Reality television reveals the difference between men and women

I have been watching “survivor amazon” and the second season of “The Island with Bear Grylls”

In both reality television series, a team of men, and a team of women, are dumped in separate locations to survive in a tropical paradise.

In both, the men promptly locate a campsite, build a fire, and build shelter. The women hang around in the open in the rain. They do very little any work, and what work they do do is hopeless incompetent and ineffectual.

In “The Island with Bear Grylls” the men locate a campsite and build a fire immediately. They then build first an impromptu shelter for the fire, to protect it from the torrential tropical rainstorms, and then a proper shelter for themselves.

The women spend the first four days in on their Island hopelessly lost wandering in circles in the jungle.

Their efforts to build shelter are feeble, slight, grossly incompetent, and ineffectual, and they soon give up on them.

Eventually they set camp, in the sense that they give up on moving around looking for a nice place to camp, start a fire and attempt to boil some water in a jerry can – which they leave sealed while boiling. Disaster ensues.

After a while they realize that the location where they are hanging out (you cannot call it a camp site, for there are no camp facilities except for a fire) is no good, and move to site previously scouted by one of the few competent women.

They attempt to start a new fire with the fire starting kit that the organizers provided for them (bow and stick) but cannot repair it when it wears out

The organizer has to personally intervene, and gives them a new fire starting bow and stick that he personally made.

Both of these shows indicate that in the ancestral environment, men supported women and children, and women provided sex and children, that women are incapable of looking after themselves.

In both shows, the difference was not physical strength and endurance. The difference was that men are simply markedly more competent, better able to work together as a team, and that men have dramatically longer time preference than women. Some of their superior competence reflects that fact that men are innately smarter than women in the kind of intelligence tests that they faced – physical problems rather than verbal, but most of it reflects their willingness to defer to the most able amongst them, while the women just bitched at each other.

Just as any normal healthy adult male is dramatically stronger than any normal healthy adult women, with essentially zero overlap, the shows revealed a much more important difference: Essentially zero overlap in future orientation.

The women were suffering hypothermia in the rain, and were nonetheless lying about in chilling rain the making no effort to build a shelter. Not one man on the show “The Island with Bear Grylls” behaved as every single woman in the shows behaved.

The women were disinclined to do anything that did not give immediate payoff, so spent pretty much all the time goofing off while homeless, thirsty, and starving in the rain. They very much needed men, not only to look after them, but to tell them what to do, to restrain their bad behavior, and command good behavior, to put them to work, to make them useful.

In both shows the primary difference between team woman and team man was not strength and speed, but that team woman was lazy, stupid, feckless, incompetent, disorderly, disobedient, and irresponsible. I am sure that any eighteenth century gentlemen seeing the even numbered episodes of Season two of “The Island with Bear Grylls” would say “Those women, all of them, need a good whipping.”

It was also immediately obvious that women are by nature nurturers, the source of life, while men are by nature killers. When the men encounter a crocodile, ancient instincts command them, and they suddenly become a team of brave, extremely violent, and absolutely determined killers, even though in civilization they answered phones or developed web graphics. When the women encounter some wild pigs, they treat them like babies, they domesticate them. Even though the women have no food to give the pigs, they seduce them into becoming tame and following the women around. And then they tearfully kill and eat the pigs. Clearly it was woman who first domesticated animals. No way would a man have seduced those pigs. And equally, no way could team woman have killed the crocodile.

102 Responses to “Reality television reveals the difference between men and women”

  1. R7_Rocket says:

    OT: First the Whites, then the Asians. The Cathedral’s NGOs are targeting Asians as well as Whites. As I stated before on many comment sections on the Internet.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/22/national/social-issues/first-japanese-bill-outlawing-racism-hate-speech-submitted-to-upper-house/#.VahHOopHbCR

    But the punchline is that the bill has no actual punishments in it. Smokescreen against the baka gaijin in the U.S. State Department.

    • peppermint says:

      The Civil Rights Act doesn’t contain punishments, and according to Hubert Humphrey,

      » If the Senator can find in Title VII … any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        True. But the bureaucracy in Japan determines how laws are actually enforced there.

      • Ion says:

        >The Civil Rights Act doesn’t contain punishments
        That is obviously false.

        >any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin
        The employer does not have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota. He must hire equally on the basis of race, or be sued.

        We could prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of college education. And that would not be requiring them to hire on the basis of a percentage or quota.

  2. Hidden Author says:

    But there are two objections:

    1. Western women and especially urban American women tend to be far more pampered than the world’s average woman.

    2. If people don’t believe women should be outdoorsy, then they will not learn from those who are. If they do not learn from those who are, they will not be able to become outdoorsy. If they are unable to be outdoorsy, they will be aware of this, therefore…(Repeat cycle)

    • jay says:

      Both men and women were pampered by civilization. Men still did better.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        Both men and women were pampered by civilization. Men still did better.

        +1

        • cazalla says:

          If you play this out to the most obvious conclusion, the men didn’t do any better as they were womanless and are metaphorically “lying about in chilling rain.. making no effort.” A real man would’ve left his all male tribe, joined the female tribe by securing them foot/shelter and taking the best of them to produce his children.

          I enjoy the articles on this blog as many of them are food for thought but this one is just awful.

          • jim says:

            The point of the experiment was that men and women were on separate islands, a very long distance apart. There was no way one of the men’s group could have gone to the women’s group.

          • cazalla says:

            That a flawed experiment produced a flawed conclusion should be of no surprise to anyone.

            • jim says:

              In what was the experiment flawed? That the men on the men’s island failed to subsidize the women on the women’s island?

              The whole point of experiment was “can women survive without men looking after them?”. Obviously they cannot.

          • cazalla says:

            How can you argue that the men on the men’s island survived without women? The men are as much sitting ducks despite having food and shelter when they have no women to produce children with. It is just as easily argued that men cannot survive without women in such an experiment unless you think having food and shelter, dying with no-one to come after you is some how surviving. It’s not.

            • jim says:

              Men need women for sex and children. Women need men for food, shelter, protection, guidance, and supervision.

              We already knew that men need women for sex and children. The experiment proved that women need men for food, shelter, protection, guidance and supervision.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Cazalla, you seem so obsessed with denouncing the “electric Jew” that you fail to differentiate between short-term and long-term. In the long term, an exclusively single-sex society would indeed die!

          • cazalla says:

            Hidden Author, my pilotless plane was flying fine right up until the point it crashed into the ground.

          • “A real man would’ve left his all male tribe,”
            No. That is treason. Women throughout the centuries have been used to seduce weak men into leaving their tribes and fighting for another. It has never ended well for anybody involved.

    • jim says:

      I don’t think any environmental explanation explains women lying around in the cold rain goofing off and not building a shelter. Women by nature should not be treated as adults and should always be under adult supervision.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Environmental factors such as pamperedness could be explained anyways but what I was getting at is that our culture and probably most if not all cultures train men to tackle the outdoors more than women so it’s not a surprise if men do better. Men are naturally stronger and more aggressive but upbringing has an effect too…

        • peppermint says:

          if only the grrl scouts would go camping instead of sewing and selling cookies, right?

          at some point, you must recognize that girls do not want to be boys. In fact, you are oppressing them by demanding that they try to act like boys. They will try to, because women were created to help men, for example, if you try to worship them, they will try to help you by demanding it. But they won’t be happy about it if you don’t treat them right.

        • jim says:

          Yes, men are naturally stronger and more aggressive, which mattered when they ran into the crocodile, and suddenly transformed from graphic artists and such into a tightly knit team of startlingly brave and savage killer apes. “OK, on the count of three, everyone attacks the crocodile.” But that does not explain why in episode seven and eight of “The Island” the men have built beds that support them above the wet ground above the creepy crawlies inside huts that shelter them from the rain, why by episode seven each man has his own personal hut and raised bed, plus a shared living room for the fire and meals, while the women are still sleeping on the hard wet dirt in the pouring rain. Nor does it explain why the women are lying on the sand sunning themselves and starving, while the men are hard at work every day.

          In “Survivor Amazon”, the difference between men and women is less obvious, because the male organizer is continually forcing team woman to do stuff, but in “The Island” where the women are left completely to their own devices, it is perfectly clear that unsupervised women are just no damn good, they need a man to tell them what to do and how to do it, that without men in charge, women will just quietly lie back and let every thing fall apart, and if any of them manage to get off their backs and do something, they will have no idea what to do.

          Day after day, the women on “The Island” just lie on the dirt and let the rain fall on their heads.

          They are not only less strong and less aggressive, not only less attuned to the outdoors.

          They are lazy, irresponsible, incompetent, ineffectual, and have alarmingly short time preference. They are not team players. They don’t work well with each other.

          They need to be told what to do and made to do it. Women were created to be helpers. Left to their own devices, without a master, they are completely lost.

          The laziest and most useless of the men does important and valuable work. The most competent and industrious of the women lies on the dirt in the pouring rain, lacking a master to tell her what to do.

          • Greg says:

            Of course, the woman don’t see themselves as alone out there, surrounded as they are by constantly perving camera eyes, 24/7.

            So, to a smart and (dare I say it?) future time oriented woman, what’s more important: doing hard work to avoid a few days of bad weather now, or looking like the most desirable hot female of the bunch on national TV?

          • Scorciam says:

            Does nobody here get that this is reality TV and thus entirely staged and fake?

            • jim says:

              There is no way that they would stage and fake the men succeeding and the women failing.

              There was some staging in that the islands came prestocked with food plants and food animals, coconuts and pigs for the women, crocodiles for the men, but this staging was openly admitted, though understated. Also they admitted giving women help with starting a fire, though this staging was again understated.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Greg:

            > So, to a smart and (dare I say it?) future time
            > oriented woman, what’s more important: doing hard
            > work to avoid a few days of bad weather now, or
            > looking like the most desirable hot female of the
            > bunch on national TV?

            Sharp as a tack, my man.

            All the time I see this. Women seem to focus their attention on “looking-like” (“Look, I’m a soldier!” “Look, I’m a scientist!” “Look, I’m a pilot!” “Look, I’m a bride on her wedding day!”) as opposed to what I would simply call “being” or “doing”.

            So here on the TV show, in the way you pointed out, they may not be accomplishing much, but they sure are optimizing their looking-like.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Jim, you seem to not get my point: The women’s previous lives prepared them less for the reality show than even the men’s. After all, urban men are more likely to at least read about or watch a video about primitive living. If the women were the type to acquire knowledge about they were getting into–say, they were tribal women, Third Women or even farm women, they would probably be better at living on a very primitive level.

          • peppermint says:

            You mean to say, if their men had told them to practice more. But, their men *do* tell them that. Look at the talmudvision, see grrl power amazons everywhere. Star Trek, Stargate, even Lord of the Rings, written by a traditionalist Catholic who refused to his dying breath to say the congregation’s lines in Mass in the vulgar tongue. Why hasn’t it taken effect? Let’s push it harder, right? Have you stopped to consider that women will obey you, you representing the ruling consensus, but you are mistreating them, like if you were feeding your dog soybeans?

            White men do not mistreat dogs, horses, women, or niggers. We do not treat smallhats dishonestly or unfairly. We are very concerned about any hint to the contrary, and take it very seriously.

            (thus, the smallhats evolved to cry out in pain while they strike us)

          • Hidden Author says:

            I don’t really care if they practice more or if their men tell them to practice more. I just think that a woman (or a man, for that matter) shouldn’t do something like that on a dare but should do it if she is mentally prepared. And there are women more prepared…you just have to look outside First World metropolitan areas…

          • jim says:

            But the women did not even try. The women were suffering hypothermia in the rain, and were nonetheless lying about in chilling rain the making no effort to build a shelter.

            A couple of women made a feeble attempt to build a shelter, which immediately fell down. And that was that. They did not say “Oh, we did that wrong. Let’s get some help, get some advice, try again with a different design.”

            The greatest hunter of the men takes a day off hunting to build himself a nicer shelter than the shared shelter that everyone was using. In the morning, he tells us he had his first decent night’s sleep. Shortly thereafter, he commands everyone to build shelters on the same design. They call him Hitler, but they do as directed.

            The men got better at shelter building by doing it over and over and over and by learning from the best among them. They did a lot of work and their shelters get better and better. A couple of the women attempted it once, briefly, and then attempted it no more.

    • Girl scouts is a very popular thing for girls.

  3. Rhett says:

    Well, what can I say. That which is described above is so obvious. Even men who are considered ‘dumb’ can still do exactly what the above described men did.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Women have a relatively high verbal ability, that’s true. But under pressure they turn out to be squabblers more than negotiators. This blogpost was an enjoyable read.

    A.J.P.

  5. Marapoem says:

    Women have no sense of time. For instance, they always wait for the last minute to start preparing, then suddenly become fretful and hysterical about being late, and blame hubby. They also never plan for the future; they “live in the moment”, and if that means nothing ever gets done properly, so be it. It’s one reason why they fail at diet – they don’t see it’s not working until it’s way too late (another reason is lack of self-control). Also, it takes them a billion years to buy 3 items when shopping – the hesitation is intolerable! Whereas men know what they want and set out to achieve it, women just go with the flow, which translates to crisis-mode 24/7. They can’t, and must not be allowed, to build civilization.

    • Ron says:

      Agreed with everything in your comment except the last two words. I would change that to

      “They can’t, and must no be allowed to command”

    • Haven Dolezal says:

      Not so sure about that. I know plenty of women who are very organised and focussed and plenty of men who leave everything until the last minute.

      However, I have seen more than one woman change things at the last minute and end up scrambling as urgently as if she had done nothing in advance. Moreover, a last minute type guy can operate under the pressure without falling to pieces but women get panicky.

      I am sure IQ, race and upbringing comes into it. We are not raising women very well these days so I shudder to think what 20 something women are like now.

      • jim says:

        Wives often do a very good job working for their husband under their husband’s supervision for the good of their husband and family.

        Working for themselves, not so much.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Actually I worked for a very good female dentist and her dental team. The only males involved were myself as a clerical worker and the dentist’s husband (who assisted her rather than the other way around). On the other hand, her husband seemed more happy, even hyper, compared to the dentist who seems weighed down by her work.

          But at any rate, people’s talents exist on a spectrum. I still insist that farm girls, Third World girls or even tribal girls would do better than city girls. Most girls cannot fight as military combatants but perhaps 1-2% could fight on a male level. Etc. Etc.

          • Red says:

            >Most girls cannot fight as military combatants but perhaps 1-2% could fight on a male level.

            Nope.

            Stronger bigger female solder almost beaten to death(Marine was pulling his punches by the end):
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRfCpQx_FDE

            Even in the MMA a tranny who cut off his balls off obliterates the best female fighters:
            http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/transgender-mma-fighter-destroys-female-opponent/

          • jim says:

            and the dentist’s husband (who assisted her rather than the other way around)

            When I and my wife were shopping for a house, she did most of the work and made 99% of the decisions.

            If you looked at her planning our movements, booking our hotels, doing the negotiation, selecting the houses we looked at, you might imagine I was helping her rather that she was helping me.

            But every decision she made was potentially subject to my supervision and being overruled by me.

            And when I overruled her there was never any back talk, even if I was wrong she just remade our plans to fit with my decision.

            I decided “We will buy this house. Beat him down to the lowest possible price”. Wife, who is a very good negotiator, and can look at someone and know the least they will take and the most they will pay, proceeds to beat him down.

            Soon we are in one or two thousand of the minimum price he is willing to take. I tell her. “Settle now. I don’t want this house to get away”

            “But”, she says, “I am sure I can get him down another thousand or two thousand.”

            “Peanuts”, I say. “Settle.” So she settles. She may be sure, but her husband is unsure, so that is that.

            Women are useful and often very hard working under male supervision. That is their nature. They are made to be helpers, not self starters. Tell them what they should be doing, and they will do it well.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Red, your argument is dishonest because it depends on linguistic confusion. You mention a “stronger” woman who gets beaten by a male opponent–obviously if he was beating her down, she wasn’t “stronger”!

          • Red says:

            Hidden, you’ve never been in a fight. Strength is a smaller factor in fighting than aggressiveness, toughness, weight, and mental/physical speed.

            Watch that boxing match again. The women was massively too slow mental/physically to cause the guy any damage despite both them being about the same weight. The guy had to start pulling his punches from the very start because he was going to killed her like she was a 90 pound child if he went full force. Men natural know to roll with the punches, while she walked into blow after blow without rolling with it.

            All women are like that. Even the really big strong ones are too slow and have the wrong instincts to make effective fighters.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes your say-so negates historical records of women fighting disguised as male soldiers or fighting openly as female soldiers for the Kurds and Soviets. Note that I didn’t say the strongest 1-2% of women were the fighting equals of the strongest 1-2% of men. If I said that, I would be ignoring the very obvious reason men and women are segregated in athletics. I was saying that the strongest 1-2% of women had just enough grit to fight for or against the average male soldier, especially if his High Command resorted to conscripting I’ll-prepared rabble…

            • jim says:

              Plenty of women want to play “Look at me, I am a soldier”, or “look at me I am fireman”. On the show “the Island” we saw a whole lot of posturing in bikinis “Look at me, I am a bikini clad cavewoman”.

              Of actual soldiering, however, there is less evidence.

              On the show, we saw that every man on the show was a killer, and not one of the women were killers.

          • Red says:

            >Yes your say-so negates historical records of women fighting disguised as male soldiers

            You mean whores pretending to be soldiers. There’s a zero evidence that these disguised women actually killed anyone in combat. And everyone in their unit knew they what they were and was probably sleeping with them.

            >or fighting openly as female soldiers for the Kurds and Soviets.

            Soviet female snipers and pilots was general Marxist propaganda. Same with the Kurd’s. You’re hearing it now because the primary Kurd group fighting is the PKK which is a Marxist group. Their battle accounts have never been independently collaborated.

            >Note that I didn’t say the strongest 1-2% of women were the fighting equals of the strongest 1-2% of men. If I said that, I would be ignoring the very obvious reason men and women are segregated in athletics. I was saying that the strongest 1-2% of women had just enough grit to fight for or against the average male soldier, especially if his High Command resorted to conscripting I’ll-prepared rabble…

            You mistake is thinking that men ever fight alone. We have single combat for honor and sports, but all real fights involve groups of men who live and die by their ability to work together in fluid situations. Women demonstrate zero ability to work cohesively together in combat. Doesn’t mater how much grit a single women has, their inbuilt inability to work together dooms it.

            That’s not to say that women have zero combat ability. They can and do kill. But the best of them is on the level of 12-13 year old boys, not men.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Red, you know for sure that the closest a woman has been to a real soldier is fighting like a teenager. Could you tell me the history books that clarify a) these were actual individual historical women fighters while verifying b) that no woman has fought better than these women who fought like teenagers?

          • Red says:

            The best evidence you’ll find about the non propaganda performance of female soldiers is the VietCong during the Vietnam war. A good chunk of VC soldiers were women. You can tell their lack of performance against American troops by the fact that no one talks about them anymore.

  6. Beau Geste says:

    Notice how the female fire is conveniently started off-camera, or the number of “lucky” coconut finds. It is obvious that they are even getting some assistance from the production team

    • jim says:

      Also, the major large food animal on the man island is the crocodile. The major large food animal on the woman island is the pig. Clearly they were given the easier island, so that the show would not end too swiftly. If the islands were reversed, the women would probably have wound up being eaten.

  7. cazalla says:

    I saw it on TV so it must be true. Just how much of the electric jew do you watch?

    • Thales says:

      Yeah, those joos, always pandering to the reactionaries…

      • cazalla says:

        If you’re going to criticise how women behave in a reality TV show and call for their whipping then you must criticise the men who failed to build the women adequate shelter, a fire and other accommodations.

        The TLDR version of this article is that a fish cannot survive out of water but the author takes it a step further and criticises the fish for not surviving out of water.

        • jim says:

          What males should have given them adequate food and shelter? The women in question were deprived of the male supervision and authority that they so plainly needed.

          The traditional deal is that a man gives a woman protection, food, shelter and supervision, and a woman gives him sex and children. If women are not providing fathers with sex and children, they don’t deserve protection, food, shelter, and supervision. That male taxpayers and employers are forced to subsidize women without getting anything in return is the big injustice.

          • cazalla says:

            Why did the males in the show not provide the women with adequate food and shelter? This is what actual men do, right? It is evident that these men are either massive faggots as, having acquired food and shelter, they shared it with the other men instead of the women and likely held fantasies of a faggot circle jerks.. or perhaps it is just a contrived TV show which shouldn’t be held up as an example of what happens to women when men abandon their roles.

            • jim says:

              Why did the males in the show not provide the women with adequate food and shelter? This is what actual men do,

              Actual men provide food, shelter, and supervision and discipline to their wives and their children, not to random freeloaders lounging around working on their tans.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Cazalla logic: Men are cruel when they don’t help women but women don’t need their help anyways. Brilliant!

          • cazalla says:

            Hidden Author, I have a wife and young son but I wouldn’t criticise my 18 month old for failing to feed, clothe and educate himself if his parents were absent. That is basically what this TV show sounds like.

          • cazalla says:

            But it is not the fault of the women that there are no men about and as a result they are behaving as expected. It is the men (boys) who should be beaten and whipped for having abandoned them, having failed to provide the women with “food, shelter, and supervision and discipline.”

          • Hidden Author says:

            Cazalla, women are half of the population and vote more often than men so they only have the discipline and supervisor that they *want* men to give them and *no more*. I’m sorry you missed the twentieth century!

          • cazalla says:

            You can’t blame a dog for biting someone after its owner removed its leash and abandoned it therefore allowing it to wander freely and do as it pleases.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes cazalla, you and your trashy neo-Nazi friends are gonna leash the bitches the way the rest of us can’t. Enjoy your delusions of grandeur!

    • cazalla says:

      It was a silly throw-away /pol/ type comment used to illustrate the point that who in their right mind would make an argument on the basis of a contrived TV show no less a Bear Grylls fakes everything type experiment.

      Seriously now, you don’t need to go all Ben Garrison on me.

      • jim says:

        Any faking that was done, was done to make life easier on the women. The men got their island stocked with crocs, the women got their island stocked with very small pigs. The experiment proved that women need male supervision and guidance, and behave badly without it.

      • Zach says:

        Bear doesn’t fake anything. You see him do it all.

        The situations are contrived, yes. It’s not a “real” survival situation. Duh.

        • jim says:

          If it was a real survival situation, people would die. They gave the men small crocodiles, and the women small pigs, and they helped the women light a fire. But even a small crocodile is dangerous. The wilderness was artificially fixed to be survivable, but this is not so much faking as controlling the experiment. Yes, it somewhat fake since the meddling in the wilderness and the help given to the women was understated and made to look natural, but it is not outright scripting.

  8. OldStudent says:

    Your contempt for women is visceral in this piece, you sound as venomous as the evil 10 year old cannibal that you depict most women to be. I shudder to think that you include your wife, daughters and female clan members in your unseeming urge to see them all whipped for their inferiority and ineptitude.
    Seriously, you inspire the narrative for slave revolt everywhere. Better that than you.
    Turn off the TV and get outside.

    • peppermint says:

      the funny part is that women want to be whipped and told that they are inferior, and will even tell you so if you will listen to them

      but if you won’t, they’ll be disappointed, but try to be good women and tell you what you want to hear

    • Erik says:

      I do not think that

      > I am sure that any eighteenth century gentlemen seeing the even numbered episodes of Season two of “The Island with Bear Grylls” would say “Those women, all of them, need a good whipping.”

      works out to

      > you include your wife, daughters and female clan members in your unseeming urge to see them all whipped for their inferiority and ineptitude.

    • Thales says:

      OldStudent, as with most white knights, the only thing your paragraph teaches us is that you’ve never had a girl submit to you, which is probably not the lesson you intended.

      • peppermint says:

        He may well have had women submit to him, and what does a woman do when her man orders her to behave in a certain way in bed? She obeys, and tries to like it. Then she posts to her female websites about how she’s vaguely unsatisfied but wants to be a good woman and asks faggots for advice. Then she brings home gay related immunodeficiency, but, probably not, because despite all the talmudvision whaargarbl, it’s a fact that White women are generally faithful.

        Women are very sensitive to what their men want and do their best to give it to them. Start talking passionately about politics and your woman will go to your meetings and bring cupcakes. Start talking about videogames and she’ll buy them for you so she can watch you play, talk about operating systems and she’ll install Linux on her computer. Give her a dirty look when she tries to talk about rape or domination in bed, and she’ll content herself with rolling over and being taken from behind.

        OldStudent is alpha enough to be able to satisfy his woman without resorting to crude displays that would make baby Hitler cry. Alpha, after all, refers to the socially dominant mating strategy, and he has a wife with eyes like sapphires who has borne him investment banker and aerospace engineer children.

        Ask Mitt Romney if he treats his wife the way Jim says.

    • jim says:

      My wife is a good woman, in part because she has had my supervision. Those women became bad women, because they lacked male supervision.

      In the lead up to Survivor Amazon, one of the women says “It will be great to have no men around. We can relax, goof off, and let our hair down”. (From my memory, not her exact words)

      And the women in “Survivor Amazon” proceeded to do exactly that, except to the extent that the host was able to get them moving.

    • jim says:

      The fiction “Lord of the Flies” depicts children without parents growing up badly. Reality television shows us women without men behaving badly. Women and children need husbands and fathers to civilize them. I expect that if a single male had been present, their behavior would have improved enormously.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        And if one single woman were air-dropped onto the formerly-all-male island, things would have been different there also.

  9. organic goy lotion says:

    ot: intel’s tick-tock replaced by tic-tac-toe.

  10. Zach says:

    On a side note, Bear has gotten a lot of hate for his survival shows. I like the guy. I almost considered buying one of his books since it was a reflection of his character, but decided not to.

    Naked and Afraid has a man and woman together that must survive. In that show, the women tend to be tougher on avg.

  11. Zimriel says:

    On the same token, I wonder if it was homosexual males who first domesticated the larger animals: Aurochs (cattle), and horses.

    There’s a great scene in Julian Rathbone, “The Last English King”, where Edward the Confessor (extremely queer) seduces a horse. While he’s seducing the horse he’s also seducing Tostig.

  12. Mister Grumpus says:

    Someone is going to find the balls to re-make this show not with all-male vs. all-female islands, but all-White vs. all-Black vs. all-Latino islands.

    Maybe pay-per-view.

  13. bob k. mando says:

    i don’t understand why you’re allowing cazalla to concern troll and white knight you.

    he was arguing in bad faith from his first and you’re never going to make any progress ( apart from perhaps forcing him back on a few minor factual errors ) with him.

    he has no intention of not blaming women for being lazy fuckups, therefore he will never admit to it NO MATTER HOW BADLY THEY FUCK UP.

    he’s the type of clown who could hear about a woman who drowns her five kids in the bath tub and blame the husband for not being sufficiently supportive of his wife.

    • jim says:

      Its a familiar progressive argument:

      Men’s Rights Activist complains about being forced to subsidize feral women.

      Progressive replies that it is a traditional right wing position that men subsidize women. To which the Men’s Rights Activist has no reply, because any reply would imply the thought crime that women should obey men.

      But the neoreactionary does have a reply: That it is traditional for the man to subsidize his good and virtuous wife who is required to honor him and obey him. That there is no tradition of subsidizing feral women, of subsidizing Pussy Riot, and in fact there is a tradition of whipping them, branding them and forcing them, one way or another, to get married and stay married in order to prevent their disruptive, disturbing, and immoral behavior. And then they get subsidized. The man is then coerced to support her and stick with her, and she is then coerced to obey him and stick with him.

      I like to see progressive offer their standard arguments, argument that are irrefutable because no one is allowed to refute them. And then, on this blog, they get refuted.

      • bob k. mando says:

        well making the refutation is fine.

        but it’s gone on well beyond that and cavalla has established that he’s just going in circles.

        and thus, you keep repeating your refutation without making any impact on him.

        • jim says:

          Sure, he endlessly repeats the standard progressive killer argument, which is is a killer argument that is utterly devastating when used against Men’s Rights Activists, because they do not dare refute it, for any refutation would imply that women should submit to men.

          And I endlessly shoot him down. He loses all the time, I win all the time. Fun for all the family. It is good to have progressives around. We get target practice.

          • bob k. mando says:

            *shrugs*

            can’t say as i haven’t beaten the snot out of a retard who was too stupid to realize he was losing once or twice myself …

          • cazalla says:

            It’s not a matter of winning or losing, at least for me anyway as I read your blog to learn a little bit more about the world I find myself in and why it is the way it is. I am just unable to see the logic in blaming women for behaving badly when it is the mans responsibility to keep her in line. The experiment is so obviously flawed because the men and women would never find themselves in such a position to begin with.

            If my commenting here is problematic (rare that I would make a comment here to begin with) I will cease doing it.

            • jim says:

              The Cathedral state does not permit men to keep women in line.

              Though the Russian state is showing how it is done.

          • bob k. mando says:

            cazalla says:
            I am just unable to see the logic in blaming women for behaving badly when it is the mans responsibility to keep her in line.

            you demand that men ‘keep women in line’, while at the same time demanding that women not be held accountable for their actions.

            the hole in your purported logic is so large as to be unbridgeable.

            further, you’re ignoring the entire modern legal and social framework.

            ‘keep women in line’? HOW?

            will you keep her from divorcing you frivolously? you’d best talk to a judge about that.

            will you enforce standards against a woman to whom you are not married? you certainly can’t spank her.

            men are being expelled from college for the crime of having been accused of rape … not the conviction, the ACCUSATION.

  14. […] of politics (plus, and double-plus). Burnham the prophet. Errors of altruism, and tolerance (plus). Lessons of reality TV. Ideological security (also). Spreading deviancy. Propaganda. Georgist epistemology. […]

  15. Joël Cuerrier says:

    How do you find the time to watch such staged rubbish anyway?

  16. Ouch.
    Honestly, this is why I can’t stand most women.

    I do suspect, however, that the women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors were, for the most part, quite competent at setting up camp–such skills would have been nearly impossible for them to avoid learning.
    Modern women, however, have apparently learned nothing from all their years in Girl Scouts.

  17. […] receive yet another bailout, but this one is more of the payday lending variety. Here Jim watches Reality TV so you don’t have to. Even with editing, the innate and large (and sometimes humorous) […]

  18. […] Reality TV and the difference between men and women. […]

  19. Marapoem says:

    Occasionally, one witnesses a woman (never a man) lament: “why are the news all bad stuff, why don’t they show nice things?”. Herein lies the difference between men and women: men always seek problems and inadequacies to fix, improve, overcome. Hence, men are builders of civilization. Women, in contrast, want “nice things” here and now; they don’t want to hear about problems that require fixing. Women are used to “nice things” coming their way; men are evolutionarily programmed to seek challenges and defeat them.

  20. Pragmatus says:

    So I watched the show and I have to disagree with your assessment. The show is actually entertaining and much better in terms of realistic survival skills than Bear Grylls’ original show in which he drinks urin (idiotic, causes dehydration), eats raw animals and drinks untreated water (diarrhea awaiting) and engages in reckless stunts.

    The men in the first season, which didn’t feature women, did very well. The men of the second season however did actually worse than the women. Two of them left immediately because somebody didn’t like them. Then the older builder left as well. So the rest did not bother to improve the shelter and build raised beds until the very last week. There was little cooperation and endless egotistical one-upmanship about how to secure food, so they went hungry most of the time and would have starved to death much earlier than the women.

    The women did actually better with the bow drill than the men of both seasons. They had a bad start due to bad navigational skills and building acumen. But they developed a cooperative and sustainable routine. Sure they cried a lot, but that’s what women do. The men engaged in wasteful cockfighting.

    Pigs are not native in the Americas. Those feral pigs are descendants of domesticated pigs.

    It’s not a scientific experiment of course. Not only because there is obviously editing and some scripting in these shows. But different islands are never the same. Resources and conditions change over time. Also the men of the first season were of better quality and mental disposition. Women need less calories and have more body fat.

    A common mistake of the men made compared to the survival experts on other shows was that they worked too aggressively, partially to prove themselves. Foraging and trapping is more economical than trophy hunting in the swamps. The men in the first season got lucky by encountering a crocodile to kill early on. This was smart move and men’s work. But they got most of their calories from snails, yucca and fish for the remainder of the show. The two crocodile hunters daily expeditions into the swamp were fruitless and unnecessarily dangerous.

    It is also more economical to work at a slow and consistent pace. Office drones often accuse construction workers, road workers, etc. of slacking off. A clear indication that they never engaged in manual labor on a daily basis themselves.

    I think if they put both women and men on the same island the outcome would be much worse. But they could reproduce, so they would prevail in the end.

Leave a Reply