January 7, 2010

Which sex is more self-absorbed?

I've been reading ESPN columnist Bill Simmons' humongous The Book of Basketball. Does this guy ever know a lot about the NBA. And, despite his Celtics bias, he really does work hard to come up with fair judgments.

You might well wonder why did he bother learning so much about the NBA? And, it's easy to come up with Psychology 101 explanations: for his whole life, all his relationships with other men -- his father and his friends -- have centered around watching and arguing about spectator sports.

But, ultimately, I suspect, Simmons just really likes knowing a lot about the NBA.

I was reminded of Simmons' very male brain while reading this prototypical post by Erika Kawalek on the Washington Post's XX, where female journalists let us know what's really on their minds:
The Dating Secrets of Canadian and European Women

Lauren, I agree with your take on the New York Observer's trend piece about New York women seeking, as you put it, "natural commitment-phile" European men. The women who were profiled were indeed young. Like you, my friends who are paired off but not married are not waiting for the guy to pop the question. It's an annoying article.

I want to emphasize something about the difference between the state of affairs for women in America and in the rest of the civilized world. The competitiveness people bring to "dating" and "closing the deal" here is underpinned by intense economic competition and the desire—increasingly, the necessity—for basic social and physical security. There is a secret amongst the Canadian and European women living in the Big Apple. I know this because I am Canadian and my closest girlfriend is French, and when we resident aliens get together we really tear up this country and how it treats its women. (Our dating lives are fine and always have been.) When we talk about dating or the possibility of having family, with a man or on our own or with—gasp!—a coven of like-minded women (why not?), the conversation is framed entirely by the fact that we can count on our native countries to look after us should we—for whatever reason—not be able to make ends meet stateside. Now, we should be able to secure decent futures for ourselves, with or without male partners: We have Ivy League degrees, speak multiple languages, are savvy and entrepreneurial. We are also a lot more calm about dating and mating than the American women we know, who seem plagued by contradictory forces.

The New York Observer article briefly mentions the benefits of social democracies:
But what makes the European hunks so commitment-happy—a phase that typically takes many New York men until their 40s to reach? ... Maybe it’s the surplus of E.U. benefits—free day care, health care, and tax benefits even for unmarried couples—that makes the possibility of contented ménage a more realistic proposition at an earlier age.

I'm always baffled that women here don't demand the same benefits on which we Canadian and European women rely. It would make dating and mating a lot easier, that's for certain. American family values? Where are they?

The calculus of long-term committment is just different when your country guarantees the basic necessities of an advanced civilization. When your government provides you, as they do in Canada and in Europe, with health care that is unlinked to a job or "productivity," subsidized prescription drugs, child care, free education through graduate school, and, finally, old-age pensions with visiting nurses if you need them to retain your health and a modicum of dignity. Marriage, ultimately, is about family, however you shape it. I sometimes don't blame men here for being lame or commitment-phobic. They're probably terrified of failing as providers or co-providers.

Erika Kawalek is a New York-based journalist and author of the forthcoming fashion chronicle, Ragpicker.

There's a germ of an interesting idea in there, but it's very hard to come to grips with it without getting distracted by the humorlessness of Ms. Kawalek's self-absorption and subjectivity.

From an evolutionary point of view, I suspect, unmated women pretty much have to be self-absorbed and subjective. Choosing a mate is so crucial to the female sex that giving yourself all these undignified self-esteem booster shots and avoidance of self-awareness could be helpful for a New Yorkerette like Ms. Kawalek in closing the deal for a high-value New York husband.

Granted, it's hard to take humorless women seriously. Yet, Jane Austen had a sense of humor, and she died a spinster, so who's laughing now?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

165 comments:

Henry Canaday said...

“A sheep breeder of great experience told me that in no species or variety that he knew were the male and female of equal value in their maleness and femaleness. Where the males were truly male, the females were not so remarkably female, and where the females were truly female, the males were not virile. Constantly his theory is confirmed here. The women look like heroes rather than heroines, they are raw-boned and their beauty is blocked out too roughly.”

- Rebecca West, “Black Lamb and Grey Falcon”

Udolpho.com said...

Every time I read Slate or any of its shitty adjunct sites I just want to smash the writer in the face. The writing is always a swamp of smug posturing and catchphrases.

Also you spastic whore, men aren't commitment-phobic or whatever you read last in NYTMag, they just aren't into marrying you or any of your shrew friends. I'm married, happily, but it's to a sweet Texas girl, not a mind-fucked feminist twat.

l said...

I think the stats re: single moms/ot-of-wedlock births in EU countries contradicts Kawalek's thesis about European men being "commitment-happy". They're probably just less leery about getting into (and then out of) relationships because the downside is less onerous in a socialist utopia.

Anonymous said...

Well, this is Whiskey bait if ever I've seen any!

Evan McLaren said...

It happens that I was reading a Roissy remark on the same theme yesterday: http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/compassion-creates-more-cads/

Without arguing on a comment thread I'll just say that as a man who was raised disproportionately by a woman, in a setting where many boys were being raised mostly by their mothers, I have plenty of experiential objections to the idea of an all-female family co-op.

Anonymous said...

I sometimes don't blame men here for being lame or commitment-phobic.



Sometimes?

This girl has a severe case of misandry. I guess Euromen don't have a problem with that but American guys prefer their women to like and respect men.

Anonymous said...

I have lived in Sweden. It's not that great and the women there seem no happier. Despite all the government support and highly desirable partners, indigenous Swedes don't have many children.

In Sweden couples move in together(a sambo relationship, oh yes), and after a few years they become engaged and perhaps have some children. Then many years later they may get married just prior to their separation. If one party had money or property prior to the marriage they mostly get to keep it. My mother-in law married three times, the last two husbands both had money, neither she or a lawyer were able to touch any assets the husbands had acquired before the marriage, they belonged to him and his children. She now lives on a pension and struggles to make ends meet. Not that ideal from a woman's point of view?

Anonymous said...

The US political system has been long accused of being "one dollar, one vote". I would make the arguement that in Europe where they have proportional representation it tends to be "one vote, one dollar". In Europe it is much easier to control the entire government with 51% of the vote. This means controling the tax structure and spending. It is no accident that there are a lot more surplus mouths in Europe who's only real talent is mooching off of the other 49%. We tend to view this through the lens of capitalism v socialism but the practical results are women v men.

Anonymous said...

This woman's wrong about so much:
1. Confusing NYC with the rest of America, which it is not.
2. Assuming her small coterie of ambitious, Ivy League, multilingual expatriate professionals (working in the NY media, no less) has much in common with native born, average American women.
3. Overlooking the fact that in the EU, socialized child care and guys supposedly willing to commit to long-term relationships hasn't done jack for the birth rate.

And so on. This woman and her friends are clearly snobs, hyper-educated professionals who come to NY and bitch about how things are oh so much better back home. If it's not the food, it's the men. Or the culture. Or mass transit. Or whatever. In this case, she claims socialism makes for better men. But that's what's funny about New York: it's lots of single men and women who put ambition before relationships and spend all their free time complaining that everyone else does the same thing.

dr kill said...

I am amused that the women who profess to least need support from men are the most likely to actively seek support from the Fed that replaces it.

I do wonder that the educated classes seem unable to recognize man replacement for what it is.

I personally am uninterested in a lowest common denominator, one size fits all woman.

When the Fed becomes the husband/father in our 'every woman gets a trophy' culture, it is no wonder they stop being better women, and men stop being better men.

Why don't they form a union? This is collectivist thinking at its finest.

Anonymous said...

Steve, did you ever get dumped by a female journalist? You certainly seem to have a thing for them.

She must be fairly young, based on the "I want to be a ballerina and an astronaut" open ended bliss of possible future family options.

The main difference in this article from the stuff that's been in womens' magazines since the 50's is the added gripe of stingy America not handing out government cradle to grave goodies, as the superior Canadian and European governments do. None of the writers ever seem to see the hypocrisy of their position - America sucks, and where they are from is better, but they won't leave.

As Brenda Walker says, unlike us, they have a spare country. If they are so unhappy here, no one is preventing their return.

Anonymous said...

All I heard was "why won't any of these Masters Of The Universe marry me?"

Lost Pilgrim said...

Self absorbed NY woman is leaving out the 800 lb gorilla from this picture, divorce. A man stands to lose everything in the US from divorce. Men rarely initiate divorce but always get a thorough reaming.

I love her self projection, American men are worried because we don't have Euro-style social safety nets? No, American men worry that they'll get raped in a divorce or that their wife is a harridan with the feminine instincts of a linebacker, not whether both parents get nine months maternity leave. Talk about being reduced back to the jungle. She would be happy with a 'coven' of like minded women? Coven? The word she is looking for is 'harem'.

Elk live in harems, seals live in harems, baboons live in harems. Modern western people live in families made up of two parents of the opposite sex. There may be a larger extended family but at the base mom, dad, and kids.

If these people were the backbone of western civ rather than some vestigial appendage like the appendix, I would be worried.

Kevin K said...

Its not the necessities, like basic housing and health care that are the problem, its being mortgaged up to your eyeballs in a 5 bedroom house in a fashionable suburb with marble countertops, gigantic appliances and exotic metal sinks, not to mention saving up for Ivy league educations and a new car every three years that scares men off. Added to this, the risk of divorce if you don't live up to these and she gets bored of you.

European men maybe aren't aware of the black hole of materalism American women can turn into.

MQ said...

I don't get it -- what's wrong with her article? I thought she made an interesting point. The piece had a pretty earnest tone, but frankly so does Steve's writing.

Anonymous said...

Wow. That is one disgruntled woman. She loves European men and thinks the US does everything wrong, yet she came here from Canadia for some reason.

"We have Ivy League degrees, speak multiple languages, are savvy and entrepreneurial. We are also a lot more calm about dating and mating than the American women we know, who seem plagued by contradictory forces."

Translation - We are better than American women and still can't find a man. Plus we have to worry about financing a lifestyle appropriate for advanced women. I speak French dammit! I deserve to live in New York and spend all day talking about fashion.

Anonymous said...

I have a good deal of experience with this kind of nonsense myself, since many of my relatives are Euro expatriates.

The first and most obvious question that comes to mind is, hey, if your home country is so great why did you leave?

Another question that comes to mind in this case - so you come to the USA, work here, pay taxes here, then when you get knocked up by some American "commitment-phobe" you take the spawn back to Europe and sponge off their welfare system? You don't see anything wrong with that?

A funny anecdote - a relative of mine graduated high school in Europe but didn't score high enough on the entrance exam to go to their "free" universities. She came to America where she got an affordable education at a small private school and went on to a solid career. She still talks about how much better Europe is, including their "free education through graduate school".

SFG said...

I wonder if American men are screwed by an ironic combination of feminist divorce laws and American tough-on-crimeness should divorce happen. The European social welfare system may lessen the consequences of poverty from large alimony payments.

Marriage, to me, strikes me as a huge financial risk given the large amount of alimony a woman can collect...unless the woman is a high earner herself. But they always have high standards.

It's interesting that you mention self-absorption, and not once does the female writer consider what might be going through the men's heads. Not even from a feminist 'evil men refuse to commit' point of view. It simply doesn't occur to her to put herself in the man's shoes.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

Maybe I've been reading too much of Roissy's stuff, but it seems to me that what this woman is saying is that she wants to leave all her options open (with someone else footing the tab, naturally) and in the next breath moans about American men who do the very same thing.

Anonymous said...

Choosing a mate is so crucial to the female sex

Here's a little secret, ladies - it's equally crucial to the male sex.

We just don't talk about it.

Glaivester said...

Shorter Erika Kawalek:

"I don't want a husband. I want a live-in 'friend with benefits.' I can afford this because I can force everyone else to support me in my home country."

Dutch Boy said...

Marriage exists for the procreation and socialization of children. By that standard, the Europeans are doing a miserable job (and we're not far behind).

Anonymous said...

It's a hilarious way of putting it, "closing the deal" for a "high value" husband. Women like this seem neurotic and overly verbose (read as nagging), eventually wearing down the spouse. If I were a "high value" kind of guy I think I'd convert to Islam. Let the family screen the prospective bride, they'd probably do a more objective job. Also, the division of labor is clear so no infringing on my prerogatives is allowed. Lastly,if there's too much carping the threat of taking a second spouse would act as a checking mechanism. Might be worth taking a look at by the high value guys.

ASDF said...

This is why I'm looking to offshore my income; the social contract is dead. As a male Canadian taxpayer, I am puzzled as to why I am supposed to pay for random women to raise their illegitimate children in a "coven of like-minded women". As an aside, I can think of no worse environment in which to raise a boy.

SGOTI said...

The problem is women will almost ALWAYS vote for security over liberty.

"When your government provides you, as they do in Canada and in Europe, with blahblahblahblahblah that is unlinked to a jobor "productivity," . . . "

Despite the fact that this ultimately unsustainable model evenexists, Europeans are all failing to procreate in some disastrous form or another.

Zarathustra said...

Erika Kowalek is the second from the left:

http://tinyurl.com/ygvpc4y

Yes Erika, that's exactly why all those New York City bigshots won't marry you; it's because America doesn't pay couples a $250 credit for child care, and not because those men are having too much fun screwing around with 20-ish women to marry you.

And just in case anyone is wondering, the United States has, by far, the lowest age at first marriage of any developed country.

http://tinyurl.com/yzax2ed
http://tinyurl.com/yl85xrs

Anonymous said...

Misogyny thread! This should be a good one.

Obvious troll: Jewish women are the most self-absorbed.

Anonymous said...

What's the marriage rate for 30 year olds in Canada, Europe and America? Does this back up her assertion that European/Canadians are more likely to marry than Americans?

she didn't write the piano essay said...

This is just a stupid attempt to politicize the personal, but then we've all heard the saying, 'the personal is political'. These over-educated bitches aren't content to seek power and wealth as individuals; they need to feel they have a controlling stake in all of society. After all, they went to Ivy League Schools which taught them they are the best and brightest and should change society for the betterment of all of us.
So, this bitch uses the issue of personal happiness to argue for 'social democracy'. But then, Rush Limbaugh did it too. Fat boy couldn't have a bogus heart attack without using it as a platform to promote healthcare-as-it-is.

Btw, why are birthrates so low in Europe if European men are so much more family oriented? And what kind of man(or family)relies on the state to take care of everything? These Europeans seem to be children forever, expecting the nanny state to change their own diapers.

If women do feel more secure in Europe and Canada, it's because there are fewer blacks in those places. But, as the demographics changes due to massive immigration from places in North Africa, European women will be singing a different tune.

In America, a lot of money goes to living in 'safe places' because of fear of black crime. In a mostly white European country, you can be poor and still live in a reasonably safe neighborhood. Not in the US. If you're poor and surrounded by blacks, you're in BIG trouble. Jews must know this since they all live in the poshest place protected by tons of white cops.

Glossy said...

"Like you, my friends who are paired off but not married are not waiting for the guy to pop the question."

Ah, so they've given up. Accepted defeat.

"It's an annoying article."

And they're annoyed to be reminded of that.

"I want to emphasize something about the difference between the state of affairs for women in America and in the rest of the civilized world."

She then goes on to talk exclusively about Canada and Europe, implying that she only thinks of the West as civilized. Can someone alert the SPLC? j/k. But seriously, I'm all into HBD and even I'm not that hard-core about these things. I have no problem admitting that big chunks of East Asia are civilized.

"But what makes the European hunks so commitment-happy—a phase that typically takes many New York men until their 40s to reach? ... Maybe it’s the surplus of E.U. benefits—free day care, health care, and tax benefits even for unmarried couples—that makes the possibility of contented ménage a more realistic proposition at an earlier age."

But unfortunately in Europe that doesn't translate into high birth rates. In fact, the white US birth rate is higher than that of most Euro countries.

"I'm always baffled that women here don't demand the same benefits on which we Canadian and European women rely."

Canada and Europe have fewer potential free-riders (NAMS).

"When your government provides you, as they do in Canada and in Europe, with health care that is unlinked to a job or "productivity,"

OMG. Translation: she dreams about having kids with unproductive men (bad boys, alphas). The only kind of men who would be able to provide well for women without government help are boring, nerdy betas whom she hates. Why not use the government to take the betas' hard-earned money from them and give it to single women and to sexy, unproductive men, so that these last two could mate in comfort, without ever having to look at the losers who ultimately feed them?

jody said...

"Choosing a mate is so crucial to the female sex"

and yet women of almost all races are, on average, so catastrophically TERRIBLE at deciding which men to have sex with.

it's not until their 30s that they even START to realize which men they SHOULD be having sex with. by then, the number of life ruining mistakes they may have made is higher than the number of fingers on their hands.

it is one of the great mysteries of life: the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING women have evolved to do, correctly identify which males to have sex with, is one of the things they are by far the worst at.

women of average IQ for their race are so, SO easily tricked into having sex with the wrong men. only modern medicine protects them from total disaster.

Christo said...

My deep impression is that European women (UK excepted), despite "cradle to grave care" for everyone, are much more respectful of men than women here in the United States. The media, and advertising conglomerates over there, do not relentlessly hammer on the so called short comings of men.

Here, in the United States, the ridicule our youth has been subjected to since the 1960s has been overwhelming. So overwhelming that the sense of manhood, so necessary for a nation's existence, no longer exists. Even among church attendees I note men subjecting themselves to the will of their wives. It is not a pretty sight.

Very few European couples attend church, nonetheless there appears to be a respect among women for the unique capabilities of men--UK of course excepted.
I recently read that in France men are so acerbic in their comments to wives (imagine that here), the government may place monitors in their homes to bring the ridicule under control. A horrible idea, but a step that is not necessary here owing to the TV stations, advertising conglomerates and divorce courts. All of which did the job two, going on three generations ago.

The establishment's trashing of men in US, I believe, is so extensive that it badly damages the country's credibility overseas--even in Europe, let alone the Middle-east, Far East, Africa and Latin America.

Many American men do seek wives overseas, but I have yet to read, or hear of a man from Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, seeking out a quiet, lovely, adoring American woman desirous of "talling up" to her hubby. Because, by in large, they do not exist. From a nation's standpoint, this is a biologically fatal state of affairs.
Perhaps one of your readers might confirm, qualify, quantify, or correct my premises--or the premises of Ms. Kawalek.

jody said...

apropos:

34 year old man probably killed his 26 year playboy playmate girlfriend in miami. her body was found burned to cinders in a dumpster.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582412,00.html

note: he broke her nose in a fight last year, yet she stayed with him. yes, women are SO EVOLVED to know which men to have sex with!

a playmate could NEVER do better than a guy who breaks her nose on purpose. breaking of the playmate's nose is de rigueur for any healthy alpha male - playmate female relationship.

Anonymous said...

The benefits sytem doesnt make men more likely to commit, it just makes women more sanguine about getting pregnant (that may be quite unconscious). Regardless of whether their man turns out to be a keeper or not.

Dahinda said...

If women put so much thought into this subject, why do so many women wind up with childish thugs?

albertosaurus said...

What a goofy notion. These young bright and accomplished women who claim to have no problems dating seem to have a problem getting a man to commit to them. Who's to blame? Not them certainly. It must be the government.

Most men have sex with a woman on the first date. That's just the way it is in reality if not in romantic comedy movies. This has been increasingly true since the invention of the pill. This means that these women have been putting out for casual male acquaintances for years suggesting that men like them well enough as sex objects but not nearly enough to marry them. They feel like Kleenex.

Its no wonder that when such embittered women get together they "tear up this country". Otherwise they would have to face the reality that they are viewed by all the men they meet as nothing but physical convieniences.

Grumpy Old Man said...

Except for a brief foray in the third grade, I've never bought into the spectator sports thing. It's probably made my way a bit tougher.

A friend of a friend was a lefty who worked as a Boston cabbie. He picked up a judge, who said, "How about them Pats?" The cabby replied, "Professional sports is a ruse designed by the bourgeoisie to pull the wool over the eyes of the working class." They finished the ride in stony silence.

Eric said...

I'm always baffled that women here don't demand the same benefits on which we Canadian and European women rely.

They do, and that's been the trajectory of American politics for almost fifty years now. It makes sense, from a woman's point of view - why bother getting a man to commit to you when you can just use the government to take his money?

OhioStater said...

I think women are more introverted and men more extroverted. Women worry more about people they know, but men feel fine worrying about people they've never met.

OhioStater said...

You remember your post on the two income trap? I think these foreign men are naive and don't understand how difficult it is to "provide" the basics such as a house in a safe neighborhood!

Mr. Collins said...

I think Jane Austen had the last laugh. She may have died a spinster, but she didn't die in childbirth and people still read her books and remember her. How many of her married women contemporaries, outside the royal family are still remembered.

Anonymous said...

Steve, this is a very important and insightful piece.

Let me lay my cards on the table, As a long time member of the HBD blog-o-sphere, I think the success of our society depends on the genetic characteristics of our grandchildren's generation.

If our grandchildren's generation consists of babies born with a genetically low IQ, we are in trouble as a society and conversely if they consist of babies born with a genetically high IQ, we are in good shape.

Just about everyone in the HBD blog-o-sphere agrees that we as a society should allow no immigration of families with a genetically low IQ. So let's discuss what else we can do to improve the IQ of our grandchildren's generation.

What government policies will result in higher IQ men and women having more children?

I just don't know, and I would very much like to hear the perspective of the people here who share my goals.

Plenty of people on this blog really want taxes on hard working middle class people to be cut. I sympathize with the people who want that but truthfully I see no evidence that cutting taxes on productive people will increase the birth rate of productive people materially. May I point to Hong Kong, which has very low taxes and also has one of the lowest birthrates in the world.

At the same time, Swedish style social benefits don't seem to work either - I see no evidence of a particularly high birth rate among the productive people or the higher IQ people in Sweden.

I hate to sound like a pesimist, but I care intensely about this issue and I see no country that is successful getting high IQ people or productive people to reproduce through government policies.

The places with healthy birthrates seem to have them because of cultural factors, factors not related to the government. So Utah has an high birthrate due to the Mormon religion. Israel has a high birth rate among even its high IQ people due to I think the feelings of being surrounded by enemies and needing lots of kids for the military.

Respectfully, plenty of people on this blog have theories for ways to get low IQ people and unproductive people to have fewer kids. I don't want to discuss that on this thread, what I want to discuss is how do we get the higher IQ people to have kids.

Frankly, I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to have a country where high IQ Americans have plenty of kids. I would also be fine with much lower taxes. I just don't care about any issue other than this issue of birthrates and I'd like to see a healthy debate about it

agnostic said...

In just about every big study of sex diffs in personality, women are higher in extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness. So they're more oriented toward close friends than themselves, and tend to be more modest (guys are more likely to brag and lie).

I think why we suspect women are more self-absorbed is that when they do look inward and pride themselves, they do so with a higher level of neuroticism or emotional instability.

Anonymous said...

"Undignified" is an understatement. That kind of self-promotion is deeply unappealing in women or men. One has to lack basic self-awareness to write something like that (or even to say it).

I don't buy her point. The modern coupling scene is ugly everywhere in the West (both on the ground and from a bird's eye view), and hence our demographic crisis. Furthermore, she exposes her own anxiety all too plainly in her desperate (published!) status advertisements.

If Canadian social welfare was so great for relationships, then the birth rate would be a lot higher in Canada. As Mr. Sailer has pointed out, it appears to be low-tax, low cost-of-living places that promote family formation.

SFG said...

"Obvious troll: Jewish women are the most self-absorbed."

This is not a troll. This is true and the reason for large intermarriage rates. (See, guys! All you have to do is wait...no reason to build the ovens!)

Keyser Söze said...

When your government provides you, as they do in Canada and in Europe, with health care that is unlinked to a job or "productivity," subsidized prescription drugs, child care, free education through graduate school, and, finally, old-age pensions with visiting nurses if you need them to retain your health and a modicum of dignity.

It's true that the medical system in Canada is a government-run monopoly, but most of this isn't true of Canada. There is no subsidized drug benefit, free child care, and most certainly not free education after high school. And the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) is hardly some munificent socialist paradise. Perhaps this woman should learn a bit more about her supposed homeland before comparing it to other ones.

Matra said...

I want to emphasize something about the difference between the state of affairs for women in America and in the rest of the civilized world.

Interesting how many race-blind liberals have this habit of referring to the white majority countries as the "civilized world".

The most common offender in recent years has been Gore Vidal. Whether he's condemning the US for its use of the death penalty or its lack of interest in Kyoto/global warming he always points out that the US is alone in the "civilized world". Even Japan, which still has the death penalty, doesn't get included.

Anonymous said...

Anon said

"it appears to be low-tax, low cost-of-living places that promote family formation"

But what about Singapore? Relatively low tax, relatively low cost of living, Pretty easy for the average Singaporean of Chinese ethnicity to have afford a nice lifestyle with three kids, but yet the Singaporeans of Chinese ancestry don't breed.

I wish that low taxes and low cost of living could be counted on to motivate high IQ people to breed, but where is the evidence ? Show me a country (NOT A REGION OF THE US) in which low taxes and low cost of living persuade people to breed.

Steve Sailer said...

Is Gore Vidal really a race-blind liberal?

Eric said...

In any event, here are the marriage rates by country, with the US at the very top. So she's all wet regarding which countries contain the commitment-phobic men, apparently.

Or maybe it's not the men. Maybe it's just that European women have decided to live in "covens" so they don't have to keep lifting the toilet seat.

Anonymous said...

SFG said...
"Obvious troll: Jewish women are the most self-absorbed."

This is not a troll. This is true and the reason for large intermarriage rates. (See, guys! All you have to do is wait...no reason to build the ovens!)
__
__

SFG, thanks for the best post of the week. Clearly the anti semites on this blog have their head in the sand. the Jewish population of the US is in very rapid decline due to the hunger of most non-religious Christians to marry young Jews. Donald Trump told his daugher to snag a Jewish guy and she did. Bill Clinton gave his daughter the same instructions.

This is the pattern among all high IQ immigrant groups - they get absorbed in to the general population. Ever read Benjamin Franklin complaining about how different immigrants from Germany were? Ever read about the conflicts between Americans of Dutch ancestry and Americans of English ancestry early in our history? Who the heck on this blog even knows if their ancestors were from the Netherlands or England or Germany? We are all melted in to one. The biggest complaint of self aware Jews in America is the coming end of Judaism in this country.

The Jewish communal leadership wishes that American Christians were more anti semetic. Only anti semetism can prevent Christians from marrying Jews. The lack of Anti semetism here means the end of Jews as a group.

What will the Anti semites on this blog do once all the Jews are gone. Will they be able to even find a high IQ ethnic group in the US to complain about?

Melykin said...

Keyzer Soze wrote:
"It's true that the medical system in Canada is a government-run monopoly, but most of this isn't true of Canada. There is no subsidized drug benefit, free child care, and most certainly not free education after high school. And the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) is hardly some munificent socialist paradise. Perhaps this woman should learn a bit more about her supposed homeland before comparing it to other ones."

---------------------------

In British Columbia there is subsidized prescription drugs. I don't pay for drugs at all because I have extra insurance from my work, but even without that you only pay the first $500 in a year. After that the government picks up the tab.

But I agree there is no free daycare and no free post-secondary education. Except in Quebec maybe. They get everything because they whine so much.

Melykin said...

Glossy wrote:
"Canada and Europe have fewer potential free-riders (NAMS)."
------------------------------

Europe has LOTS of potential free-riders, most of the Muslim. And they tend to have very large families too.

Canada might be heading this way too if we keep letting boats loads of Tamil tigers into the country.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Tamil+community+urges+process+migrants+seized+Victoria/2117303/story.html

Since this article was written most of the 76 Tamil Tigers on that boat have been released in Canada to await a refugee hearing. We are so God Damned stupid.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read through all the comments so maybe someone made this point already, but the NYT publishes dreck like that because it fits in with their socialist agenda. Women in the real world are just as likely to be have obsessive interests as men are. Our obsessive interests bore men just like men's bore us. I care about basketball as much you care about knitting. I have a hard time imagining that anyone could even write a whole book about basketball, and you probably feel the same way about knitting. And yet there is a whole wonderful (to me) world of knitting history, knitting techniques, learning how to spin and dye so as to have more yarn to knit with, designing clothing to make with the yarn I spun and dyed and knitted, and this makes men want to DIE just like sports makes me want to DIE.

Anonymous said...

"Which sex is more self-absorbed?"

Let's see. Compare, The Book of Basketball, by Bill Simmons with Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. Both authors are about the same age. Both fairly prosperous, educated Americans. Both books were big sellers. (Gilbert's extremely so).

Simmons writes about basketball, not about Bill Simmons,( except as a fan). Though he does have a lot of opinions. It's very *male* in that Simmons talks about strippers and porn and sports alot, without apolgies too.

Gilbert writes about her divorce, her feelings, her depression, her love of travel, her love of food, how great 3rd world countries were for her spiritual development, etc.

I'd have to say Women are more self-absorbed if these are representative samples.

Anonymous said...

Gays probably most of all.

Whiskey said...

Austen came from a very restricted time, when a man's income was critical, along with his social standing.
----------------------
My point, and Roissy's, is that modern welfare systems PLUS anonymous urban living PLUS contraception PLUS vastly increased status/earnings for women (cited in the post) mean that women have a decisively DIFFERENT set of criteria for men.

Note, happiness to have single motherhood or a "coven of women" (ick).

When women don't need a "Kitchen Bitch" (i.e. a guy who cooks and is a dependable earner) they choose excitement and domination. That tattooed bicycle messenger you noted in the coffee shop. These are the guys that women WANT to attract, and it is stronger in Europe (according to "the Rawness" blogger).

Ferdinand Bardamu, the blogger at inmalafide.com, has a link of a Black woman divorcing her husband because he was "too nice" by telling her he loved her twice a week and cooking for her a lot. She tells the judge she'd rather have a guy who ran around on her.

What this amounts to is women chase Alphas as long as their attractiveness holds out, and then "settle" for some guy they really loathe but want help for child-rearing. Then they divorce when the kids are old enough.

Jody is quite correct. Women always overestimate their ability to control violent, dominant men. They don't need to sacrifice testosterone for loyalty-faithfulness, so they choose violent testosterone domination. Rihanna, Lauren London, being among the best known, but Madonna (Sean Penn) being another example.

Mr. Anon said...

"Zarathustra said...

Erika Kowalek is the second from the left:

http://tinyurl.com/ygvpc4y

Yes Erika, that's exactly why all those New York City bigshots won't marry you; it's because America doesn't pay couples a $250 credit for child care, and not because those men are having too much fun screwing around with 20-ish women to marry you."

She looks fine to me. Her problem is not that she's physically unattractive. Her problem is that she comes across like a bitch on wheels.

My vote for best post on this topic: Udolpho's. I feel the exact same way about Slate - reading it is like getting a concentrated dose of NPR.

Steve Sailer said...

By the way, Simmons' wife, the mother of his two children, appears to have zero interest in basketball.

OhioStater said...

Wow, 52 comments in a very short period of time, and most of them discuss the female aspect and ignore the male aspect (Bill Simmons) of your post.

Is that because noone cares about Bill Simmmons or basketball, but every one cares about sex?

Or is it because its controversial for a women to be self absorbed, but not controversial if a man is self absorbed?

Anonymous said...

The comparison isn't between a book about basketball and Eat, Pray, Love. It's between books about subjects and other books about subjects, and books about feelings and eroticism and other books about feelings and eroticism. Here are some books on subjects that are interesting to women, contemporary and historical:

http://www.amazon.com/Womens-Work-First-Years-Society/dp/0393313484/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262901056&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Respect-Spindle-Infinite-Yarns-Amazing/dp/1596681551/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262901291&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Womans-Day-Book-American-Needlework/dp/B000CQDX7Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262901346&sr=1-1-spell

(that last one is by American libertarian Rose Wilder Lane, who ghostwrote her more famous mother's more famous books)

Books about feelings and eroticism written by men? I don't know about any contemporary ones because I don't follow contemporary literature, but Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, Jack Kerouac spring immediately to mind as being just as genital/self-obsessed as the author of Eat, Pray, Love.

And note, I typed this post with one hand while feeding my 1yo avocado with the other and while my 6yo nattered at me about salad dressing and spinning tops. I will have to finish raising my children before I can write anything that requires uninterrupted time and concentration, something that men with children take very much for granted.

Chief Seattle said...

Since when were Canadians honorary Europeans? That's the biggest delusion of all for this author.

flenser said...

is it because its controversial for a women to be self absorbed, but not controversial if a man is self absorbed?




Simmons is not self-absorbed. He's absorbed in something outside himself - basketball. The women in question are absorbed with being women.

Steve Setzer said...

@Anonymous (asking how to raise birth rates of high IQ groups):

The problem of low birth rates among the most intelligent members of civilized (city-dwelling) people is not new. Both Julius and Augustus Caesar tried to induce Roman-born men and women from high families to have more children -- with no success. Will Durant wrote of Julius that he found that "children were a luxury only the poor could afford."

You can't separate out the cultural elements. Wealth induces the desire for more wealth, more goods, and more ease. It takes strong belief systems to induce people to sacrifice wealth and ease for the benefit of others -- especially for the benefit of squally babies, whiny little kids, and truculent teenagers, not to mention a tired, overworked spouse. In other words, without religion -- serious, ascetic, hard-core religion -- you are unlikely to induce modern high IQ men and women to have more than one "trophy" child. (Even in Israel, I believe the high IQ people with the highest birthrates are the ultra-Orthodox types.)

So the answer to your question is simple, but difficult to achieve and offensive to many. To meaningfully increase high IQ birth rates, you must establish a challenging, difficult religion at the heart of your society. Or more than one religion. A city made up solely of Mormons, Hasidim and Brahmins would be filled with smart children.

Whether Erika Kawalek would want to live there is a different question.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to get some more example of women who obsessively catalog and write about textiles the way men do about sports into this thread

Barbara Walker

Elizabeth Zimmermann

Peggy Osterkamp

Then of course there are the better known great female food writers and chefs, like Julia Child, Elizabeth David, and Alice Walker. MFK Fisher is a great writer as well as a great food writer, because she combines feminine self-obsession with real knowledge about food, as I would say great male writers also do. And there are what I guess the NYT would call "total lifestyle artists" like Tasha Tudor.

Paul Mendez said...

GOM sez: "Except for a brief foray in the third grade, I've never bought into the spectator sports thing. It's probably made my way a bit tougher."

I know what you mean. Talking sports is a critical aspect of socializing with unfamiliar males. It fills up the awkward interval while you're sizing each other up.

I have zero interest in spectator sports, but I've learned to fake it. I monitor sports news for a few non-controversial talking points on the local teams, toss them out, ask the other guy's opinion and then let him do the talking.

Svigor said...

Er, I think a book about knitting makes a hell of a lot more sense than a book about basketball. Say, an order of magnitude, at least.

But then, basketball sucks ass. I'm kinda watching football again, but even when I'm not I think it's a sport worth watching, and I think a book about knitting still makes an order of magnitude more sense than a book about football.

Well, unless I'm in the book's revenue stream. :)

Svigor said...

Lol, the iStevers have taken a thread about chicks and made it about anti-anti-Semitism.

Dahlia said...

"agnostic said...

I think why we suspect women are more self-absorbed is that when they do look inward and pride themselves, they do so with a higher level of neuroticism or emotional instability."

Original and strikes me, intuitively, as being right.

Steve,
I suspect another reason for the self-absorption is the low-quality of the average female journalist. If they were hired only for quality, there would be far fewer of them. As such, for every Heather McDonald, we get 10 Ellen Goodmans and Maureen Dowds.

"Jody said,

34 year old man probably killed his 26 year playboy playmate girlfriend in miami. her body was found burned to cinders in a dumpster.

note: he broke her nose in a fight last year, yet she stayed with him. yes, women are SO EVOLVED to know which men to have sex with!

a playmate could NEVER do better than a guy who breaks her nose on purpose. breaking of the playmate's nose is de rigueur for any healthy alpha male - playmate female relationship."

You are using the example of a slut to demonstrate that the majority of women pick bad mates?? Drug addicts, welfare recipients, and all-around low I.Q types also pick bad mates.

And no, we would not expect such a woman to do much better. She will only be attracted to dirt bags because she's one herself, yet there will always be a few good guys (usually young nerds) who genuinely cannot see the difference between a slut and a good woman and will prefer the former.
I tend to think this comes from an uber-male brain that, tending to objectify and quantify everything, sees women only as sex objects and will choose whoever exudes sluttiness most.

Anonymous said...

"Self-absorbed" is the right term. That writer thinks because she believes being multilingual, educated, world-travelling, etc-etc, is nice, men should too. Actually, men don't care much about those things. If she were pretty, that would be better.

Anonymous said...

"Wow, 52 comments in a very short period of time, and most of them discuss the female aspect and ignore the male aspect (Bill Simmons) of your post."

You mean the six sentences about Simmons at the very beginning of the post, which say little except that he really likes basketball?

Well, frankly, I think it's because there's nothing terribly controversial about saying that Bill Simmons really likes basketball.

Steve Sailer said...

"Then of course there are the better known great female food writers and chefs,"

Right.

If I was making a list of aspects of American culture that have indisputably improved in my lifetime, cooking would be the surest bet. The best thing is that it's not just that the superstar chefs are better, it's the millions of dedicated amateurs, a large majority of them women, who have significantly improved their abilities.

Anonymous said...

My vote for most self absorbed person would be Oprah Winfrey. She has a magazine, called O, that features her on the cover every single month. And everything she does is deeply spiritual and amazing and empowering. You go girl!

look up said...

Earth people in general are self-absorbed. They only think earthlings exist in the whole universe. I try to interest guys in stuff from "out there", but they appear to be too blinded by my earthy beauty and allure. But mark my word, someday those ET suckers are going to take us all over, and those who didn't pay attention are going to be sorry.
Self-absorbtion is a terrible price to pay.

jody said...

"You are using the example of a slut to demonstrate that the majority of women pick bad mates?"

she wasn't a slut. she was in a steady relationship for 2 years with this guy. except for being unusually good looking, she was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NORMAL IN EVERY WAY. in case you haven't learned anything about life, it is alarmingly common for women to allow their boyfriends and husbands to beat them. instead of leaving them, they tolerate this. for years.

i don't understand how any man over the age of 25 or so has not noticed by now how frequent it is for women in their late 20s and early 30s to be toting around "accident" children that they had with some guy who abandoned them years ago. this is almost common today. women in their late 20s with 1 or 2 kids that she stupidly had with some douchebag who had zero intentions of sticking around. men who offered the women nothing. men who did not have much money, brains, looks, or status. it's one thing to allow a man with money, brains, looks, or status to treat you badly or to get you pregnant. that is a tradeoff. it is altogether different to allow men with none of these things to get you pregnant and then leave you.

a single female attempting to raise 1 or 2 accident children IS AN EVOLUTIONARY DISASTER. it is the most disadvantaged position a human can find themselves in. this is the scenario with the lowest odds of success.

women have a major biological directive in life: avoid having accident children. yet they fail catastrophically at a regular rate.

there are lots of behaviors and capabilities built into men. on average they are good at remembering directions and locations, throwing objects, and handling tools. things that they had to be good at for 50000 years, before modern technology. what are women good at naturally? on average they're terrible at the one thing they needed to be great at. the typical IQ 100 genetically european female is an idiot at deciphering which penis to allow inside her.

the only analogy i can make here, with regards to technology screwing up natural genetic capability, is the proliferation of humans who can't see a damn thing without glasses or contacts. they didn't exist in large numbers 1000 years ago. they just died, because they couldn't see.

corvinus said...

So the answer to your question is simple, but difficult to achieve and offensive to many. To meaningfully increase high IQ birth rates, you must establish a challenging, difficult religion at the heart of your society. Or more than one religion. A city made up solely of Mormons, Hasidim and Brahmins would be filled with smart children.

Not sure about Brahmins... I know for a fact that Parsis have European birth rates and are dying out, and Jains are not far behind. The Sikhs have also fallen below replacement, although admittedly they would probably not have had were it not for their rampant son preference.

Traditional Catholicism (before it was "reformed" in Vatican II) would have qualified; Quebec in the 1950s had a population growth rate rivaling Somalia today.

DYork said...

Erika Kowalek is the second from the left:

http://tinyurl.com/ygvpc4y


No, that's not her. That's someone named Marlene Kawalek

Here's Erika Kawalek looking not too self absorbed and full of herself.

"Yes, yes, yes,Oh, mememememememeee!!!

SFG said...

"Obvious troll: Jewish women are the most self-absorbed."

This is not a troll. This is true and the reason for large intermarriage rates.

(See, guys! All you have to do is wait...no reason to build the

ovens!
)


Great, now let's all watch and see if Whiskey can match that for

irrationality and paranoia! Come on Whiskey you can do it.

Anonymous said...

SFG said...
"Obvious troll: Jewish women are the most self-absorbed."

This is not a troll. This is true and the reason for large intermarriage

rates. (See, guys! All you have to do is wait...no reason to build the

ovens!)
__
__

SFG, thanks for the best post of the week. Clearly the anti semites on

this blog have their head in the sand. the Jewish population of the US is in

very rapid decline due to the hunger of most non-religious Christians to

marry young Jews.


Or the unrelenting hunger of the Jewish male to marry a shiksa goddess

and get the hell away from Jewish women.

Donald Trump told his daugher to snag a Jewish guy and she did. Bill

Clinton gave his daughter the same instructions.


Don't for get JFK's daughter and Al Gore's daughter! (Gore's other

daughter married a Chinese guy.)

The biggest complaint of self aware Jews in America is the coming

end of Judaism in this country.


"Self aware" being code for "racist". All Jews have to do is eliminate the

racist underpinnings of Judaism and be more open to converts. Problem

solved.

What will the Anti semites on this blog do once all the Jews are gone.

Will they be able to even find a high IQ ethnic group in the US to

complain about?


Or what will self righteous bigots like you do when all the imaginary

anti-semites are gone? Who will be left to complain about?

"Homophobes"? Mormons?

ben tillman said...

This is just a stupid attempt to politicize the personal....

I think that's Steve's point, or at least one point he's making here.

DYork said...

Steve Sailer said...

Is Gore Vidal really a race-blind liberal?


No, he's a SWPL old Queen. Like all the other SWPL types he uses blacks as a limus test to establish himself as morally and socially superior to the "Other White people".

Anonymous said...

Simmons talks about strippers and porn and sports alot, without apolgies too.


Simmons is a wormy, Beta White guy.

"Strippers, porn and sports" = bonding with other loser males while a naked female taunts them, watching other men have sex with women, and watching large black men play sports.

Is he self absorbed? Partly because he wants you to read about his feeling about these activities.

But if he were really self absorb and was an Alpha male he'd be having sex with the women and he'd be playing the sports. But he doesn't have the genetics for it.

Here's Simmons talking to the relentlessly self absorbed genius Adam Carolla. Note the photo of Simmons and that godawful, nerd voice of his. Does he have ANY testosterone in his body?

Whiskey said...

That tattooed bicycle messenger you noted in the coffee shop. These are the guys that women WANT to attract, and it is stronger in Europe.


"That tatooed bicycle messenger"!!!!! Unbelievable. OK, not as wacked out as the goofball who talked about guys on here building ovens to wipe out the Jews. But a wonderful moment of classic Whiskeyism.

Ferdinand Bardamu, the blogger at inmalafide.com, has a link of a Black woman divorcing her husband because he was "too nice" by telling her he loved her twice a week and cooking for her a lot. She tells the judge she'd rather have a guy who ran around on her.

No she didn't. She explicitly said she didn't want a man who "ran around on her". At 2:30 of the clip.

Whiskey never lets the facts get in the way of his paranoia driven inability to relate to women.

Bob said...

Boy Mrs. Udolpho is a lucky gal having snagged a man who is driven to violent rages reading Slate and casually tosses around the word "whore" and "twat" when he doesn't like a woman.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"So let's discuss what else we can do to improve the IQ of our grandchildren's generation.

"What government policies will result in higher IQ men and women having more children?
"I just don't know, and I would very much like to hear the perspective of the people here who share my goals."

Here's an idea -- dubious about its chances of passing, but it would definitely work to increase the IQs of the babies being born.

Every girl at age 12 - 15 gets an IQ test. If SUB 100, she gets paid as a teen NOT to get preg. Sliding scale -- the lower the IQ, the more she gets. After she reaches 22, the pay ends. At that point she can do what she will. (So we don't get accused of trying to commit genocide -- we market this as preventing teen preg.) Since low-IQs are more likely to get preg as teens due to lower ability to delay gratification, PAYING them NOT to get preg as teens ought to decrease their lifetime total fertility.

If 100 + she gets paid AFTER MARRIAGE to have kids -- sliding scale again, the more IQ points and the more kids, the bigger the check SO LONG AS SHE IS MARRIED. (to prevent wisegirls from getting knocked up out of wedlock or dumping hubby) High IQ-ers are capable of delaying gratification, therefore if the smart girls only get paid to be moms if they're married, it ought to A: make them more inclined to marry and B: relieve some of the extreme pressure to earn high salaries to secure housing in a safe (i.e., White) neighborhood off these couples -- lessening the need, with its fertility dampening effect, for 2 incomes.

Again, we market this as preventing unwed motherhood, "strengthening the family," etc.

Yeah, it'd cost a bunch, but the longterm payoff in reduction of welfare, ergo, low-IQ, babies ought to be HUGE.

Bob said...

Gore Vidal just enjoys shocking people, the PC police included. He said this when asked about Obama's supposed "coolness"

"Slaves have a hard time making poetry unless it's got a beat."

He also was a pen-pal with Timothy McVeigh, whose letters he either faked, or else is surprisingly eloquent.

http://www.iserand.com/Gore_Vidal_McVeigh_2001.htm

Victoria said...

In other words, without religion -- serious, ascetic, hard-core religion -- you are unlikely to induce modern high IQ men and women to have more than one "trophy" child.

Yes, you're so right. Religion offers a couple meaningful reasons for submitting themselves to all the child-raising negatives you list. If you can hype yourself up on religion, you could probably be convinced to have a half dozen children. And when that inevitable question arises, "Why the hell did I get myself into this?," the religion comes to the rescue with its bona fide answers.

Victoria said...

Donald Trump told his daugher to snag a Jewish guy and she did. Bill Clinton gave his daughter the same instructions.

Why do you make up lies like this? You don't know anything of the sort. Because these women chose Jews for mates does not mean they were following "instructions." So, every time you hear of a gentile woman marrying a Jew, you're going to claim that the father made them do it? Who or what compels Jewish men to marry shiksas? A psychological desire to sock it to gentile males, maybe?

The Jewish communal leadership wishes that American Christians were more anti semetic.

You got that right, and not just for reasons of preventing inter-marriage.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"I will have to finish raising my children before I can write anything that requires uninterrupted time and concentration, something that men with children take very much for granted."

Word! I remember when my kids were toddlers. One afternoon they both actually fell asleep at the same time. Heading for the kitchen, I stopped short in mid-step.
I hollered downstairs to my husband who was watching a dull basketball game, "Holy COW! I can't believe it! I just had an uninterrupted thought!" He replied sleepily, "What are you going on about?"
Oops. My shout of joy woke the young'uns up. Well, that was short and sweet.

Anonymous said...

My wife is Russian, which is different than Europe to a degree, but they like their men to have a set of balls. They like men to be men so they can be free to be women. They don't need someone else competing in what they consider their sphere if influence. Here the women want to be men and the men want to be women.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"To meaningfully increase high IQ birth rates, you must establish a challenging, difficult religion at the heart of your society"

After World War II, France, in order to repopulate its country, PAID women to have kids. It worked.

Bill said...

The best thing is that it's not just that the superstar chefs are better, it's the millions of dedicated amateurs, a large majority of them women, who have significantly improved their abilities.

-Steve Sailer


You must not run much with the under-40 set.

As a rule, younger women are lousy cooks -- they eat out all the time and can't be bothered with learning the ins and outs of preparing a good meal.

Older boomer women, on the other hand, do seem to be much better at cooking than they used to be. Lord knows they were terrible as young women (I was very frequently subjected to their cooking as a child), but they seem to have gained an appreciation for the art after menopause.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"I wanted to get some more example of women who obsessively catalog and write about textiles the way men do about sports into this thread"

Another example of women writing obsessively about cooking/food:

Cake Wrecks -- it's surely hard to believe any man would care about something as frivolous as cake decorating, and especially care enough to obsess when it's done badly.

Cake Wrecks is one of the most popular blogs on the web.

Anonymous said...

"Or what will self righteous bigots like you do when all the imaginary

anti-semites are gone? Who will be left to complain about?"

Yes, they are all imaginary on this blog. Nobody here is anti-Semitic and it's the Jews who are the real racists. Got it.

I figure that if all the Jews disappeared overnight, all of you wingnut goyim would begin to accuse each other of being secret Jews.

Sadly, this is all I can post about this subject because my superiors at the Jewish-controlled Bilderberg Group told me not to reveal too much information.

Anonymous said...

I'm puzzled by the reference to divorce ALWAYS screwing the man. Is this ALWAYS true? Doesn't it depend on the state? I have been under the impression (listening to some bitter conversations) that feminism, as early as the early 70s, changed the rules of divorce from favoring women to such a degree that things were drastically different.
Personally I have not seen women benefit monetarily from divorce, or collect alimony. In fact I doub t such a thing exists nowadays for women under, oh, 70.
Common assets have to be sold, such as the house.
There should be a study on this subject, because however bitter someone's personal experience may be, we need to look at stats. I am just curious.

Anonymous said...

Respectfully, DYork,
how long have you been on this blog? If you have been here as long as I have, you will have seen a pretty pronounced set of comments from commentators who basically say "my daughter was impregnated by a NAM, my son is on meth, and it is all because of the bad influence of the religious group that controls the media - if that group didn't control the media my kids would not be such a humiliation to me"

So DYork, nothing is being imagined. There is a bitter subset of people here who blame their problems on a certain high IQ religious group. Go back and read SFG's post - he is telling these people that there is no need for them to build the ovens. He is talking to you about ovens, only to the "bitter subset"

Anonymous said...

DYork
you must be new here. One of the best remembered ISteve posts of all time is about his discussion with a bicycle messenger covered in Tats.

Anonymous said...

Jody makes a good point, and it applies to smart women, too. Even educated, privileged, and bright young women who come from intact families are making terrible relational and reproductive choices. And they do it repeatedly. And their peers are doing nothing to dissuade them; if anything, modern women seem to encourage each other to make disastrous, life-altering choices. (Why does "Sex and the City" come to mind as I write this?)

Even those who don't find themselves with accidental offspring have spent so much of their youth with men who never intended to make a commitment to them that, by the time that they figure this out, their best reproductive years are behind them and their history has made them less desirable to the men who are genuinely looking for wives.

Steve Sailer said...

"it's surely hard to believe any man would care about something as frivolous as cake decorating"

Cakes are mostly seen at weddings and birthday parties -- events that are of some importance to the people involved. If cake decorating is frivolous, it's frivolity in the higher cause of treating people special on their big days.

As for the NBA ...

Anonymous said...

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form,

that is a brilliant idea. Thank you for posting it. EOM

Anonymous said...

"Personally I have not seen women benefit monetarily from divorce, or collect alimony. In fact I doub t such a thing exists nowadays for women under, oh, 70.
Common assets have to be sold, such as the house.
There should be a study on this subject, because however bitter someone's personal experience may be, we need to look at stats. I am just curious."

As another mere anecdote, this one showing divorce favoring the man:

My sister married a jerk, a con man (imo).

They then bought a very cheap, beat up repo house, using my sister's -- and only my sister's --entire, very substantial savings which she brought into the marriage, as the down payment. Together they fixed it up -- my sister working right alongside and just as hard as the guy.

One night, he got drunk and wrecked HER car. When she flipped her lid about it, he walked out and went back to his old girlfriend.
So the divorce settlement required the house be sold -- and HE GOT HALF THE (very substantial) PROFIT -- even though he had contributed zero on the down payment! He never even paid to fix her car or her increased insurance rates that resulted.

Mercifully no childen issued from the "marriage."

Glossy said...

"Granted, it's hard to take humorless women seriously. Yet, Jane Austen had a sense of humor, and she died a spinster, so who's laughing now?"

The reason why Austen died a spinster became apparent to me when I first saw her only surviving portrait, painted by her sister Cassandra. In that picture she is only 35 years old.

Re: Jody's point:

In the past women's innate preference for bad boys did not wreak as much havoc as it does now because potential suitors had to meet the approval of the brides' parents. No sane parents would want any bad boys anywhere near their beloved daughters. Women didn't have to evolve an aversion for bad boys because their fathers already possessed enough of it, and it was the girl's father, not the girl herself, who ultimately screened suitors.

Also, in the pre-industrial age, when starvation was a constant threat for most, beta providers must have looked more attractive to women and their parents than they do now. Modern technology (all of it invented by beta nerds) led to relative prosperity, which in turn made socialist redistribution possible. This prosperity and this redistribution made women less dependent on male providers, allowing them to go with their hearts, which were always with bad boy alphas.

Anonymous said...

"Don't for get JFK's daughter and Al Gore's daughter! (Gore's other
daughter married a Chinese guy.)"

Gore's son-in-law, Dr. Andrew Schiff, is actually Episcopalian although he has some Jewish ancestors (including especially the famous Jacob Schiff).

Willard Libby said...

Anonymous said...

Respectfully, DYork, how long have you been on this blog?


About eight or nine years.

If you have been here as long as I have, you will have seen a pretty pronounced set of comments from commentators who basically say "my daughter was impregnated by a NAM, my son is on meth, and it is all because of the bad influence of the religious group that controls the media - if that group didn't control the media my kids would not be such a humiliation to me"

Again, that's wonderful paranoia on your part and I'm sure it allows you as a Jew to feel all warm and comfy inside knowing that the Bad Goyim are still out there waiting to pounce once again.

Or maybe as a shabbos goy you simply use the eternal battle of Noble Jews and imaginary anti-semites to reflect better on yourself as a superior being.

Whatever the case, criticism of "the media" and the disproportionate Jewish liberal presence in it is legitimate and necessary to understanding American society.

So DYork, nothing is being imagined. There is a bitter subset of people here who blame their problems on a certain high IQ religious group.

It is imaginary and self serving.

It's not the supposed high IQ of Jewish leftists and Israeli firsters that are at issue here. The criticism of rabid pro immigration Jewish leftists or rabid neocon Zionists is legitimate and necessary. Actual people with actual ethnic bias are in fact influencing American society and policies.

When they are "WASPs" nobody has any trouble acknowledging it. When they are Jews we are all supposed to pretend not to notice and then smugly play the "anti-semitism card".

I'd rather be open and try to understand what's really going on. I think that's why so many of us respect Steve Sailer's efforts.

Steve Sailer said...

"it's surely hard to believe any man would care about something as frivolous as cake decorating"

Cakes are mostly seen at weddings and birthday parties -- events that are of some importance to the people involved. If cake decorating is frivolous, it's frivolity in the higher cause of treating people special on their big days.


The bigger issue is the fact the pie will always kick cake butt.

A bad pie will beat a good cake.

I want that on my tombstone.

Anonymous said...

If you have been here as long as I have, you will have seen a pretty pronounced set of comments from commentators who basically say "my daughter was impregnated by a NAM, my son is on meth, and it is all because of the bad influence of the religious group that controls the media - if that group didn't control the media my kids would not be such a humiliation to me"

Surely you can produce an example, then?

Anonymous said...

A related question - Which ethno-religious group is more self absorbed?

Jews or so called "Wasps".

Remember a Bad Jew is one who rejects his ethnic identity.

A Bad Wasp is one who maintains it.

Nancy said...

From the article:

"When we talk about dating or the possibility of having family, with a man or on our own or with—gasp!—a coven of like-minded women (why not?), the conversation is framed entirely by the fact that we can count on our native countries to look after us..."

I'm embarrassed for my gender, for all womanhood when I read something like this. I hope that women who think like this will not reproduce or at least not reproduce at a rate sufficient to sustain in the population the traits they exhibit. Let's hope selective pressure rids us of them.

This thinking shows it's all about them, not about kids, not about being a good parent who provides a loving home for those kids, kids who deserve to have a loving father in their lives as much as a loving mother.

This is "bitch-thinking" and it's no different than the "bastard thinking" of fathers who abandon their kids.


So the deal is that the lower IQs in our society act like rabbits, having babies all over the place and living off the state (us), "raising" those kids with no stable, loving male presence in their lives. Then, as if that's not bad enough, these supposed high IQs like this bitch are thinking of having a kid and act as if they couldn't care less if the kid had a loving father.

Maybe it's only the middle IQs who've any sense and selflessness.

Or maybe this bitch is a damn liar who is pissed she hasn't landed a decent man. I can see why.

Steve Sailer said...

"Respectfully, DYork, how long have you been on this blog?"

DYork and I have been exchanging emails from years before I hosted comments.

Nancy said...

I bemoan the loss of manhood in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Personally I have not seen women benefit monetarily from divorce, or collect alimony. In fact I doub t such a thing exists nowadays for women under, oh, 70.

That's cause they're all off spending their alimony (it's called spousal support now) on yarn.

Seriously don't you know any... people? Of any sort? I could walk on my husband tomorrow and be set for freaking life. I am not unusual.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

DYork
you must be new here. One of the best remembered ISteve posts of all time is about his discussion with a bicycle messenger covered in Tats."

As I recall, it was about a bycycle messenger who made a comment about a girl who had a lot of tattoos - something to the effect of: well, she obviously has bad judgement, so she must be an easy lay. Which does change the moral of the story some.

Nancy said...

Of course, it occurs to me that this is the drivel a woman like this has heard in a Canadian or American liberal university. (Hey, in Marin and San Francisco counties it's the stuff they hear in high school.) You know that kind of crap I mean...stuff like "male," "female," "gender," and "sexuality" are "social constructs."

Anonymous said...

"...an uber-male brain that, tending to objectify and quantify everything, sees women only as sex objects and will choose whoever exudes sluttiness most."

Thank you. Such has been my bedevilment for a long time. And for most of that time I figured I was just plain unlucky with love.

None of the above said...

I don't know how big the impact would be, but I propose a bit of social engineering to make it easier for women in high IQ fields to have kids, and to have them earlier.

Dahlia said...

"Jody said,
she wasn't a slut. she was in a steady relationship for 2 years with this guy. except for being unusually good looking, she was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NORMAL IN EVERY WAY."

I thought you said she was a playboy playmate... No, normal women do not get naked for the world to see.

Anonymous who replied:
Thank you. Such has been my bedevilment for a long time. And for most of that time I figured I was just plain unlucky with love.

Your welcome. There are other factors, of course. My husband is a nerd, but he knew by age 14 that he despised the slutty looking and acting girl. My step-brother, on the other hand is more typical...
He's a nerd, too, and a good guy, but his type is the slut type and has been from the very beginning; his I.Q. tested in the high 120's and yet, he chooses prole sluts. He's as clueless as our poor friend, Jody. He's 36 and was shocked to discover his wife had been cheating on him this past December. Of course, it's been going on for years and everyone knew it was. This woman looked like a skank with a tattoo on one of her breasts which she showed to men she just met; my brother was smitten. He became wealthy in real-estate before the bubble and do you know what he did?? He felt his wife didn't look slutty enough and invested in double-D breast implants, a tummy tuck, and a butt lift! She looked so vulgar and embarrassing to everyone else, but he was so proud.

Unfortunately, he's one of those guys that has to learn the very hard way and it is sad because they genuinely don't find alpha women (beautiful, loyal sweethearts) and other just plain good women attractive and "force" themselves to settle for the "not-a-slut".

Anonymous said...

I don't know how big the impact would be, but I propose a bit of social engineering to make it easier for women in high IQ fields to have kids, and to have them earlier.

Guest worker visas for domestic workers. There, that was easy.

Truth said...

"Well, this is Whiskey bait if ever I've seen any!"

The bear trap snaps around the middle of the tread.

"the typical IQ 100 genetically european female is an idiot at deciphering which penis to allow inside her."

Let me guess; specifically the ones who don't allow yours?

"she was COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NORMAL IN EVERY WAY"

I guess you spoke to her on a regular basis, hey Jode?

"Boy Mrs. Udolpho is a lucky gal having snagged a man who is driven to violent rages reading Slate and casually tosses around the word "whore" and "twat" when he doesn't like a woman."

Uh, maybe Jody does have a point.

"Donald Trump told his daugher to snag a Jewish guy and she did. Bill Clinton gave his daughter the same instructions.

Why do you make up lies like this? You don't know anything of the sort...."

Yeah, it wouldn't kill me to see a collaborating link on that one myself.

"If you have been here as long as I have, you will have seen a pretty pronounced set of comments from commentators who basically say "my daughter was impregnated by a NAM, my son is on meth, and it is all because of the bad influence of the religious group that controls the media - if that group didn't control the media my kids would not be such a humiliation to me"

Wow, you have been here for a while.

For what it's worth, women who choose "bad boys" or "the wrong men" are choosing a man who provides for them exactly what they need at the time they meet. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous said...

"Guest worker visas for domestic workers"

Of course the central tenet, the touchstone of HBD, is to never allow low IQ immigrants to become citizens of your country. Never Never Never.

If it were politically possible to have female guest workers come in and work as nannies for a few years and then require them to leave, I would be all for it.

I personally believe that if high IQ women knew they could easily and legally get a live in nanny for nine thousand dollars a year, many more high IQ women would do so and would have a larger number of kids. The hassle of child care prevents some high IQ women from having kids.

But realistically, no matter how low the IQ of the nannies, and no matter how incompatible with american culture they were, the country has no will to expel them at the end of the guest worker period

So I have to veto this idea

Truth said...

Here's an interesting article from Henry Makow's blog; I think some of you gentlemen may have a kinsman.

Anonymous said...

in case you haven't learned anything about life, it is alarmingly common for women to allow their boyfriends and husbands to beat them. instead of leaving them, they tolerate this. for years.




Somebody is spending way too much time watching the Lifetime channel.

jody said...

i'd like somebody to explain to me how it even makes SENSE for females to have a built-in preference for "bad boys". that sounds like an incredibly dangerous genetic behavior to build into females in a pre-technology time. 10000 years ago, was it really such a good idea to pursue "bad boys" when they could easily simply decide they'd like to rape you? no police with glocks back then. no justice system, no courts, no jails, no society to pass judgment, no civil servants to save or protect you. it's just, you show yourself to the bad boy, who decides he'd like to have you, then you're raped. maybe the rest of your family tries to intervene, and are killed by being smashed over the head with logs and rocks by the bad boy and his two friends. then you're taken back to wherever the bad boy lives, and you're raped again and again by the bad boy and his two friends.

also: in 2010, the average "oops, a kid" woman is letting losers get her pregnant. not bad boys, losers. guys who have nothing to offer. i don't see every "argh, a baby" woman always being attracted to exciting, thrilling bad boys. i see lots of them totally and completely wasting years at a time on chumps. not particulalry good looking, not smart, not wealthy, not interesting. slobs who don't clean up or dress well, don't keep a regular job at all times, stay in the apartment and play video games all day for months in a row while idiot girl works and supports them.

i even see this behavior from some SMART women now.

women and their behavior make no sense from any perspective. they are genetically designed to do...who knows? because they sure aren't good at what they're supposed to be good at.

William1066 said...

''Guest worker visas for domestic workers.''

Unless for every one kid the high IQ lady has, the ''guest'' worker, while she's here, has one - or two or .... little baby American citizens.

Actually that's kind of the system in place right now.

Ms Dubei, you're a lonely woman, no? said...

I'll tell you another reason why a lot of men don't get married in the modern world--US, EU, Japan, etc.

They can have a lot of fun without marriage.

1. There hasn't been any stigma attached to looking for easy sex and jumping from bed to bed since the 60s. Indeed, a lot of young men and women openly talk about sex, sex, and sex. They even get graphic. There are far fewer inhibitions now than ever before. Even on a 'respectable' show like Oprah, there is constant talk of orgasm, the talking vagina, the big dick/small dick, and etc. If women talk like this, men are much worse. Lot of men refer to women as 'cum-buckets'.

Though there were lot of swingers and free love people prior to the 60s, there were still enough social pressures which made men and women seek respectability. Even the great majority of blacks married and remained that way throughout their lives. No longer.
Now, there are even dorms where the room is shared by guy and girl!!!!
So, guys and girls don't mature sexually. They are addicted to maximum freedom and pleasure. Unless they really really fall in love, they would rather go looking for more fun.

2. Availabilty of videogames, movies, internet, porn, and other fun stuff keep plenty of men happy and busy even without deep or lasting social relationships. They lose themselves in facebook, gaming, sex stuff, etc. For rich people, there's traveling and the glitter/glamour of big city night life. Who wants to settle down?

3. With all the hyper-narcissism that inundates us 24/7, everyone wants the very best. Guys dream of Pamela Anderson and girls dream of Brad Pitt. Fewer guys are like Ernest Borgnine in MARTY--grateful to meet a homely but nice girl. They'd rather give their hearts to porn stars on the internet or sluts at singles bars than to some nice homely girl. Prior to the 60s, there was limited access to free sex and porn(which tended to be tame at any rate). If you wanted sex--real or vicariously--, you had to get married or put on a raincoat and sunglasses and go to a seedy porn theater--illegal in most places until the 70s.

4. With a lot of women doing better than men economically--and having turned bitchy and snot-nosed through PC education--, men don't feel comfortable with modern women. And, I can understand why guys would not want to settle down with women who voted for Obama. Surely, most real men would feel nauseous being married to some pompous bitch who admires Oprah and worships Obama. There was a time when it was 'Stand by Your Man' but now it's 'Step on Your Man.' And, though Western Man did most to create a world that has liberated women, all these educated bitches--especially the Jewesses--have a venomous hatred toward the 'patriarchal' West.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"Guest worker visas for domestic workers. There, that was easy."

You are kidding, right?
Sometimes it's hard to tell on the internet.

On the off chance you're serious or a lurker thinks your modest proposal sounds good:

Guest worker visas are a substantial portion of the very reason we're in the mess we're in in this country.

Because while our high-IQ lady is at work (which is why she'd need a foreign-import domestic worker) Guadulupe is going to be busy neglecting the high-IQ offspring while she scouts for a cabana boy to knock her up with her own little low-IQ anchor baby (or 6.)

The only social engineering that could actually address the issue of high-IQ women not breeding is for there to be implemented programs that increase the social status of stay-at-home-mothering. Which, paying smart, *married* women on a sliding scale to reproduce, that is, more IQ points + more kids = the more money she brings to the household, would do.

Because, feminist cant nothwithstanding, high-power jobs requiring huge time and energy commitments are not compatible with childbearing.

It's not because they can't manage the paperwork hassle of getting a work visa for a Guatamalan peasant that high-IQ women don't have lots of kids.
It's because the gut-wrenching awfulness and worry of leaving her precious, helpless baby all day in the care of someone who doesn't love it is too painful. Moms and babies have a strong need to be together.

Chief Seattle said...

"As a rule, younger women are lousy cooks -- they eat out all the time and can't be bothered with learning the ins and outs of preparing a good meal."

It's embarrassing watching my friends girlfriends or wives trying to prepare a good meal. Most of them are tickled if they can pull off chili or a mac and cheese casserole. Their mates are probably tickled as well that they're not eating trader joes pizza for another night. I have a daughter, and you better believe she's going to know how to cook. So is my son. I can't think of any single skill more important to long term health and happiness and wealth than knowing how to buy and make good food. Not foodie food, but healthy, reasonably priced tasty meals. And a special note to Slate authors - nothing says I'm worth committing to better than a woman who can cook a decent meal.

Anonymous said...

Just deport them for pregnancy like Singapore does.

Anonymous said...

Erika Kowalek is the second from the left

Yikes! That chick is OLD!!!

Ladies - guys want to marry you for your wombs - don't wait until your wombs go barren before you start looking for your mates!

Anonymous said...

Guest worker visas are a substantial portion of the very reason we're in the mess we're in in this country.

blah blah blah I don't knwo what I am talking about Moms and babies neeeed each other blah blah blah


Who does the laundry while mom and baby are together? Who plans the meals? Who scrubs the toilet?

One of the reasons - not the only reason, but one of them - that high IQ women prefer to have one or two children and spend most of their time and energy at work is that raising children and being a housewife is MUCH MUCH harder than having a nice career.

I'd like to spend all my time wrapped up in my leedle baybeee, but you know, I've got housework and an older child to homeschool. I'd rather have a Mexican in my kitchen doing my dishes than have her boyfriend working at a restaurant doing yours.

Anonymous said...

I knew a woman who came from a very religious family, but lived with a guy for many years, then all of a sudden he asks her to marry him. Then, a month or so later, they break up.Then, she meets a guy and he gets her pregnant by accident shortly after they meet.Is that the way women live now? Is the first guy smart for not marrying her or is she stupid for letting him use her for sex? In the past their behavior would have been looked down upon by society.Now, no one really cares.

Anonymous said...

So let's discuss what else we can do to improve the IQ of our grandchildren's generation.

Ditch the nihilism.

Get back to basics.

PS: I suppose I should be used to it by now, but the nihilism on these marriage threads is so severe and endemic and all-pervasive that it can just overwhelm a guy.

I'm not kidding when I say, "Ditch the nihilism."

Really. Seriously. Ditch it.

Black Sea said...

Anonymous said:

"SFG, thanks for the best post of the week. Clearly the anti semites on this blog have their head in the sand. the Jewish population of the US is in very rapid decline due to the hunger of most non-religious Christians to marry young Jews."

Uh, I think you've got Cupid's arrow pointing in the wrong direction here. SFG's point was that lots of young Jewish men want to marry gentiles, not the other way around. But you know, whatever gets you off . . .

BTW, I love the part about "the hunger of most non-religious Christians to marry young Jews."

Yes, it was always an obsession among all of my goyish friends growing up to snag a nice Jewish girl.

Have you gone off your meds lately?

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank all of the previous posters for making this the most interesting and entertaining ISteve comment thread of the new year.

Eric said...

Unless for every one kid the high IQ lady has, the ''guest'' worker, while she's here, has one - or two or .... little baby American citizens.

No problem. Allow only high IQ guest workers.

Bill said...

The XX author's opinions don't seem to jibe with marriage statistics. Europe seems to have a higher age at first marriage than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

and Northern Europe at least has a much higher unwed birth rate
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/births-unmarried-women-rising-sharply/

Anonymous said...

raising children and being a housewife is MUCH MUCH harder than having a nice career.




A lot of women love to tell themselves this. But it's not true for most careers.

Maybe it's true that it's easier to be a government "worker" or college professor than be a mom, but that says nothing about actual work.

The Big Reason women gave for being unhappy with their 1950's suburban lot was not exhaustion, but boredom. And I can well believe that. There's not a heck of a lot to do while Timmy and Megan are at school. On that basis I'm sympathetic to working women. But spare me this nonsense about the backbreaking labor involved in being a mom.


Who does the laundry while mom and baby are together?




In my house, the laundry machine. I suppose you're still washing clothes by hand down at the river.

Anonymous said...

"Which sex is more self-absorbed?"

Women are, no question.

The pure male attitude to the world is outward focused. This may be reflected in a passion for basketball, or cars, or math, or politics, or money, or women. But a self-absorbed man is most unmasculine.


Take a look at the magazine rack in your local bookstore sometime. "Mens magazines" are about everything except men.

Womens magazines are about women. Even the names reflect this - "Self", "Womans Way", "(For Women)First", etc.

VG said...

You write something on women and you get 130 comments! What has been your highest so far and what post was it?

Anonymous said...

jody: women and their behavior make no sense from any perspective. they are genetically designed to do...who knows? because they sure aren't good at what they're supposed to be good at.

I'm going to say something a slightly controversial, and I hope that Komment Kontrol will give me just a little leeway in saying it.

So here goes: Women have no internal sense of morality - no innate sense of right and wrong.

Instead, women do what they're told to do.

At a macro-cultural level, when nihilists have a monopoly on all of the upper echelons of a society, to include its academies and courts and legislatures and publishing houses and media conglomerates and corporate boardrooms, and when the nihilists tell women to do bad things, then women do bad things.

And at a micro-cultural level, when you have good-for-nothing slobs playing video games in their underwear all day long, telling their women to go out and earn a living for them because they're too lazy to earn a living for themselves, then the women dutifully go out and earn a living [and come home every night to receive their black eye and their bruises] exactly as they are told to do.

In other words [again, if KK will be so kind as to allow me to make this point]: When you encounter an immoral society [like ours has become], you are witnessing not a failure in morality on the part of the women - because they were never capable of grokking morality [as a visceral experience] in the first place - but instead, what you are witnessing is a failure in morality on the part of the MEN.

Anonymous said...

Uh,

I think many of the posters here have missed the point.

The meme you hear over and over again here is that there is a community that controlls the media. The leadership of this community instructs its members to fill the media with images of cool young white girls cavorting with NAMS.

The young white men who post here complain that they can't attract white women because the group that controlls the media transmit the message that white men are uncool.

No one could read this blog over a long period of time and not see this meme repeated over and over by the white men that post here. Anger and hate over young white Christian girls cavorting with NAMs

But the evidence is that the "group that controlls the media" can't even influence their own sons. The most important message they give to their own sons is to respect their heritage by not intermarrying. The evidence is that their OWN sons laugh at them and ignore them and go on to marry people outside their own heritage.

Jewish young men hear over and over again from their fathers to marry Jewish, and they ignore their father's directives. Overwhelmingly.

The anti semites on this blog think the jews are persuasive enough to convince christian white girls to get impregnated by NAMS, but NOT persuasive enough to persuade their own Jewish sons to listen to them.

It is silly.

One more separate response to the anti semites here who blame Jews for the white Christain girls who think it is cool to cavort with NAMS.

There are essentially no Jews in the media in Scandanavia. But if you go interview white Christian girls in Scandanavia, they are even more intensely interested in cavorting with NAMS than white Christian girls in America are. Getting impregnated by a NAM is still considered "low class" by most Christian girls in the US, but not considered as "low class" in Scandanavia - How the heck can the anti semites blame the behaviour of white Christian girls in Scandanavia on the Jews?

Bottom line, The posters here who are alarmed by the bahaviour of white Christian girls need to stop blaming Jews and look for some other explanation.

Anonymous said...

"That's cause they're all off spending their alimony (it's called spousal support now) on yarn.

"Seriously don't you know any... people? Of any sort? I could walk on my husband tomorrow and be set for freaking life. I am not unusual."

What state do you live in? Physically, I mean. That was the point of my question. Are you mentally and/or physically competent? Do you employ a lawyer who engages in illegal blackmail?Is your husband Bill Gates? Have you reproduced many offspring, all still under the age of 18? You'd need to supply such details for your claim to make sense in this day and age, though there is some strange stuff going down--such as ex-spouses suing former mates for money. It does appear that whichever makes the most money gets targetted. Weird and illegal.

And are you really a wife/woman? Because I feel sorry for your husband if you feel this way.

I am acquainted with the usual range of people, many of them well educated and often both genders are involved in businesses and investing. Generally they need two incomes for their working class/middle to upper-middleclass lifestyles. I live in a state, Maryland, that was known for giving the woman "everything" in divorce at least until the early 70s. But i haven't seen that since.
I see few instances of women who have been in the work force being supported by men for the rest of their lives, or any sane ones who expect to be. It doesn't happen anymore, full stop, in my socioeconomic realm of experience. Now if there are children, there is child support, visitation, etc. There are biases in those areas. Also, if there are common assets, divvying them up can be messy, but in the cases i've known of, the women are screwed as often as the men. I say this as someone who has always deplored alimony for healthy, mentally competent females, and who supports joint custody for kids.
I just think we need to look carefully at any automatic and old assumptions, study the data and stats. That is the only way to remedy any injustices.
Btw, IMHO, marriage is best done in the mid-20s-30s for both genders. And teenage girls really are good at doing Stupid when it comes to boys. Makes you understand why arranged marriages were thought to be a good idea for so long.

oh really? said...

"Ladies - guys want to marry you for your wombs - don't wait until your wombs go barren before you start looking for your mates!"

My, how Biblical. You'd think the world actually needed more people. Well, it does need more 100+ IQ points apparently, willing to live more than 100 miles from coastlines; but people who think of women as "wombs" are not likely to possess enough of those points to help that endeavor.
Mind you, I know commenters here are exceptions to every rule.

Actually, men marry for looks, sex, mental compatibility and companionship. Working wombs are poor recommendations, possessed by countless morons under 50. Most men seem to be running away from them, not seeking them. Indeed, if his oats have already sprouted a time or two, he's ok with all that.

Yours truly is continually surprised at the plain looking and/or older people, both male and female, who end up with adoring partners. I am convinced that they just give off some pheromene of desire and target those likely to reciprocate.

Xenophon Hendrix said...

Jody, to the extent that it is heritable, promiscuous men are more likely to have promiscuous sons. Under conditions in which hapless men can be induced to provide for their offspring, promiscuous men will leave more descendants than non-promiscuous men. Women who have promiscuous sons in an environment that favors promiscuous males will leave more descendants themselves. Therefore, attraction to promiscuous males could very well be selected for.

Evolution favors whatever leaves the most descendants, not what leads to long term happiness.

plain jane, not said...

Two of Jane's sister-in-laws died in childbirth, each of an eleventh child. This did have a bearing on a girl's decision to marry or not in those days, but most were fatalistic about it, much like men going off to sea or war.
Jane wasn't bad looking. She was an excellent dancer and considered pretty as a young girl with a sort of pixie face, big eyes, small, wry mouth. She died at 42, probably of kidney disease. That would have caused the dark circles and sunken look to her eyes that you see in the portrait.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if you could do a count of how many times the word "bitch" appears in a post.
Fact is, men and women have been complaining about each other forever. Men got most of the press until fairly recently.
They complain bitterly about women earning their own money, but 50 years ago they complained bitterly about women depending on husbands. Women complained about being dependent on husbands now they complain because they can't be dependent on taxpayers' money.

Anonymous said...

"But if he were really self absorb and was an Alpha male he'd be having sex with the women and he'd be playing the sports. But he doesn't have the genetics for it."

If he was having sex and playing sports all the time he wouldn't have had the time to write a book in the first place.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

Anon said:

"blah blah blah I don't knwo what I am talking about Moms and babies neeeed each other blah blah blah

"Who does the laundry while mom and baby are together? Who plans the meals? Who scrubs the toilet?"


Um, Mom. Slings are great for combining baby-holding with laundry-doing. High-powered careers are not compatible with childbearing, but housewifery certainly is.

"One of the reasons - not the only reason, but one of them - that high IQ women prefer to have one or two children and spend most of their time and energy at work is that raising children and being a housewife is MUCH MUCH harder than having a nice career."

Yes, housewifery is hard. And high-IQ women who are too lazy to do it but would prefer "a carreeeeerrr" while their kid gets neglected by the paid help and their country goes to sh--- get no sympathy from me.

"I'd like to spend all my time wrapped up in my leedle baybeee, but you know, I've got housework and an older child to homeschool. I'd rather have a Mexican in my kitchen doing my dishes than have her boyfriend working at a restaurant doing yours."

Come again? I am sure there's a point intended in this comment, but for the life of me, I can't make out what it is.
Did you perhaps misunderstand my point? I certainly don't mean to imply mom-and-baby-togetherness means mom can't do the dishes.


Is that what YOU think? You think you need a Mexican to do your dishes so you can homeschool? Seriously?

The homeschool moms *I* know do the dishes AND the homeschooling AND the new-baby-nurturing. Which is why I think it's a shame that stay-at-home-mothering is considered a low-status occupation. And the low status (along with financial stresses) IS the reason high-IQ women are not choosing it.

And as far as you not wanting a Mexican washing dishes in a restaurant, hey, we're on the same side. I garden and cook, so we rarely eat out. And we make it a point to try, on the rare occasions we do, to frequent establisments where the help is native-born Americans. Which is one reason we moved out of CA to flyover country in the '90s.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

Anon said:

"blah blah blah I don't knwo what I am talking about Moms and babies neeeed each other blah blah blah

"Who does the laundry while mom and baby are together? Who plans the meals? Who scrubs the toilet?"


Um, Mom. Slings are great for combining baby-holding with laundry-doing. High-powered careers are not compatible with childbearing, but housewifery certainly is.

"One of the reasons - not the only reason, but one of them - that high IQ women prefer to have one or two children and spend most of their time and energy at work is that raising children and being a housewife is MUCH MUCH harder than having a nice career."

Yes, housewifery is hard. And high-IQ women who are too lazy to do it but would prefer "a carreeeeerrr" while their kid gets neglected by the paid help and their country goes to sh--- get no sympathy from me.

"I'd like to spend all my time wrapped up in my leedle baybeee, but you know, I've got housework and an older child to homeschool. I'd rather have a Mexican in my kitchen doing my dishes than have her boyfriend working at a restaurant doing yours."

Come again? I am sure there's a point intended in this comment, but for the life of me, I can't make out what it is.
Did you perhaps misunderstand my point? I certainly don't mean to imply mom-and-baby-togetherness means mom can't do the dishes.


Is that what YOU think? You think you need a Mexican to do your dishes so you can homeschool? Seriously?

The homeschool moms *I* know do the dishes AND the homeschooling AND the new-baby-nurturing. Which is why I think it's a shame that stay-at-home-mothering is considered a low-status occupation. And the low status (along with financial stresses) IS the reason high-IQ women are not choosing it.

And as far as you not wanting a Mexican washing dishes in a restaurant, hey, we're on the same side. I garden and cook, so we rarely eat out. And we make it a point to try, on the rare occasions we do, to frequent establisments where the help is native-born Americans. Which is one reason we moved out of CA to flyover country in the '90s.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

There are essentially no Jews in the media in Scandanavia. But if you go interview white Christian girls in Scandanavia, they are even more intensely interested in cavorting with NAMS than white Christian girls in America are. Getting impregnated by a NAM is still considered "low class" by most Christian girls in the US, but not considered as "low class" in Scandanavia - How the heck can the anti semites blame the behaviour of white Christian girls in Scandanavia on the Jews?"

What is the most popular movie right now in Sweden? I bet it's not a swedish film. Hollywood dominates world movie theaters, and has probably had a lot of influence on TV as well.

Anonymous said...

And the low status (along with financial stresses) IS the reason high-IQ women are not choosing it.

No it's not.

People bring new souls into the world because they are in love with the idea of bringing new souls into the world.

Nihilists have no interest in it [and, in all honesty, nihilists are very much - really thoroughly - devoted to the idea of putting an end to the practice altogether].

PS: Unless I am misunderstanding you and you mean that they are worried about their status as nihilists in good standing.

Anonymous said...

The young white men who post here complain that they can't attract white women because the group that controlls the media transmit the message that white men are uncool.


No one could read this blog over a long period of time and not see this meme repeated over and over by the white men that post here.





I've read this blog for a couple of years, and I don't agree. You see one or two people who beat this drum (cough, whiskey, cough) but it's not a big topic for most commenters here.

SFG said...

First of all, I apologize for the oven remark. I was teasing the anti-semites (and my paranoid co-ethnics) a little but it was overboard and uncalled for.

I will agree that the largely Jewish news media doesn't like Christianity and red-state american values. White women cavorting with NAMs, well, I think that's the old desire for exotic partners. It's an evolutionary imperative to avoid excess inbreeding, which makes it too easy for diseases to wipe you out.

I also agree that the construction of ovens to cook Jews in America is unlikely over the course of the next 50 years, and if Jews should be afraid of anyone, it's Muslims, not Germans, as can be seen in most European cities.

Now to the interesting stuff...

"Yes, it was always an obsession among all of my goyish friends growing up to snag a nice Jewish girl."

Ha, ha! Did anyone notice the difference in attractiveness between Jewish men and women? It's simple really. Jews evolved to be intelligent, neurotic, and disagreeable. (Clannishness is a higher-order trait I'm not going to speculate on now, but could help make money too.) That's OK in a man when you get money into the bargain, but not OK in a woman when you just get whining. Verbal ability? Great when it's your hubby wheedling his boss into a raise or some sap into buying his product, not so great when it's the wife nagging you to take out the trash fifty times.

This of course contributes to intermarriage. And, yeah, who in his right mind wants a Jewish girl?

But they do get married. I think submissive high-IQ beta men are attracted to the IQ whereas Jewish guys just run like crazy.

Goyish men, of course, are the majority, and don't have to worry.

keypusher said...

Steve, you really hit the motherlode and quite a few nerves with this post. Did you know this would happen? I wonder if bloggers are often surprised by how many comments a post gets.

Getting back to the self-absorption point, though, I think maybe this post is not fair to women. I couldn't last 30 seconds in a conversation with Bill Simmons about basketball (or sports movies, or 1980s television, or Vegas, or quite a few other topics) but I am a master of mind-boggling minutiae on a few topics I care deeply about. And that's a man thing. Is that self-absorbed?

Well, my wife thinks so. Why aren't I spending all that energy on the right school for our daughter, or making where we live nicer, or planning for the future, or trying to make more money, etc.? She spends a lot more time worrying about people, especially people close to her, and what can or should be done for or about them, while I spend a lot more time thinking about things that have nothing immediate or even remote to do with our lives. So, which one of us is really self-absorbed?

checkered shirt in a dream said...

There are essentially no Jews in the media in Scandanavia. But if you go interview white Christian girls in Scandanavia, they are even more intensely interested in cavorting with NAMS than white Christian girls in America are. Getting impregnated by a NAM is still considered "low class" by most Christian girls in the US, but not considered as "low class" in Scandanavia - How the heck can the anti semites blame the behaviour of white Christian girls in Scandanavia on the Jews?"

Two things.

1. Americans have a lot of REAL experiences of blacks whereas Swedes have only an idealized image of blacks through liberal media, leftist education, and Hollywood. Even in the US, white suburban liberal kids who have less experience with real blacks tend to have more favorable opinions of blacks than whites in the South who live in close promixity with blacks. For most Swedes and cocooned white liberal kids in affluent communities, the main image they get from schools, media, and movies is still that of noble helpless blacks been hounded by the KKK.
To be sure, white liberal love of the Noble Negro has always been contradictory: partly sympathy for the powerless 'negro', partly admiration for the power of the cool, hip, masterful black dude and mama.

Similarly, though observers who knew the REAL Afghanis saw them as barbarians in the 80s, the American public saw them through the rose-tinted glasses of anti-communism; thus, they were romanticized as 'freedom fighters'.

In America, the idealized image of blacks we get through the media is balanced out by REAL reality we see in the streets and public places. In societies like Sweden and Switzerland, there is ONLY the idealized image--hollywood movies, pop music, public education controlled by the Left, and those holy images of poor noble african babies starving because of Western neo-imperialism and 'racism'.

2. Swedish are 'aryan' and were relatively close to the Nazis during WWII. Thus, Swedes have been trying to prove that they are NOT into the blue-eyed and blonde thing and have been promoting multiculturalism as a kind of redemptive national ideology.

Finally, it's no longer taboo in America for white women to have black babies. YOu see it in tabloid magazines all the time. Indeed, a white woman who says she wants to have white babies and stand up for her people is dragged through the mud by the SPLC and News media gang.

Anonymous said...

"I'd like to spend all my time wrapped up in my leedle baybeee, but you know, I've got housework and an older child to homeschool. I'd rather have a Mexican in my kitchen doing my dishes than have her boyfriend working at a restaurant doing yours"

Why don't you get a machine in your kitchen doing your dishes? Do you still wring your clothes through a mangel as well? I thought you Americans were all about the mod-cons?

Anonymous said...

Some of you don't seem to be aware of the extent to which multiculturalism has taken hold in Scandinavia. At the Oslo train station, you sometimes have to make an effort to find native Norwegians in the sea of faces. When Iranians (for example) gather in Stockholm for a demonstration, they gather by the thousands. Kurds, Pakistanis, Turks, Palestinians, Bosnians, and Somalis are all putting down roots in Scandinavia in large numbers.

Anonymous said...

"The anti semites on this blog think the jews are persuasive enough to convince christian white girls to get impregnated by NAMS, but NOT persuasive enough to persuade their own Jewish sons to listen to them
It is silly."

Why? I don't see a contradiction. If Jewish society enjoys debating, and it certainly seems that it does, why should it be surprising that young Jewish men who have been trained to take a position and defend it against those with an opposing argument, would then dismiss their parents' arguments if they don't buy it and, instead, outmarry if that is their wish?

Young Christian White girls, however, are being SHOWN, through imagery, that miscenegation is cool. Young Jewish boys are being TOLD not to intermarry.

Showing is more effective than telling.

Anonymous said...

If Jewish society enjoys debating, and it certainly seems that it does

My impression of Jewish society is that they spend endless amounts of time debating the finer subtleties of bolshevik -vs- bolshevist.

Alticor said...

We need to lose this obsession with having smart people have large numbers of children and instead worry about having larger numbers of those born be from smart people. In other words, making stupid people have fewer, preferably none.

Nothing is going to get really smart people to crank them out as in days of old, save perhaps an immense catastrophe in which only a few smart people survive, leaving a depopulated lush earth for the taking (or, colonizing other planets).

The stupid must be bribed, coerced, or guiled into having fewer, or otherwised stopped from breeding.

Welfare on a LBJ scale actually is cost effective if only the sterilized can get it. Requiring convicts to be sterilized in order to be considered for parole, linking certain medical benefits to sterilization....Male blue-green color blindedness could have been eliminated in one fell swoop by this method.

Baby daddies that don't pay child support have literal living proof running around. DNA tests, now cheap can locate the Philander rodmans and have them jailed until they pay every cent of back support, untenable due to jailhouse costs, but if you cut them slack in exchange for their getting the snip......

Anonymous said...

OK so there are a few different groups posting here at Isteve

(1) white American men who can't get chicks, who see a few white girls going for NAMS, who then blame the jews for brainwashing these girls. So of course it is the jews at fault. Cause if the jews didn't tell white girls to get hot for NAMS, they just wouldn't.

(2) white men who can't get chicks, who see a few smart Ivy level white females marrying jews, who then blame the jews for snagging their wimmen.

(3) white men who notice that in Scandanavia some of the females are desperate and hungry to mate with NAMS. Even though most of the media consumed by Scandanavian girls is produced by the local leftists, somehow American jews are to blame for this too...

Wow I am starting to see a pattern

Anonymous said...

Seems the further from town I go
The more I hate this place
He's got leather and big tattoos
And big scars all over his face

And I wonder if he ever has cried
Cause he couldn't get a date for the prom

He's got his arms around every man's dream
And crumbs in his beard from the seafood special
Oh can't you see my world is falling apart

Baby please leave the biker
Leave the biker, break his heart
Baby please leave the biker
Leave the biker, break his heart

Udolpho.com said...

"Wow I am starting to see a pattern"

it's a rorschach blot and you're an idiot

Anonymous said...

Mr. Schopenhauer had a few thoughts on women...

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

Anonymous said...

OK so there are a few different groups posting here at Isteve



You left out "Dumb Jews with a persecution complex who think everyone is out to get them.".


If we were all out to get you, you'd be got by now.

Anonymous said...

As another mere anecdote, this one showing divorce favoring the man:

My Japanese friend met her American husband when he was teaching English in Japan. When they came back to America she supported him while he worked on his PhD. After he got his degree and a job he left her. She wanted to work it out but he wasn't having any of it. Now she is by no means perfect but because people divorce very infrequently in Japan she didn't expect that he'd just write off the marriage like that. And she'll never see a penny of that money.

Feminine said...

In responding to the query "Which sex is more self-absorbed" many, many males write almost over 150 comments complaining about women. I think Steve was just having fun with you.

penultimate word no doubt said...

"Mr. Schopenhauer had a few thoughts on women..."

Now that you have proudly directed attention towards that old syphillitic pessimist, who took the "gay" out of gays, kindly refrain from future complaints about "feminists" and their "hatred of men." It appears they have been preceded.

The syphillis really got to him, poor old sod. I always wondered what the whores who gave it to him thought of men. I doubt they enjoyed his company either.

Anonymous said...

In responding to the query "Which sex is more self-absorbed" many, many males write almost over 150 comments complaining about women. I think Steve was just having fun with you.





I think you don't know how to read.

Difference Maker said...

Coming late to this thread, I am an AM (that is, non non asian minority or NNAM ^ ^ )who pretty white girls fawn over and am probably nearly unique in that aspect.

Nevertheless there is no doubt in my mind that Jews do promote race mixing although Steve will probably have none of it.

If you want girls you really need to ramp up your testosterone instead of whining. It helps to have a functional frontal lobe so that you are not just some creep or psychopath. Although I shouldn't be talking, I constantly subject my frontal lobe to abuse, a haw haw

There is absolutely such a thing as being handsome but a guy needs much more to be manly than pretty. It is for girls to be beautiful. For guys, testosterone is always the answer

Anonymous said...

piracy affects porn but it's still winner during the crunch


----------------
interracialsex