Post: #1

Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women? No (WSJ)
By MARY EBERSTADT

A rather provocative article for a mainstream, albeit conservative, paper and written by a woman(!) no less. Interesting part:

Quote:This brings us to Myth No. 4, which is perhaps the most interesting one of all: The sexual revolution has made women happier.

Granted, happiness is a personal, imponderable thing. But if the sexual revolution has really made women as happy as feminists say, a few elementary questions beg to be answered.

Why do the pages of our tonier magazines brim with mournful titles like "The Case for Settling" and "The End of Men"? Why do websites run by and for women focus so much on men who won't grow up, and ooze such despair about relations between the sexes?

Why do so many accomplished women simply give up these days and decide to have children on their own, sometimes using anonymous sperm donors, thus creating the world's first purposely fatherless children? What of the fact, widely reported earlier this week, that 26% of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems?

Or how about what is known in sociology as "the paradox of declining female happiness"? Using 35 years of data from the General Social Survey, two Wharton School economists, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, made the case in 2009 that women's happiness appeared to be declining over time despite their advances in the work force and education.

The authors noted that women (and men) showed declining happiness during the years studied. Though they were careful not to draw conclusions from their data, is it not reasonable to think that at least some of that discontent comes from the feeling that the grass is greener elsewhere—a feeling made plausible by the sexual revolution?

However one looks at the situation, it seems difficult to argue that the results of the revolution have been a slam-dunk for happiness.

Of course, this is nothing new or shocking to us, but it's rare to see this kind of thing printed in the MSM.

Post: #2

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but honestly, I thought it sucked. Your average Heartiste/Roosh post sheds far more light on today's sexual dynamics than "Oh my God, women aren't as happy nowadays!" Which can be explained by a number of other reasons if you're determined to support feminism. This piece isn't going to change anyone's mind or tell someone something they didn't already know.

I'm betting that Eberstadt has seen Heartiste's work, but she's too cowardly to put any of the meat of it in it in print.

Post: #3

Good shit. +50

Post: #4

(03-24-2012 09:23 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but honestly, I thought it sucked. Your average Heartiste/Roosh post sheds far more light on today's sexual dynamics than "Oh my God, women aren't as happy nowadays!" Which can be explained by a number of other reasons if you're determined to support feminism. This piece isn't going to change anyone's mind or tell someone something they didn't already know.

Being the MSM, the article can't be too controversial, and no, if you've been reading Roissy for years it's not going to be magically illuminating. That wasn't the point. The point is that this article even exists.

Quote:I'm betting that Eberstadt has seen Heartiste's work, but she's too cowardly to put any of the meat of it in it in print.

I think you underestimate her. I didn't know about her before but she's a researcher at Stanford University's Hoover Institution (a conservative/libertarian policy think tank) and recently published a book further expounding on these issues. She likely had to tone it down to get the article printed in such a paper and was not doing it out of cowardice.

Post: #5

What it's interesting about this article is the fact that it's posted on a MSM newspaper.
Aside from that, and its contents which we are used to with, I have always thought that the Anglosphere has always had a very deep misandrist core. Feminism just helped that core to explode.

Post: #6

Ironically, the net result of feminism is that intelligence in women will become rarer. This would be because any women who has any sort of intelligence will go off and get as much education as she can and get the highest career she can given her intelligence. As we know, the more education and career status a women has, the less kids she will have. Therefore less offspring from intelligent women. At the same time, intelligent men do not have the same reduction in likelihood to have kids.

Overtime, a trait that might have been beneficial, or at the least benign, will be selected out. This will result in more chicks who are dumb and controllable since they were the only ones who passed on their genes.

Thus, feminism will create women who are less independent, equal, and strong willed.

Post: #7

(03-25-2012 09:48 PM)cibo Wrote:  Ironically, the net result of feminism is that intelligence in women will become rarer. This would be because any women who has any sort of intelligence will go off and get as much education as she can and get the highest career she can given her intelligence. As we know, the more education and career status a women has, the less kids she will have. Therefore less offspring from intelligent women. At the same time, intelligent men do not have the same reduction in likelihood to have kids.

Overtime, a trait that might have been beneficial, or at the least benign, will be selected out. This will result in more chicks who are dumb and controllable since they were the only ones who passed on their genes.

Thus, feminism will create women who are less independent, equal, and strong willed.

The ultimate irony.

Post: #8

(03-25-2012 09:48 PM)cibo Wrote:  Ironically, the net result of feminism is that intelligence in women will become rarer. This would be because any women who has any sort of intelligence will go off and get as much education as she can and get the highest career she can given her intelligence. As we know, the more education and career status a women has, the less kids she will have. Therefore less offspring from intelligent women. At the same time, intelligent men do not have the same reduction in likelihood to have kids.

Overtime, a trait that might have been beneficial, or at the least benign, will be selected out. This will result in more chicks who are dumb and controllable since they were the only ones who passed on their genes.

Thus, feminism will create women who are less independent, equal, and strong willed.

We don't know if intelligent men cannot have intelligent daughters with dumb women.

Post: #9

Regardless if the sexual revolution was good or bad, there's no turning back now. What has been learning cannot be unlearned, and men with game will continue to profit from this.


I think the sexual revolution has been good for men, but bad for women. That's the true irony, given how many rabid feminists pushed for these changes.

Post: #10

(03-26-2012 10:42 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 09:48 PM)cibo Wrote:  Ironically, the net result of feminism is that intelligence in women will become rarer. This would be because any women who has any sort of intelligence will go off and get as much education as she can and get the highest career she can given her intelligence. As we know, the more education and career status a women has, the less kids she will have. Therefore less offspring from intelligent women. At the same time, intelligent men do not have the same reduction in likelihood to have kids.

Overtime, a trait that might have been beneficial, or at the least benign, will be selected out. This will result in more chicks who are dumb and controllable since they were the only ones who passed on their genes.

Thus, feminism will create women who are less independent, equal, and strong willed.

We don't know if intelligent men cannot have intelligent daughters with dumb women.

Logically, if they are intelligent they would face the same problems in having kids which means this trait would still be selected out.

I believe overtime dumb daughters with a smart guy will be more common. There is already evidence of differences in IQ between the sexes. Girls have a slightly lower average IQ with a smaller IQ range with less smart/dumb compared to guys. Guys are better at mathematics and abstract reasoning while girls are better at language. So it's possible that the IQ of girls will be set lower to increase their likelihood to reproduce.

Post: #11

Quote:Logically, if they are intelligent they would face the same problems in having kids which means this trait would still be selected out.

Wrong. If intelligent men can have intelligent daughters, and if intelligent men reproduce at great enough rate, there will be no shortage of intelligent women in the future.

Post: #12

(03-26-2012 11:36 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Logically, if they are intelligent they would face the same problems in having kids which means this trait would still be selected out.

Wrong. If intelligent men can have intelligent daughters, and if intelligent men reproduce at great enough rate, there will be no shortage of intelligent women in the future.

If we make that assumption that intelligent men can keep producing enough intelligent girls to offset the kids lack of reproduction success their offspring face, then yes you would be correct.

But, I feel that's unlikely. Even then, to reasonably maintain the intelligence level between kin, this would assume that the kids will be about as smart as the dads would be and there would be little dumbing down effect from dumb mothers.

Post: #13

The future of Earth if things continue as is:







http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/crea...acy-theory

Quote:The observation led the researchers to a radical conclusion: As complex societies emerged, the brain became smaller because people did not have to be as smart to stay alive. As Geary explains, individuals who would not have been able to survive by their wits alone could scrape by with the help of others—supported, as it were, by the first social safety nets. Consequently, as society became more and more complex so did the social safety nets which proliferated and became more and more sophisticated and comprehensive. Like the birds on remote islands that lost their ability to fly, we are becoming a species that is losing its ability to think because we no longer have to think in order to survive.

Post: #14

Keep in mind, there are advantages for a guy to be intelligent since he increases his resources and finds better strategies to reproduce. So, I wouldn't take the other extreme everyone will be dumb either.

Post: #15

The article cited 26% of women are on pyscho-ative (mind altering) drugs. So, I did a Google search and found the source:

26% of women took psycho active drugs in 2010

What is mind blowing about this is that this is not some bullshit survey. This is a sample of more than two million patients’ pharmacy records analyzed by Medco, a big pharmacy-benefits manager, for the year 2010. This is shocking and sad for America. I bet adjusted for age younger women skew higher.

Post: #16

Quote:But, I feel that's unlikely. Even then, to reasonably maintain the intelligence level between kin, this would assume that the kids will be about as smart as the dads would be and there would be little dumbing down effect from dumb mothers.

That's not how traits are passed down from generation to generation. Every time a child is formed, it either gets his mother's or father's genes on a certain trait.

So if a brown eyed woman and blue eyed man mated, the kids would come out either blue or brown eyed, not with one brown and one blue eye.


Likewise, a smart father and dumb mother would give birth to a mix of kids: some would be very intelligent, others not so much.

Post: #17

(03-26-2012 01:27 PM)durangotang Wrote:  The article cited 26% of women are on pyscho-ative (mind altering) drugs. So, I did a Google search and found the source:

26% of women took psycho active drugs in 2010

What is mind blowing about this is that this is not some bullshit survey. This is a sample of more than two million patients’ pharmacy records analyzed by Medco, a big pharmacy-benefits manager, for the year 2010. This is shocking and sad for America. I bet adjusted for age younger women skew higher.

I mentioned this in the other thread on crazy bitches - in NYC, the figure is easily higher. It is downright scary how many single women in NYC are on psycho-active meds - mostly antidepressants. For guys currently living in NYC (probably true for DC as well) - check the medicine cabinets of the chicks you bang. When I started doing this, I was blown away. Bitches be crazy.

Post: #18

(03-26-2012 06:48 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-26-2012 01:27 PM)durangotang Wrote:  The article cited 26% of women are on pyscho-ative (mind altering) drugs. So, I did a Google search and found the source:

26% of women took psycho active drugs in 2010

What is mind blowing about this is that this is not some bullshit survey. This is a sample of more than two million patients’ pharmacy records analyzed by Medco, a big pharmacy-benefits manager, for the year 2010. This is shocking and sad for America. I bet adjusted for age younger women skew higher.

I mentioned this in the other thread on crazy bitches - in NYC, the figure is easily higher. It is downright scary how many single women in NYC are on psycho-active meds - mostly antidepressants. For guys currently living in NYC (probably true for DC as well) - check the medicine cabinets of the chicks you bang. When I started doing this, I was blown away. Bitches be crazy.

When men are having a rough time, we're told to man-up. When they hit a rough patch they run to a therapist and get some pills to make it better.

Post: #19

(03-26-2012 06:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:But, I feel that's unlikely. Even then, to reasonably maintain the intelligence level between kin, this would assume that the kids will be about as smart as the dads would be and there would be little dumbing down effect from dumb mothers.

That's not how traits are passed down from generation to generation. Every time a child is formed, it either gets his mother's or father's genes on a certain trait.

So if a brown eyed woman and blue eyed man mated, the kids would come out either blue or brown eyed, not with one brown and one blue eye.


Likewise, a smart father and dumb mother would give birth to a mix of kids: some would be very intelligent, others not so much.

That's what i mean. I'm assuming there will be some smart kids and some dumb kids which is exactly what would reduce the likelihood of the smart man wonder penis theory that solves the problem of the environment consider intelligence in women a unfit gene.

Look let's do the math.

A daughter from dumb women and smart guy would be probably more likely to be smart. Let's say if there's a daughter, it's 75% chance for smart and 25% chance for dumb, which assumes intelligence is a dominate trait. And the average couple has 50/50 guys to girls. Let's say smart girls will go for smart guys more than dumb guys, and that a few smart girls will go for a dumb guy.

Assumptions
Couples
Sguy + Sgirl 70%
Dguy + Sgirl 10%
Sguy + Dgirl 25%
Dguy + Dgirl 75%
Male/female BR Spilt 50%
dominate gene passed down rate for IQ 75%
Smart girl kids amount per couple 1.50
Dumb girl kids amount per couple 2.60

Women prefer smart guy>dumb guy
If more smart guys than smart girls, then dumb girls are used.
high/low intelligence only
current paradigm remains

Starting point 1,000 of each type.

   

Both in effectiveness and volume, an intelligent women will not be as successful. the smart women, and smart people in general, WILL be out bred. Though will not fully go away.

If however, smart women had at least as many kids as dumb women, assuming the high rate of pass IQ pass down, there would be more smart people.

   

Post: #20

You have to remember that smart guys/dumb girls would probably be affluent since smart guys are wealthy usually. So decent genetics+Strong background=high likelihood of intelligence.

Post: #21

(03-27-2012 12:23 AM)Skyhigh Wrote:  You have to remember that smart guys/dumb girls would probably be affluent since smart guys are wealthy usually. So decent genetics+Strong background=high likelihood of intelligence.

I assumed that, i just forgot to write it. I assumed that smart guys/girls will have better access to resources since they would have better careers, good families, etc. Hence, a smart guy will be picked over a dumb guy for more than just being smart but the attributes that correlate with IQ.

Post: #22

Cibo: Nice job with the charts. But in both of your analyses, smart people aren't selected out. Even if smart women do not reproduce as much, there will always be smart people running around controlling the world.

Post: #23

(03-27-2012 12:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Cibo: Nice job with the charts. But in both of your analyses, smart people aren't selected out. Even if smart women do not reproduce as much, there will always be smart people running around controlling the world.

Thanks. I'm used to making models to test different views So yes, you are correct, the model does show that not all people will be dumb but there will be significantly less smart people under the current social situation. This becomes more an argument of the of degree of how many smart people are being removed. So I must admit that all girls being outbred overstates the likely outcome. But, there is still significant evidence for smart people being less fit versus dumb in terms of reproduction.

Thus, we can conclude that on average girls/people will be dumber if things don't change. It doesn't mean that they all will be dumb, but a fuck load more.

Post: #24

(03-27-2012 03:18 PM)cibo Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 12:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Cibo: Nice job with the charts. But in both of your analyses, smart people aren't selected out. Even if smart women do not reproduce as much, there will always be smart people running around controlling the world.

Thanks. I'm used to making models to test different views So yes, you are correct, the model does show that not all people will be dumb but there will be significantly less smart people under the current social situation. This becomes more an argument of the of degree of how many smart people are being removed. So I must admit that all girls being outbred overstates the likely outcome. But, there is still significant evidence for smart people being less fit versus dumb in terms of reproduction.

Thus, we can conclude that on average girls/people will be dumber if things don't change. It doesn't mean that they all will be dumb, but a fuck load more.

Yes, but it doesn't matter how many dumb people outnumber the smart ones.

One intelligent man can assume control of thousands.

One intelligent man can create a work that influences millions.

One intelligent man can invent something that revolutionizes the world.


Speaking as an intelligent man myself, I kind of like that the rest of the world is becoming retarded. Just means less competition for me and my kids.



Furthermore, it's not like the world needs intelligent women. It needs intelligent men, but not women. Women just need to be beautiful, which, unfortunately, isn't something that's being selected for much nowadays...