Not only do women lack the physical strength of men, and have IQs clustering around the middle, but even smart women don't think the same way smart men do - especially in terms of strategy. Among the world's chess grandmasters, only 5% are women. Among the top 500 e-sports players, year after year, zero are women. Sure there are women who buy into feminist claims and goals, and many of them gain enough power, status or notoriety to do some damage, but I don't think women have the political talents that would be necessary to successfully organize and operate in the political sphere. I think there are, and always have been, powerful men driving this divisive astroturf adventure.
If feminism were really women organizing for what women want (as opposed to feminist, male and female, organizing for goals a lot of women do not share), women wouldn't have been given the vote in 1920.
"women wouldn't have been given the vote in 1920."
Whilst the suffragettes are given all the credit it really should go to the suffragists who had toiled away for nearly a century at that point and weren't seeking to privilege themselves over others as were the suffragettes.
The female fantasy is one among the many dyscivilisational forces at play across the West at the moment. Climate change, mass immigration from the third world, transgenderism and lots of other such nonsense. I suspect that they're all a result of the female fantasy in some way.
These themes are largely irrational and counter to reality. Reality, of course, doesn't go away just because you don't believe in it, so how all these things end is going to be very interesting, in the "may you live in interesting times" Chinese curse sense of the word.
For instance, the UK government policy enshrined in law is driving towards net zero carbon power supply by 2050. But this is idiocy and sinply wont happen because the technology to make it happen doesn't exist. Civilisation will collapse before this happens. So will they blindly drive themselves back to medieval times, or will the people at some point revolt and say "enough is enough, you fucking idiots".
Women are obsessed with empowerment because they have no intrinsic power, and they secretly know it. All female power results from appeals to men or the co-opting of the power of organisations. They are very skilled at obtaining this secondary power, but their neurotic insecurity about their lack of primary power results in the hyperbole, dishonesty and resentment that the author has identified so clearly. There's no difference in the tone of high-achieving and low-achieving women: they both claim to be unfairly treated due to their sex.
Perfectly articulated. My overwhelming fear is that our geopolitical adversaries have not fallen for this idiocy and are perfectly positioned to prove the truth of your argument. How many women do you see in the halls of power in Moscow, Beijing or Tehran?
Wonder Woman was created by William Moulton Marston, an American psychologist and writer. He lived a rather unconventional life, sharing a polyamorous relationship with his wife, Elizabeth Holloway Marston, and their partner, Olive Byrne. Could it be that Feminism is a flawed construct with men determining their roles and conduct?
To answer that I'd have to know what you meant by 'feminism.' Some say it's merely the philosophy of equal rights for men and women, but that's obviously not how it's usually used these days.
In one of the pieces below I referenced another writer (Arnold Kling, maybe?) who defined (modern) feminism as: the philosophy that's based on the idea that women are systemically disadvantaged by society and holds that rectifying this is an (the?) urgent social project.
As for defining roles, I'm not sure if I understand your question, but every person in every society helps in constructing social roles and concepts. The outline and duties and stereotypes of what it is to be a 'woman' or a 'leader' or a 'doctor' or a 'criminal' is a kind of emergent property created by everyone in the society filtering their interactions and experiences through learned values and bias. So men will ALWAYS define the roles and conduct of women... and so will women. Women will always define the roles and conduct of men... and so will men. Social roles are generally used and agreed-upon constructs, and so limiting which people can construct them, and how, will always be a self-defeating project.
You could conceptualize the intellectual history of the West during the past century as an effort to monopolize the ability to define social roles and ideas within large bureaucracies and credentialed professionals.
I've noticed that feminist ideas are often promoted by men, sometimes in the background, letting the women be the face of the movement. Hugh Hefner was decried as a sexist for displaying sexy women in his magazine, clubs and other ventures. But he gave financial support to feminist projects like day care. If we consider that the author points out about women not being suited to creating or managing large organizations, we have to consider that even that movement allegedly done in the name of women, feminism, cannot have been the creation or success of women. Women didn't give women the right to vote - in 1919, 90% of American women didn't want women to be allowed to vote. It was men who enacted women's suffrage. I think feminism serves the goals of certain political string-pullers because it creates divisiveness, and weakens our society.
That stat is not easy to find, of course, because the winners of that political struggle are portrayed as women getting something for women. What woman wouldn’t want other women to help her get the vote? I got into a rabbit hole after visiting the NY State Art Museum, which has a collection of anti-suffrage materials.
Anyway, since you asked, I have some other links you might find interesting.
Good essay. It's always worth asking AI to search for Becker Outcome tests when evaluating claims of discrimination by any arbitrary group attribute like sex. In the case of female entrepreneurship and venture capital the results are mixed. About 65% of the gap stems from differences in start-up orientation- women often found ventures in lower-growth sectors (e.g., retail, education) rather than high-growth tech, which VCs favour. The remaining 35% persists even when controlling for industry and growth signals. This shrinks when investors have stronger data (e.g., traction metrics) or are more experienced, suggesting some taste-based discrimination- unfair bias against women that fades with better information or sophistication.
This discrimination may not be overt or conscious. It's highly likely less experienced VCs find it more difficult to interrogate women in a confrontational manner, to engage in the aggressive destruction testing required to instil them with confidence about an investment opportunity.
A cursory amount of research shows there a significant opportunity for VCs in this area. First, make it specific to high-growth sectors. Then found a small consultancy whose job it is to push prospective female entrepreneurs to defend their start-up as aggressively as possible, against the standard social programming bias of the consultants. A very basic back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the ROI might be 8.75 times higher applying this very specific approach.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that venture capital pitches will be overtly aggressive- more a case of a mutual understanding that a necessary ruthlessness will be applied- aggression as an undertone.
In my tax work I've had a fair bit of contact with women starting very small businesses such as small clothing outlets, hairdressers and the like and even a quite a few home based craft related operations. The tendency among men is more towards trade related businesses/retail which can market to the whole population. Almost without fail the women are selling only to women. There's also a greater tendency among the men to look to multiply their businesses through taking on employees or opening multiple outlets.
Over time I developed a sense that any business providing a living income after two years is probably going to do OK. Most are gone at that point however.
Of course, these days there is the other problem. People start a business looking to start a franchise and make it big, but when they find out that it’s not a business which a naturally scalable, but still remains a perfectly good lifestyle business, they can often give up.
It's a bit embarrassing you seem to have forgotten one of the most successful recent fantasy series was by a woman : Harry Potter. Love or hate, it was phenomenally successful. BTW do you like Ursula le Guin? Much better imo
Great stuff, thanks James. I'll post a link to this piece now on http://j4mb.org.uk.
I don't know if you're aware ot the well-established causal link between increasing gender diversity on corporate boards and financial performance DECLINE. The evidence is on my website Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.uk, some of the early evidence (from before 2012):
Not only do women lack the physical strength of men, and have IQs clustering around the middle, but even smart women don't think the same way smart men do - especially in terms of strategy. Among the world's chess grandmasters, only 5% are women. Among the top 500 e-sports players, year after year, zero are women. Sure there are women who buy into feminist claims and goals, and many of them gain enough power, status or notoriety to do some damage, but I don't think women have the political talents that would be necessary to successfully organize and operate in the political sphere. I think there are, and always have been, powerful men driving this divisive astroturf adventure.
If feminism were really women organizing for what women want (as opposed to feminist, male and female, organizing for goals a lot of women do not share), women wouldn't have been given the vote in 1920.
"women wouldn't have been given the vote in 1920."
Whilst the suffragettes are given all the credit it really should go to the suffragists who had toiled away for nearly a century at that point and weren't seeking to privilege themselves over others as were the suffragettes.
The female fantasy is one among the many dyscivilisational forces at play across the West at the moment. Climate change, mass immigration from the third world, transgenderism and lots of other such nonsense. I suspect that they're all a result of the female fantasy in some way.
These themes are largely irrational and counter to reality. Reality, of course, doesn't go away just because you don't believe in it, so how all these things end is going to be very interesting, in the "may you live in interesting times" Chinese curse sense of the word.
For instance, the UK government policy enshrined in law is driving towards net zero carbon power supply by 2050. But this is idiocy and sinply wont happen because the technology to make it happen doesn't exist. Civilisation will collapse before this happens. So will they blindly drive themselves back to medieval times, or will the people at some point revolt and say "enough is enough, you fucking idiots".
Women are obsessed with empowerment because they have no intrinsic power, and they secretly know it. All female power results from appeals to men or the co-opting of the power of organisations. They are very skilled at obtaining this secondary power, but their neurotic insecurity about their lack of primary power results in the hyperbole, dishonesty and resentment that the author has identified so clearly. There's no difference in the tone of high-achieving and low-achieving women: they both claim to be unfairly treated due to their sex.
Perfectly articulated. My overwhelming fear is that our geopolitical adversaries have not fallen for this idiocy and are perfectly positioned to prove the truth of your argument. How many women do you see in the halls of power in Moscow, Beijing or Tehran?
Wonder Woman was created by William Moulton Marston, an American psychologist and writer. He lived a rather unconventional life, sharing a polyamorous relationship with his wife, Elizabeth Holloway Marston, and their partner, Olive Byrne. Could it be that Feminism is a flawed construct with men determining their roles and conduct?
To answer that I'd have to know what you meant by 'feminism.' Some say it's merely the philosophy of equal rights for men and women, but that's obviously not how it's usually used these days.
In one of the pieces below I referenced another writer (Arnold Kling, maybe?) who defined (modern) feminism as: the philosophy that's based on the idea that women are systemically disadvantaged by society and holds that rectifying this is an (the?) urgent social project.
As for defining roles, I'm not sure if I understand your question, but every person in every society helps in constructing social roles and concepts. The outline and duties and stereotypes of what it is to be a 'woman' or a 'leader' or a 'doctor' or a 'criminal' is a kind of emergent property created by everyone in the society filtering their interactions and experiences through learned values and bias. So men will ALWAYS define the roles and conduct of women... and so will women. Women will always define the roles and conduct of men... and so will men. Social roles are generally used and agreed-upon constructs, and so limiting which people can construct them, and how, will always be a self-defeating project.
You could conceptualize the intellectual history of the West during the past century as an effort to monopolize the ability to define social roles and ideas within large bureaucracies and credentialed professionals.
I've noticed that feminist ideas are often promoted by men, sometimes in the background, letting the women be the face of the movement. Hugh Hefner was decried as a sexist for displaying sexy women in his magazine, clubs and other ventures. But he gave financial support to feminist projects like day care. If we consider that the author points out about women not being suited to creating or managing large organizations, we have to consider that even that movement allegedly done in the name of women, feminism, cannot have been the creation or success of women. Women didn't give women the right to vote - in 1919, 90% of American women didn't want women to be allowed to vote. It was men who enacted women's suffrage. I think feminism serves the goals of certain political string-pullers because it creates divisiveness, and weakens our society.
Do you mind sharing your source for that claim about 90% of women not wanting to vote?
Hi Ed, thanks for asking. Here’s one link that gives that statistic:
https://blog.history.in.gov/tag/national-association-opposed-to-woman-suffrage/
That stat is not easy to find, of course, because the winners of that political struggle are portrayed as women getting something for women. What woman wouldn’t want other women to help her get the vote? I got into a rabbit hole after visiting the NY State Art Museum, which has a collection of anti-suffrage materials.
Anyway, since you asked, I have some other links you might find interesting.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/anti-suffragism-in-the-united-states.htm
https://nysl.nysed.gov/msscfa/sc13339.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/07/opinions/19th-amendment-story-also-includes-anti-suffragists-hemmer/index.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/national-association-opposed-to-woman-suffrage-3530508
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/some-reasons-why-we-oppose-votes-for-women/
https://www.historytoday.com/reviews/suffragettes-militant-tendency
(This one is fun for mentioning suffragists were seen as militant. They had a bomb throwing campaign in the UK).
https://www.coursehero.com/file/31945435/women-suffragepdf/
Thanks for sharing! I’ll take a look
I hope you enjoy the reading. I had a lot of fun.
I just found this article from the blog The Thinking Housewife, thought you might find it interesting: https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/2021/03/real-history-and-the-suffragettes/
Good essay. It's always worth asking AI to search for Becker Outcome tests when evaluating claims of discrimination by any arbitrary group attribute like sex. In the case of female entrepreneurship and venture capital the results are mixed. About 65% of the gap stems from differences in start-up orientation- women often found ventures in lower-growth sectors (e.g., retail, education) rather than high-growth tech, which VCs favour. The remaining 35% persists even when controlling for industry and growth signals. This shrinks when investors have stronger data (e.g., traction metrics) or are more experienced, suggesting some taste-based discrimination- unfair bias against women that fades with better information or sophistication.
This discrimination may not be overt or conscious. It's highly likely less experienced VCs find it more difficult to interrogate women in a confrontational manner, to engage in the aggressive destruction testing required to instil them with confidence about an investment opportunity.
A cursory amount of research shows there a significant opportunity for VCs in this area. First, make it specific to high-growth sectors. Then found a small consultancy whose job it is to push prospective female entrepreneurs to defend their start-up as aggressively as possible, against the standard social programming bias of the consultants. A very basic back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the ROI might be 8.75 times higher applying this very specific approach.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that venture capital pitches will be overtly aggressive- more a case of a mutual understanding that a necessary ruthlessness will be applied- aggression as an undertone.
In my tax work I've had a fair bit of contact with women starting very small businesses such as small clothing outlets, hairdressers and the like and even a quite a few home based craft related operations. The tendency among men is more towards trade related businesses/retail which can market to the whole population. Almost without fail the women are selling only to women. There's also a greater tendency among the men to look to multiply their businesses through taking on employees or opening multiple outlets.
Over time I developed a sense that any business providing a living income after two years is probably going to do OK. Most are gone at that point however.
Of course, these days there is the other problem. People start a business looking to start a franchise and make it big, but when they find out that it’s not a business which a naturally scalable, but still remains a perfectly good lifestyle business, they can often give up.
Assuming you're a woman, does this mean you'd prefer not to have the right to vote? Why?
As for revolution, I submit Rosa Luxemburg for one..
It's a bit embarrassing you seem to have forgotten one of the most successful recent fantasy series was by a woman : Harry Potter. Love or hate, it was phenomenally successful. BTW do you like Ursula le Guin? Much better imo
Great stuff, thanks James. I'll post a link to this piece now on http://j4mb.org.uk.
I don't know if you're aware ot the well-established causal link between increasing gender diversity on corporate boards and financial performance DECLINE. The evidence is on my website Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.uk, some of the early evidence (from before 2012):
https://c4mb.uk/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/
Alex Edmans, professor of finance at the London Business School, concurs:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2024/11/24/professor-alex-edmans-no-boardroom-diversity-does-not-mean-higher-profits/
Keep up the good work!
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com