Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Trait variability by sex in the General Social Survey

Before the Greater Male Variability hypothesis falls out of the news, take a look at the standard deviations, by sex, among GSS respondents on a host of major life measures:

Traits that are more determinative of male sexual market value (SMV) than of female SMV show greater variability among men, just as the hypothesis predicts.

There are a couple of exceptions to the greater male variability rule, though, where female variability is greater. And wouldn't you know it, it's for the two traits that are distinctly more determinative of female SMV than of male SMV value.

Parenthetically, the intelligence measure via the ten-question vocabulary test has an artificial ceiling because respondents can do no better than get 10 out of 10 questions correct. If there were 100 words or a 1,000 words on the test, it's likely that the male SD would be even larger relative to the female SD than it appears here. It would probably resemble the disparity in educational attainment.

Regarding wealth, a lot of it is shared in marriage or accrues to women who outlive the men who accumulated it, so the gap as shown above likely understates the true difference in variability between men and women in affluence. There are more male billionaires but also more homeless men without a penny to their names than there are women.

Even with these quite imperfect measures, then, the results seem almost too good to be true, but the items used are honestly the ones that came to mind as having utility for evaluating what the survey had to offer regarding the question.

If you're aware of other broad measures in the GSS that should be considered, please share in the comments (they cannot be dichotomous, obviously--the responses need to exist across a spectrum).



Joseph Suber said...

I follow link to Derb post and read about deleted articles mysteriously replaced with other articles. We ARE doing samizdat here.

Peter Johnson said...

The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis might be the best route for getting human biodiversity more widely accepted and acknowledged. The truth of GMVH is so extremely obvious when one looks at the data - totally undeniable to anyone not steeped in religious blank-slate orthodoxy. And yet it still gets people (e.g., Larry Summers) publicly persecuted for being mentioned. The incident about the accepted mathematics journal article, describing the evolutionary mechanism for GMVH, getting censored out of the journal after it was accepted is a classic!

Passer by said...

Greater male variability has been found in myriad of areas, such as grip strength, math ability, verbal reasoning, writing, spatial ability, creativity, science reasoning, social science, mechanical reasoning, general knowledge, spelling, personality, brain structure, blood parameters, university examination grades, height, sprinting, and so on.

Also contrary to the GSS data in both baby and adult weight.

Passer by said...

Oh, i forgot to mention in creative problem solving (PISA test) as well as in problem solving in technology rich environments (PIAAC test) as well.

Kipling said...

Nobody disputes the GMVH. What people dispute are the implications, particularly at the far right tail of the curve.

No, that doesn't make a lick of sense, but there you go.

Jig Bohnson said...

Great post!

As has already been remarked, GMV (I think we can dispense with the H!) is possibly the best foot in the door to get people understanding human variability and its consequences. Everyone can see with their own two eyes that men have a greater range of immediately obvious things like height. Then most people have seen that men range from scrawny can't do one pull-up to being able to bench a mid-size car, and women range from can't do one pull-up to can do a few pull-ups. Anyone who went through high school and can string a sentence together knows that the dumbest girls, while dumb as a box of rocks, were not as dumb as the dumbest knuckle head boys, who were dumber than a single rock.

Some people's analytical abilities are such that they have to end their comprehension there, but others can start to understand the sexual selection basis for all of this, and why these trait distributions are inevitable.

Incidentally, on that latter point, how much is belief creationism or general lack of acceptance of evolution a barrier to understanding pretty obvious things about human sexual evolutionary psychology that so many people seem to have trouble with?

Philippe le Bel said...

I'm not sure to understand this graphic (and even worst with the GSS site :( ). Does it mean, for exemple, than women are 2.5% more than men thinking than intelligence is important on her partner?

Lance E said...

I wonder: do men truly vary less than women on the scale of physical attractiveness, or is it possible that the survey-givers who assessed it were mostly men and thus tended to rate other men as mostly average?

I can't remember specifics, but I think there have been studies showing that both men and women more or less agree on female attractiveness, but men are much less reliable at assessing male attractiveness.

Neither conclusion would really surprise me, but aside from weight, it's interesting that the only "GFV" trait is highly subjective. And the weight GFV might actually be a lying-about-weight GFV, unless they actually weighed respondents.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, there is so much in that saga--the academic heckler's veto, questions of copyright and whether or not a frenemy publication can publish for the sole purpose of grabbing rights to the paper so it cannot be publicly viewed, the importance of financial and social independence (just one guy had his name on the second iteration of the paper because his two active academic co-authors dropped their names in response to the social screws being tightened on them).


Yep, and that was more than a decade ago, and it happened to a good lefty!

Passer by,

Interesting re: weight. Are there other measurements of attractiveness? The two are of course very closely related in women--it is nearly impossible for a significantly overweight woman to be physically attractive. It is not impossible for a man, especially if he has relatively low body fat (i.e. high muscle mass). A heavy woman with low body fat is still unattractive, though.


Well the more sources we have to justify and support it, the better. Validating stereotypes is what we do here, after all!


It's a good question. Most people, even relatively dull ones, are aware of the social opprobrium talking about these things publicly can bring, so it seems certain to me that the subject's taboo is one reason people have trouble making sense of it--they're trained to not think about it, ever! This is a point Steve Sailer makes.


No, it compares the size of the SD for measures of the variables among men and among women. So in the case of height, it is showing that 1 SD among men is larger than 1 SD among women. Among men, there are more really tall and really short people than among women (relative to the mean height for each).


Could be, though I suspect a lot of the answer has to do with age. The difference in attractiveness (and these are subjective measures--those conducting the interviews are the ones who made them) between the avg 20 yo woman and avg 50 yo woman is wider than the attractiveness between the avg 20 yo man and 50 yo man.

Feryl said...

The strange case of Julia Salazar, Democratic Socialists of America candidate for New York Senate

Guys, consider this: unlike what the MSM, and much of the typical Right, would have you believe, these ostensible "left-wing" candidates are posers and errand boys (and girls!) for much of the rotten establishment. The last couple elections cycles have been brimming with Deep State Dems, who want to perpetuate the economic policies of the 1990's, and the enhanced belligerence of post 9/11 foreign policy, forevermore with only the most slight alterations made to stop the populace from rioting.

The whole DSA thing is a joke and an insult to progressivism. Esp insofar as how many of their candidates play the "minority" card so as to induce today's mindless liberals into supporting whoever is masquerading as a "liberal"......Remember, in 2016 we saw something that no liberal in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, or even early 2000's would have ever thought possible: many "liberals" taking the US intelligence community at it's word. We are a long, long way from the 80's when liberals almost always portrayed America's foreign activities as morally and strategically dubious at best.

Real progressivism would give us candidates who regularly called for the busting up of monopolies and the cessation of unnecessary aggression against foreign nations. Ain't happening, folks. The rot runs so deep, the barriers to corruption and absurd levels of over-competition so weak.

The surreal spectacle of a Reagan cabinet member (Paul Craig Roberts) being more liberal than the modern Left establishment.....

Feryl said...

Trump has attracted so much support for being (relatively) un-globalist, protectionist etc., and has remained of sufficient popularity, that it's caused the establishment to do a full court press with the Dems. In other words, much of the establishment (be it in media, the corporate world, the deep state etc.) is using the Dems to attack Trump....From the right! Both parties are knee deep in the neo-liberal and neo-con cesspool, as the pressure to conform to elite mores (and pressure to keep raking in dough and stock options) has annihilated whatever is left of the reform spirit that we last saw in the 2000's (opposition to Bush's wars, Occupy etc.).

The terror of elites is that Trump may have cleaved 40-50% of Americans away from the establishment's agenda (cultural liberalism, corporate monopoly economic policy, unconditional support of the Deep State) or at least driven many to alienation from all ideology. This does not bode well for America's ability to get anything done, up to and including the neverending continuation of what America became in the early-mid 2000's.

Torbulence said...


Men are probably much more objective in their assessment of men than women are. If you look at OKCupid's data on the subject, most men are rated by women to be below "average" appearance. They are probably more affected by male presentations in media and overall are more concerned with wealth & status factors.

Audacious Epigone said...


There aren't enough whites to make progressivism a serious political force anymore and there's little appeal to non-whites for even Sanders-style progressivism. They want to plunder, not be equitably shared with. Stacey Abrams is the future. Hopefully Brian Kemp is, too. The Georgia governor's race is probably the most important race in the country this November.

216 said...


For a movement that loves to show its edginess by ragging on Boomers, rather than the truecon "respect your elders", I would not be underestimating the progressives especially if Trump does something stupid like another Middle East War. Jeremy Corbyn didn't run a racial campaign, he ran as a throwback to the Old Left adapted to the concerns of today's university-educated "precariat". Whites may be on the outs, but there are Asians and Hapas to fill some of the gaps.


Julia Salazar is a 8/10, she's either a spy and/or was pumped and dumped. Not much else could explain such a rapid shift in ideology.

Feryl said...

That's the cynicism speaking. In order to understand the Prog. mindset, you need to have actually lived through the period. Or rather, to believe the mindset, you have to be there. The early 1970's is that last period we went through where there was broad agreement on the ground rules that elites had to adhere to for the greater good of everyone. After all, stuff like Limits to Growth (!) was fairly popular among the chattering classes of the time. Far from "get while the getting's good", they were willing to sacrifice mastubatory games of one-upmanship to better provide for the masses. It was the late 1970's when elites began to get sentimental and ego-driven. And liberals and conservatives became increasingly unhinged in their pursuit of cultural perfection (which became a major distraction from focusing on sound economic fundamentals). The end result was social Darwinism (to make the hardcore Right happy) and cultural liberalism (to make the hardcore Left happy). Neither is good for us in the long run, but neither camp is willing to admit that they bit off more than they could chew and continuing stubborness is destroying us. It's not diversity that's the problem per se, it's the fact that we appear to be stuck in a 50-80 year long cycle of elite corruption and arrogance. It began in the late 1970's, and who knows when it will end?

Anonymous said...


I don't see anything wrong with right-wing social and economic Darwinism.

You "alt-right" fanatics are only against it because deep down inside you know that low IQ prole whites will be on the losing side of it, just like blacks and hispanics.

216 said...


Diversity becomes unmanageable without some sort of encompassing morality or a police state. The Habsburg Empire survived because it had the common component of Catholicism, Singapore thrives today because a police state cracks its whip on any voice of either ethnic/religious/labor dissent. The PAP also has the advantage of being uncorrupt and using the otherwise banned ideology of fascism (look at the logo).

Feryl said...

"Julia Salazar is a 8/10, she's either a spy and/or was pumped and dumped. Not much else could explain such a rapid shift in ideology."

Women and gay men are over-represented in politics, espionage, intelligence, and the like (relative to their representation in other fields). They are more emotionally and ideologically fickle then straight men, and moreover, they are much better at tolerating mind games and word games than straight men (who have a lower verbal IQ and are less neurotic). Agnostic frequently says that since the 1980's, it's been overwhelmingly obvious that the GOP is riddled with poofers (look up the congress boy page scandals from the late 80's, Ken Mehlman was gay and the GOP Chairman for years, etc.). McCain is a homo, Lindsey Graham is a homo, and the list goes on. In a decadent environment of ultra competition, "the system" is much more apt to groom and use homos for the sake of certain people and sectors making it big. And it's quite likely that the progressive wing from the 1920's-1980's was quite hetero, being that what mattered was getting results, being populist and unsentimental, and keeping one's integrity intact. The "Young Republican" movement of the 1980's was a flaming parade of homos; the Left mocked it at the time for being square and nerdy, and for good reason: these conservatives wanted to emulate the clean cut fashion of the 1950's, yet without the healthy populism of that decade; no, Reaganism (and it's "woke" offshoot, DLC centrism) was clearly about elitism, rising above the fray and keeping your hands clean.

216 said...


How exactly do you think Communism developed? Do you think the Elders of Zion cooked it up in a secret meeting?

No, Communism is a logical destination from Fifth Monarchism to Chartism. Created in reaction to the hyper-individualism of the lassiez-faire Liberals. Social Darwinism is a convenient ex-post-facto myth for Liberalism.

What I am about is that idea that disparate peoples should be able to exercise self-determination in a nation-state. Where the well-being of society is not sacrificed of the rapacity of both rootless cosmopolitan capitalists and fanatical Islamists and communists. It's time to do what Ferdinand and Isabella did in 1492 and what the French monarchists failed to do in 1871.

Feryl said...

I don't see anything wrong with right-wing social and economic Darwinism.

Other than giving us tranny bathroooms?

When society does not compel elites to spread the wealth, to protect labor, neither does it compel people to not get abortions, not do drugs, not drink to excess, and not cut your genitals off.

Cuck idiots whine about cultural liberalism, then turn a blind eye to elite greed and (economic) arrogance.

Oh, and massive levels of inequality produce widespread alienation and the conditions for a revolt. You can't tell 40-70% of society that they are losers, they are broke, etc. because they are all stupid and lazy. We know that elites could do more to alleviate poverty, disease, crime, etc., but they choose not to because they'd rather have mountains of goodies to show off.

Many people born before 1970 no longer believe in Reaganism, and many people born after 1970 never believed it in the first place. Do you think Millennials are that stupid? Whether they have the stats or not, they can intuitively sense that the world has become more and more unfair in their lifetime. Some of them have parents, teachers, etc. who have told them how much cheaper it was to own a home and start a family 30, 40, 50 years ago. And from time to time the Millennial directed press lets an article slip through where inequality and living expense issues are examined.

Feryl said...

And the social Darwinist ethos of the last 40 years has produced two generations (X-ers and Millennials) who don't trust people, are reluctant to get involved in politics (compared to Silents and Boomers), and are both sick of waiting for the Me Generation to either put up or shut up. Reaganism had it's charms when unions were strong, wages were pretty good, and America still actually made a lot of goods. But after 40 years of declining unions, declining wages, and off-shoring....Fool me once.......

216 said...


It says much about the GOP that its Speaker, the supposed "ideas man" Paul Ryan, beats the dead horse of Jack Kemp. Kemp never won anything outside of his safe suburban seat the House, but he gave us the fiscal insanity and diversity pandering we are stuck with today.

No amount of enterprise zones will create a Hong Kong in the ghetto, and the dream if ever realized in its Platonic ideal would be more like Jack Abramhoff's Saipan.

I try not to make the unions into more than they were. The public grew increasingly fed up with recurring strikes in the 1970s. While business certainly broke the social contract, they were faced with subsidized competition from East Asia and Germany. They were also the hapless victims of the end of cheap oil and rising inflation. Union leadership then and now was not of the patriotic Gompers variety, and our labor model is adversarial in contrast to the collaborative German/Japanese approach.

Feryl said...

"Diversity becomes unmanageable without some sort of encompassing morality or a police state. The Habsburg Empire survived because it had the common component of Catholicism, Singapore thrives today because a police state cracks its whip on any voice of either ethnic/religious/labor dissent. The PAP also has the advantage of being uncorrupt and using the otherwise banned ideology of fascism (look at the logo)."

Diversity is more manageable in an era of prosperity (a high) and in an era of low tribalism (the unraveling). When tribalism grows in a crisis (like what we're in now), race/ethnicity is the first thing people turn to, esp. those of a lower class (elites in this kind of period, esp. if they're corrupt, tend to side with each other).

If you cite different eras/places, well, every nation goes through the cycle at different times. But culturally similar nations can over-lap (for example, the baby boom and it's place in the culture went on a similar schedule in America and Canada).

As much as people bleat about the Awakenings, we ought to be more interested in the Unraveling. Why? Because that's what today's dumb elites keep trying to return to; they don't want to be like Steve Bannon who understands tribalism, and why it comes and goes. It went away in the 1980's and 1990's Unraveling, and that's what most elites now think of as.....Normal and desirable. That would've been big news actually in the 80's and 90's, when elites commonly thought that we were at a cultural low point so harrowing that many predicted an apocalypse arising from the mercenary individualism of the time.

Feryl said...

"Union leadership then and now was not of the patriotic Gompers variety, and our labor model is adversarial in contrast to the collaborative German/Japanese approach."

But individualism in those old countries never reached the excessive levels that America experienced in the Gilded Age. Labor became very combative in the early Progressive era, then mellowed out during WW2 and the post-WW2 High, then became combative again in the late 60's and 70's when management started to flirt with off-shoring, higher immigration levels, and the like. It's a two way street, you know? Everybody got along well, and had mutual respect, in the 1950's (when else?). The labor movement was decimated by the 80's and 90's, when collectivism vanished....To the delight of management, who found that it was possible to exploit people and undermine our economic fundamentals, but nobody seemed to care as long as the top 30-20% of earners could make out big.

216 said...


It's not an accident of geography that New York has our highest inequality, and Utah our lowest. Nor is it an accident that social harmony is so high in otherwise stagnant Japan rather than the dysfunction that plagued the USSR and Russia after Brezhnev. Partitioning the empire via ideological and ethnic sorting might considerably reduce inequality.

Labor militancy was actually rather high in the 1950s, erratic economic conditions occurred from the end of Korea until the soaking of Vietnam/Great Society. The Right at the time was trying to spread Right-to-work, which led to furious GOP defeats in 1958 (huge long term impacts). When the federal spigot was opened for Vietnam, Reuther and friends were able to quiet down the workers with raises. This strategy also was used in May 1968 in France, when the Army should have been crushing the students.

Passer by said...


"Women and gay men are over-represented in politics, espionage, intelligence, and the like (relative to their representation in other fields). They are more emotionally and ideologically fickle then straight men, and moreover, they are much better at tolerating mind games and word games than straight men (who have a lower verbal IQ and are less neurotic)."

Actually men have equal or slightly higher verbal IQ than women according to the vast majority of studies.

A meta-analysis of sex differences in verbal abilities by Hyde and Linn (1988) concluded that there is negligible sex difference and a weighted mean of all studies gave a male advantage of .04d

On the WAIS and DAT IQ tests men perform better on the verbal parts of the tests. On PIAAC verbal - slightly better as well. AFQT verbal test - again slightly better. GMAT verbal - slightly better. SAT verbal - slightly better. SAT writing - slightly worse. ACT verbal - slightly worse. GRE verbal - worse among younger adults, better among older adults. MCAT verbal - slightly better. LSAT verbal - slightly better. GSS vocabulary - slightly worse (but it has a sailing effect). GRT 2 - slightly better. Woodcock–Johnson test - slightly better.

It should be noted that while girls outperform boys in verbal tests, that advantage vanishes or reverses among adults. This is also observed in other types of tests. According to R. Lynn this is because girls mature faster than boys, thus using studies of children for assessing adult gender differences in cognitive abilities is worthless.

Men are the majority of the best writers, poets, comedians, journalists, philosophers, and so on. Combining slight mean differences with slight variability differences in verbal ability can cause lots of difference at the top.

There are far more men than women in politics and tests have found that women have lower political knowledge on average. In the intelligence services, until recently, there were few women, especially at top levels, so now they are trying to fix the problem with gender quotas. I think that women are currently 30 % of MI6 personnel (same percentage as in science) and 20 % of their senior personnel.

Anonymous said...


I regularly say in public that 50% of the population has a below average IQ, and that anyone with an IQ below 100 is an economically worthless loser. I'm not afraid to say in public that low IQ proles are a bunch of fatass morons. I may be born into a SWPL family, but I'm not going to parrot left-wing platitudes. I'm also not going to parrot "alt-right" platitudes. Low IQ prole whites can fuck off for all I care. In real life I ignore them just like I ignore blacks and hispanics.

You guys say that you're "right wing" conservatives but then you only support right wing social policies with respect to race, gender, and sexual orientation. You guys are more leftist than Hillary Clinton when it comes to economic policies in an all white polity. You guys love welfare queens as long as the welfare queens are low IQ white proles.

Why should my family have to share our earned income with anyone else? Life isn't fair and it's not supposed to be. I don't have to share my family's wealth with low IQ people and proles.

Sid said...


Right now, I'd say that people with an IQ of 83 or less are economically useless, except for maybe the most basic physical economic activities.

Once self-driving vehicles become common and economical, that number will probably go up to 90. (To be red-pilled about it, 40% of blacks are economically useless. In the near future, 50% of Hispanics and 25% of whites will be as well.)

As AI systems advance and automation becomes more fine-tuned, I expect more and more people will become economically useless. Probably by the end of this century, the definition of work will be vastly different from how it is today. I don't know if anyone has a clear idea of what this future will be like, but as far as I'm concerned, being on the right end of the Bell Curve means you're on the right end of the salami, with the butcher slicing it from the left end first.

We can tell people who are stupid and morally unfit to go to hell, but we need to be concerned about low-IQ proles who are good people because "low-IQ" is going to be an ever more expansive category by the decade. If we ignore them and don't look at ways of giving people a purpose in life and ensure they enjoy high standards of living, we won't have any idea what to do when AI becomes self-advancing.

This isn't to say you can't be red-pilled about low-IQ white proles. To adapt a Sailerism, I think that a lot of them possess poorer judgement and need stronger moral guidance from the rest of society. That said, if they don't have a stake in a prosperous society, no one else does either.

216 said...


We live in a society.

Operating an AK-47 probably takes no more than an IQ of 70, possibly even less.

Lassiez-faire is not a traditional conservative value, its a liberal value.

Clinton was economically to the right of Obama, she said almost nothing in the campaign about using labor unions to restore the bargaining power of the working class. Obama's early actions indicated more sympathy to deportations than we'd initially suspect(see Secure Communities). It was pushback from the Hispanic caucus whose votes he needed for the ACA, and whose turnout he needed in NV, CO, NM and FL for 2012, which caused him to go soft on deportation.

I speak only for myself here, that I'm not posting as a hugbox for the white working class. They are responsible for the bulk of their personal and demographic suffering thanks to their drug use and domestic violence. Employers of their own race, like you, see them as inferior to pliable Hispanics and Asians that don't get high off the clock. That is not to minimize the contempt shown to them by the elite or the economic dysfunction. The same respect is accorded to the underclasses of other races.

216 said...


Important to note that an economy can utilize an almost unlimited number of coolies. The real limits are what the state can enforce via minimum wages, immigration restrictions and using democracy to create welfare statism. The First World wealthy and middle class could easily afford domestic servants, just like Third World elites currently have.

We also know that abundant cheap labor reduces innovation. The British Empire had access to an unlimited supply of Indian coolies (the word itself comes from India), while the US was underpopulated from the elite's standpoint until the end of the Gilded Age. We see this today with farms. European and Japanese farms are more productive than American farms, because America had access to Mexican/Central American coolies, while European farms didn't get exempted from labor law like US farms were, esp. wrt gastarbeiters.

For instance, very few people need a live in cook, maid, gardener, babysitter and tutor. But if were legal to employ all five of them on starvation wages, a surprising number of "jobs" could be created. Many elderly people do need some kind of caregiving, which by its nature will never pay well unless the labor supply is restricted, and the Economist types would love to allow importation of large numbers of people to do this job.

Anonymous said...


I sort of disagree. Right now, anyone with an IQ < 100 is useless, so 84% of blacks, 50% of whites, and some intermediate number of hispanics. I don't know how old you are, but I believe in my lifetime it will be < 115 = useless, so 98% of blacks, 84% of whites, and some intermediate number of hispanics.


Laissiez-faire if by liberal you mean "classical liberal" aka libertarian, and not some Clinton-Sanders bullshit, then yes. Right now the word "liberal" means "leftist" and leftists are just as into communism as the "alt-right", perhaps even more so.

Get this straight: I do NOT see low IQ whites as "inferior" to hispanics. Low IQ whites are, in my mind, equal to hispanics.

With respect to domestic servants, I don't know anyone who has a cook, and only a few people who have a gardener. About 50% of my social circle have maids. Baby nurses are commonly employed, but only until the baby is old enough to sleep through the night.

216 said...


Liberalism is always leftist, no matter the emergence of further movements to its left. The political spectrum is best seen in terms of multiple axes. In terms of the original left/right axis, I see the House of Bourbon as having a superior claim to that of the Jacobin Club and the Paris Commune, so I find it silly of you to call me a communist.

Yours or my particular opinions on the inferiority/superiority/equality of the WWC vs POC are not germane. In terms of labor markets, prole whites are considered inferior to all except underclass blacks. No one is neutral on a moving train, that you accept the present status of the WWC is evidence to me that you accept their inferiority. FWIW, I also accept this inferiority, I just consider it an undesirable public policy outcome.

Your social circle is part of the problem.

The fireworks will be entertaining when AOC and Julia Salazar are inevitably propositioned by their older GOP colleagues.

Feryl said...

"There are far more men than women in politics and tests have found that women have lower political knowledge on average. In the intelligence services, until recently, there were few women, especially at top levels, so now they are trying to fix the problem with gender quotas. I think that women are currently 30 % of MI6 personnel (same percentage as in science) and 20 % of their senior personnel."

What I was getting at is that rising numbers of women and poofers is a sign of decadence and corruption. In wholesome periods, people have greater ethical standards which leads to less reliance on women and poofers to achieve one's goals (straight men have a better grasp of how to run a society well). As I've said before, feminism (and other kinds of Left ID politics) is a cause and symptom of general moral decay. A woman's proper place is not at the higher reaches of any organization, and probably not really anywhere in some fields. save perhaps for the kind oriented towards human and animal welfare.

Ambitious women are dangerous because they are less selfless than men (women never go on the Hero's Journey, for one thing). The toxic effects of feminization are apparent everywhere, these days. The narcissism, the insecurity, taking things too personally, and so on. These things go for homos, too. Back when things got done with no fuss in the 1950's, men called nearly all of the important shots and checked the bullshit at the door. And women were grateful for what they had and knew better than to get involved.

The Reaganite Right is thoroughly contemptible. They've decimated unions, heavy enforcement of corporate regulations, immigration controls, and so forth. And they've done almost nothing to turn back the tide of cultural liberalism, except for throwing millions of people behind bars which is what the prison industrial complex wants (there's less money to be made putting money into mental health care and drug treatment). But what do you expect from a movement that's so flamingly homosexual? It's predicated on whoring yourself out while looking good in the process. If you're going to defend the conservative political and cultural thrust of the last 40 years by blaming the bad stuff on "liberals", get a clue. Really.

The Boomercons (and the young people naive enough to believe them) are so full of shit. FDR's(and Eisenhower's) America was a bastion of healthy masculinity and respect for ethics and fair play. Which the GI Generation didn't necessarily find easy to translate to the 60's and 70's, which became the catalyst for the Me Generation tossing modesty and fair play out the window in favor of a mercenary free for all that's given us the new Gilded Age.

We're living in a paradise for sociopaths who stop at nothing to climb over other people. We're running headlong towards political and financial ruin because of how many people.....Don't want anyone telling them what to do.

Feryl said...

computer game simulates a male environment. The white collar office environment is childlike by comparison.

See the descriptions by Jack D. Frontier/war, men to rise in rank despite starting as a nobody vs social scheming by participation in and affirmation of an existing power structure."

This is from an Isteve post about men and women liking movies for different reasons. The Harry Potter movies clean up with Millennial women, men couldn't care less. Men want stories about bravery and camaraderie, women want intricate plots involving flattering the powerful and out-maneuvering one's enemies (who can be anyone and whose status frequently changes), socially and psychologically. Men want to be part of a victorious team that physically smashes the bad guys, who remain well-defined. It's why sportsball teams where contrasting colors; men literally do not want anything about the bad guys to resemble the good guys. Also, men often gain respect through acts of bravery that don't necessarily involve beating people up, thus why Jackass type stunts are common and men frequently concoct games in which to compete, often in lieu of outright combat between opponents.

Also, men are much more likely than women to find solace in team-work, in belonging to something. Women are constantly trying to distance themselves from forging a real bond with a group, because, after all, men don't marry multiple women (well, not in most cultures). It's striking how frequently women badmouth erstwhile friends behind their backs, or just as telling, simply stop mentioning a particular acquaintance or even supposed friend for months or even years.

I'm guessing that women dislike war movies because such stories do not allow for any real possibility of making drama queens sympathetic. Men hate other men who are thought to be selfish attention getting assholes, who can't be relied on in the heat of battle.

Feryl said...

I heard a Boomer early video game programmer who said he disliked the violence of video games. Uh, hello? Video games are a simulation of masculine competitive tendencies. Of course they will be violent. Try as they may, they will never fully be able to convince men that combat isn't exciting.

216 said...


One exception to uniform color disparities is baseball. Most teams have the same drab gray look, and in prior decades it really was "uniform" so to speak. Look at the relative "boringness" of the hat designs that haven't changed in 100 years. (Detroit, Chicago, New York, Boston, SF, LA). It might be an effect of baseball being the most into "sportsmanship" of the big 4. Unlike euroball, which is a capitalist dream where the uniform seems to change every year with the sponsor.

Feryl said...

The grays evovled as a response to summer heat (who wears dark colors during the summer, unless you're in, uh, Alaska?) and laundry concerns (in the past, white clothes could not be easily spruced up after too much use). Also, both the white and the gray are better for heat concerns than are many "colored" uniforms.

Football has always been more cavalier about dark/colored outfits, because it's played when the sun is weakening in the fall.

Feryl said...

Baseball players tend to be a lot more laid back than other athletes. That being said, drama does happen when pitchers get too aggressive. Still, players getting flak for stuff like playing cards during (!) active play and so forth isn't something that really happens in other sports. Baseball evolved as a lazy game for hot summer afternoons, something that can't ever really be taken from it. A lot of time is spent standing on the field, or sitting on the bench. And players don't have to be ready to be placed into the action at a moment's notice, unlike the other big sports.

Audacious Epigone said...


Partitioning the empire via ideological and ethnic sorting might considerably reduce inequality.

If the country was partitioned into red and blue, blue America would become even more unequal than all America is now, and red America would be even more economically egalitarian than all America is now. The only reason red states have only modestly lower gini coefficients than blue states do is because red states are blacker.

Audacious Epigone said...

Passer by,

The GSS consistently shows, no matter how it is sliced, that women do better with vocabulary than men do, at all ages. That isn't exactly the same as verbal ability as measured in IQ tests, but there is a lot of overlap. It's hard for me to make sense of it.

Passer by said...


I'v seen plenty of vocabulary studies and on them there is no difference in most of the tests. Btw vocabulary tests are included in some IQ tests such as WAIS or PMA and men perform slightly better on them.

Anyway, a meta-analysis of sex differences in vocabulary by Hyde and Linn (1988) concluded that there is no sex difference in vocabulary so i think that this settles the question.

Passer by said...

Btw a ceiling effect in the GSS test could masque the differences (or lack of differences) to certain extent.