Thursday, June 11, 2015

Today’s Feminist Outrage-Meter-Pinner

     Ace has the story:

     Nobel Prize winning scientist says he's not keen on women in the laboratories.
     Nobel prize winner Sir Tim Hunt has an issue with female scientists -- they're too distracting romantically and they cry when criticised.

     Hunt, 72, an English biochemist who admitted he has a reputation for being a 'chauvinist', reportedly told the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea:

     "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls... three things happen when they are in the lab... You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry."

     Please read the Telegraph article Ace cites. The reactions of the feminists – both sexes – who immediately went into High DudgeonTM over Dr. Hunt’s opinion, are the point of what follows. Ace’s take on their reactions is classic:

     This guy is a Nobel prize winner. I assume he's not insane. So when he claims these things have happened, I tend to assume that these things have actually happened, not that he is a psychopathic liar who makes things up because he Loves Rape....

     Argue with him, rebut him, point out that his frame of reference (emotional simplicity) is not the same as women's, and that he should not assume his frame of reference is the objectively correct one just because of the happenstance that he happens to have been born male.

     But this whole shrieking jag? The whole Women Shrieking the Same Shrieks and gnashing their teeth thing, every third day?

     Doesn't that tend to support his "retrograde" notions about feminine emotionality, rather than rebutting them?

     Gentle Reader, that is How It’s Done.

     I’ve worked in the sciences and, of course, in engineering. Both environments included a few women. Emphasis on “a few:” women are not drawn to the STEM fields, for reasons we needn’t address this morning. Such environments can be successful, if certain conditions apply:

  • Everyone involved is at least 60 years old; or:
  • All the women are married to linebackers, wrestlers, or Navy SEALs; or:
  • 98% or more of the work is actually performed by individuals working in isolation.

     You see, what Dr. Hunt said is accurate. Let’s take his observations in reverse order.

     Women are far more sensitive to criticism than men. I’ve encountered only one woman, the most intelligent woman I know, who can stand to hear a man tell her that she’s made a mistake. To get a woman to take a critical look at her own actions requires so great a load of pre-exculpation and emotional padding that for practical purposes, it’s not worthwhile. It’s far easier simply to fix her mistakes for her and say nothing about them, then or afterward.

     Women of the susceptible age range (0 to about ten years after menopause) do fall in love with men they work alongside – if the man treats the woman exactly as she desires to be treated, which is a requirement for averting the torrents of female tears of which Dr. Hunt spoke. Not many men are willing or able to do this, as we’re not nearly as emotional and are far more tolerant of criticism. We tend to assume that what we would find appropriate and acceptable really is appropriate and acceptable. Women disagree. Everything must be sugar-coated to spare their feelings...and a man who treats them that way, assuming he doesn’t look like Quasimodo or smell like a Staten Island landfill in July at high noon, almost automatically becomes a fantasy-romance object.

     Finally, men in the STEM fields don’t have a lot of female presence in their lives. The natural consequence is an amplification of the significance of those they do have around them. The tendency to attempt romantic involvements with them follows as a matter of course.

     But facts have never mattered to an aggrieved feminist.

     Here are a few more facts:

  1. Women are not men;
  2. Men are not women;
  3. Neither can be made into the other.

     Henry Higgins’s plaint is as pointless as the “Women Shrieking the Same Shrieks” Ace cites. The sexes are optimized for different things, as a result of many millennia of evolutionary pressures. To demand that they react to the same things in the same ways is fatuous.

     Today, far more men understand and accept la difference than women. Feminists reject it categorically, even militantly. Indeed, they want to have the cake and eat it, too: they demand not only that women be regarded as absolute equals to men in all things, but that they be treated as infinitely fragile creatures to whom even the slightest disagreement might prove fatal. The contradiction involved troubles them not at all.

     Needless to say, this is not on. American men are steadily withdrawing from women in every way: economically, socially, and romantically. Women find this unacceptable, but it will continue to worsen until they accept that they’re women and not men, with all that implies.

     One way in which American men are not withdrawing from women is sexually...but this is hardly something to be celebrated, for the mode of interaction is increasingly depersonalized: he wants access to her body and nothing else about her. This Neanderthalization of male-female relations is sending large ripples through American society. Deceit and abuse of intimacy are, if not the norm, increasing in frequency, especially among younger Americans to whom every encounter with the opposite sex takes place in a demilitarized zone, a place where no one can set up housekeeping.

     All generalizations are inaccurate, including this one. There are women who are sensible about the ways in which women differ from men, and who take no offense at being treated as women. There are also men who sincerely strain, against the evidence and their innate inclinations, to treat women as if they were men. But these aren’t the ones under discussion this fine June morning.

     There is no Last Graf. The problems that stem from what’s increasingly a live-fire war between the sexes cannot be “solved.” The war will continue until American women accept, en masse, that they are women, that men will never see them as anything else, and that attempts to bludgeon men into treating them as if they were men, even with the force of law, will only result in misery for all concerned.


An Observer said...

I DJ in night clubs every weekend as my second job. I can tell you that you will see some of the most dysgenic male-female interactions there. A man will be drunk, high, starting fights... and in a hindbrain sort of way, the women in the club will love him and fight for his attentions. It is not infrequent to see such a man walk out with three or four women, all swooning over him. Sex happens in the bathrooms and dark corners. Oral sex in the alleyways behind the club. Women have offered themselves to me at the DJ booth in order to convince me to play their request. It is very animalistic.

The women in question know these things are not wise, but continue to do them because their sexual impulse leads them to these bad men. There is no incentive for them to behave wisely, for a great many institutions exist to support them when the inevitable happens. Welfare (child support that every man must pay), medical care, etc... When my son was born I had to pay nearly $5000 out of pocket. The street trash in the hospital paid NOTHING.

The bad men will not change their behavior, because as far as they are concerned, it is SUCCESSFUL with the women. The sexual marketplace is like currency, in that currency manipulation can change the motivation of people by dangling a carrot here, and a stick there. Then, as accidents happen, these people reproduce... spreading their dyscivic attitude to the next generation. Dads who, if even in the child's life at all, lead by example to raise criminals, thugs and malcontents. Moms who, if they work at all, strip for a living or act as quasi-escorts in the clubs.

You combine this with more civilized, but equally dysgenic male-female interaction in the workplace, where women tend to fall for men who are above them in position and power (for the same reasons club women fall for bad boys), and again you see average wage slaves thrown up on "sexual harassment" charges while powerful men conduct orgy parties after-hours, and carry on prolific affairs in the office. Moral men are divorce-raped, while immoral men profit from an increasingly-exclusive sexual marketplace.

At one place I worked, one of these interactions was caught in the parking garage. A woman had cheated on her husband with her boss (who was cheating on his wife), having sex in the parking garage, in full view of the security cameras. But it was not surprising to anyone who knew them. He was too powerful to be fired. She divorced her husband and profited from it, and continued to have sex with the man. His wife stayed with him, even after learning of the affair -- because it only proved how powerful he was.

This means a small number of aggressive, immoral men are monopolizing female attentions. This leaves a great many angry, withdrawn men who are faced with a choice: become the immoral man themselves, or give up (you may here of the MGTOW folks -- delusional, mind you, but they have a point). The third option, posited by Vox and some others, is to take the dominant attributes of the aggressive man, but try to stay loyal to your moral compass -- which is a very difficult game only a few of us can pull off.

The point I'm making here is that this is at the root of everything that is wrong with our society. Indeed, this is the DRIVING FORCE behind feminism, socialism, crime, abortion and a great many other ills. It all began when women said they should be men... and men said they should be women.

When you screw around with the natural, God-given order of things, this is what you get.

Wombat said...

There are other options aside from those listed above.

I was lucky enough to find a wife who grew up in a 'developing' country with a dominant Catholic population and who later emigrated to Australia. She ticks all the boxes. Hard working. Has values. Accepts her role in family life and enjoys fulfilling it. Also, she's smoking hot, which is of no small relevance.

Aside from shopping abroad, the modern man can concentrate on his career and buy his love, but it's not exactly the uprightly Christian method.

For those biblically inclined who want a wife who will provide them a family, there's plenty of places left where you can find "simple" folk, who are labelled as such because they're not stupid enough to ruin their life one day at a time.

The problem is not that there's a lack of on-par women out there. The problem is most guys want woman who honours the Bible in the presence of others, the Guide to Good Housekeeping when she's alone, and the Kama Sutra when they're behind closed doors. Generally speaking women like that are pretty hard to find.

Unknown said...

Author!. Between what you wrote and the commenter, we see another situation where, because 'rape has been defined down,real rape, real brutish behavior, indeed civilization in the broader picture, is not Job One. When they get to the point of insanely characterizing chivalrous courtship as "microaggression", which is about where they're at, the intent to complete the total emasculation of the red-blooded American (and British) male is evident.
It all started with bleeding heart liberalism and they got better and better at it to the point where they are comfortable, and successful, in not only shaming but actually persecuting decent people.