Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Male Vs. Female Ingenuity

The following is a typical list of notable female inventions you might find online.

Alphabet blocks Adeline D. T. Whitney 1882
Apgar tests, which evaluate a baby’s health upon birth Virginia Apgar 1952
Chocolate-chip cookies Ruth Wakefield 1930
Circular saw Tabitha Babbitt 1812
Dishwasher Josephine Cochran 1872
Disposable diaper Marion Donovan 1950
Electric hot water heater Ida Forbes 1917
Elevated railway Mary Walton 1881
Engine muffler El Dorado Jones 1917
Fire escape Anna Connelly 1887
Globes Ellen Fitz 1875
Ironing board Sarah Boone 1892
Kevlar, a steel-like fiber used in radial tires, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests Stephanie Kwolek 1966
Life raft Maria Beaseley 1882
Liquid Paper®, a quick-drying liquid used to correct mistakes printed on paper Bessie Nesmith 1951
Locomotive chimney Mary Walton 1879
Medical syringe Letitia Geer 1899
Paper-bag-making machine Margaret Knight 1871
Rolling pin Catherine Deiner 1891
Rotary engine Margaret Knight 1904
Scotchgard™ fabric protector Patsy O. Sherman 1956
Snugli® baby carrier Ann Moore 1965
Street-cleaning machine Florence Parpart 1900
Submarine lamp and telescope Sarah Mather 1845
Windshield wiper Mary Anderson 1903



I did a search on a few of the items listed. Kevlar and liquid paper look legit.

But it seems that women did not actually invent some of the items. For example,

rolling pin - J.W. Reed (man)
rotary engine - Felix Millet (man)
circular saw - toss up between Samuel Miller and Walter Taylor (men)
ironing board - W. Vandenburg and J. Harvey (probably men)

So there appears to be some attempts by feminists to rewrite history. Revisionist history I think that's called.

Another thing I discovered is that none of the inventions in the list are recent. Is that because nothing new and significant has been invented in the last 40 years? I highly doubt it.

So unless I'm mistaken, the last 40 years is when women have become the most liberated, so why aren't there more recent female inventions to reflect that?

So I decided to look into this more. I found a website that does list some more recent female inventions: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0768070.html You can see that only 11 of the (supposed) inventions by women were in the last 40 years. This is out of a total of 58 listed over the last 140 years or so. This means that the rate of female inventions have decreased a bit, especially in the last 40 years; strange given that women have been most liberated in this time period.

This leads me to believe that some of the inventions are wrongly credited to women, especially back in the earlier time periods where there was greater uncertainty as to who did what; due to old records, missing documentation, etc. Therefore, it's easer to fill in some of the blanks with feminist revisionist history.

Now for my personal thoughts on the matter. When it comes to the kind of intelligence necessary for inventions (i.e. genius) men are overwhelmingly going to outnumber the women. Genius is essentially a male trait. Now, this does not mean women cannot be intelligent. There are definitely intelligent women, but at the highest end of the scale you're going to have mostly men.

For example, the best screenwriters are men, even though mostly women enroll in screenwriting programs.

Mastery in the kitchen is usually men.

Again, it's the genius factor, possibly related to spatial aptitude. So men will overwhelmingly be the geniuses of society. Hence, great inventions will usually be "man made".

Feminism, in all its wisdom, likes to blame men for female shortcomings. So anything that men are better at is because they have oppressed women. It kind of explains where all the hate comes from since there are so many things men are better at.

As an interesting exercise, go to YouTube and type "invention" in the search box. All the videos that come up in the search results will be of men that have invented something cool. Now why would that be? What could possibly be preventing women from uploading their own videos of worthwhile things they have created? The answer is, the lack of women who have created something worthwhile.

But on the other hand, plenty of women will upload a lot of nonsensical crap on YouTube, such as videos of them dancing around in skimpy clothing. So it's not as if women are not well versed in the media elements (case in point - Facebook). I have no doubt that one of the greatest wastes of bandwidth is women uploading videos and photos for purposes of vanity.

Women have rarely ever contributed to technological advancement. I have often struggled to understand why, and I now think the reason for that is this: Women will unquestioningly accept, in a passive manner, the way things are. As long as something is functional she will accept that and work within those confines. She will do this and seldom give it a second thought. Men, however, will seek out ways to do something better, and herein lies the main difference. Men will seek to expand the framework in which one lives, but women will work within that framework.

Women can and do contribute positively to society, but rarely where true technological evolution is concerned. Instead they will mostly contribute within environments that already have established frameworks. For example, a woman will research cures for disease using lab equipment invented by men, and within comfortable air conditioned rooms made possible by the inventions of men. It is quite rare, compared to men, that a woman will get into the nuts and bolts of something, get her hands dirty, and invent something truly novel using nothing but raw materials.

Most men aren't inventors. But virtually all inventors are men, and this is important to keep in mind.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Start Saying No

There's a saying that women are the choosers. That may be true if men are always willing to say yes, but as soon as we start (selectively) saying no, then it's no longer true.

As men, it's important to get out of the "pursuing" mindset where women are concerned. It can only help us.

Keep in mind that many women reject many decent men for petty reasons, so it's only fair that men start rejecting women for good reasons. And there are many. I put together some of the reasons for rejecting a woman.

• After you state your intentions, she doesn't go along willingly. She seems "unsure" of the situation and seems to want reassurance of some kind. It's best to let her go. Women who want the same thing as you don't ask a lot of questions. They want to take the quickest and shortest path to get there. If she doesn't do this, move on.

• She rejected you years ago when she was slim and attractive. But now, years later, after putting on weight (less attractive), she wants you. Next.

• She is not enthusiastic when she is with you. But being a gentleman you may naturally want to fix the situation and "win her over". Resist this urge. Next.

• She doesn't ask you questions about you, despite you taking an interest in her life. Finish the conversation, and move on.

• She asks you "what do you do?" early in the conversation. She's a ho. Move on.

• She likes you but is too shy to act on it. If she is very young it's probably okay to keep her as a friend, since she might mature later on. But for an older girl (e.g. over 25) let her go. Her views are probably firmly cemented and she's not worth the effort.

• She gives the impression that it's up to you to make it okay for her to do something. In other words, she won't take responsibility for her actions. For example, she implies that she wants you to be a jerk towards her so that she won't "fall for you", but at the same time she wants the sex to be good. What is she, a child? Next.

• At the club, on the dance floor, she dances near you but refuses to look at you. In some cases, the girl will back up into you and grind up against you, but will refuse to turn around and look at you. She is not taking responsibility for her actions. Next. However, in the case where she grinds up against you, it's probably okay to grind with her a bit, but then move on.

• Girls who are cold and unreceptive to meeting men. These women are easy to spot as they avoid eye contact at all costs. They are also experts at avoidance tactics. It's as if they, not only want to avoid contact, but also want to avoid proximity with males who might try to establish contact.

• Girls who make a big deal out of needing "chemistry". These women are usually eternally single and have a laundry list of requirements. Next.

• Girls who want you to travel a far distance to meet them.

• She flakes and the reason for it wasn't a matter of life and death.

• She asks you to buy her a drink.

• A girl who wants you to have a threesome with her and her boyfriend. Chances are this is an extremely selfish woman who wants to be treated like a QUEEN at the same time by two men. Such propositions happen more often if you're a good looking guy, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that such women will view you as a "trophy" of sorts, is a bad thing.

These are a few of the reasons for rejecting a woman. You might have more, but for me personally it comes down to what I want and how much work I am willing to put in to get it. I don't want girls who play games and don't make it easy for me, especially now that I have the KNOWLEDGE that women CAN make it easy if they want to.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Performance-Wise Men Are Better Than Women

It's hilarious to hear the justifications for why women do some of the things they do, such as why they hold grudges much longer than men — it's often said it's because women have a better memory than men. Wrong, they are just pettier and less forgiving (in general). Another commonly held view is, since the female brain has more communication between the left and right hemispheres, women are better at multi-tasking. Wrong again, it just means that women have a harder time distinguishing between logic and feeling, due to the extra "chit-chat" going on in their heads.

In the performance sense, and on average, men are better than women. Now, some women are better than some men at some things, but as a whole men are better than women at everything. There is not one single thing that women are better than men at, either through physical or mental prowess. At best, there are a few things they are just as good at. But there is nothing they are better at.

What is the reason for this? I think it's because of natural selection. Women, on average, have always mated with men who are physically bigger and stronger than them. In addition, women, on average, have always mated with men who have more resources and more social status than them. These two things often correlate with higher intelligence. Hence, the fact that the average man is better than the average woman, in the performance sense, directly ties into women's hypergamous instincts. Men, by way of women's mating choices over thousands of years, have quite simply been selected to be better. And men, not being as picky as women, have not had this kind of influence on women, so as to balance out the disparity.

By the way, just because I'm male doesn't mean I should be thought of as a member of the "winning team" and hence be looked upon more favorably. Conversely, it also doesn't mean that my views should be dismissed either, just because they might appear to be coming from a braggart who, through his own arguments, is part of the "winning team".

The fact that men as a whole perform better than women as a whole does not mean that individual men should be given more advantages than individual women. In fact, they are not, far from it actually.

What I am talking about is statistical averages, not how individuals should be treated based on their gender.

And since individual men obviously cannot tap into the collective "power" of the entire male group then they must rely on their own individual talents to achieve anything. So, men as a whole being better does not help individual men do better. Ultimately it comes down to what we do as individuals that gets us anywhere.

Remember, for every man that is great at something there are countless women out there who are better than him at other things.

So equal opportunity between the sexes should indeed be allowed. Give men and women equal opportunity to succeed. But the mistake we make is twisting and lowering the standards so that more women can compete with more men. To draw an analogy, consider that the fastest sprinters are almost always black. So you can say that white sprinters aren't as fast as black sprinters. That's certainly true at the highest levels (at least as far as historical evidence goes). But I would not want someone to say that I'm not allowed to train for sprinting because I'm white, since my chances of reaching the highest levels of competition are remote. I would want the same opportunity to show what I can do regardless of my skin color.

The same goes for women. Give them the same opportunity, but do not expect that they will be able to compete with men, in general. Exceptions will exist of course, but there's no way there will ever be true equality between men and women, only true equal opportunity. It is stupid to skew the system to create the illusion of parity between men and women.

Feminism threatens to become more and more tyrannical and unfair to men because of the natural inequality that exists between men and women. Feminists, in their quest to achieve parity between men and women, can only do so by putting men at a disadvantage. That is the only way their agenda can ever be satisfied. Only a culture-wide bias in favor of women can create the "equality" feminists crave for. It's tantamount to giving women a "head start" so that they reach the finish line at the same time, or sooner than men. So whatever the cost, feminist ideology dictates that women must prevail, and this inevitably sows the seeds of unfairness men currently face in western society.

The other problem with feminism is that it does not seek to better civilization. It's main goal is to out-do men. This is female pettiness at work, putting all of ones efforts into one-upping the other person. Because feminism is influenced by selfish female thinking it will never rise to a loftier goal than simply doing better than men. So any true social progress will always be limited at the hands of feminists. One consequence of this is that you will have lots of women taking high profile positions, such as CEO, engineer, etc, but not out of true passion for the field, but instead to compete with men. So in a manner of speaking, this is all simulated empowerment, by mimicking what men do in an effort to show they are better than them. This is merely pettiness at a higher level.

It is true that when men rule, they may destroy things in the process, but along that path there is always positive progress, albeit slow at times. So it's self-regulating. The reason for this is because men have the cohesiveness and integrity (usually) to create civilizations and foster technological growth. But this is not nearly as true with women. Women (in general) lack the cohesion men have when forming social bonds. They lack the teamwork skill and the ability to manage situations for the greater good. They are too busy trying to one-up each other. And furthermore, compared to men they overwhelmingly lack genius, the necessary trait to invent things, which is how technological progress comes about.

Some will say that what I'm saying is biased and untrue, and that men and women are just different, so my view is only a male view. I might accept that if women got along well with each other, understood each other and worked well together (just like men), and it's just that men can't relate to the way women view the world. However, this is not the case, women do not get along with each other as well as men. They have a weak concept of "word-is-bond". They lie and backstab each other. They do not trust each other, especially upon first acquaintance. This is unlike men who can form solid friendships immediately after the first handshake, which by the way is usually more warm and sincere than when two women greet each other for the first time. So, it's not only that women are different, they are also somewhat deficient, since even in the company of one another they are problematic.

Feminism is dangerous because it does not acknowledge this fact about women. And because women are the way they are, it is easier for them to abuse the system to their advantage. There is less restraint with feminism because it is rooted in the more corrupt female psyche. There is less accountability in feminism because women are less accountable in general. So you have to be careful granting power to someone who has a weaker sense of justice and a weaker ability to see the consequences of their actions. Power should be granted to the most responsible beings and this will for the most part, be men. Because we are dealing with absolutes here, not preferences, it is simply a fact of nature that it will usually be men.

Women are society's helpers with the occasional leader, but they can never compete with men in equal numbers. Trying to force equality can only mean putting men at a disadvantage, and that will only generate a backlash, the way it is happening now with MRA (Men's Rights Activism).

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Some Seduction Community Fallacies

The seduction community likes to tout that women are the same everywhere, which means that you should be equally successful or unsuccessful anywhere. I totally disagree with this. Women are not the same everywhere, just like cultures are not the same everywhere. Turn on the news and see just how different some parts of the world are. Even in one city there can be great differences between different areas. So, cultures are not the same, and therefore women are not the same. The only thing that is the same is what generates attraction, which is rooted in human psychology. But how people act on attraction, what rules (if any) they follow, will depend on the culture. So it is simply not true that a woman who is attracted to you will always fuck you. Just like there are some women who won't fuck you only because they are not attracted.

Why is it so hard to believe that not all women who are attracted will fuck you? People resist their urges all the time. And some even do it as a matter of religion (e.g. priests, nuns). And the degree to which they do is very related to the culture in which they reside, and their personal beliefs.

Why is the seduction community so resistant to this idea? Is it because they don't want guys to rest on their laurels? So the second you start saying something is outside your control you revert back to AFC, and the seduction community is all about empowering men. Just like when a girl doesn't respond well, it's always the guy's fault, because thinking this way empowers guys. But it's overkill. It's like using a nuke to kill a bunny. And it's just flat out wrong. The truth is not always black and white. That's the nature of personal growth, recognizing those shades of gray when they exist.

I'm Better Than Her

I'm better than her because I am approaching.

But I approach to see what she's like, not because I want to get with her. I have to find out what she's like first. So my mind isn't made up one way, or the other.

I approach and engage her in conversation, and if she doesn't hook relatively soon I move on. I don't think about what I could have done differently. Experience has taught me that all you can really do to engage someone is talk to them normally, and see if they will engage back.

The hard part can be knowing when you've done enough. The temptation is, if you talk to a bunch of girls and they don't respond well, you need to "up" your game. IOW it's your fault, so you need to ratchet up your efforts. That's a trap, and it's easy to fall into because there are so many socially repressed women. So it's easy to feel that the weight of evidence is stacked against you. But in reality, that's not the case.

Take me for example. I know from experience that I live in an antisocial area and I'm one of the select few that are approaching. This is a direct observation, and not a figment of my imagination. So from that perspective, the problem isn't mine. Furthermore, when I talk to girls, I talk to them the same way I would as if I met them through friends, or in other equally intimate settings. But in these settings they are generally much more receptive. But when I'm a stranger in public they are not nearly as friendly, in general. So when I consider both these factors I know it's not my fault. It's the fault of the women who are biased against meeting a stranger in public. It's the fault of the women who behave like herds of sheep when out in public.

But nonetheless, approaching can be therapeutic. Just socializing in general can be therapeutic, even with antisocial types. This is because you're not letting yourself stagnate. You are not letting yourself get trapped inside your head. And as an added plus, you are the better person because you are more social. And as long as you're just having fun, it doesn't matter much if they don't engage you back. I'm driving my convertible with the top down and even if no chick gets in with me, so what. I'm still driving my convertible with the top down.

Clearly, my views are very different from those in the seduction community, which usually lays blame at the feet of men. I disagree that it's usually men's fault, simply because there exists no equivalent community for women. So it makes no sense for men to carry the burden of getting it right, when women aren't trying nearly as hard.

According to the seduction community, if the girl doesn't respond well it's my fault. Um no. Maybe at one time I had a role to play in that, but at this stage I have accumulated enough acumen, so the problem is not mine. It's usually theirs. It's not arrogance. It's a fact. But who knows, maybe there is a way to get her, but usually that involves identity level personality (or appearance) changes, the kind the seduction community encourages. But that totally takes the fun away from approaching and socializing. If I have to neg, then I'm no longer socializing, I'm scheming, and that sucks the life out of the situation (and me). I simply cannot do it, and I have tried. But I cannot. I can only talk like I normally do and see if she is worth it for me. However, in some cases it may be that she secretly likes me but is too timid to show it. So what. She played her hand badly and I moved on. As far as I'm concerned I'm a walking lottery ticket and any girl who doesn't snatch it up with enthusiasm, it's her loss.

Like I said, I will approach, but not with the mindset of getting girls, but to have fun and screen. I approach with the mindset of enjoying myself and also seeing what she's like. I might structure my initial approach to be as smooth and natural as possible, but that's just a normal social calibration, the same way you wouldn't jump on a customer to make a sale. And once the conversation begins I am monitoring her reactions to see if she digs me, and at all times I am weighing that against my own efforts, and if I see that I am not getting a good response relatively soon I move on.

And if she is digging me I then do another check. I check to see if she wants the same kind of relationship as me. And if she matches that criteria, I'll go for the close.

But she has to warm up to me first, which essentially means she's attracted to me and isn't hiding it. Nothing happens without that.

Now, there are things you can do to help her warm up to you a bit better, from the beginning, but that comes from the social pre-calibration, to avoid setting off stalker alarms or whatever; like getting her to notice you first, or maybe by way of her seeing me hanging out with buddies and being popular. BUT if at the point I am chatting with her she does not engage me back, I move on. She had her chance, and the more work I have to put in the less I get out. Less is always more where women are concerned. The more effort you put into getting with her the less you get out, so the ROI drops off really fast if she doesn't open up real soon. This is because, when a woman is difficult it's because she has issues, or she doesn’t like you. This is unlike a legitimate challenge where you have an honest payoff after you put in the effort. So difficulty with a woman is never a sign of something good.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

So Where Are The Best Women?

Good question.

But the question shouldn't be "where", but "who".

Who are the best women?

What do they do?

What are their interests?

Well, I have a theory, and so far it's holding up pretty well.

The best women are the ones who have a serious passion and are courageous enough and intelligent enough to pursue it, no matter what.

In other words, entrepreneurial (self-employed) women. These women are willing to forgo the promise of a steady paycheck and follow their dreams. It takes guts to do that. That's certainly what I'm doing. I don't want to work for The Man. And any woman who feels the same is more likely to be a better match for me than a woman who ONLY cares about security in life. This is the worst kind of woman, who demands that rules be followed and that everything must line up just right. This is the kind of woman who is a slave to her baser survival instincts and is unable to just enjoy something for what it is. Nope, in her mind, it's always "how does this fit into my master plan of achieving xyz?"

These women are the first to use sex as a bargaining chip and are the last to enjoy sex by itself. These women will push and manipulate you in all manners of speaking, just to keep their "nest egg" safe.

These women will take jobs (assuming they work at all) that are most secure and have the most benefits. Nothing wrong with that right? And there isn't, except that often times these women hate their jobs, and are only putting up with them for the perks.

For example, government jobs. Some of the laziest, most pretentious, most uptight, rules-based women (and men) work in government offices, doing practically nothing all day. But the only reason they are there is because of the security the job provides.

Another example is teachers. Now, some women become teachers because they genuinely like kids. But I would say most of them are there just for the perks and the three months of paid vacation per year.

I never hooked up with a teacher. But I have hooked up with a few entrepreneurs. And the reason for that is because I'm a no-strings sex kind of guy, and teachers generally don't like that arrangement because it doesn't fit in with their business like attitude on life. If something doesn't add to the bottom line, and promise some return on investment, they don't bother. Kind of hard to enjoy a sunset with that attitude.

So if I want to fuck, one thing is for sure, I won't go to PTA meetings. Instead, I'll hang out where entrepreneurs hang out. There I will see women who are more open minded, more courageous, and definitely more fun to be around.