Category Archives: Argument

How Are So-Called Right-Wing Feminists Different From The Left Variety? Not Much …

Affirmative Action, Argument, Feminism, Gender, Labor, Sex, Technology

So-called right-wing feminists such as Christina Sommers still don’t admit or grasp that, in aggregate, women have different aptitudes to men. Leveling the playing field (an impossibility, unless force is used) to them is just about choosing a different major.

For a more realistic survey of what women do in engineering and how they fare, read my “James Damore V. Google: Man Against Multinational & Matriarchy”:

Despite active recruiting and ample affirmative action, women made up only 14.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, of computer science and electrical engineering graduates, in 2015. While they comprise 21.4 percent of undergraduates enrolled in engineering, females earned only 19.9 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees awarded by an engineering program in 2015.”

There is attrition!

Overall, and in the same year, 80.1 percent of Bachelor’s degrees in engineering went to men; 19.9 percent to women. (“Engineering by the Numbers,” By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.)

 

The Quality Of ‘Argument’ On Leftist Campus

Argument, Education, Intelligence, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pseudo-intellectualism, Reason

The quality of argument one can expect from the Left, which dominates campuses, is as follows: When confronted about the fact that 99 percent of colleges faculty are left-liberals, the reply from the Left is that to get into college you need to be smart and libertarians, classical liberals, conservatives and independents are simply not as smart as the Left. The argument is distilled by King’s College Politics Professor David Corbin as, “You’re stupid because you’re not like me.”

These are the folks that are shaping your kinds’ minds. More about the Zombie Nation in “Continuum Of Propaganda: Yale, Mizzou & Your Child’s School.”

Black Supremacy; White Slavery

Argument, Conservatism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race, Racism

“He’s a college dropout still trying to catch up on his reading.” … He “can only talk about racism because it’s the one subject for which he can claim immunity from the facts, not based on the truth, but based on an assumed moral authority of victimhood.” … He gets “paid to blog about his thoughts on Spider-Man for The Atlantic.” “His only struggle is deciding which frustration with a taxi, waiter or butler to turn into a column about racism this week.” “He was a visiting professor at MIT despite not having a degree in anything. He’s a success story whose topic is his own oppression.” His name is Ta-Nehisi Coates [yes, he’s an American, if a pretentious one]. And Daniel Greenfield describes his ilk to a T—except for the thing where conservatives, presumably to appear righteous, claim that such black privilege and supremacy make blacks “slaves on the liberal plantation.”

Nonsense! Come to think of it, the supremacy of the one race enslaves the other; it makes whites slaves.

“Rachel Dolezal: A Racially Abused Girl—Really” gets it right:

In America, black is beautiful. To be black is to be more righteous, nobler; carry the heaviest historic baggage—heavier than the Holocaust—and be encouraged to perpetually and publicly pick at those suppurating sores.

To be black is to have an unwritten, implicit social contract with wider, whiter society.

To be black it to be born with an IOY; it is to be owed apologies, obsequiousness, education, and auto-exculpation for any wrongdoing.

Conservative Argument From Feelings Against Fem Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action, Ann Coulter, Argument, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Reason

Presumably pursuant to the posts “Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal” and “With Some Exceptions, ‘Women Are Fascists At Heart,’” Ben Cohen of “American Thinker” has been kind enough to send me his piece, “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger.”

Thanks.

My problem, however, with “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger” is its non-stop apologetics, which come close to accepting the premise of “gender parity through affirmative action,” provided women are a little more gracious about all the concessions they are getting.

“Those demanding that more women be hired in various academic fields” are “sanctimonious and callous,” “blatantly self-serving”; not nice, demanding.

This amounts to psychologizing, not arguing.

Moreover, why is it “bad” for men to have given an “unfriendly reception” to women who’ve been forcibly integrated into the traditionally male trades?

If they don’t deserve to be on the job, on merit, why does friendliness matter; why is it the focus here? And why have men taken to arguing like women? (“You hurt my feelings. Be nice.” Or, “do feminists ever stop and consider the men’s perspective?”)

It’s disconcerting.

As an individualist, I am all for recruiting your lesbian, Amazonian lady to the traditionally male occupations. She is a rare creature who can match men in physicality. Seek her. Keep her. In an increasingly feminized, soft society, warrior women need the military, for example, as an outlet for their abilities. Let these women join the police, military or the fire brigade. An exception, not the rule, however, is the woman who can match a man in strength, speed, physical endurance and handiness.

So why on earth is male “unfriendliness” toward women who force them to do double duty on the job relevant? Even the woman-glorifying, TV cop series we all watch can’t help but display men outrunning their partners, catching up to the criminal, pummeling the thug, and saving the more feeble female cop’s life.

A male cop who serves along a 100 pound woman with silicone for breasts is risking his life. Receiving her with hostility into the force is hardly the issue here. Neither is it wrong.

I hardly think an “unfriendly” reception is the crux of the matter in the grander program of engineered gender parity.

Read “Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!” by Ann Coulter, where she gets straight to the matter:

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? … The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I’ll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from “de-escalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won’t reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. …

MORE.