Comments on Kanazawa’s Article

A few comments on the piece I posted yesterday from Satoshi Kanasawa in Psychology Today

He writes:

Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men.  The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women.  However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men.  In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

The historical oppression of women is an assumption that is rarely questioned.  I am glad to see Kanasawa doing exactly that.  I hope this poor guy is ready do be deluged with hate mail.  (I know he qualifies it a bit by saying modern feminism, which is fine.  I just don’t want it to look like I am trying to exagerate his position.  His words are his and mine are mine.)

Women and historical oppression, in 95% of people’s eyes, go together like peanut butter and jelly.   Even folks that think feminism has gone to far, believe the faulty premise that it rests on.

Most men throughout history were just as oppressed if not more so then the women.  The top tiny percentage of powerful men “oppressed” the other 99% of men by sending them off to wars, enslaving them, stealing their land and all sorts of other things.  It was no picnic for the ladies, but one real measure of oppression, or relative lack thereof , is life expectancy and reproductive success.

Men tend to clear the path (voluntarily or not and to improve their mate value).  They invent new technology, discover new medicine and risk their lives fighting wars, building infrastructure and extracting natural resources to enrich and energize society. 

After the hard part is done( the stuff that 95% of women want no part of,and need no part of to find a good mate) and all of the wrinkles are ironed out, women’s groups (bitter ugly women, lesbians, man haters) step up and demand a seat at the table.  When this doesn’t happen quickly enough, howls of inequality are heard. It seems to be women with low mate value( the agitators),swpl (useful idiots) and political opportunists(the enablers) that resent deeply ingrained male/female differences the most.

Take selective service.  Only a tiny minority of hardcore feminists advocate drafting women into military service along with the men.  (I suspect this is mostly for show lest they be accused of ideological inconsistency.  Or its assumed that women will be used in support positions and not the actual fighting.)  I predict though, in however many years from now, when we fight wars with drones and robots, women’s groups will be clamoring to sit in the air conditioned military base, arms on the remote controls, invading terrorist compounds from 8000 miles away.  Cries of sexism will be heard until the numbers of men and women are “equal”.

The safer the military becomes, the more women join.  We are then supposed to look back on yesteryear and decry how sexist it was, and what brave pioneers it must have taken to get rid of the old boys network.  Never mind the fact that the military wasn’t an appealing choice to most women 50 years ago(again, ingrained gender differences).

Jobs that women find attractive to do in 2009 weren’t available in 1509 or 1909 for that matter.  Jobs in 2009 that are similar to jobs in 1909 are predominantly male.  Dangerous, physical and dirty jobs are almost entirely the province of men.  Jobs like teacher and nurse were done by females 100 years ago just like today.  The fact that women work more now then they did 100 years ago doesn’t mean that they were oppressed 100 years ago.


Tangent: I’m alright with a limited role for women in certain parts of the military. Not in battle or other places(submarines etc.) that affect unit cohesion.  I’m not an expert, so I’ll leave where those places are up to the military.  (Free of political interference I hope.) I don’t begrudge a woman a desire to fight for her country. Just leave the “women are oppressed” spin out of it please.

.   It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.”  Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care.  Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives.  The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s.  This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

This apparently is irrelevant as long as there are more male CEOs and politicians.  Women’s groups like to compare all women to the 5% “Masters of the Universe”( funny how the wives( or mistresses) of these guys don’t seem to be complaining).   The sea of beta office drones, factory workers, mechanics, coal miners, military veterans,  street people, alcoholics, clinically insane, sickly, drug abusers and convicts are invisible to the empowered political agitators. 

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women.  Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception.  It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige.  They do, because they have to, in order to impress women.  Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to.  What do women control?  Men.  As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Men are active, women reactive.  Men do and women choose from the doers.  Men “do” in order to be chosen.  It’s the way of the world.  Gender differences, like facts, are stubborn things.

Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy.  In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal:  Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men.  Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men.  The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed.  Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do.  As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are.  As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy

The more money a woman makes, the smaller her pool of acceptable mates get.  Women, being naturally hypergamous, are loath to marry a man with lower status.  The problem is that these high earning women aren’t alone in competing for the finite pool of higher status males.  The high status male seeks beauty, fertility and compatibility by and large.  In other words, he will marry down. 

Talk about projection.  Do women think that because they judge a man on money and job status that men will do the same? 

Female mating value is mostly fixed.  Your looks are your looks.  This is hard for many women to swallow.  I’m sure it angers high IQ, educated and sophisticated “Plain Jane” that she will never get her very own alpha male accessory to go along with her career.  Her choices are to settle (and resent it), have serial short term relationships with men she cant get to commit( and resent it) or remain single (cat lady and resent it).

The harder it is for men to establish higher status the unhappier women will be.  Human nature sucks, fighting it makes it worse.

Here is some advice for the potential  young career women of today.  Instead of career, marriage and kids, lets change the order.  Marriage, kids and then career.  Start the career at 35 or 40 and work for 30 years.  Snag a good man at the height of your market value in your early 20’s.  Marry a guy a little older with some resources.  Even a Plain Jane looks pretty good for a lot of men at 21.  Your kids will be healthy and you will have the youthful energy to keep up with them.  When your youngest is entering middle school, start the career.  (Oh and if you are a plain jane, accept the fact that you will be settling, You will do much better for yourself to settle at 21 as opposed to 31 or 41.)

I know this isn’t a perfect scenario but biology and human nature don’t care about perfection. This is as close to having it all as you are going to get.  If you don’t know it now, you will learn that life is about trade offs.  You can learn it the easier way or the hard way.  It’s a lesson that men quickly learn whether they want to or not.   

Also,make a serious effort to get away from the propaganda and really try to learn about male/female differences.  Try to understand where your man is coming from.  Learn about the darker parts of your own nature.  Your nature is propagandized in the larger culture as verging on perfection.  Don’t believe it.  Like men, you have much to battle.   You will be much happier in the long run if  you know this and act accordingly. 

Figure out what you want.  Do you really want a career?  When you are 80 years old what do you think you will want?  A big loving family that surrounds you when you are old and feeble? If so, you need a good man and you need to have children.  It won’t be a walk in the park.  Much will frustrate you.  You will get bored by life’s mundane responsibilities and details. You will see the temptations of a more exciting and titillating life in popular culture and from relatives and friends. 

The rewards come later.  You won’t be young and beautiful for very long.  It sucks. You have a relatively small window.  It’s not fair that decisions you make at such a young age will determine such a large part of your life.  Thems the breaks though.  This path will close other opportunities for you.  Remember: trade offs.

If you choose a career, more power to you. There is much satisfaction to be gained from individual accomplishment.  It’s rewarding to make your own way. This choice, however, closes opportunities as well.  

Whatever you decide, get what you really want out of life and not what some idealogical old lesbian, hiding on a college campus wants. This advice was meant to be constructive.  It may sound harsh and it might be hard to believe , but in 20 years you might find that it rings truer than it does now.

If you would like to gain wisdom on relationships listen to this man.  He is one of the few conservatives that has a clue about male/ female dynamics. He comes from a religious Jewish perspective.  Much of what he says can be applied to other faiths or no faith at all.End advice.

The more talk about ingrained gender differences the better.  At this point the few dribbles to be found online and in a few other places are like drops in the ocean. 

PS: I don’t begrudge a woman her choices or how she want to live her life.  However, I resent the myriad of ways that society and individual men have to subsidize those choices.  More on that another time.


Filed under american women, feminism, Mens Issues

2 responses to “Comments on Kanazawa’s Article

  1. gantt:

    i enjoy kanazawa’s stuff. he constantly provides insightful commentary on evo psych subjects.

    you’ve probably already read it, but some of the things he wrote line up with Chinweizu’s ideas, especially those expressed in “The Anatomy of Female Power”. There’s a copy over at Ricky Raw’s site. very interesting stuff.

  2. Yeah I had vaugely heard of Kanazawa from the books he has written but have never read his stuff. I didn’t know he had a blog. Glad I found it.
    And you are right he echos Chinweizu quite a bit.
    “TAOFP” is a must read. It’s to bad that such a provocative book that challenges so much conventional thinking has been out of print for 15 to 20 years. If it wasnt for Ricky Raw I doubt I would have ever read it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s