty of delta/gamma Indian men in the programming world; it can't be that hard to figure out where they are and what is of interest to them.  But then, the decision has to be made to go and let it be known that she is available and interested in pursuing marriage and children.

Feminized churchianity has all but driven off all the men under 40, so it's not a very good place to meet a Christian man these days.  Does anyone else have any suggestions?  Unfortunately, AM serves as an example of how the uncontrolled behavior of some women makes life that much more difficult even for those who behave in a more traditional manner.

In the meantime, she shouldn't get too down over the androsphere rhetoric.  Most men over the age of 35 are perfectly open to marrying a woman in her thirties, particularly early thirties, regardless of the arguments presented against it.  The only relevant point is that 32 is a little late to be extraordinarily picky about the men on offer; she shouldn't make the mistake of the forty-something laundry list cat collector and turn up her nose at a fundamentally decent man who might be lacking in a few areas.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Nietzsche on women

The old nihilist may have been moralblind, but it is informative to see how his description of the effect of women unlearning to fear men echoes the effects of Man unlearning to fear God:
The weaker sex has in no previous age been treated with so much respect by men as at present--this belongs to the tendency and fundamental taste of democracy, in the same way as disrespectfulness to old age--what wonder is it that abuse should be immediately made of this respect? They want more, they learn to make claims, the tribute of respect is at last felt to be well-nigh galling; rivalry for rights, indeed actual strife itself, would be preferred: in a word, woman is losing modesty. And let us immediately add that she is also losing taste. She is unlearning to FEAR man: but the woman who "unlearns to fear" sacrifices her most womanly instincts.

That woman should venture forward when the fear-inspiring quality in man--or more definitely, the MAN in man--is no longer either desired or fully developed, is reasonable enough and also intelligible enough; what is more difficult to understand is that precisely thereby-- woman deteriorates. This is what is happening nowadays: let us not deceive ourselves about it! Wherever the industrial spirit has triumphed over the military and aristocratic spirit, woman strives for the economic and legal independence of a clerk: "woman as clerkess" is inscribed on the portal of the modern society which is in course of formation. While she thus appropriates new rights, aspires to be "master," and inscribes "progress" of woman on her flags and banners, the very opposite realises itself with terrible obviousness: WOMAN RETROGRADES.

Since the French Revolution the influence of woman in Europe has DECLINED in proportion as she has increased her rights and claims; and the "emancipation of woman," insofar as it is desired and demanded by women themselves (and not only by masculine shallow-pates), thus proves to be a remarkable symptom of the increased weakening and deadening of the most womanly instincts. There is STUPIDITY in this movement, an almost masculine stupidity, of which a well-reared woman--who is always a sensible woman--might be heartily ashamed.
In short, female "progress" is nothing less than the devolution of civilization, a prediction which we are seeing play out in real time.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

More from the WRE department

Their female teachers are crippling the education of boys:
The way boys are treated in K-12 also impacts how they do with regard to college. According to a recent study of male college enrollment, it's not academic performance, but discipline that holds boys back. "Controlling for these non-cognitive behavioral factors can explain virtually the entire female advantage in college attendance for the high school graduating class of 1992, after adjusting for family background, test scores and high school achievement." Boys are disciplined more because teachers -- overwhelmingly female -- find stereotypically male behavior objectionable. Girls are quieter, more orderly, and have better handwriting. The boys get disciplined more, suspended more and are turned off of education earlier.

Female teachers also give boys lower grades, according to research in Britain. Female teachers grade boys more harshly than girls, though, interestingly, male teachers are seen by girls as treating everyone the same regardless of gender. More and more, it's looking like schools are a hostile environment for boys.

One solution, as William Gormley, a professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, has suggested here in the past, is to hire more male teachers. As Gormley notes, Stanford University professor Thomas Dee found that "boys perform better when they have a male teacher, and girls perform better when they have a female teacher." Yet our K-12 teachers are overwhelmingly female -- only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers are male and only 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers are.
Title IX for boys isn't the answer.  Getting women out of the business of educating boys is.  We already know from the pathologies of single-mother families that women can't be reasonably expected to successfully raise men.  The evidence now indicates that it is nearly as unreasonable to expect women to be able to successfully teach boys.

The problem isn't just the maleducation, but that the lack of exposure to male role models creates increasingly feminized men even when it doesn't leave them largely feral.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Science destroys itself

And scientists wonder why the public has so little confidence in them and their magic process:
Whether you adore Lena Dunham or think she's overrated, one thing seems to be in consensus: She's not drop dead gorgeous. She made a hit TV show about being average ("real"), she's constantly scrutinized for wearing not enough or nothing at all, and always has to address her looks on top of her talents.

But is Dunham really all that average, or even bad looking? Not according to science.

Beauty, it so happens, is not just a matter of personal taste but rather a matter of measurements, geometry and calculations -- all the stuff you loved in 8th grade math. That science says that Dunham is just like the rest of those Hollywood exquisites, if not even more attractive (gasp). Yes, the frequently body-shamed "Girls" maverick is scientifically better looking than "conventional" beauties Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lopez, Taylor Swift, Kim Kardashian, Jessica Chastain, and even Jessica Biel. 
Look, it's really not that hard.  If your hypothesis results in the conclusion that Lena Dunham is more objectively beautiful than Jessica Biel, that is not evidence that society's standards of beauty are somehow incorrect or require modification, it is evidence that YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS INCORRECT!