Tag Archives: Feminism

Curt: Classical Liberalism failed upon the introduction of women & non-property owners

“However, we must also acknowledge that the classical liberal political system failed upon the introduction of women and non-property owners into enfranchisement. This is because those without property hold very different ethics – if ethics can be used to describe them. And the female reproductive strategy is to bear children and place the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (society). Private property was an innovation, that allowed males to once again take control of reproductive strategy, and the marriage that resulted from that innovation was a truce between the male and female strategies. A truce that feminists and socialists, and communists, and those that lack property, all seek to break. Private Property and the nuclear family, and the high trust ethic are both politically indivisible. And the classical liberal program cannot survive in their absence.

And no one else has provided us with a solution to this problem other than the feminists and socialists – who which to destroy private property, and the anarcho capitalists, who wish to preserve our freedom, and property.”

On Feminists (by Eli)

Feminists: “Rude, competitive, male-centric, bro-culture repels women from tech. Feminist-policed, PC, equality culture totally won’t repel men. But if it does, they’re just going to have to deal, because they’re wrong. Also, companies should make the switch because there are tons of qualified women to replace proven male professionals.

The State of Marriage in the US

“The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women,” Venker wrote. With feminism pushing them out of their traditional role of breadwinner, protector and provider – and divorce laws increasingly creating a dangerously precarious financial prospect for the men cut loose from marriage – men are simply no longer finding any benefit in it.

As a writer and researcher into the trends of marriage and relationships, Venker said, she has “accidentally stumbled upon a subculture” of men who say “in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married.”

“When I ask them why, the answer is always the same: women aren’t women anymore.” Feminism, which teaches women to think of men as the enemy, has made women “angry” and “defensive, though often unknowingly.”

“Now the men have nowhere to go. It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry.”

“Men are tired,” Venker wrote. “Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.”

www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore

Feminist Entrepreneur: ‘I Don’t Want to Hire Women’

Over the years, I have hired outstanding women – educated, intelligent and highly articulate. Yet, I am exhausted. I have become profoundly tired of being a therapist and a babysitter, of being drawn into passive-aggressive mental games and into constantly questioning my own worth as a manager. I have had several women who quit to stay home to “figure out what to do next”. No, not to stay home and care for children, but to mooch of a husband or a boyfriend while soul searching (aka: taking a language class or learning a new inapplicable skill that could be acquired after work). Incidentally, I have not had a single male employee quit with no plan in mind.

I have had women cry in team meetings, come to my office to ask me if I still like them and create melodrama over the side of the office their desk was being placed. I am simply incapable of verbalizing enough appreciation to female employees to satiate their need for it for at least a week’s worth of work. Here is one example to explain. My receptionist was resigning and, while in tears, she told me that although she was passionate about our brand and loved the job, she could not overcome the fact that I did not thank her for her work. It really made me stop in my tracks and so I asked for an example. “Remember when I bought the pictures with butterflies to hang in the front? And you just came and said ‘thank you’? That is a perfect example!” – “Wait”, I said, “So, I did thank you then?” – “Yes! But you did not elaborate on what exactly you liked about them! Why didn’t you?” She had bought them with the company credit card and I actually did not like them at all, but I digress.

I have developed a different approach for offering constructive criticism to male and female employees. When I have something to say to one of the men, I just say it! I don’t think it through – I simply spit it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff. I plan, I prepare, I think, I run it through my business partner and then I think again. I start with a lot of positive feedback before I feel that I have cushioned my one small negative comment sufficiently, yet it is rarely enough. We talk forever, dissect every little piece of it, and then come back to the topic time and time again in the future. And I also have to confirm that I still like them – again and again, and again.

I am also yet to have a single male employee come to my office to give me dirt on a co-worker or share an awkward gossip-like story. My female employees though? Every. single. one.

clarissasblog.com/2014/05/14/i-dont-want-to-hire-women/

***

CURT:

I think it’s actually harder to be a female exec over other women, than it is for men. I mean. Not only are we oblivious, but we just don’t care, and women don’t expect us to care. We just do our thing. And go on obliviously.

Men are easy. They want to know their place. If they have a place, and don’t have someone too stupid in the way, they’re happy. I’m extremely communicative and very friendly with anyone who will engage me so managing men is pretty easy. I love the young guys who want to learn so I spend extra time filing their heads. They love it.

I have had very bad luck with women in senior exec positions. In fact, it’s been almost fruitless. I suppose in other industries it’d be different. But in my generation the combination of feminism and craziness has just been impossible.

But in middle management, it’s been just the opposite. In middle management you’re trying to facilitate – herding cats. In executive management you’re trying to discriminate – apply scarce resources to the best return whether people like it or not. And women are much better at herding cats, and processing multiple lines of communication than men and that’s just how it is. I don’t argue with it. I just accept it. I have found male middle managers to be free riders, and female middle managers to be more effective. I think it’s genetic. I have been on a career long quest to reduce middle management, indeed all management, to the bare minimum wherever possible and to empower the talent whenever and wherever possible. This tends to lead to a project-based company that is often reorganized, rather than a department based company structure, that is rarely reorganized.

The gossip mill that women create is almost always destructive and the only cure is over-communication. I’ve tried to manage anti-gossip campaigns whenever possible. But the gossip thing is just insanely painful to deal with.

(My favorite example is the accusation that I was sleeping with my young female assistant, and I simply could not silence it, despite the fact that she was actually sleeping with one of my married business partners from the east coast. I never even sold the guy out. But he never defended me in public either. I don’t ever want to touch women at work. Too dangerous for white males in america. Just ignore them. But everyone thinks I do for some reason. Which is probably more that I’m friendly and clueless than anything else. )

It’s really good if you can get all the admin chicks in your company on a gossip containment committee. This turns the problem into an effective means of control because the girls at the lowest level who have the greatest access to gossip become empowered by policing gossip. You try to get them to tell you anything that’s negative. Then you tell the the TRUTH about what you’re doing and let them do the work. The problem is you can never lie to them. And if you screw up you have to tell them.

Good gossip lifts people up. Bad gossip cuts people down. It’s hysterical how effective this technique is. (I tell people, “if you want to gossip and conspire to make me a more successful person then please do.”) So there are positive ways to channeling negative behavior if you understand the incentives. (As strange as chick-incentives are to us men.)

What bothers me still, and something I would like to find a way to solve, is the degree of self destruction women practice upon one another. The hen pecking thing is just impossible. And yes (straight) women are much higher maintenance.

I hope to improve some of this over the next decade with Oversing. But I suspect that stopping women from trying to social climb their chick-status-ladder by gossip and undermining is freaking impossible.

Curt Doolittle on Libertarianism and Diversity

ON RACE AND DIVERSITY IN LIBERTARIANISM
(cross posted for reference) (insights) (important)

METHODS
Methods of justification for libertarianism (or any other political and moral bias)
1) Sentimental (I like it)
2) Moral (it’s better)
3) Historical (it works)
4) Empirical (direct experimentation)
5) Economic (indirect experimentation)
6) Ratio-scientific (cumulative evidence and theory)

TWO SOURCES OF LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT
1) Conservative and Classical Liberal Land holders (christian)
2) Anarchic and religious non-land holders (jewish/gypsies)

FOUR SOCIAL STRUCTURES
1) German (Kant/hierarchical/duty/nuclear family)
2) French ( Rousseau/equalitarian/care/traditional family)
3) British (smith-hume+ / aristocratic egalitarian / empirical/ absolute nuclear family)
4) Jewish (ricardo-mises-rothbard/tribalism)

FOUR AMBITIONS
1) The british saw free trade as an international means of achieving peace and prosperity for all europeans.
2) The germans were trying to resist british consumerism’s disruption of ‘social order’ implicit in german ‘duty’.
3) The french were trying to extend the family to all of society, and demonstrate their nobility having failed to conquer Europe.
(The failures of the world wars and transformation from demonstrated material achievement, to the use of generosity and diversity to maintain status, explain current european behavior.)
4) The jews were and are, trying to justify their participation in a host society without integrating.

THE ANSWER
There are two basic reasons for ‘tolerance’ in the libertarian movement.
1) Jewish authors justifying right to inclusion but denial of the necessity of payment into the commons.
2) christian authors arguing for payment only into non monopolistic commons, while retaining a homogenous moral commons.
3) feminist and postmodernist influences.

DOMINANCE OF JEWISH THOUGHT
I think that Rothbard brought his heritage to the table (just as Hayek stated of Mises) and he conflated the two ambitions.

This is actually, the reason why rothbard failed to give us a morally tolerable libertarianism. And it is why libertarianism fails to gain traction. Humans are tribal. Immigration is a political problem. And human seek political power. So it is better to have a homogenous, liberty seeking people, for whom no seizure of power is of any group benefit, because the group is already in power. And there is no incentive for status achievement, because in a homogenous society, there is no status value to trying to gain power.

HOPPE’S CORRECTION
Hoppe, through admittedly interesting logic, has shown that rothbard was wrong. I have I think, with rather scientific rather than purely rational terms, demonstrated that Rothbard was wrong.

CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT
There is a very great difference between ‘we will not fight despite our differences if we trade’ and ‘we are all equal and can politically cohabitate without conflict’. Politics is a family matter. Trade is a cross-family matter. We can easily trade, but we cannot be politically diverse without replacing conflict over trade with conflict over politics.

ROTHBARD WAS WRONG.

THE STATUS ECONOMY RULES. We don’t ‘need’ much as human beings, except to hold onto our status, improve our status, and prevent loss of status. Loss aversion is more applicable to status than any other human trait except perhaps life and limb. We accumulate status, and desperately hold onto it.

Strong men more likely to have right-wing views, study reveals

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/strong-men-more-likely-to-have-right-wing-views-study-reveals/story-fneuzle5-1226644975491

I believe the “Propertarian” view is that most leftist policies can be considered an attempt by women to control the strongest men, and by weaker men to dethrone them. Libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy which allows for peaceful competition and voluntary exchange to determine who is most successful. The institution of property is a gentleman’s agreement to compete according to civilized rules: you don’t steal from me, and I won’t steal from you.

These rules happen to benefit everyone else too — every single layer of society, without exception — but many people would rather watch the world burn than allow such competition, because a free market might reveal the unbearable — that no one really values the eight years you spent crafting crappy prose about the extent of feminist views of some obscure historic figure.

Is this more-or-less it, Curt?

Swedish Feminists Are So Bored They’re Telling Men How to Sit on the Bus

open quote Sweden has a reputation as having the most equal relations between the sexes in the world—it’s a place where male politicians are voted “woman of the year” by feminists, where young dads on paternity leave take toddlers for play dates while their wives work, where a preschool can casually ban gendered pronouns. A recent World Economic Forum report claimed Sweden is the most gender equal country in the world.

Yet some Swedish women apparently think that the image of the Nordic country as a feminist’s paradise is just a veneer hiding deep-seated misogyny. Their evidence? Men slouching and taking up more than one seat on buses, trains, and subways.

To counter this “normalized expression of power” (that’s what they call slouching), a group of firebrand feminists have set up a blog called “Macho i Kollektivtrafiken” (“Macho in Public Transport”), encouraging readers to send in sneaky snaps of men in relaxed poses. The aim is to spread awareness of a “symbolic and active recreation not just of power, but of a stereotypical form of masculinity.”close quote (Read more)