Part I of our show, The Goddess of the Gender Gaps.
For some reason or another, I frequently find myself unofficially assuming an ambassadorship as the sole representative of my fairer sex in social situations.
I'll wager on the following theory : Western (and especially English speaking) young women are being trained into idiocy. Here's a fine example, from an otherwise remarkably un-annoying Arianna Simpson :
Was either of us mistreated? Technically, no. But the conditions under which our presence was accepted were such that from the moment we entered the room, the other attendees’s preconceptions were at a distinct disadvantage. Perhaps this would be a good time to recall Warren Buffet’s comment that one of the reasons for his great success was that he was only competing with half of the population. We can view it as an opportunity. Being underestimated can be a surprisingly effective tool in the appropriate context, but perhaps that’s just me being overly optimistic. I know many women, many of whom are far smarter than I am, who would have felt seriously out of place there. Would they go back to the next meet up? I doubt it. If the organizer of the meetup makes people feel so unwelcome, it sets the tone for the rest of the conversation.
The subtle problem here is this : a noob, that also happens to be a woman, was treated as a noob would normally be treated and should ideally be treated : with thinly veiled contempt. This is appropriate, because the state of being a noob is contemptible in and of itself, for very good reasons ; and this is productive, because the natural distaste of being treated with contempt stimulates well socialised human beings into limiting dysfunctional behaviours and eventually replacing them with functional behaviours.
The woman in question, however, falsely identified this as being treated with thinly veiled contempt on the basis of being a woman.i As reasonable as it may sound on the very superficial face of things, the view is still mistaken. Consequently, her notions of what the way out would be are necessarily vague and absolutely impractical : she's trying to solve an inexistent problem that some parasites have imagined for her, with an eye to their own pecuniary benefit. The actual way out starts with the Variety Speak, of course. That old whistling into the modem thing.
But let's move on :
Hosted at a DC hackerspace that surprisingly exists
Color me equally surprised. I can find no other explanation than hard drugs.
No one seemed surprised by the fact that the room was overwhelmingly full of males, least of all I. The gender ratio simply reflected the underlying gender composition of the Bitcoin community.
It goes deeper than that. From Greenspun :
A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals, fly homebuilt helicopters, play video games, and keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American Cichlid Association convention that I last attended were male). Should we be surprised that it is mostly men who spend 10 years banging their heads against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year post-doc job?
It has to do with the fact that men are more inclined, statistically speaking, to act irrationally. This probably has to do with the fact that male biology never has to account for infants.
By missing the BitBoat, women are leaving a realistic shot at those juicy STEM riches we’ve been hearing so much about on the table. So why don’t ladies love Cool BTC?
I believe the mistake here is a cognate of the "externalise costs, internalise benefits" approach so universally specific of socialism in all its numerous, identical forms. It's clearly the case that all those who eschew the benefit of a lottery windfall eschew the benefit of a lottery windfall. It's similarly clearly the case that "it'd have been worth it" to pay $5 for a ticket winning $5mn.
The problem is that this view is nonsensical : you don't know which of the ten billion $5 tickets will net the cool $5mn. And once you do know, it's no longer a $5 ticket. Consequently, the matter isn't properly set down in discussing how women are missing out "on Bitcoin". What's to distinguish Bitcoin from petty crime and keeping tropical fish as pets, for their benefit ? Obviously, nothing. The argument is easy to make provided and presuming it doesn't need to be made. Otherwise, it's impossible to make, and so it stays.ii
This pattern loosely resembles one seen frequently on the macro level: As the level of prestige, payment, or power increases, the number of women positioned at these lofty heights decreases. The model most often invoked to fill in as the goddess of these gaps is patriarchy, which I have criticized in the past. When looking at the gender gap in the Bitcoin community, the wellworn deus ex patriarcha is again insufficient to explain differential gender outcomes. Lest I succumb to the fallacy of composition, the case I am about to make does not necessarily explain all gender gaps. However, by demonstrating how differences in personal interest drives male and female decision-making about Bitcoin, we can see how the widespread faith in this goddess of the gender gaps can cloud our understanding of gender relations and outcomes.
Apparently we end up with the same conclusionsiii, but remarkable to me is the difference of expression. She's cautious, I'm bold. She's considerate, I'm fearless. She rues what may happen if she makes a mistake, I will make you rue the day you claimed I made one.
These have nothing to do with our respective genders. It's not because she was born with the slit that this difference appears. They have everything to do with our respective positions in the world. I ruin people's lives as a breakfast pastime. She submits points, papers, thesises for consideration. Does the difference begin to coalesce ? Well, it still has nothing to do with our genders, I'm not here because I am male, I am here because I got lucky. Here's Graham (from before he went dumb) :
So let's get Bill Gates out of the way right now. It's not a good idea to use famous rich people as examples, because the press only write about the very richest, and these tend to be outliers. Bill Gates is a smart, determined, and hardworking man, but you need more than that to make as much money as he has. You also need to be very lucky.
There is a large random factor in the success of any company. So the guys you end up reading about in the papers are the ones who are very smart, totally dedicated, and win the lottery. Certainly Bill is smart and dedicated, but Microsoft also happens to have been the beneficiary of one of the most spectacular blunders in the history of business: the licensing deal for DOS. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he has done an excellent job of exploiting it, but if there had been one person with a brain on IBM's side, Microsoft's future would have been very different. Microsoft at that stage had little leverage over IBM. They were effectively a component supplier. If IBM had required an exclusive license, as they should have, Microsoft would still have signed the deal. It would still have meant a lot of money for them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere.
So yes I sit atop of the pyramid today because I am miles and miles smarter than the entire collection of brainfarts pompously discussing Bitcoin across the pond. But not just because that. Also because I was the fortunate recipient of their numerous, countless, boundless and endless strategic mistakes.
So now, back to the difference of expression : can you "fix" this difference by her simply starting to make bold, fearless, rueful claims ?
You can try. Males, the doomed betas of the world actually try to approach the problem that way. It does not work for them, but instead they get made quick work of as the logs amply attest. It wouldn't work for women, either, not just like that, randomly. Should your average woman decide to abandon caution to the wind in a bid to act more like males she'd end up exactly in the spots males end up : collecting cichlids, serving time for theft and being denied tenure in their 40s.
In other words, even if some cars float, you won't get a submarine by moving the train tracks more towards the ocean. If you want submarines build submarines, rather than trying to pretend cars and trains, designed, built and used for a completely unrelated purpose could, somehow, perhaps through a correct folding of the breakfast napkin, "become" submarines.
And here I have to abandon this article, because her whistle grows nonsensical. Far be it from me to impugn : she's lasted for longer than most. Generally, I don't even make it past the title.
Part II of our show, The Economics of ‘Slut-Shaming’.
Before we proceed, allow me to introduce myself : other than trying to get a studio specialising in softcore porn that just happens to be located in Kiev do some nude outdoor work for meiv before you idiots had to start a war there, I am a general and universal friend of sluts.
Programatically, deliberately, historically. I do cultivate the company of sluts, both amateur and professional. I do believe that the best way for a young woman to make powerful friends and unlock the best in her is spending as much time playing the sexual slave as humanly possible. It certainly, but I say certainly beats going to college.
So now you know. Moving on :
From the prim Puritan vengeance wracked upon the steadfast Hester Prynne to the targeted sexual critique of Ke$ha’s (self-described) “positive, fun” music, libidinous ladies can never seem to get much of a break.
I thought it was Phryne.
Slut-shaming, or the social repression and maligning of sexual promiscuity, is usually rife with apparent gender-based double standards.
Here's the cold, hard biology of the matter : generally speaking, a man ejaculating inside a woman carrying a venereal disease has a few %s chance of catching it. Conversely, if a man carrying a venereal disease ejaculates inside a woman's vagina, she has about 50% chance of catching it. Both the rectum and the medieval mouthv were actually worse. Consequently, slut shaming has very good and sensible roots, if perhaps a little obsolete in the Western world.
At first glance, it appears obvious that sexual repression is merely another hammer in the patriarchy’s toolkit of female oppression. Looking through history, we see example after example of male-dominated institutions enforcing asymmetric standards of sexual conduct. Even when those standards also repress male sexuality, as in ancient prohibitions against Onanism and homosexuality, the fury reserved for public roastings of sexual sinners has been particularly thorough in rebuking the “bad girls.” It is easy to see how enforcing the sexual repression of a social group would, indeed, be an effective way to disenfranchise that population.
The aim is not to disenfranchise that population specifically. I keep a harem, made of women. Why ? Is it because I am consumed by my sensual appetites, and I happen to be fixated on clams, thus therefore ? Or is it because I am consumed by an appetite for power, and women happen to be more powerful ? Maybe that's the long and the short of it : an army of men can not stand up to a troop of sluts in catsuits a tenth their number. Maybe this has been seen historically time and time again, maybe no army can ever defeat the secret service, maybe the reason they're trying to keep the sluts down is that they god damned have to.
You know how kids playing a game which has a serious flaw in it will "make a rule" to prevent the abuse of the flaw ? You know how grown men are scarcely more than kids ? So then!
We would expect a patriarchy to weigh the trade-offs of maintaining power by repressing female sexuality against the option to easily satisfy a considerable carnal appetite.
This theory is false, a point of which I've experimentally satisfied myself on numerous occasions. Your healthy and well trained slut can exhaust a dozen average men, and then keep them exhausted. Your healthy and well trained bull can scarcely satisfy a couple average women, and it won't last.
The considerable carnal appetite, as Shaw well points out, is on the female side. The male side is merely loud.
Given the high value ostensibly placed on both, any patriarchy’s optimal allocation of sexual repression and sexual objectification would not likely be as one-sided as observed in history and today.
The problem is a lot more subtle than presented. Objectification - far from the unequivocally if unexaminedly "bad" thing it's being presented as in parasite literature - is and will likely remain the best avenue of education.
If you intend to spend your life avoiding objectification, you by that fact and necessarily will spend your life avoiding culture, wisdom, power and respect.vi
A society ruled entirely by misogynists would probably not discourage, or might even actively encourage, female promiscuity.
I don't think misogyny enters into it. Is a good mechanic also a mechanophile ? Does it make a difference ?vii
the framework of sexual economics attempts to shed light on gender relations and outcomes by analyzing dating, mating, and procreating through the lens of market activity.
Interestingly, I have a contribution of my own on the topic : The Divine Cunt.
Noam Chortlsky If the entire system of heritage wasn’t there, and if the idea wasn’t simply “here’s your chance to make a guy that will piss all over these serfs and walk their faces in the mud” they’d have likely never bothered. Even with it plenty didn’t really bother. So basically the lesson here is… fuck with the balance of nature at your [anal] peril. For if you think hey, wouldn’t it be great if there were no more serfs and no more lords, and every fuckwit had options ? You implement that, a century later you’re in this position where these newfound lords without domains have the exact same problems of the past lords, except you have no solutions nor could there ever be any solutions. So the entire experiment goes extinct and we start over, specifically at the Gengis Khan moment.
I won't insist, other than to point out en passant that absent a whole stack of sweeteners, worthy men are not interested in and rationally will not produce offspring. Which is a fundamental reason why any society perpetually falls back on oligarchy, the only right and proper way for human affairs to be run.
Sex is a female resource. While both genders certainly enjoy and depend on the act, natural constraints on female sexuality create scarcity—and value.
This is exactly wrong. From the earlier (and thus Romanian) Erotoghid pentru femeia adulta
II. In ce priveste practica sexualitatii umane, penisul erect este singurul element in stoc limitat. Toate celelalte, mai esentiale ori mai marginale in proces, anusuri, vulve, labii, limbi, sini, palme, nari si asa mai departe se gasesc intr-o abundenta deluvionala, nu vom duce absolut niciodata lipsa.
Ca atare, vrind nevrind, ca ne convine sau ca ne displace, acceptabil sau inacceptabil din punct de vedere ideologic, mare parte a sexualitatii se va invirti in jurul penisului erect. El fiind rar si restul fiind abundente, aveti a va astepta sa intilniti pe linga fiecare penis, si cu atit mai mult pe linga fiecare penis mai acatarii macar o pereche daca nu de-a dreptul mai multe perechi de sini, labii, pulpe, nari…
Which says that with regards to the practice of human sexuality, the erect penis is the only ingredient in limited supply. Everything else, more or less essential, more or less marginal to the process, assholes, vulvae, tongues, breasts, palms, nostrils and so on and so forth are to be found in deluvionalviii abundance. (And then concludes that women are to come to terms with the fact that because it's rare, any good penis will also have a number of other women circling it, and so they'd better learn to eat tuna. But that part's for more advanced readers.)
At this point again we find ourselves in this situation where we've lost the whistle, and will have to discontinue.
In conclusion : I'm sorry, I got nothing. BYOC.———
- She can easily be excused for this, on two grounds : one that separatedly and unrelatedly to the matter of interests, those present gave ample clues of sexual interest (which they can be excused for, if you wish to, on the grounds of being betas, and that's what betas do).
The other, that she has the misfortune of floating about in a sea of meaningless text produced by a specific sort of parasites. So, to make a powerful if sickening simile : if a two ounce chick accidentally falls into an over nine thousand gallon septic tank, where it swims for a while trying to swallow as little as possible and a hose approaches to suck it out to freedom, it may be excused in thinking the hose intake is just another asshole. [↩]
- This, incidentally, shows perhaps the best explanation of why female slavery is such an important, useful and beneficial thing for the women involved.
If there's a man with a stick to match the welts on your butt, a man that you fear endlessly and revere boundlessly, he can then make that determination, and order you to get into Bitcoin. Whether you like it or not, understand it or not, want to or not. And once you do, you can then retrospectively comprehend why it was a good idea to spend the $5. But, alas, where's one to find such wonder ?
Well... certainly not at the derpferences, I reckon. [↩]
- No, I've not read the whole thing before proceeding, nor do I generally. I did say "while you watch", did I not. Well... it's live, of sorts. [↩]
- A sort of Occupy Wallstreet except WELL DONE. [↩]
- A few hundred years ago the mouth had constant open sores, through the workings of parasites, bad tools, poor hygiene and a collection of other factors. This is visible in the extreme vascularisation of the gums ; it's there to heal rapidly. [↩]
- I don't mean white knight respect. That's a mushy wet tissue devoid of substance.
I mean the respect of those you'd welcome being objectified by. The stuff that matters. [↩]
- Outside of the UK, of course, which is fucking nuts, of course. Oh you Somalia of the Western world, how high you were two centuries ago, how low you've sunk hence. [↩]
- From deluge, not from delusion! [↩]