Women Are Frivolous
A couple months ago a perceptive anonymous commentator at ISteve wrote
To me Maureen Dowd is a poster child for the uselessness of high intelligence in women. She’s obviously very smart, but being a woman, she’s bored by the sort of topics to which intelligence can be usefully applied. She’s spent all her professional life around politics, but, like most women, she’s much more interested in gossip and famous people’s personalities than in politics. WHY was she interviewing Cuomo and Powell? So that she could comment on their wives, eye color, fashion sense, haircuts? You don’t need to be smart to do that.
She has an interesting writing style, but it was probably always going to be wasted on mindless gossip. High intelligence in women is like men’s nipples that way – form without purpose.
Harsh, but very true. Two recent blog entires/articles on TakiMag illustrate the point. Here’s Taki’s daughter Mandolyna on going to the beach, picking up a racket and spanking people with it.
The rules of the game, as I have come to understand them, are simple. Go to a beach town, preferably Greek, and pick up a stray racquet. When you see someone you want to talk to, or that looks interesting, give him or her a little whack on the butt as they pass by. Always offer a smile. The laughs follow shortly thereafter. Soon you will be recognized in the street and will have lots to talk about. Unfortunately, on any given night, a handful of people have absolutely no idea how to react to the matka, and whatever nonsense the player happens to be uttering. They will do their best to ignore you. I don’t keep score, but for more competitive types, this would be considered a loss.
I can’t imagine a little flagellation ever really hurt anyone, but as I have discovered, some lack a sense of humor about these things. Once or twice I have been aggressively insulted. When I have been unable to charm my way out of trouble, wielding the racquet, a crazed look, and a shout, usually cools the crackpot. Thankfully, I have yet to be beaten with my own racquet.
Um…lol? Today, we’re treated to Christinia Oxenberg talking about a bad date she had.
I was on time, for once in my life, for dinner at the house of a new friend.
I parked my car and without bothering to ring the doorbell, I barged in.
A sullen quiet filled the foyer. The lights were off. There appeared to be no one home.
‘Helloooooo?’ I called out. It has happened that I’ve messed up dates in the past, or gone to the wrong house entirely. But no denying it, things weren’t looking good.
A door slammed, snapping my attention to the top of a flight of stairs. A man in a terry robe. Erik. My host.
‘We said 7! It’s only 6!’ He cawed. ‘I still need to take a shower!’
Inexplicably, he was clutching a purple teddy bear.
‘No worries!’ I lied easily. ‘I’ve a got a quick errand that needs doing.’
To fill the hour I ventured to a diner. The smells of coffee and French fries stirred my appetite. I ordered a cheddar cheese omelet.
An hour later I returned to my host’s home to find the lights on, soothing music playing, and Erik ably manning pans in the kitchen. All was well.
Except all was not well. Everywhere I looked, I saw foodstuff forbidden to me due to boring allergies.
‘There’s nothing I can eat here!’ I declared. ‘Why don’t you let me take you out to dinner?’
‘But I want to cook!’ said Erik.
After some negotiations of what I can eat and what he had on hand, Erik settled on making me a cheddar cheese omelet.
‘Brilliant.’ I said, feeling a little sick. There is simply no room for the truth in such situations.
After dinner he invited me to join him on the sofa. I sat at the opposite end, facing him.But then he swiveled, so that he had his legs stretched out between us. Deliberately, he thrummed his be-socked feet against the cushion I was sitting on.
I pretended this was not happening.
The toes wiggled in dingy mustard socks.
Trying to create a moat of space I pressed myself back against the arm rest.
Erik excitedly jabbered on about some recent good fortune come his way, but I found myself distracted by these little bunny ears twitching beside me.
Ratcheting up the affront, Erik suddenly grabbed my ankles and attempted to haul them into his lap.
‘No!’ I said, as I yanked myself from his grasp.
‘I want to give you a foot rub!’ Erik was blushing. ‘And I want you to give me a foot rub. I love them!’ He said, and pressed the awful socks against my thigh.
Almost involuntarily I sprung to my feet.
With giggles to help diffuse the awkwardness I excused myself. It wasn’t until the drive home I remembered the purple teddy-bear. I should have known right then. I should have known better than to return.
Usually I find reading about dates from the female perspective fascinating, but why is this on Taki’s site? One writer is there because she’s his daughter and the other because she’s attractive. No man would get away with filling website space with such inane ramblings.
Neither do men think that anything that pops into their heads is worth writing. Being a pretty girl must be like being a billionaire surrounded by yes men. For a man to get people to listen to him he needs to either show status or be interesting. A girl who looks like Ms. Oxenberg just needs to open her mouth and people will show interest in whatever comes out. She then becomes a semi-professional writer and thinks we’ll all be so interested in hearing about the guy who wanted to rub her feet last night. Or maybe she knows that what she’s writing is pointless, but is laughing with scorn at the beta guys who take her seriously.
From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that men would have an interest in things like justice from a theoretical perspective. A man in prehistoric times may have served on a tribal council and have had to come to a fair decision based on objective criteria; a woman dealt mainly with her family and would put feelings over reason. Males would have to form alliances with other tribes, build things to deal with the forces of nature, figure out a practical way to get the mammoth down, etc. Females gossiped and took care of children. They never evolved the mental tools to go beyond the personal. That’s why something that is true but unpopular like race realism will appeal more to men than women. A man (some of us) has the potential to ask “Is this true?” while a woman can’t go beyond “Is this the correct thing to believe for the status of me and my kids?”
I’ve had men and women disagree with my positions on race, but have only seen women refer to my beliefs as “stupid.” This used to puzzle me because they couldn’t articulate a reason why. I eventually came to realize that the connotations that the word has for me are different than the ones it has for females. When I say a belief is “stupid” I mean that there are actual reasons for not believing it. When a woman says a belief is “stupid” she means that it’s not the correct thing to believe if you want to have friends. In that sense race realism can be stupid from a social stand point while also being true. But a woman doesn’t think in terms of what we call truth and doesn’t use it as a barometer to decide what is or isn’t “stupid.”
The answer isn’t to treat female writers “equally” to male ones. It’s a healthy society understanding that women aren’t meant to think about serious issues.
43 Comments
Sep 13, 2009 6:52 pm |
Yup, women tend to be more socially aware, and tend to care more about social harmony.
It would be interesting to see web site statistics on page views for the two writers you’ve mentioned, versus the other ’serious’ writers …
“[W]omen aren’t meant to think about serious issues.”
Ouch.
Do you know if TOO writer Elizabeth Whitcombe is a female, or is that a pseudonym?
Sep 13, 2009 7:25 pm |
I agree with everything you wrote here. The best way to deal with this without losing one’s mind and without getting too angry is to follow the advice Billy Joel gave in his song “Only a Woman to Me”. Billy Joel is annoying on many levels, but I think he got that one right. After listing all the stereotypical feminine faults in the verses, he sings “blame it all on herself, she is only a woman to me” in the choruses. The message seems to be “you’re in idiot if you take women’s silly ideas and moods as seriously as you should take men’s.” The last few lines are good too: “And the most she will do is throw shadows at you, but she’s always a woman to me”.
Sep 13, 2009 7:27 pm |
Sorry, I meant to write “blame it all on YOURself, she is always a woman to me.” Not HERself. I’ve got to start reading these before I hit the Submit button.
Sep 13, 2009 9:00 pm |
I knew I wasn’t the only guy out there with these very thoughts about Taki’s daughter and Oxenberg.
Every time I’ve tried to read either of these ladies’ pieces, my eyes would just glaze over and I could never manage to finish them. There wasn’t a shred of substance in any of their writing. Oxenberg seems to be worse from what I can gather.
I believe Oxenberg is a friend of Taki’s and part of his social circle. She seems like a dilettante, an amateur dabbling in writing. I don’t believe she’s ever written before in a serious capacity, but Taki has graciously afforded her the opportunity to do so. I think the editors there try to make Taki’s Mag an expansive web magazine, rather than strictly about politics, so they let her write pieces that would fill the literary niche at the site. She seems nice enough, but her writing is just God awful. It’s disorganized, rambling, incoherent, poorly written, empty, boring. Worst of all, it’s completely self-absorbed and solipsistic. Oxenberg is in her late 30s, possibly in her 40s from what I can tell, but the writing is so flat and self-indulgent that it could be the writing of an adolescent girl just jotting down her banal, fleeting, self-conscious thoughts.
I don’t wish to sound mean or cruel or anything. It’s honestly the impression I get. I’m sure the editors there cringe every time they have to upload her latest piece.
Sep 13, 2009 9:14 pm |
That’s true that a lot of women are more willing to accept things just because they’re popular or mainstream.
Sep 13, 2009 9:34 pm |
In this sense, liberalism is, indeed, a feminist mentality. The reasoning that passes for “logic” amongst females is the same “logic” that liberals use.
Sep 14, 2009 4:17 am |
Most women, unless they are very mannish lesbians, are not capable of higher long-term thinking and ESPECIALLY brutally realistic racialist thinking.
As you say, any attempts at serious discussion with women almost always devolves in to the personal and gossipy type of worthless frivolous chatter you note in the accompanying articles. Many women, since they are so emotional and egotistical, have a hard time being objective, and most are also very materialistic and status-seeking too; thus they are on the whole not fit to engage in the most critical tasks of culture creation and maintenance.
This likely has a biological component, since the smartest (read:mannish) women were likely bred out of the gene pool of most groups long ago in favor of more docile and compliant women who were less ‘uppity.’
Sep 14, 2009 9:40 am |
It has been said, and I haven’t got the reference to demonstrate the quote or proof it is true, that women do not have it in them to make either composers or architects.
They can be engineers and musicians and artists and designers and they are capable of many things, but it may be that some long-term grandness of vision is missing from their abilities.
But on balance most women eventually turn their thoughts to themselves and their kind. It may be to do with the need to nurture and concentrate on the immediacy of life, but in a journalist it can make for some pretty uninspiring copy.
Sep 14, 2009 11:47 am |
“Oxenberg is in her late 30s, possibly in her 40s from what I can tell, but the writing is so flat and self-indulgent that it could be the writing of an adolescent girl just jotting down her banal, fleeting, self-conscious thoughts.”
She’s that old? I would have pegged her as fresh out of college based on her writing style. That’s just embarrassing.
Sep 14, 2009 11:55 am |
“Inexplicably, he was clutching a purple teddy bear.”
Shenanigans.
Sep 14, 2009 1:07 pm |
“High intelligence in women is like men’s nipples that way – form without purpose.”
Phooey. High intelligence in women certainly DOES have a purpose, so long as she bears boys to pass it on to — and/or teaches.
A substantial portion of the cause of the degradation of the American public school system is that smart women are no longer becoming school teachers, but, rather, lawyers and doctors, leaving only dull women to recruit as teachers.
The fault for the publishing of the two dingbats’ ditherings is Taki’s. As you say, “One writer is there because she’s his daughter and the other because she’s attractive. No man would get away with filling website space with such inane ramblings.”
You are correct. There are a huge number of women who care only about gossip. There is also a smaller but still substantial proportion of men who also care only about superficial things and absorb, without critical thinking, what the pop culture feeds. But THEY don’t get published by Taki because they are not cute nor related. Blame Taki.
I, btw, am a woman for whom true but unpopular things like race realism appeals.
Linda Silverman of Gifted Development Center and Linda Gottfredson are a couple of women for whom IQ, which is true but unpopular, appeals. Such women are infrequent but not nonexistent.
The issue is not merely maleness vs. femaleness. It’s, really, IQ. Most women are of average IQ. The curve is wider for men. There are more men who fall into the genius category to pull into the writing field than there are women. There are also more men who are feeble-minded and therefore utterly unproductive burdens on the rest of us.
Sep 14, 2009 1:57 pm |
She’s that old? I would have pegged her as fresh out of college based on her writing style. That’s just embarrassing.
Yeah that was my impression. According to this article Oxenberg should be 46 years old. She’s of minor nobility through her mother, and has even written a novel or two. Hard to tell from her writing so far at Taki’s Mag that, as you suggest, is quite vapid and something you’d expect from a young woman.
Sep 14, 2009 2:17 pm |
Off topic – Richard, I wish you would stop engaging Lawrence Auster on the subject of evolution. He is not willing to have a rational, respectful discussion on the subject. The way he sees it, you might as well be trying to convert him to Islam.
Sep 14, 2009 2:32 pm |
On topic – that People magazine article makes Oxenberg makes sound like a useless bitch.
You make a good point about attractive* women being like “billionaires surrounded by yes men”. I’ve often assumed that this was the cause of most of their cognitive defects, although I’m sure there are innate differences as well. I’ve noticed that even in conversations among women, there is often a deference toward the most attractive perhaps they know her opinions superficially carry more weight among men.
* And the unfortunate reality is that nearly any woman can find a group of men who will treat her this way – in fact, the less objectively attractive women probably seek it out more.
Sep 14, 2009 2:33 pm |
The issue is not merely maleness vs. femaleness. It’s, really, IQ. Most women are of average IQ. The curve is wider for men. There are more men who fall into the genius category to pull into the writing field than there are women. There are also more men who are feeble-minded and therefore utterly unproductive burdens on the rest of us.
IQ probably has some role here, but it seems to be based on a more fundamental difference between relative “maleness” and “femaleness” that is somewhat independent of IQ.
The psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen (cousin of Sacha of ‘Borat’ fame) has done interesting work related to this. He has proposed Empathizing-systemizing theory as a possible explanation for why and how male and female minds may differ.
There are no doubt women who have more stereotypically male interests, and men who have more female interests, but it’s hardly likely that this is largely due to their relative IQs. At every IQ level across the spectrum, I think you’ll pretty consistently find differences between men and women of the same IQ as to how their minds are oriented, what they’re interested in, etc.
Sep 14, 2009 9:47 pm |
It is fascinating to the Wallflower that men want women they can ‘game’ and then criticize these same women for their lack of seriousness. I’m following this ‘game’ discussion on several blogs and find it quite fascinating. It isn’t anything new, of course.
Well, onto the purpose of this quick comment:
Serious women are Women that Men don’t See. We are a group apart even from our own sex. We don’t easily make friends with women, in fact, most of our friends are men. It isn’t easy going to an office ‘baby shower’ and having nothing intelligible to add to the ‘baby diaper’ discussion. You see us at the periphery of the group, sometimes watching with a puzzled look. Mostly these days, I just yawn.
So I would have to agree with you… Most women are both stupid and frivolous. Some are intelligent and frivolous – although it is a bit facile to criticize Maureen Dowd. She’s giving the public exactly what they want. She may not be frivolous, she may just be very career saavy. We don’t know. On the other hand, I would not call anyone ’smart’ just because they can hold a microphone and yammer. If she gets through Thermogoddamics then I would put her in the category of smart.
Oh the other hand, most men are stupid, many are in fact, deeply stupid. Most have no thoughts about anything at all, and merely pick up useful platitudes with which they define themselves. Most men are interested only in last night’s football match.
So I have, slyly defined most of the human race as stupid AND frivolous. That leaves… Who?
Smart, insightful men
The women those men don’t see
There are damned few of us, so surely, we should learn to get along, and see each other as allies. We are in the minority
Certainly your point is well taken, and I know many more highly intelligent ’serious’ men than women. Perhaps it is because of my professional training? (Mathematics) Most of the people that I work with are men, so there you have it.
The Wallflower exits the ballroom
Sep 14, 2009 9:53 pm |
Two cherry pciked anecdotes do not evidence make. You suffer from a glut of any actual data about female intelligence and make no attempt to prove that being female is what makes those excerpts crappy instead of a lack of skill, cultural influence, or just bad personal taste.
You jump immediately to a claim about female inferiority without bothering to make any kind of case. That’s not realism, that’s knee jerk sexism.
Women are decision makers, entrepreneurs, and socio-political leaders now so there is plenty of reason for female intelligence in modern times.
I also don’t accept your genetic determinism/behavioral genetics explanation either. Not only because you don’t make an argument for it (or even link to one) but it’s a drastic oversimplification of a complex issue.
” No man would get away with filling website space with such inane ramblings. ”
I’ll avoid the obvious “and yet here you are” and just say that you have obviously not been around the blogosphere long to make such a easily falsified claim.
Sep 14, 2009 10:00 pm |
I tend to go along with James’ comment regarding inherent differences between male and female brains, no matter what the IQ. Does that mean a woman can’t be an excellent, thoughtful writer on topics of importance to both men and women? Of course not. It’s just somewhat less likely.
Of course, the inherent differences between male and female brains might just explain the popularity of the Oprah Book Club, with its vapid selection of books that appeal to low-end sentimentality.
God bless,
Laurel
Sep 15, 2009 1:19 am |
Ya’ll have to read this (and all his other) essays by the great F. Roger Devlin:
“Sexual Utopia in Power”
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf
Sep 15, 2009 1:21 am |
Laurel,
Just meant to say I love all your essays.
Geep up the great work!
God bless you too,
T
Sep 15, 2009 1:22 am |
“Geep up the great work!”
Oops, *Keep* up the great work!
Sep 15, 2009 2:38 am |
Just FYI, I couldn’t believe that a woman as hot as Laurel Loflund was actually posting the kind of stuff she was posting.
So I ran that headshot through Tineye.
And BAM.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/health-and-beauty/5654093-cute-redhead.php?id=5654093
In other news, if it’s too good to be true, it ain’t.
Truth, you may cease sucking up to her now.
Sep 15, 2009 2:59 am |
Generally I agree. However, why did men ever let feminism get off the ground? Who the hell voted for women’s suffrage? men. Come on guys, that was insane. If arguing at home is annoying, wait till you are out voted. Wait, you just were. It is like giving into whining kids to get them to shut up. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Now it has happened. Now the guys are whining. The cheaters who appealed to your sense of fair play, don’t play fair. You can’t appeal to their better nature because they don’t have one. The average woman scores lower on measures of morality than the average man. Now we know why the serpent went after Eve! Those old guys passed on those stories for a reason. This particular story illustrates the universal truth that women generally don’t have great ideas and you should not follow them. Following women is ruinous.
Sep 15, 2009 3:30 am |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Women score lower on Kohlberg’s Moral development scale. “One criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values, and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Carol Gilligan has argued that Kohlberg’s theory is overly androcentric.[18]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
You read that right. Justice is for guys. Women have other “moral” concerns. Like what? getting more than their fair share?
Women’s other “moral” concerns don’t seem to include compassion either. Consider the Milgram experiments.
“some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy who was given real electric shocks. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six that had refused to comply were all male (54% of males were obedient[24]); all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept.[25]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
So if women are not concerned with justice or compassion, what in the moral universe is left?
Sep 15, 2009 4:57 am |
“In other news, if it’s too good to be true, it ain’t.
Truth, you may cease sucking up to her now.”
I was sincere, unlike your envious excuse for snark.
Sep 15, 2009 11:45 am |
Truth, thanks for the compliment on my writing, I appreciate that. AM, of course that photo is a stock photo. Do you think I’d post my own photo online, being as many of my essays are controversial? I’m not crazy…or stupid.
Of course, the worth of a lady’s writings should always be judged by how “hot” she is…
LOL.
Laurel
Sep 15, 2009 11:57 am |
@sg
If you actually read the Kohlberg entry you will see it says:
“Although research has generally found no significant pattern of differences in moral development between sexes“
Sep 15, 2009 1:30 pm |
Yeah, I read the assertion and followed the links which led to no studies and no data. Wiki is a convenient resource to help you find stuff. The fact is Kohlberg had actual subjects and results, not just assertions and theory. So did Milgram.
If you would like to provide a link to any data on real research on real people, I will give it a fair reading. Googling “women moral development research study” rendered no data based research, only theories and discussions. But hey, maybe I am google-challenged. Help me out.
I think no one wants to research the topic because they don’t want data on morality that shows what the average woman really is, less than the average man.
Sep 15, 2009 2:11 pm |
zzzzzzzzzz. Through years and years of gender equality firmly ingrained into our minds, this debate, as to whether women are inferior to men, mentally or otherwise, seems to be a moot one. We are pretty much the same. There are dumber than fuck women AND dumber than fuck men. Extraordinarily smart women and extraordinarily smart men. How people choose to apply said intellect is circumstantial and should be generalized as a trait of the entire sex.
Sep 15, 2009 2:13 pm |
shit… i mean shouldn’t be generalized.
Sep 15, 2009 3:39 pm |
Why pretend equality that is demonstrably not there?
It is unreasonable to support the idea of general equality.
Equal opportunity means very few women will be qualified for “traditionally” male endeavors. There is this insane push for women to be equally represented in fields that are traditionally male. There are no women world chess champions for a reason.
Meanwhile the need for good mothers is so great that our civilization is threatened by the lack of women doing a good job as mothers. Europe’s native birthrate is abysmally low. No amount of female accountants and marketing managers will make up for the decline of motherhood.
Life is what it is, not what fashion says it should be. The irrational fad of female equality needs to fizzle out.
Sep 15, 2009 5:06 pm |
“Of course, the worth of a lady’s writings should always be judged by how “hot” she is…”
Only in this childish, narcisssistic ‘culture’ to perpetual adolescents is this an issue.
Anyway Laurel, I don’t think the poseur who wouldn’t even post with a legitimate handle had an issue with your supposed ‘looks’.
Sep 15, 2009 9:52 pm |
“There are no women world chess champions for a reason.
Meanwhile the need for good mothers is so great that our civilization is threatened by the lack of women doing a good job as mothers. Europe’s native birthrate is abysmally low. No amount of female accountants and marketing managers will make up for the decline of motherhood.”
Excellent point. Being a good mother is not “frivolous.” Being a chess champion could, rather arguably, be fairly deemed frivolous.
One step in the direction of the recovery of White society is for the men to recall that good mothers are more important than good football or chess players, and make the deliberate effort to make motherhood, again, the high status occupation it used to be.
Sep 16, 2009 12:41 am |
Check out this super interesting article -
“The ego epidemic and how more and more of us have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness” | Mail Online
[...] Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.
More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them. We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.
We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves. [...]
[...] Of course, I joke, but researchers say there is growing evidence of an epidemic of ego-itis everywhere.
Once a traditionally male syndrome, narcissism generally begins at home and in schools, where children are praised excessively, often spoiled rotten and given the relentless message that they are ’special’. [...]
[...] But the sphere in which the signs of self-obsession are perhaps most obvious, and the consequences most immediately felt, is the dating one. [...]
[...] ‘They tend to be in their 30s, and there is a wide discrepancy between how they perceive themselves and how others see them.
‘They are often very plain, but see themselves as being absolutely fabulous, exceptional people.
‘They invariably reject every guy’s profile I send them. But if a guy rejects their profile, there is all hell to pay. There is disbelief. They are really saying: “I’m so fabulous. How dare he turn me down?”
‘In the past few years, I’ve noticed a real sense of entitlement among this small group of women. The idea that a guy might not find them as amazing as they find themselves doesn’t enter their head. [...]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213212/The-ego-epidemic-more-inflated-sense-fabulousness.html
Sep 16, 2009 8:44 am |
sg:”However, why did men ever let feminism get off the ground? Who the hell voted for women’s suffrage? men. Come on guys, that was insane.”
Early and softer forms of women’s rights did indeed have their genesis amongst Protestants of Northwestern European ethnic extraction, but radical feminism is an entirely different animal — we have radical urban Ashkenazim who were/are associated with academia and the mass-media to blame for the cult known as feminism —> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists
Northwestern European Protestants had a very gradualist approach to granting more rights to women, beginning in their ideas and writings in the late-Renaissance; but the radical urban Ashkenazim since the early 20th Century just sought to pound radical feminism in to the collective consciousness of White Westerners as quickly as possible through their massively disproportionate influence in the mass-media and academia.
The radical/immediatist Ashkenazi feminists eventually won out over the gradualist NWE Protestants, and thus we now have all this chaos within White/Western gender relations.
Sep 16, 2009 10:33 am |
“Linda Silverman of Gifted Development Center and Linda Gottfredson”
Not shiksas I take it. Merely the latest in a merry procession of female members of the Tribe who consciously or unconsciously utilize politics, ideology, art, science, literature, what have you, to advance their group interests. Something to the effect of the need to steer this nascent cognitive elitist juggernaut in a direction that does not damage Tribal unity – a la Herrnstein. Yawn.
“IQ probably has some role here, but it seems to be based on a more fundamental difference between relative “maleness” and “femaleness” that is somewhat independent of IQ.”
Take a look at the professoriate of any university you care to pick. You will not find a finer collection of groveling goy-cattle this side of Timbuktu.
Sep 16, 2009 10:46 am |
I think high intelligence in women can actually be a negative in many respects, it diverts them from their nature and their purpose.
Sep 16, 2009 11:12 am |
“I think high intelligence in women can actually be a negative in many respects, it diverts them from their nature and their purpose.”
I think it’s utterly necessary. Without high-IQ mothers breeding with high-IQ fathers, where are the high-IQ sons to come from?
And that gifted boy needs a high-IQ mother smart enough to (a.) advocate for his special needs in education during the primary years, that is, do battle with education bureaucracy who would prefer to ignore him or (b.) homeschool him or (c.) earn a high income to pay for his private school.
Since high-IQ women are no longer becoming schoolteachers, by and large, the high IQ boy is at risk in today’s public school system.
Sep 16, 2009 11:15 am |
“Not shiksas I take it.”
I wondered about that. I’ve not found conclusive proof of those women’s ethnicity yet. Do you have some?
Sep 16, 2009 4:21 pm |
“Since high-IQ women are no longer becoming schoolteachers, by and large, the high IQ boy is at risk in today’s public school system.”
Plenty of high IQ moms quitting the scene and homeschooling. Teaching girls to be wives and mothers and not holding the boys back with dumbed down curriculum.
Sep 16, 2009 7:36 pm |
“I wondered about that. I’ve not found conclusive proof of those women’s ethnicity yet. Do you have some?”
None other than that which their names imply.
Most women are of course feminine, as are most men from the perspective of mastery of self, co-ethnics and resources which are necessary to bring to fruition the meaning of their lives, the transmission of the very being of their people through time. Four characteristics of the maladaptively psychologically effeminate as relates to the above: 1) Stupidity; 2) Greed; 3) Suggestibility; 4) Lack of loyalty unto death (which I take for granted as being synonymous with honor).
Sep 16, 2009 9:49 pm |
I’ve found high IQ (above 130, especially 140) to be more masculine in behavior, independent, rebellious and manipulative.
I like my women smart, but not too smart. At 115-130 I find they are usually more feminine and cooperative.
Sep 16, 2009 10:02 pm |
Linda Gottfredson was born Linda Howarth. She married Gary Don Gottfredson, took his name, and continued using it after divorce. FWIW. She’s done a remarkable amount of good research and writing.
Leave a Reply