http://vdare.com/sailer/feminism.htm

By Steve Sailer (http://vdare.com/sailer/index.htm)
Taking Sex Differences Seriously (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554937/vdare) , a fine new book by Steven E. Rhoads (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ser6f/webcv.htm), a professor of government at the University of Virginia, documents that just about every male-female stereotype you ever heard is true (http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/Stereotypes.htm). Most of them stem from disparities in sex hormones (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sullivan_travails.htm).

Reading Taking Sex Differences Seriously was something of a nostalgia trip for me. The questions Rhoads grapples with were ones of intense personal concern back in the early 1990s. At the time, feminists dominated public discourse with their insistence that distinctions between males and females were purely social constructs. (http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=219)

But somebody forgot to give my baby son the memo. In 1990, at only 15 months old, he suddenly developed an intense disdain for all things girlish, along with a corresponding passion for watching strong men (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article.html) hit balls with sticks. My wife discovered, to her exasperated boredom, that her baby boy (http://web.archive.org/web/20000903002210/www.iwf.org/pubs/twq/su95d.shtml) instantaneously began to whine anytime she tried to flip past televised baseball (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/dusty.htm) or, God forbid, golf (http://www.isteve.com/Caublinasians.htm). Whenever we left the house on a walk, he’d immediately have to find a stick (http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/socialcommentary/WhatsWrongWiththeWorld/chap18.html) to brandish menacingly, like the killer ape (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html) in 2001.

And he began throwing store-aisle temper tantrums whenever his mother denied him a flashlight (or toy sword, gun, spear, rocket ship, baseball bat, bow and arrow, screwdriver, slingshot, or whatever other “projection” device struck his hormone-warped fancy).

She learned there was only one way to silence him.

"That's a Girl Flashlight," she'd explain. "They're all out of Boy Flashlights. Do you still want it?"

Believe me, socialization (http://www.isteve.com/kidtv-np.htm) isn't what differentiates the sexes—it's the only hope of their ever getting along civilly.

Then, in October 1991, the world seemed to go crazy over the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~govdoc/thomas/hearings.html) brouhaha.

To me, it appeared obvious that Hill was another attractive, accomplished black woman whose biological clock was ticking loudly as she searched for that rare black man of even greater achievement. Perhaps the crime of Thomas, the most eligible bachelor she had known, was that he had not propositioned her when he had the chance. And, worst of all, he had gone on to marry (http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm) a blonde (http://www.isteve.com/blondes.htm). Now, the woman scorned was having her furious revenge.

But the press, propelled by women reporters like Maureen Dowd (http://www.maureendowdsucks.com/) of the New York Times, went bananas over the story. In the aftermath, feminism ruled unchallenged, with deeply stupid books like Naomi Wolf’s (http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/archive.asp?start=2/15/2004&end=2/21/2004) The Beauty Myth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060512180/vdare) and Susan Faludi’s (http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=85) Backlash (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385425074/vdarevdare) jet-propelled up the bestseller lists by the media frenzy.

Faludi argued that the media was severely biased against feminism (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/column101501.htm). But of the 40 reviews of her book I found in the media, 37 were favorable. Which didn't exactly add up to a backlash.

Full Article (http://vdare.com/sailer/feminism.htm)

documents that just about every male-female stereotype you ever heard is true.
Many are way off. Examples:

1. Men are promiscuous; women are monogamous: hear this all the time, but never have seen any evidence in favor; always against. If women are mono, why are there so many sluts? Whores? Cheaters? If men are more promiscuous (i.e. less choosy), why are so many incapable of "getting it up" with an average-looking woman? Why are so many men, if they are so promiscuous, attracted only to a very specific type of woman (i.e. the blonde bimbo model type)? If women are less promiscuous (i.e. more choosy), why does one see so many women with ugly thugs?

2. Women are passive: Garbage. All evidence points against this howler. Women are manipulative, conniving, scheming, deceptively aggressive.

3. Women are less violent: Don't buy it. Wives beat their husbands as often as vice versa. Being physically weaker and usually less adept at fighting does not make one non-violent. And abortion is, err, not exactly peaceful either.

4. Women are wired to want kids more than anything else: hahaha!!! Do I really need to refute this one? The amazing thing is that so many people believe it unquestioningly. Or maybe I shouldn't be so amazed, given how many people are utter morons. If women want kids, why do so many kill theirs (abortion)? Why do so many choose a career-oriented or hedonist lifestyle over motherhood?

5. Women have a much lower sex drive: Never have seen even a sliver of evidence in favor of this stereotype.

1. Men are promiscuous; women are monogamous: hear this all the time, but never have seen any evidence in favor; always against. If women are mono, why are there so many sluts? Whores? Cheaters? If men are more promiscuous (i.e. less choosy), why are so many incapable of "getting it up" with an average-looking woman? Why are so many men, if they are so promiscuous, attracted only to a very specific type of woman (i.e. the blonde bimbo model type)? If women are less promiscuous (i.e. more choosy), why does one see so many women with ugly thugs?

Women can get laid whenever they want, with men its generally harder.

Women are passive: Garbage. All evidence points against this howler. Women are manipulative, conniving, scheming, deceptively aggressive.

Women are sneakier, but not agressive frontally.

3. Women are less violent: Don't buy it. Wives beat their husbands as often as vice versa. Being physically weaker and usually less adept at fighting does not make one non-violent. And abortion is, err, not exactly peaceful either.

Men don't beat their wives that much because the law now is so stacked in favor of women.

4. Women are wired to want kids more than anything else: hahaha!!! Do I really need to refute this one? The amazing thing is that so many people believe it unquestioningly. Or maybe I shouldn't be so amazed, given how many people are utter morons. If women want kids, why do so many kill theirs (abortion)? Why do so many choose a career-oriented or hedonist lifestyle over motherhood?

This drive manifest itself more in the late twenties and 30s.

5. Women have a much lower sex drive: Never have seen even a sliver of evidence in favor of this stereotype.

See my answer to #1.

Women can get laid whenever they want, with men its generally harder.
That's because so many men find only a very specific type of woman to be attractive. It's easy for men to get sex from average looking women.
Women are sneakier, but not agressive frontally.
Passive-aggression is not passivity.

Men don't beat their wives that much because the law now is so stacked in favor of women.
You mean men are that afraid of the law? I thought men were the aggressive, independent, headstrong sex. :D
This drive manifest itself more in the late twenties and 30s.
Evidence, please?

Men and women are different, but yeah, those particular beliefs are pretty faulty.

I went round and round with the Tic over his dumb "Women give sex to get love and Men give love to get sex" statement. He seemed to believe all the wrong steretypes, while vigorously denying the obvious ones (such as superior male physical strength).

That's because so many men only find a very specific type of woman to be attractive. It's easy for men to get sex from average looking women.

I hope by average you are not implying fat, no most men do not like fat cows sorry.

You mean men are that afraid of the law? I thought men were the aggressive, independent, headstrong sex.

Im afraid of having some electronic record that follows me everywhere saying that. Though going to pound me in the ass prison isn't appealing either. In olden days I wouldn't really be afraid of the law at all they'd have no instant radio coms and wouldn't be any better armed, but since the days of two way radios and tanks you can't really take on the government.

Marriage isn't fun without a little mutual slapping about and "wrasslin' every now and then.

Men and women are different, but yeah, those particular beliefs are pretty faulty.

I went round and round with the Tic over his dumb "Women give sex to get love and Men give love to get sex" statement. He seemed to believe all the wrong steretypes, while vigorously denying the obvious ones (such as superior male physical strength).
Just recalled another remarkably dumb stereotype. Women are less arrogant and egotistical than men. Like Tick's statement, it's widely believed yet unsupported by any evidence. Doesn't keep blowhards from believing it, though.

Just recalled another remarkably dumb stereotype. Women are less arrogant and egotistical than men. Like Tick's statement, it's widely believed yet unsupported by any evidence. Doesn't keep blowhards from believing it, though.
Okay now that one is bull****.

This one is dumb:

"Women are cooperative, not competitive." - said by various people who have never put up with girl cliques in high school.


I think brain studies, such as the ones on memory (http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=866672) and the ones that show that women have higher verbal skills and men better spatial and targetting skills are generally accurate for showing real sex differences. Transexuals also report emotional changes after taking hormones.

"Women are cooperative, not competitive." - said by various people who have never put up with girl cliques in high school.
So, the girls IN the clique are competitive? Well, no, actually they're COOPERATIVE!! Men in a "clique" (gang, team, group) ARE competitive with each other, the women IN the group are cooperative with each other, and competitive (or at least, not cooperative), with the girls OUTSIDE the group.

So, the girls IN the clique are competitive?
Of course!
Well, no, actually they're COOPERATIVE!!
You act as if the two need be mutually exclusive. They need not be, as we shall see.
Men in a "clique" (gang, team, group) ARE competitive with each other
...and also cooperative. In fact, there could be no better example of cooperation than teamwork! "There is no 'I' in team", as they say. What drives the military? Not just competition, but teamwork - discipline - obedience - loyalty - cooperation.
the women IN the group are cooperative with each other, and competitive (or at least, not cooperative), with the girls OUTSIDE the group.
At this point I have begun to wonder planet you live on. You actually seem reluctant to admit that women compete with one another. Perhaps you live in some vacuum away from society. Here in the real world, women are fiercely competitive over who has the most beautiful look, the best man, the nicest house, and the most expensive trinkets. Female cliques and their leaders not only compete with one another, they compete over the span of years or even decades. They remember the most trivial things - the slightest of slights - and carry on passive-aggressive conflicts indefinitely. Women are not passive; women are passive-aggressive which is very different.

As Mencken famously remarked, a misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each another. You know why women hate each other? It's a passion driven by long-term competition.

Women always complain of incessent backstabbing( even by their close in clique friends) over petty bull****.

So, the girls IN the clique are competitive? Well, no, actually they're COOPERATIVE!!

Nope, they are generally competitive to the point of plotting and backstabbing.

As a matter of fact, I percieved far less real competition amongst male friends. Sure, they get temporarily competitive when they play some game, but it's in a light-hearted way.

So, the girls IN the clique are competitive? Well, no, actually they're COOPERATIVE!! Men in a "clique" (gang, team, group) ARE competitive with each other, the women IN the group are cooperative with each other, and competitive (or at least, not cooperative), with the girls OUTSIDE the group.
Oh, boy. Before I had firsthand experience with a clique, I too thought the girls in the clique were a cooperative little group who ganged up on everyone ELSE, but in reality the girls in the clique compete with EACH OTHER. Groups of male friends tend to be more relaxed and cooperative.

I hope by average you are not implying fat, no most men do not like fat cows sorry.
Otto, you are typical of the type of male I dispise. Your remarks such as this throughout this thread and your statement that you'd like to marry 'some beach girl with no political opinions and a dirty sense of humor' demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the female sex. I on the other hand understand your kind all to well (not as if that is at all difficult).

Otto, you are typical of the type of male I dispise. Your remarks such as this throughout this thread and your statement that you'd like to marry 'some beach girl with no political opinions and a dirty sense of humor' demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the female sex. I on the other hand understand your kind all to well (not as if that is at all difficult).


So what are you doing this Saturday?

Otto, you are typical of the type of male I dispise. Your remarks such as this throughout this thread and your statement that you'd like to marry 'some beach girl with no political opinions and a dirty sense of humor' demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the female sex. I on the other hand understand your kind all to well (not as if that is at all difficult).


So what are you doing this Saturday?
This Saturday I'll set aside some time for putting pompous males in their place by proving my points. You?

I was surprised last night to see how easily and in what way females clash with eachother.

Me and a friend drove around town with two girls. We parked the car on a hill, and let the music play. Then, another friend drove up and parked next to us, he too had two girls in his car.

The two sets of girls didn't know eachother previously, but they didn't even look at eachother. As we were talking, in the background, you could hear the girls from Car A and Car B having a pissing contest with loud music.

Not even 15 minutes have passed, they were hating eachother's guts and competing for attention.

Many are way off. Examples:

1. Men are promiscuous; women are monogamous: hear this all the time, but never have seen any evidence in favor; always against. If women are mono, why are there so many sluts? Whores? Cheaters? If men are more promiscuous (i.e. less choosy), why are so many incapable of "getting it up" with an average-looking woman? Why are so many men, if they are so promiscuous, attracted only to a very specific type of woman (i.e. the blonde bimbo model type)? If women are less promiscuous (i.e. more choosy), why does one see so many women with ugly thugs?

2. Women are passive: Garbage. All evidence points against this howler. Women are manipulative, conniving, scheming, deceptively aggressive.

3. Women are less violent: Don't buy it. Wives beat their husbands as often as vice versa. Being physically weaker and usually less adept at fighting does not make one non-violent. And abortion is, err, not exactly peaceful either.

4. Women are wired to want kids more than anything else: hahaha!!! Do I really need to refute this one? The amazing thing is that so many people believe it unquestioningly. Or maybe I shouldn't be so amazed, given how many people are utter morons. If women want kids, why do so many kill theirs (abortion)? Why do so many choose a career-oriented or hedonist lifestyle over motherhood?

5. Women have a much lower sex drive: Never have seen even a sliver of evidence in favor of this stereotype.

What you are describing is the Uber *****. Perhaps a projection. :D

I don't think this is True of all women. Just a Generalization of some. Women like men have a Spectrum of behaviors and Personalities.

Nah, she pretty accurately describes all women.

Nah, she pretty accurately describes all women.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods.

Nah, she pretty accurately describes all women.
Not to mention all men:

Many are way off. Examples:

1. Men are promiscuous; women are monogamous: hear this all the time, but never have seen any evidence in favor; always against. If women are mono, why are there so many sluts? Whores? Cheaters? If men are more promiscuous (i.e. less choosy), why are so many incapable of "getting it up" with an average-looking woman? Why are so many men, if they are so promiscuous, attracted only to a very specific type of woman (i.e. the blonde bimbo model type)? If women are less promiscuous (i.e. more choosy), why does one see so many women with ugly thugs?

2. Women are passive: Garbage. All evidence points against this howler. Women are manipulative, conniving, scheming, deceptively aggressive.

3. Women are less violent: Don't buy it. Wives beat their husbands as often as vice versa. Being physically weaker and usually less adept at fighting does not make one non-violent. And abortion is, err, not exactly peaceful either.

4. Women are wired to want kids more than anything else: hahaha!!! Do I really need to refute this one? The amazing thing is that so many people believe it unquestioningly. Or maybe I shouldn't be so amazed, given how many people are utter morons. If women want kids, why do so many kill theirs (abortion)? Why do so many choose a career-oriented or hedonist lifestyle over motherhood?

5. Women have a much lower sex drive: Never have seen even a sliver of evidence in favor of this stereotype.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods.
Your neck of the woods, on the other hand, must be pretty far away from a populated area.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods.

You have a lot to learn about women.
What you call an uber-b|tch, I call a regular woman :)

A bit off-topic, but still conserning first post:
UVA is such a sheit school.