The disastrous effects of females in power

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
CEOettes
I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.


If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics.

54 Responses to “The disastrous effects of females in power”

  1. […] The disastrous effects of females in power […]

  2. anon says:

    i think in reading that my testicles just swelled a little

  3. Steve Johnson says:

    This is huge and probably deserves me giving it more detail but there’s a giant hidden assumption around IQ testing and big 5 trait testing and I don’t know if it’s ever been specifically tested (although I doubt it will have been) – namely do the correlations for men even hold for women?

    High IQ men are less criminal – are high IQ women? Women are so much less criminal than men the “less likely to get caught” effect swamps any other effect. Higher IQ men perform better in all jobs universally. Does this apply to women? (As Jim pointed out in the post) – agreeableness means something very different in men and women and doesn’t make uniform predictions (agreeableness isn’t cooked up for the women are wonderful idea though).

    All of these categories take a great idea – here’s one thing we can measure in a simple context that makes great predictions across seemingly unrelated circumstances – but they extend that to where it doesn’t belong without a lot more specific evidence. Of course, since the dominant perspective is that you’re not even allowed to notice that men and women are very psychologically different it’s difficult to actually study the implications.

    • Garr says:

      I’ve always thought that a lot of the rich men who get caught embezzling money from their companies were doing it under pressure from their wives, kind of like with the Macbeths.

      Women seem to be more inclined to break minor public rules in order to help their friends and family-members. Lying about their kid’s address in order to get him into what they think of as a better school, for example.

      College-girls are more likely to “jump” bus-lines than college-boys are. Females are more likely to use their electronic devices in sound-emanating ways without headphones on public transportation.

      Women are less likely to move their dogs, including pitbulls, aside for you when you’re walking the other way on the street. They’re less likely to move to one side as you move to the other, to let you pass. They’re less likely to thank you for moving to the side. They’re less likely to pleasantly acknowledge, as well as less likely to make, the many slightly helpful gestures that people have to make toward each other in the city in order to make life bearable there.

      It’s strange that women are called “more agreeable”. They tend to have stern expressions on their faces and headphones covering their ears. I think that this is because, in a world without marriage, friendly facial expressions and willingness to be verbally addressed would indicate willingness to be “approached” in a “will you go out with me?” kind of way. They’re aware of this, and of course they’re right. If a pretty woman’s friendly to me, of course I’m going to be thinking about the possibility of asking her out.

      • anon says:

        the behaviors you’ve just described are high-status behaviors

      • John Sterne says:

        a well armed society is a well mannered society, men understand rudeness can be interpreted as a challenge, city women learn politeness can be interpreted as an invitation to courtship. although i was pretty good at the getting them to smile game even in nyc when i first moved out west i at first thought i had found the easiest women in the world, but then i started to think it was because all the guys were gay because they too were breaking out in broad smiles as they came abreast me.
        after a week I noticed the women all had wedding rings on and eventually i discovered what whites are like when not surrounded by non whites. friendly.

    • jim says:

      “Agreeableness” is cooked to prove that women are wonderful, since females are much more agreeable than men in some ways, and much less agreeable in other ways, and the measure of “agreeableness” only measures the ways in which they are more agreeable. According to psychiatric definition, Cathy Newman was being agreeable in her infamous interview with Jordan Peterson – therefore, obviously something wrong with the definition.

      • Mackus says:

        quotes from definition that I googled:
        “Agreeableness is an obvious advantage for building teams and maintaining harmony on the work floor”
        Okay, so far so good, but it also says:
        “People who score low on agreeableness in a personality test often make excellent scientists, critics, or soldiers”.
        How the fuck are soldiers and scientist supposed to be low on “agreeableness”?!
        You’d think that research team or military unit would need it’s members to cooperate well and not go for each others throat, given delicate or/and dangerous nature of their work.

        Its settled, official definition is total bunkum.

        • jim says:

          The official definition defines the harmony characteristic of all male teams that work well together as “disagreeableness”. Because women are wonderful.

          The official definition predicts that all female teams should go well, and yet they invariably explode in bitter catfighting.

  4. Glenfilthie says:

    As far as generalizations go I can take most of that – with the obvious and obligatory statement that we need to make allowances for the exceptions to the rule. My questions to you hairy chested alpha males is this: whadda we do with ’em once we get them out of the work force?

    Without single mothers working – we’ll be looking at even more massive subsidization with welfare. Coupled with that, I see even MORE confiscatory predation from the family courts to shake down divorced men. Most divorced men are living within spitting distance of poverty already.

    Second, with women out of the workforce… even if they are financially solvent… what do they do? All their work in the home is now done by machines. Women need to work too, and need to be valued for it the same way men do – or they go batshit crazy.

    Just owning and paying for your average family home will take two incomes now. Paying rent on an apartment and all the bills is a challenge to an awful lot of north Americans.

    Not saying I like the status quo; I won’t work for women, and will only work with them under extremely stringent conditions. But it will take more that testosterone and chest thumping to fix this. Fact is, the only thing I see that will get women back on the leash is cataclysmic financial and economic meltdown so severe – that the foibles of modern women can no longer be afforded.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Without single mothers working – we’ll be looking at even more massive subsidization with welfare. ”

      Women worked in patriarchical systems. They didn’t work outside the home.

      “Coupled with that, I see even MORE confiscatory predation from the family courts to shake down divorced men. Most divorced men are living within spitting distance of poverty already.”

      We are going to have to liquidate divorce courts and go full patriarchy.

      “Second, with women out of the workforce… even if they are financially solvent… what do they do?”

      Have 6-8 children? Do that and you won’t be bored even with machines helping with housework.

      “Just owning and paying for your average family home will take two incomes now. Paying rent on an apartment and all the bills is a challenge to an awful lot of north Americans.”

      That is race- or how the elite uses blacks to screw everyone over. It can be dealt with by liquidating the elite/crushing them; liquidating blacks doesn’t work since our elite will just bring in worse people- Somalians are willing to rape women in labor for instance.

      “But it will take more that testosterone and chest thumping to fix this.”

      Just a dictatorship willing to go all the way. The Nrx plan isn’t a great one, but it the best we have. Only other paths are Nazi, survivalist and Southern Outlaw Biker.

      • jim says:

        > > “But it will take more that testosterone and chest thumping to fix this.”

        > Just a dictatorship willing to go all the way. The Nrx plan isn’t a great one, but it the best we have. Only other paths are Nazi, survivalist and Southern Outlaw Biker.

        Monogamy and chastity was a deal made between alpha males and beta males. What the betas get out of it is wives and children, what the alphas get out of it is taxpayers and soldiers. What women get out of it is the bad end of the stick. For the deal to be stable, unowned women have to be transferred to the ownership of those men who are party to the deal, preventing them from partying with those men who are not party to the deal.

        Because if you give women half a chance, they will party their youth, their beauty, and their fertility away.

        • peppermint says:

          White marriage evolved under different conditions to be different from mud “marriage”. Mud “marriage” is polyamory with multiple mares attaching themselves to the strongest zebra for protection, primarily from that zebra. Whites and penguins view this arrangement as sordid, and have 1-1 pairbond marriages for life to raise their children together.

          The daughters of divorcees see their mothers not having a husband and don’t want to repeat that mistake. But then they spend most of their fertile years in school, because everyone tells them to.

          • jim says:

            Unfortunately, girls just want to have fun. So they wind up repeating that mistake. Fat and forty, they wonder why they no longer getting booty calls from Jeremy Meeks, and conclude that men are intimidated by how great they are.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >with the obvious and obligatory statement that we need to make allowances for the exceptions to the rule.

      Do we?

      An exception must die so that a rule may live.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        I think that we do. Much of what Jim describes here is the result of tokenism and affirmative action – i.e. parachuting women and minorities into positions they aren’t qualified for. I personally recognize and respect merit wherever I see it – and will make use of it if I can. He who doesn’t recognize merit, ability and talent is at the mercy of he who can.

        This idea of ideology before reality is every bit as lethal as feminism. Our countries need to rebuild their families and communities if we are to survive… and women have to be on board with that or we will fail.

        I wonder about the toxic feminism that besets us now: in my church, the gender roles are traditional and enforced. Even so, there is ample room for women of ability, talent, and merit to apply it authoritatively. They run the Sunday schools, charitable efforts, and outreach programs. They counsel younger women on the feminine arts and virtues. Our church and community thrives because we don’t kill women like that, we roll up our sleeves and turn to our own work while they take care of theirs. We can pool resources and divide labour – while modern femcnuts can only bitch and whine and undermine their men.

        • peppermint says:

          > He who doesn’t recognize merit, ability and talent is at the mercy of he who can.

          What if the king of Persia hadn’t thought anything of Hadassah’s merit?

          What if the US hadn’t allowed nigger soldiers and had lost the War between the States as a result? What if Eisenhower and his nigger rapists hadn’t been empowered and WWII lost?

          What if the merit of niggers as farm animals had never been considered?

          Merit was the commie faggotry of the middle of the last century. Thus, conservatives from that time dutifully conserve it.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          A system made by a being within Being cannot fully encapsulate Being.

          Every meaningful rule you make will have an exception, maybe greater or lesser, but inevitably all the same.

          A rule you make that is unexceptional will be exactly that. A triviality with no matter or implication.

          Id est, any system intended to select for certain characteristics faces two choices; collapse in the face of an exception (which is to say, to inevitably collapse), or consign an exception to the ice floes of oblivion (which is to say, to survive adaptively).

          If you want merit, then you want to torch the snowflakes.

          It should come as no surprise then that many systems of ‘merit’ were in fact instantiated from the start for the express purpose of the first choice.

          “We should select leaders based on (((merit))) rather than blood” means “I don’t like how the current selection mechanisms are not selecting me or my friends”

          First comes tearing things down to make way for the ‘merit based system’, then comes tearing down the ‘merit based system’ as well due to ‘Incontrovertible contradictions in its internal logic. Also racism.’; thus ultimately facilitating a broad-spectrum loser’s only or most feasible path into the privileges of winners.

          Liberalism in fact never exists; or, socio-political states of affairs which could arguably be called liberalism exist only for brief evanescent periods of transition, between one power bloc and another. Those ‘public intellectuals’ who lament (or ‘lament’) the fall of ‘classical liberalism’ are not even lamenting a dead horse, but a dead unicorn.

          What ‘liberalism’ is, is an ‘unlocking’ ideology; something used to rhetorically devalidate a stable national order, and displace it with a greatly *un*stable order, which in turn naturally (and often intentionally) itself swiftly disintegrates into a new different equilibrium. Thus hence the indelible cladistic connection between ‘classical liberalism’ and contemporary socjus insanity.

          As they say, all slopes are slippery.

    • jim says:

      There will be no single mothers. Problem solved.

      Women will always be under supervision of a responsible male. Females behaving in a manner likely to result in bastard children will be sent to “homes for wayward girls”, and will not be able to get out of the home except they get engaged to a responsible male, or their father takes charge of them.

      Women will work under the supervision of husbands or father, or in specifically feminine jobs like nursing under the supervision of older women. Women will be able to be doctors, vets, dentists and and such, though there will be islamic style restrictions on dealing with male patients. A female dentist with male patients will be working under the supervision of an older woman or her husband or father. Women make fine doctors, and better dentists, nurses, and veterinarians than men. Supermarkets will continue to be staffed by females, mostly young girls killing time waiting to become wives. And, as I said, women make excellent managers provided that they are under the supervision of someone alpha, masculine, patriarchal, and sexy.

      Divorce will be only for cause, and reasonable and proportionate domestic discipline will be legal. Speaking back will be grounds for reasonable and proportionate domestic discipline. A wife sleeping with another man, or another man sleeping with your wife, will get the death penalty, and also be grounds for justifiable homicide, as in the time of King Solomon. If a wife runs away, she has to run back to her father, or she is likely to be sent to a home for wayward girls, and will find it very difficult to get out except by returning to her husband.

      Homes will be enormously cheaper, because we will reverse the great centralization, make it legal for white people to develop land for housing, and will introduce law and order Singapore style, so that you don’t have to live in an very expensive location to avoid being attacked by minorities. Education will be enormously cheaper, because we will reverse degree inflation. Most people will complete schooling at or before puberty and go on to apprenticeship. Apprenticeship agreements, like marital vows, will be enforceable and enforced. Female apprentices will generally be under the authority of the wife of the master.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        its less crazy a plan than some would think though the support level is pretty close to null. Its not a natural way for Western European societies to live anyway

        Women have always had more freedom in those societies than elsewhere and mostly this wasn’t a terrible problem

        And it wasn’t birth control that did us in. Infanticide of weak and or deformed youth was common in Greece and Rome and I suspect this happened with unwanted children as well.

        Those societies lasted tens of centuries

        We however have technology that renders men partially obsolete and frees up women from labor. Thus the old arrangement makes increasingly less sense

        Society is prosperous, safe, has a global glut of labor, extensive automation and a lifestyle that decreases testosterone in intelligent men

        Till we ca’t sustain the tech base, we are not going to get change,

        • jim says:

          Women have always had more freedom in those societies than elsewhere and mostly this wasn’t a terrible problem

          My plan is to bring us back to the system we had from 1660 to about 1806, when upper class women had precisely zero sexual freedom and zero opportunity to fuck Jeremy Meeks, and the state was pretty serious about enforcing marriage on women of all classes, when women could be whipped for speaking back to their husbands, the system that Jane Austen describe as the bad old days, when upper class women were absolutely not allowed out until safely engaged, transitioning from not being allowed to leave their parental home, to going to dances under parental supervision, to marriage.

          The 1660 system was not very different from today’s Talibanic system. If anything, it restricted women even more severely by forcing them to only marry single men, which restraint requires a lot more violence against women than the Talibanic system. Women do not want to be number eight on a man’s booty call list, but neither do they want booty calls from a man who is such a hopeless loser that he only has six hot chicks on his booty call list.

        • jim says:

          > Till we ca’t sustain the tech base, we are not going to get change,

          The destruction of marriage and the family is not happening because of technological change, but in spite of technological change. We are getting collapse of social technology as part and parcel of the same forces as have caused science to stagnate since 1944, and technology since 1972.

          Technological advance is moving us back to the knights in armor situation, when masses of poorly trained poorly equipped conscripts could be defeated by a handful of well trained well equipped warrior elites. Recollect the hilariously one sided confrontations between “Occupy Wall Street” and rentacops. Global databases provide us with the means to enforce marriage and serfdom, which the anonymity of cities undermined.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        I’m curious, Jim: how do you propose to get there from here? I just don’t see any of that happening without a massive societal/technological/economic collapse first.
        How do you propose to revers the housing and job markets, for example?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Once you have a king/dictator these things are trivial because ‘obey or I shoot you’ works. Reinstitute segregation and you correct a substantial part of the housing market; dump affirmative action, legalize IQ tests, close the borders and defund the universities and you correct the job market.

          It isn’t conceptually hard; it is just the people who have power enjoy the suffering of the proles and are insulated enough from consequences to get away with it.

        • jim says:

          Jobs: Trump is not yet in power, and he has already reversed the job the market in flyover country. If he was actually in power …

          Housing market: We apply to the law to criminals, thus opening vast urban areas to settlement by affluent people. We stop criminalizing law abiding people, thus allowing white people to build houses in undeveloped land:

    • StringsOfCoins says:

      God you conservacucks just can’t stop white knighting can you? Shitty low value single moms will have to go get married to the unattractive loser who is their equal. And they will have to remain married to him. Whores who refuse will have their children taken away from them and placed into orphanages.

      But what you should do in the meanwhile is to make sure you send all of your daughters off to college post haste. You wouldn’t want them to somehow end up getting married young to a nice man and giving you grandkids. Not when she could be one of ten women competing for one guys commitment, which he will never grant, and the other 9 men drop out of school to jack off to porn and smoke pot. I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to pay all the welfare she’ll need for any thugbabies she makes.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        LOL.

        I am merely looking at the realities of the situation. We have entire generations and states that will resist the imposition of your class society with everything they have, up to and including violence.

        Going back to the 1600’s, as our blog host advocates – will only recreate the society and conditions that gave rise to this one. I still haven’t heard anyone tell me what these women are going to do once you lock them up in the home. Hell’s bells, I am unemployed right now, and I know that with my middle class house, and two large manky, messy dogs – I can do all the chores and housework required to keep the place clean by 9am. I check he job boards and career sections of companies that come to my attention for another hour – and even then I have too much time on my hands and it leaves me restless and squirrelly. If I were a woman and you tried to enforce a lifetime of that on me I would cut your throat while you slept!

        Until you have something for these women to do with their time – your patriarchal utopia won’t go anywhere.

        I’m not white knighting – I’m just sayin’. You boys need to think some things through.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “Going back to the 1600’s, as our blog host advocates – will only recreate the society and conditions that gave rise to this one.”

          We aren’t utopians. Leftism is a tool for unprincipled people to use to gain power. It might crop up again in the future; there isn’t a guarantee.

          “I still haven’t heard anyone tell me what these women are going to do once you lock them up in the home. ”

          Have 8 kids. Yes, this will require acquiring more living space- 20% of the planet’s surface is Africa. Organisms either expand or they die.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            I agree – the liberal left is literally collectively mentally ill right now. But again: realities. How are you going to get women that aren’t responsible enough to raise one child – to raise 8? And how will you employ those kids when we haven’t got enough jobs for ourselves?

            Do you see a peaceful way to implement any of this? I just don’t – and I think that if you tried at the political level, any number of lefties would seriously try to end you by any means possible – up to and including the use of lethal force. Are you prepared to go all in on this? Seriously – I can see a civil war emerging out of this.

            • anon says:

              world peace and world empire are the same thing

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “How are you going to get women that aren’t responsible enough to raise one child – to raise 8?”

              Look, do they have free time or not? If they do have free time, have more children until they no longer have free time. If they can’t use their free time to figure out how to raise children, it doesn’t matter how many children they are having- the quality (or total lack) will be the same.

              “And how will you employ those kids when we haven’t got enough jobs for ourselves? ”

              There are not a finite amount of jobs in existence. If you are worried about resources that is why ‘conquer Africa/Middle East’ follows. Cheaper then space and can eat up the population growth for a century.

              “Seriously – I can see a civil war emerging out of this.”

              Yeah, I remember how the left plunged Germany into a civil war when Hitler was elected. Or Italy when Mussolini was elected.

              They can bitch all they like, but whoever controls the military and the security apparatus doesn’t have to care.

            • jim says:

              How are you going to get women that aren’t responsible enough to raise one child – to raise 8

              Put them under male authority. Monogamy and chastity is a deal between males. You cannot give women a say in it, for if they have a choice they will party from age nine to age forty.

              And how will you employ those kids when we haven’t got enough jobs for ourselves?

              There is plenty of work that urgently needs doing. The job shortage is entire artificial, caused by the regulatory strangulation of business, by the state inserting itself into every company in the form of HR. The jobs shortage in the US is as artificial as the food shortage in Venezuela, and is caused in exactly the same way.

              I think that if you tried at the political level, any number of lefties would seriously try to end you by any means possible – up to and including the use of lethal force.

              I am absolutely counting on it. We will need our Reichstag fire. We have more guns than they do, and, more importantly, we have the part of the army that actually matters. They have the navy that has to stay in port because they keep crashing ships into fishing boats, they have the drones, but we have the A10s.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                Jim – the MEN aren’t fit to provide for themselves, never mind a family with 8 kids. That won’t sit well with the millennial cellar dwellers and soy boys – but the fact is our sons aren’t worth a pinch of shit either. They have their hands full with being responsible for themselves.

                Good grief, that Reichschtag fire is gonna burn with most of our kids trapped inside the building – and a few of us guys as well.

                You and I are certainly prepared to handle the worst… but the kids? Oh boy – they are in seriously deep shit.

                • jim says:

                  Absolute nonsense.

                  Men don’t bother getting jobs because they are unable to have wives and families.

                  Men don’t bother getting jobs because marriage and fatherhood has been criminalized.

                  If they were able to have wives and families, would do whatever it takes to take care of them. They would find jobs, or create jobs. That is the whole reason and purpose for imposing monogamy and chastity on women with a stick: To give the beta males a reason to work and fight for the alpha males.

                  If beta males would not work and fight for wives and children, or if they were willing to work and fight without wives and children, alpha males would never have agreed to impose monogamy and chastity on women. We imposed chastity on women till about 1800, monogamy on women until about 1860, then in 1972 we criminalized marriage and fatherhood, and the laws against marriage and fatherhood have been enforced ever more forcefully and vigorously since then.

                  Alpha males criminalized monogamy and chastity so that they could have sex with lots of women, and now the bill has come due.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Do a web search on Justin Trudeau Prime Minister Of Canada. Let me give you a preliminary introduction:

                  https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-mocked-for-telling-a-woman-to-say-peoplekind-not-mankind/ar-BBIModM?ocid=spartanntp

                  We are three generations deep in social justice, boss. I sure hope you are right and I am wrong – but I have a fairly good track record with crap like this.

                • peppermint says:

                  Millennial men, as children, read kids’ news magazines telling them Whites are soon to be in the minority and this is to be celebrated. They are used to being brutally ostracized at any hint of disobedience, to never saying anything to a woman for fear of oppressing her. They aren’t used to being offered a decent wage for work that they could possibly raise a family on. They are used to getting free pussy, or no pussy.

                  A sizable fraction of Millennial men have been able to marry and have kids regardless of the disincentives and indoctrination.

                  To be brutally honest, we don’t need all of them, and we don’t expect to get all of them. Many Xirs are lost, probably permanently, but older Millennial women _do_ want kids and older Millennial men are, in fact, tired of living in a mancave playing vidya and cards against humanity.

                  Like I said earlier: when the Boomer starchildren lose the will to live, and the Millennial bugmen grow tired of their amusements. That day is fast approaching.

                  Two crucial new developments: studies show women are less valuable as Uber drivers, and Jeff Bezos’ blog is butthurt that Trump’s immigration plan will forestall Whites becoming a minority for as many as 5 years.

                  There will be a new baby boom as soon as those Millennial men are offered marriage to those Millennial women. And if the jews think they can stop it by crashing the economy, well, that’s how they get turned into soap.

            • peppermint says:

              Women are born to raise 8 children. Getting them _not_ to took over a century of propaganda. Getting them to is as easy as putting their child in their arms and having their husband embrace them. Many people don’t pay attention to The Discovery Channel and assume parenting will happen when the parents are ready to settle down. In reality, hooking up and going shopping and having a clean well stocked apartment happens prior to pregnancy, and giving birth and hugging the child leads to parenting.

              Abolish government indoctrination daycare and all daycare immediately!

  5. jamie says:

    Maybe feminists should be made into celibate honorary men:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/

    Or else quarantined from everyone but themselves.

  6. pdimov says:

    “Well, guess what.”

    Very perceptive, and certainly makes one think.

  7. lalit says:

    Hahaha! Well written Jim. You really don’t pull any punches, do you?

    The ancient, hoary, scriptural literature of India agrees with your ideas on women. We did Hinduism with Chanakya previously. Let us move to Buddhism and a Jataka tale on this matter.

    Here is a short summary of the Asatamanta Jataka
    http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN/ay/asaatamanta_jat_061.htm

    Here is the longer version of the same tale
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1064.htm

    Looks like all religions which have survived for any length of time agree on the essential nature of women.

  8. Jim, how do you account for the renown of Elizabeth, Catherine, Victoria, and Thatcher?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Albert was alpha and Queen Victoria didn’t have that much power.

      Elizabeth I spent 40 years with William Cecil at her side (he was 38 and she was 25 when she became monarch).

      Catherine looks like she switched between alphas whenever the old one was eclipsed by a new one.

      Margaret Thatcher is an oddity. Her husband does not radiate alpha. Anyone have any ideas?

      • So I guess you are implying that if a woman is happily married she may be capable of founding a successful startup. I actually know three women founders that reasonably applies to each with some measure of success. But if this is so, it seems surprising that married women don’t succeed in reducing the 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 ratios reported.

        • jim says:

          They are older happily married women who founded firms some time ago. In the age of #metoo, no strong husbands.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Thatcher’s husband was a millionaire entrepreneur who bankrolled her political activities. An incredible catch for her at the time she caught him. She did not clearly out-alpha him until after menopause.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Thatcher also became Conservative leader, and therefore PM, by accident, because no one else on the true right was brave enough to run, and she was supposedly a nobody with nothing to lose. Sic transit gloria mundi.

      • jim says:

        Margaret Thatcher sorted her husband’s socks and served him at the table. He obviously radiated alpha to her.

  9. Mandos says:

    You’re not the only one to have noticed this study. The political crackdown is coming, all your venture capital are belong to us.

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6363144644355768320

  10. glosoli says:

    I love you man!

  11. glosoli says:

    I was just reading about Alfred the Great, and Mosaic law.
    Worthy of your investigation and thoughts.
    Jehovah blesses those who follow his perfect set up.

  12. Herodian says:

    Pretty good, except there are some purple pill pieces in this. Yes, perhaps a woman can be a good manager or CEO if there is a alpha male behind the woman, but it still makes life difficult for men further down the org chart.

    Unless that alpha male makes it publicly known he’s keeping his ladyboss in check, it’s still degrading at work and creates tension at home for the beta males. More likely to let their wives boss them around. Bad optics over all.

    The fact is, whether women can be good CEOs or managers given the right conditions is irrelevant. That’s just not what we need from them.

  13. […] opened the week reporting on, and explaining, some research showing the disastrous effects of females in power. This is a must read, especially as a corrective for those who wish to reduce everything down to […]

Leave a Reply