Every Childlike Author needs a Playground.


Part 2: How Human Nature Shapes Society

On the off-chance you haven’t yet read Part 1 yet, you should. We both know you’re a person who takes the initiative to understand what’s going on around you, and going back to read it is proof. But if you’re not someone who likes to understand what’s going on around you, then you’re probably the kind of person who usually trips on the curb awkwardly when walking, which is embarrassing.

Whichever type you are, you’ve come this far, and that makes you a determined person, though possibly an awkward and oblivious determined person.

If you read Part 1, you should already know that our ancestors weren’t stupid.

Not only were our ancestors not stupid, they did smart things and took advantage of sexual differences between men and women. Whether or not you’re a creationist or an evolutionist, you know that these sexual differences existed naturally even before human history began, resulting in traditional gender roles that have persisted until today.

You also know, because you read Part 1, that 100 years isn’t long enough to reverse billions of years of evolution, nor will it do anything to change a fixed creation. The last 100 years is unique because technology has advanced so far and so quickly. Our technology has enabled men to become more feminine and women to become more masculine, but it is still not enough to change our basic human nature.

Whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you’ve already decided that human nature has been roughly the same for all of recorded history.

Of course you can disagree, but if you do, you probably haven’t read many old stories. A whole bunch of smart people, scholars and historians, have read these old stories, and they would all tell you the same thing: People who lived thousands of years ago were just like us. All of them.

Our ancestors were smart, and they were just like you. Their human nature was the same as your human nature.

Because they were smart and because their human nature was the same as ours, our ancestors almost certainly knew as much about human nature as you do. In fact, they probably knew more about human nature than you do. You may be thinking “Yeah right, that can’t be true,” just like numerous foreigners thought that some of the most mundane things about America couldn’t be true until they visited. The past, too, is like a foreign culture to us, filtered through its art and literature like any modern day culture. Just as Canadians understand more about U.S. culture than Africans do due to their closer proximity, our ancestors likely knew more about human nature than we do simply because they were closer to its origin than we are. If you disagree, by all means use your totally legitimate working time machine to visit the past and prove me wrong.

Most agree that at a basic level human nature is shaped by needs such as hunger, pain, and sex. These needs shape how humans behave on a larger scale and how they act together as a society.

The way our society is structured is influenced by how people meet basic needs, such as how they get food, how they stay healthy, and who they have sex with.

Knowing this, and knowing that our ancestors were both smart and likely knew more about human nature than we do, it is not difficult to put the information together to get a new picture of history.

But before we paint that picture, lets add into the mix a theory (one not even feminists believe in, it seems) that in prehistoric times the earliest development of human societies began as matriarchal societies, which are societies led by women. The theory goes that these matriarchal societies then disappeared and were replaced by patriarchal societies led by men.

From then on, throughout recorded history patriarchal societies dominated and ruled the world.

Now let’s summarize what we know. What we know is this: 1) Our ancestors took advantage of human sex differences. They played to their strengths because they were smart. 2) They understood human nature better than we modern humans do, because they were closer and more exposed to it. 3) Human nature has been the same throughout human history, and it is shaped by fundamental needs like food, health and sex. Further, the methods used to meet these needs naturally shape social structure. Finally, 4) We will be generous and agree with the dubious theory that human societies were matriarchies in prehistoric times, which then turned into patriarchies when people started writing things down.

What conclusion do you draw from your knowledge?

The conclusion is that societies led by women are not as effective as societies led by men.

Right about now you’re probably getting a little offended, maybe thinking I’m a sexist, or a misogynist, someone who hates or looks down on women. If so, aren’t you a little worried that your false accusations are limiting your thinking? I would be worried if I was falsely accusing myself as well, but instead I didn’t get offended at my thoughts and followed the tracks. The tracks led me to a reasonable conclusion. If you followed the same tracks I did, you made it to the reasonable conclusion. You weren’t derailed by the unreasonable or false accusations, which means you have a clear head on your shoulders.

The track is easy to follow, and you likely don’t need me to explain because you followed them too, but just for fun I will.

Our first track is our first piece of knowledge, that our ancestors were smart and played to their strengths, taking advantage of human sex differences. This means they did smart things and knew what worked well and what didn’t work well. They knew men were better at doing physical labor, and women were better at raising children, and that it didn’t work as well the other way around.

Add to this our second track, which is that they understood human nature better than we do. They understood that our human behavior was based on meeting our fundamental needs like hunger and sex, and that people used what worked best for them to meet those needs.

For their fundamental needs to be met, to have food, to be healthy, and to have sex, they needed to use the best system available to meet those needs by doing what worked well and by not doing what didn’t work well.

The best systems were different for men and women. Woman used less physical and more indirect means to get food, avoid pain, and have sex, while men used more physically direct methods. But what else do we know about the methods used to meet fundamental needs like hunger and sex?

The answer is our third track: The methods used to meet fundamental needs naturally shape social structure. These methods are different for men and women, and since a society led by women would primarily use less physical and indirect methods to meet these needs, we can safely say that a matriarchal society would do the same. Likewise, a patriarchal society would use more physically direct methods because they are led by men.

Finally we arrive at our conclusion with the addition of the fourth track. Though questionable, it is possible that long ago in prehistoric times human societies were led by women. But we know from actual recorded history that these matriarchal societies were soon replaced by societies led by men. At any rate, throughout history there are very few instances of matriarchal societies, and what few examples do exist did not last for very long. The cause for this is none other than human nature itself.

While women had to use the methods of persuasion, deception and even submission to survive, the more physically intimidating men would use direct physical means to survive. For example, in a food scarce environment, any woman who wanted to survive would have to hide or quietly steal their food (deception), persuade someone more powerful to give them food, or submit to someone more powerful in exchange for food. In contrast, a man would simply take food from someone weaker. Women could not directly compete with men, and instead had to rely on a male benefactor for both protection and provision.

The same dynamic is true for social structure.

A patriarchal society will use physically direct methods to survive, while a matriarchal society will use indirect means.

In other words, when competing for resources, a matriarchal society would quickly find itself at the mercy of a patriarchal society. In order to survive, a society led by women would need to use trade (persuasion), swear fealty (submission), or somehow trick the competing patriarchal society which would otherwise take the resources by direct force. For a weaker society, all of these options are a death sentence. Trade favors the stronger party, submission is to live under the conqueror’s rules, and tricks are hard to pull off. The result is that matriarchal societies disappeared almost as soon as they came into contact with a patriarchal society.

Societies led by women are just not as effective as societies led by men.

Societies led by women simply couldn’t compete with societies led by men due to their fundamentally different ways of surviving. The patriarchal societies, once they showed up in prehistoric times, were like the jockey who brought a Ferrari to a horse race. The horses just can’t compete with the natural speed and power of a sports car. If you want your society to survive, if you want your society to win the race, don’t bet on the losing horse. Bet on the Ferrari, and support a patriarchal society. You want men in power, because you want to win. You want men in power because matriarchies are way out of date and way to slow to keep up with other patriarchy.

Or you can stick with your horse. Don’t be too sad when it dies.

**This is the second installment of a several part series. The series will progress from early man to modern civilization, and draw conclusions about gender roles, society and culture. I will post links to each part in the series as they are completed.**

Part 1: Creationist or Evolutionist, You Need Traditional Gender Roles
Part 2: How Human Nature Shapes Society


Part 1: Creationist or Evolutionist, You Need Traditional Gender Roles

We both know the reason you’re reading this. You’re reading this because you want to know why you need traditional gender roles, possibly wondering what they can do for you in the modern age. Your willingness to read this means you have an open mind and possess the ability to improve your life without caring about what other people think, say, or do. You understand that human history is relevant and important to your modern world.

Whether or not you believe in a creator or in macro-evolution, you know it’s important to take a close look at how those beliefs define your thinking. In most cases, the different beliefs will result in divergent ideas and opinions, but in rare cases rational thought will converge to a similar conclusion.

In the case of social gender roles, regardless of base beliefs, your thinking will and should come to one conclusion:

Traditional gender roles are not only natural, but necessary.

By now you’re asking yourself how the origin of man is related to gender roles. It’s easy to come up with the same tired idea that gender roles stem from the lifestyle of primitive man: males hunted and women raised children.

However, there is an hidden premise to this example. The premise is that men and women differentiated before their primitive history began.

Males excelled at hunting and similar tasks due to their specialized masculine traits. Females excelled at raising children due to their specialized feminine traits. And these traits were specialized quite some time before primitive man began to hunt, gather, or farm.

However this specialization came about, it is important to remember the following:

Our ancestors weren’t stupid. They took advantage of inherent sexual differences and specializations to increase their odds of survival.

These differences and specializations were a direct result of evolutionary processes, creative design, or a combination of both. We could discuss the why and how for each of these three cases, but the answer isn’t important. What’s important is this:

Sexual differences and specialization is superior to every other alternative.

Evolution favors organisms with superior means of survival and reproduction. If there had been a superior alternative to sexual dimorphism in humans, human sexual dimorphism would likely not have persisted to date.

Likewise, from a creationist point of view, and assuming the creator was not malicious, there would be no real reason for humans to possess an inferior means of survival and reproduction.

The conclusion is the same from both standpoints:

Sexual dimorphism is both natural and inherent to the human species.

There are very few people who would argue with this, and those few who would are not too bright. One only needs to look at a man and a woman side by side to understand that there are clear physical differences.

While our ancestors didn’t possess the advanced technology we do, they, like you, were not stupid.

Our ancestors took notice of the obvious sexual differences and took advantage of them because it was the smart thing to do.

The advantages to survival that sexual differences provided to the human race gave natural rise to gender roles. Males, as the more physically intimidating party automatically assumed positions of power and leadership. At the same time, they were more expendable than a female, meaning that males were the group that literally spent their lives protecting the physically weaker females.

In contrast, females were less able to handle more physically demanding tasks, but were more naturally inclined to tasks related to raising offspring and self-preservation. Because women could not compete with men on a level playing field as a physically weaker sex, women excelled at using psychological means to increase their chances of survival using tools such as persuasion, deception, empathy and sympathy (feigned or real), using emotion to their own advantage, and outright submission.

Gender roles rose straight from physical differences between sexes, to the advantage of both men and women.

These gender roles resulted from men and women playing to their own strengths.

Our ancestors understood that without traditional gender roles, they would not survive.

They would be wiped out naturally by a harsh environment, or they would be wiped out by a people that did use traditional gender roles. They understood that without traditional gender roles they would lose their wars, lose out economically, and lose out to the larger populations of groups who were more successful using traditional gender roles.

Traditional gender roles are far from obsolete. They are still the cutting edge.

Evolutionist or Creationist, what you tacitly admit is that humans either evolved or were designed with major physical differences that work to their own advantage.

It would be foolish to work against and ignore such a huge natural advantage. If you do work against it, you or your children will ultimately find themselves at a disadvantage.

By working against evolution, you are refusing to evolve, and you will soon not be fit enough to survive.

By working against the creator’s design, your purpose as a creation is broken, and you must fix it or you will not survive.

Our advanced technology has made it easier for men to become more like women, and for women to become more like men, but this has only been true for the last 100 years.

One hundred years is too short for evolution to reverse several million years of prior evolution.

And if you are a creationist, 100 years of evolution won’t change a thing.

The natural advantages of male and female sex differences have not changed. Traditional gender roles optimize those advantages.

It is still to your advantage to act like a feminine woman, and it is still to your advantage to act like a masculine man. Doing so will increase your ability to survive, both literally and economically, and will also increase your chances of reproduction.

Embodying conventional feminine traits is the best strategy for a woman who wants the best possible man and the most resources, and embodying conventional masculine traits is the best strategy for a man who wants the best possible woman and even more resources.

If you want to maximize your life, make more money and live to the fullest, then the only option available to you is to embrace traditional gender roles. If you don’t, the poor dodos and the penniless dinosaurs are waiting for you on the other side.

**This is the first installment of a several part series. The series will progress from early man to modern civilization, and draw conclusions about gender roles, society and culture. I will post links to each part in the series as they are completed.**

Part 1: Creationist or Evolutionist, You Need Traditional Gender Roles
Part 2: How Human Nature Shapes Society

Tactical Appropriation and Christian Warfare

Of late I have been intentionally abrasive on social media. There are multiple reasons for this. One of the more simple reasons was to test a defensive and offensive tactic. Distilled into an abstract term, it can be described as Tactical Appropriation.

Tactical Appropriation is a method which you can adopt to achieve devastating results against your opponents.


Christian Warfare

The premise of tactical appropriation is to appropriate all tactics used by your enemy and use them to defend yourself, usually via counterattack. It is near in kinship to a tactic summed up by the old adage, “the best defense is a good offense.”

But it is much better summed up  by the Bible: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Anyone familiar with the Bible may remember that Jesus had some choice word to say about this concept during his famous “Sermon on the Mount.” Without going into a long debate concerning Jesus’ more “celestial” or “heavenly” law compared to Moses’ “terrestrial,” and “temporal” law, all I will say on the subject is that Moses’ law reflects Jesus’ law.  The idea is the same for both: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Or as Jesus put his second greatest commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Moses law attempted to circumvent sin and crime via lex talionis. If you committed a crime, the punishment would be equivalent to what you did to your neighbor.

Gouge out an eye, and you get your eye gouged out.

Jesus tried to circumvent sin and crime using the same concept. If you love your neighbor as yourself, and don’t want your eye gouged out, then don’t gouge out your neighbor’s eye. He advocated for a spiritual precondition rather than temporal punishment post factum.

The other aspect of this is the concept of turning the other cheek. I will just point out now that it is not wrong to turn the other cheek.

It is also not wrong to retaliate in self-defense.

Jesus’ celestial or heavenly law generally has the reputation of being more merciful than the law of Moses and less retaliatory. Paradoxically, it’s even worse for the original perpetrator of a crime or sin to have his victim return kindness for evil.

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink; For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

In fact, it could be argued that by not retaliating you are making it worse for your enemy than by literally defending yourself from his attacks.

By not retaliating, you are condemning your enemy to a fate worse than death. Turning your cheek is already a form of retaliation.

If someone attacks you, or attacks your beliefs, you have the moral prerogative to retaliate.

When you defend yourself from attack, you are morally and ethically authorized to use any and every method and tactic which your enemy first uses against you. This is the law as interpreted by both Moses and Jesus.

Martyrs are, of course, rewarded in heaven more handsomely than those who died fighting for a righteous cause. But nobody wants to die, and nobody likes losing.

Very few people have what it takes to be a martyr. As an every day Joe, you should develop an ability to defend yourself.

One way of defending yourself is via Tactical Appropriation.

Tactical Appropriation is the method necessary to successfully defend against a ruthless attacker.

Your enemies are ruthless. They will escalate their tactics to overwhelm and defeat you.

If they use rhetoric to attack you, use rhetoric to attack them. If they insult you, insult them back. If they pull a knife on you, pull a knife on them. If they pull a gun, draw your own gun.

Remember, you are not trying to get revenge. Defending yourself is not revenge.

Defend yourself successfully by using their own tactics against them. Do not escalate until they escalate. You aren’t limited to their tactics, you are only limited by their level of escalation.

Once your enemy crosses the line, you have officially lost ground and are in the process of being invaded. You must cross the line in retaliation and take back every inch you lost, or you will lose it forever. The best defense is a good offense.

In order to retake lost ground, you must be willing to invade enemy territory.

Sometimes escalation is unavoidable. In order to win your battles, you must escalate to at least the same degree as your opponent. When your enemy attacked you, they already threw kindness out the window. It is not kind to attack someone.

In order to defeat your attacker, you must also throw kindness out the window. War, by its very nature, is unkind and cruel. Therefore, wage war like a soldier of Christ and reestablish Christendom. Turning your cheek is an option only if you wish to be a martyr.

But to be a martyr, you have to die first.

I suggest you fight, and live.

Female Insecurity

Approximately a month ago, I was fated to come across this article in The Washington Post detailing how “The 10 richest women in the world aren’t entrepreneurs, but heiresses.” Indeed, that is the article’s exact headline. It sparked my curiosity, and caused me to wonder how far down the list of billionaires one had to go in order to find a “self-made” woman—a woman who was both a billionaire and an entrepreneur, rather than the fortunate heiress of a dead rich man. To find out, I went to the unquestioned authority on rich people: Forbes.

After paging through the tiny biographies of more than 500 billionaires consisting of both sexes, I discovered that of those 500 billionaires, only four women could legitimately be termed “self-made,” the first of which only cracked the list at ranking #240 (Chan Laiwa, $6.2B). The second appeared only eight slots later (Jin Sook, $5.9B), yet was co-listed with her husband, Do Won Chang. Dubious as this was, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Afterwards, the next self-made woman did not appear until #360, and still the next did not appear until ranking #481, respective gaps of 112 and 121 ranking slots between them and the previous self-made female billionaire. The rest of the women in the top 500 rankings were invariably heiresses.

On discovering this, I ruminated on Facebook that there was a seemingly established pattern, that for approximately every one hundred and eight men, there was only one woman who could claim to have an equal measure of talent with the least talented man of the preceding one hundred plus men. Further, I hypothesized that while civilization depended on women, the quality of our civilization depended on men. Outrage ensued, primarily and unsurprisingly from women. Chalk it up to female insecurity.

I was predictably subsequently attacked and vilified for daring to insinuate that women were overall less talented than men. One attack went so far as to attempt to disqualify my observation based on my (relative) youth and apparent lack of success compared to women my age (both of which were not only irrelevant to the subject, but respective examples of ageism and a form of credentialism based on experientialism). Only one of my several attackers managed to address my observation with any intelligence rather than a purely rhetorical knee-jerk emotional reaction. She is to be commended, and it is primarily due to her that I took what little free time I have these days to compile a few of the studies I’ve read in the recent years and which eventually led me to make my controversial observation.

Here I must make a note. Women are not inferior to men or less valuable. I will never assert this position simply because it is not true. Yet I do and will continue to assert that women have naturally inferior skills in certain areas, and vice versa. I do not conflate “all women” and “all men” with women and men in a more general sense. This would be a grave mistake, and if I were to make it I would not blame anyone for discounting anything I might subsequently say on the subject. The fact remains, however, that I have not made this mistake, and therefore am worthy of your attention on this count. What follows is a more detailed defense of my position.

First, I would like you to look around. Note the things in your house, the things in the coffee shop you frequent, the bookstore you go to. Wherever you are at this moment, mentally calculate how many of those items were designed and created by men and how many by women. Obviously we cannot know for sure what was made by a man and what was made by a woman, but it is not too hard to make a guess. I would submit to you that 85% or more are products of men. The computer or phone from which you’re reading this article was created by engineers, a field comprised of 85% men. The walls, surrounding you were created and built by civil engineers and construction crews respectively, the former field comprised of 85% men and the latter comprised of 97% men (the construction field itself is 91%, but construction crews are 97% for obvious reasons). The tables and chairs, couches and sofas, bookshelves and beds which give you comfort everyday were created and designed by carpenters, comprised of 98% men. The dishwasher, electric or gas oven, refrigerator, microwave, blender, air conditioner and heater, the electrical circuitry which lights your home and lets you use all the aforementioned appliances… all designed and installed by men almost without exception. The car you drive, the petrol you purchase, the roads you drive on, the pots and pans and utensils you use for cooking and dining, the food you eat… all produced by mostly men.

Now ask yourself… what would you have without men in the way of comfort and convenience?

Probably Jack. Squat.

The main opposition to this conclusion is that many of these things were being created (furniture goes back hundreds of years, after all) before women began to enter the workforce in significant numbers, or that there is still progress which needs to be made—ergo, if women had been or were currently in the workforce in greater numbers, the credit could not be attributed so definitively to men. Unfortunately, this objection in its myriad forms is absurd, and is statistically and demonstrably false. We could say this for anything: IF X was instead Y, THEN the result of X would be a result of Y. Yet X is not Y, and there is no possible way to test for the purely hypothetical case. It is akin to saying that if men could give birth as women do, then more births would be attributable to men. The argument flies in the face of reality and is therefore dismissed immediately as the pure fantasy it is. And, too, statistically speaking, it simply has not occurred. To show this, I present Exhibit A.

Exhibit A is a study of women’s representation in 60 different occupations from 1972 to 2010, and the study’s results are astounding. Consider the following graph extracted from the study:


Figure 1. Mean percent of women working in 60 occupations as a function of year. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095960.g001

Starting from approximately the year 2000, the percentage of women in these 60 different occupations leveled out at around 42.5%, and has stayed there for an entire decade. One who believes women are identical to men in skill and ability will look at these numbers and find them grossly unjust—as half the population, women also ought to make up half the workforce! The Patriarchy is so evil!

But don’t be so quick to get upset. A Gallup poll in early 2012 discovered that 14% of women compared to 6% men are stay-at-home parents with children under 18, and 31% women and 24% men have no children under 18 but are still unemployed. These are differences of 8% and 7% respectively, consistent with the percentage of women needed to make up the missing numbers and make the workforce an exact 1:1 ratio of men and women.

This can hardly be a coincidence. Nor could I have gotten better numbers if I had forged them. I would even go so far as to make the prediction that if one were to examine the unemployment rates from 2000 to now, the average breakdown of men and women who are unemployed would have a difference of about 16%, with approximately 58% and 42% of unemployed men and women respectively, and which would also be consistent with the actual make up of the workforce.

The only conclusion one can make from this is that a significantly greater portion of woman are not looking for work, and an equally greater portion of men are looking for work, resulting in a workforce which reflects that status. From it, we can infer that the cultural wars which got women into the workforce to begin with have succeeded as much as they possibly can, and have in fact, stagnated from at least 2000-2010. The first question this raises is, why have they stagnated? The second question is, how does this relate to men and women’s differences in skill sets?

I’m not here to answer the first question. The second question, however, is of vital importance. By the above, we can see that the percentage of women in the workforce has not changed for at least the decade of 2000-2010. In other words, all the women who are either employed or looking for work have already entered the workforce. No more are forthcoming. If this is so, the credit for any work done by this workforce within that time period cannot be readjusted to fit a hypothetical or ideal model. More credit must by necessity go to men, simply for the reason there are more men in the workforce. Men do 58% of the work, and women do 42%.

I now present you with Exhibit B.

Exhibit B is taken from the same study as Exhibit A, and deals primarily with sex segregation within occupations. That is, what kind of jobs do men and women occupy? From the study:

There are undoubtedly other important job characteristics that contribute to sex segregation as well. Two fundamental dimensions of occupational variation that have been much studied by vocational interest and individual difference researchers are the people-things dimension and the data-ideas dimension [14][17]. The first dimension taps the degree to which occupations deal with people and their psychological dynamics versus inanimate things and mechanical systems. The second dimension taps the degree to which occupations entail routine record-keeping and data management versus creative thinking and the use of intelligence. While women and men do not differ much in their preference for ideas-oriented versus data-oriented jobs, they do differ substantially in their preferences for people-oriented versus things-oriented jobs, with women expressing greater preference for people-oriented jobs and men for things-oriented jobs [14], [18]. This suggests that occupations’ positions on the people-things dimension may predict their degree of sex segregation, but occupations’ positions on the data-ideas dimension may not.

Later in the study:

People-things orientation accounted for slightly more variance than status did in 1972 (24 versus 19 percent, respectively). However, by 2010 people-things accounted for more than seven times as much variance as occupational status did (36 percent versus 5 percent, respectively). Thus, as women increasingly entered high-status occupations from 1972 to 2010, job status became an increasingly weak predictor of women’s participation in occupations, while occupations’ people-things orientation became an increasingly strong predictor.

I will not get into a detailed explanation of their methods, as that can be found in the paper itself. What is important for our purposes is the percent of variance which can be used as a predictor in the differences between men and women’s preferred occupations. In 2010, only 5% of total variance was attributed to occupational status. A high status, high paying job was a poor indicator of whether the person working that job was a man or a woman. In contrast, the people-things orientation was a strong indicator. The sex of engineers, machinists, scientists, mechanics, programmers, electricians, welders, construction workers, farmers, and mathematicians were easier to predict because they were usually men. Essentially any job involved in producing material goods, or advancing technology or scientific knowledge were dominated by the male workforce. On the other side of things, the sex of photographers, secretaries, librarians, nurses, receptionists, real estate agents, waiters, hairdressers, school teachers and social workers were more likely to be women.

And no, this is not because of discrimination or negative expectations in those fields (though those both exist to some small degree) and here is the reason why:

Multilevel linear modeling (MLM) analyses showed that women increasingly entered high-status occupations from 1972 to 2010, but women’s participation in things-oriented occupations (e.g., STEM fields and mechanical and construction trades) remained low and relatively stable.

The gender make up of construction crews hasn’t changed much in 40 years. Nor has the make up of workers in STEM fields. With the increasing number of women who were flocking to jobs for the last 40 years, 40 years of, we are told, terrible gender discrimination, there was hardly any increase in women in these fields whatsoever. In contrast, so many women have obtained high status jobs that it’s difficult to predict what gender fills them, when 40 years ago it would have been easy. If women are just like men, having the same talents to equal measure, then there is absolutely no reason to think that women could not break into these fields in the same way they’ve broken into the higher occupational ranks and high status jobs.

And yet they have not. Why?

There is a very simple reason, of course, but no woman really wants to hear it, and some men aren’t particularly keen on it either because they’re both overly invested in the idea that women are equal to men instead of complementary. The simple reason is that women are not as suited to those jobs as men are, and their suitability is derived from their natural state. While I have not absolutely shown that this is the case, I have, I think, made it abundantly clear that my second hypothesis was correct, namely, that our civilization depends on women and the quality of our civilization depends on men. Men produce goods, specifically food and shelter and technological improvements, and women produce children. Neither are inferior to other and neither are as suitable to the other’s natural tasks. The Forbes’ Billionaire list, as surprising as it is unlikely, indicates and supports this very conclusion.

Now to defend my first observation, that for approximately every one hundred and eight men, there was only one woman who could claim to have an equal measure of talent with the least talented man of the preceding one hundred plus men. Our first order of business on this matter is to push aside the obvious: that men are physically superior to women for nearly all functions except for child birthing and rearing. Any argument against this is futile as it is observably true and easily proven. There is a reason why construction crews are still 98% men, after all.

Our second task is to find out if men are more suited to STEM and related fields than are women. This is not so easily done, but it can be done. To begin doing so, I first present you with Exhibit C.

From a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) 2009 study, “An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap in Mathematics”:

Figure 1 plots the gender gap on the mathematics and verbal components of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) – over the past forty years. On the math section, female scores are on average 0.30 standard deviations lower than male scores; on the verbal portion there is no clear gender difference (College Board 2007). 1 An important shortcoming of the SAT data is that the population taking the test is not representative, and sample selection may occur differently across gender. For instance, since college attendance rates are presently higher for females, the female sample of SAT takers may be drawing more heavily from the middle or left tail of the ability distribution. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nationally representative sample that does not have sample selection problems, also shows boys consistently outperforming girls in fourth and eighth grade over the last two decades, though the magnitude of the gap is smaller (Lee, Grigg, and Dion 2007). The bulk of the evidence in the past 50 years suggests that the gender gap in mathematics does not exist before children enter school, but is large and significant in the middle school years and beyond. For instance, in a meta-analysis of 100 studies with a total sample of more than 3 million students, Hyde et al (1990) found a .29 standard deviation gender gap in math in high school.

Please make note of this statement: “The bulk of the evidence in the past 50 years suggests that the gender gap in mathematics does not exist before children enter school, but is large and significant in the middle school years and beyond.” Many have taken this to mean that boys and girls start out with equal potential with regards to mathematics which is later destroyed via gender-specific expectations and barriers. While that is not necessarily incorrect, I believe there is a more simple explanation: When everybody starts at zero, everybody is equal.

A simple analogy should suffice to make this explanation more transparent. At the beginning of a basketball game, both teams start off at zero points, at equal spots. No one has taken a shot yet. Nothing has happened. One team is made up of slightly shorter, slower players and the other team is made up of slightly taller, faster players. Everything else, shooting skill, ball handling, passing, etc., is equal except for disparity in speed and height. Then the whistle blows, and as the game goes on, the gap in score begins to widen from nothing to a little, to a lot.

This is exactly what happens for men and women with math. As schooling continues, men’s natural proclivities began to widen the gap, from zero all the way to 0.30 standard deviations. In a footnote, the NBER paper further states:

Among elite achievers, these differences are even more pronounced. Men outnumber women by more than two to one above the 99th percentile in SAT mathematics scores (College Board 2007). Males also score four percent higher on AP calculus exams and 6 percent higher on AP science exams (Freeman 2004, College Board 2007).

The paper continues:

The patterns on math tests are especially striking when one considers that females either systematically outperform males or have made enormous gains on many educational dimensions. The high school dropout rate is 28% for females compared to 35% for males (Greene and Winters 2006). As noted by Goldin, Katz, & Kuziemko (2006), in 2003 there were 1.35 females graduating from four-year colleges for every male. In stark contrast, in 1960 there were 1.6 males graduating from 4-year colleges for each female. In 1970, women made up only 9% of combined Medicine, Dentistry, and Law degree recipients. Thirty years later, women accounted for 47% of full time, and 44% of part-time students pursuing such degrees (Freeman 2004). Women make up 45% of all doctorate degrees (Freeman 2004). A 2000 study, commissioned by the U.S. Congress, found that “[t]he large gaps in educational attainment that once existed between men and women have in most cases been eliminated” (Bae et al. 2000).

With such awesome changes in education, how is it possible that science and math are the only areas where females cannot seem to catch up? There is a simple answer, which ironically is just outside the scope of the author’s paper. The emphasis is mine:

Due to limitations of the data, we can test only a subset of the possible socialization theories for the divergent trajectory of girls’ math scores in the early years of school, and none of the biological explanations. Among those hypotheses that we can test, we fail to uncover compelling support for any of them.

Among those possible socialization theories which they tested were: family background, school and neighborhood characteristics, teacher and parent assessments and expectations, parent educational prestige levels, and socioeconomic status. And there was nothing. No compelling support for any of them that would help explain the gender gap in mathematics and science. Conveniently left out of the inquiry, however, was a biological explanation. This concludes Exhibit C.

Finally, I give you Exhibit D.

In this study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the researchers examine mathematics and reading gaps in different countries in an attempt to determine why girls tend to have better reading scores than boys, and why boys tend to have better math scores. From the Executive Summary:

Reading proficiency is the foundation upon which all other learning is built; when boys don’t read well, their performance in other school subjects suffers too.

Indeed. If reading is the foundation of learning, then why, if girls tend to have better reading scores than boys, do boys still outperform girls in mathematics? The study attempts to explain this by citing “math anxiety” in girls.

In the large majority of countries and economies that participate in PISA, among high performing students, girls do worse than boys in mathematics; in no country do they outperform boys at this level. In general, girls have less self-confidence than boys in their ability to solve mathematics or science problems. Girls – even high-achieving girls – are also more likely to express strong feelings of anxiety towards mathematics. On average across OECD countries, the score-point difference in mathematics performance between high-achieving girls and boys is 19 score points. However, when comparing boys and girls who reported similar levels of self-confidence in mathematics and of anxiety towards mathematics, the gender gap in performance disappears.

PISA reveals that girls tend to do better when they are required to work on mathematical or scientific problems that are more similar to those that are routinely encountered in school. But when required to “think like scientists”, girls underperform considerably compared to boys. For example, girls tend to underachieve compared to boys when they are asked to formulate situations mathematically. On average across OECD countries, boys outperform girls in this skill by around 16 PISA score points – the equivalent of nearly five months of school. Boys also outperform girls – by 15 score points – in the ability to apply their knowledge of science to a given situation, to describe or interpret phenomena scientifically and predict changes. This gender difference in the ability to think like a scientist may be related to students’ self-confidence. When students are more self-confident, they give themselves the freedom to fail, to engage in the trial-and-error processes that are fundamental to acquiring knowledge in mathematics and science.

It is no secret that stress and anxiety having impairing effects on reasoning, but the OECD stretches its effects when recalling that, (1) as the organization states, “Reading proficiency is the foundation upon which all other learning is built,” and (2) that girls outperform boys in reading by nearly 38 points.

As results from PISA have shown, girls do very well in school, too. In all countries and economies that participated in PISA 2012, girls outperformed boys in reading by an average of 38 score points (across OECD countries) – the equivalent of one year of school – as they have done consistently throughout all the PISA cycles since 2000. Boys, however, continued to outperform girls in mathematics in 38 participating countries and economies by an average of 11 score points (across OECD countries) – equivalent to around three months of school.

Hence, “when comparing boys and girls who reported similar levels of self-confidence in mathematics and of anxiety towards mathematics,” and who subsequently tested equally well on mathematics, the reading gap between girls and boys must also be taken into account—something OECD failed to do. Consider the following:

The data in Figure 6.2 suggest that trends in the gender gap in performance in different subjects are associated. Countries where girls became better readers between 2003 and 2012 are also generally the same countries where girls improved in mathematics during the same period. For example, in Finland, the gender gap in mathematics, in favour of boys, narrowed by 10 score points between 2003 and 2012. Over the same period, the gender gap in reading, in favour of girls, widened by 18 score points. In Greece, between 2003 and 2012, the gender gap in mathematics, in favour of boys, narrowed by 11 score points while the gender gap in reading, in favour of girls, widened by 13 score points. Similarly, in Sweden during the same period, the gender gap in mathematics, in favour of boys, narrowed by 9 score points while the gender gap in reading, in favour of girls, widened by 14 score points. Among partner countries and economies, similar trends were observed in Macao-China and the Russian Federation (Tables 1.2b and 1.3b).

These results, and the evidence developed in the context of Chapters 2 and 3, suggest that, in general, the gender gap in mathematics tends to be narrow when girls are good students in all subjects. But the factors that help to narrow the gender gap in mathematics also tend to enlarge the gender gap in reading, in favour of girls. Are gender gaps a “zero sum game”, in which education systems, schools and families have to choose whether to create an environment that promotes either boys’ performance or girls’ performance; or are there policies and practices that manage to narrow – or eliminate – all gender gaps in performance simultaneously?

From the first paragraph of the above quote, we can see that for each point scored in reading, we can add from 0.56 up to 0.85 points in math. Remember, girls scored on average 38 points higher than boys on reading. This should add anywhere from 21 to 32 points to their math scores. Only, boys still perform on average 11 points better than girls in math. Even when we eliminate “math anxiety” for girls, girls only manage to score on par with boys. By all accounts, they should be outperforming boys by at least 21 points. Yet they are not.

The OECD continues with their assessments:

Results from the PISA 2009 assessment of reading suggest that a large share of gender differences in reading performance may stem from disparities in how much boys and girls read for enjoyment and in how much boys and girls engage in reading activities. Indeed, the assessment found that if boys enjoyed reading to the same extent as girls do their reading scores would be 23 points higher, on average across OECD countries (Figure 2.11 and Table 2.9k).

Add another 13-18 points to boys’ math scores, if they enjoy reading as much as girls. This means boys, if they enjoy reading as girls do, would score 24 to 29 points higher on mathematics taking into account female “math anxiety” and 13 to 18 points higher sans female “math anxiety.”

There is no middle ground here. Boys are naturally better at math. Period. And by extension, they will also be better at math-heavy science and “thinking like a scientist.” The differences in scoring and thinking cannot be explained by the very real female anxiety which exists. The math simply doesn’t add up.

In summary, my initial observations extrapolated from the Forbes list of billionaires has large quantities of supporting evidence behind them. Does only one girl compared to a hundred boys have comparable talents? It is likely an exaggerated ratio due to the nature of billionaires, but the data on hand seems to point that way, and sometimes explicitly.

From Exhibit C:

On entry to kindergarten, girls make up 45 percent of the top five-percentiles in math test scores; by the end of fifth grade just 28 percent of the top five percent are female. Girls are underrepresented in the bottom tail of the math distribution in kindergarten, but overrepresented in the bottom tail by fifth grade.

From Exhibit D:

Among the top 10% of students in mathematics performance, the gender gap averages 20 score points; and among the top 10% in science, boys score an average of 11 points higher than girls.

Also from Exhibit D:

PISA finds that while boys outperform girls in mathematics, on average, in many countries and economies the gender gap is much wider among top-performing students than among low-performing students (Table 1.3a). In the large majority of countries and economies, high-performing girls do worse in mathematics compared to boys; in no country do they outperform boys at this level, and the magnitude of the gender gap is much greater than it is among students at an average level of performance.


However, even in science there is a sizeable gap in favour of boys among top-performing students. This is a troubling finding, as some believe it is responsible for the under-representation of women in STEM occupations (Summers, 2005; National Academy of Sciences, 2006; Hedges and Nowell, 1995; Bae et al., 2000).

Ultimately, this is in keeping with the list of billionaires, which is essentially the top performing percentage of the world’s population. Within that top percentage, there will be more men than girls, with wider gender gaps than among low performing members of the population. The cases are identical in nature, simply because it is the nature of men and women. I should add that there is nothing inherently wrong in this state of nature—it simply is.

Or you can chalk it up to female insecurity.

Either way, men have the natural advantage, and I stand steadfastly by my original statements.

Mistaking Success for Blunders

The recent shootings in France have sparked quite the discussion on multiple fronts, including the controversial subject of diversity and its effects on a nation. Ultimately, however, it’s not hard to determine what those effects are on such a large scale. When powerful men with powerful armies and powerful weapons discover their differences are not compatible with other powerful men with powerful armies and powerful weapons, there are only two courses of action left, and they both run parallel to the courses taken by two pre-pubescent brothers sharing a bedroom: either slug it out, or define strictly enforced territorial boundaries which if crossed will result in the first option.

In other words, different nationalities and cultures require their own countries where they can live by their own rules. This is done out of mutual respect for the foreign nation’s (1) ability to inflict great harm or kill many members of your native land, and (2) their desire to live in peace and within their own country. If either of these requirements are not met, then one country will inevitably invade the other, and the game will only end when the stipulations are again met through conquest. The conclusion therefore is that diversity results in violence.

But this is diversity on a giant scale. What happens when it occurs on a different, smaller scale? Within, for instance, business or entertainment? In business, diversity of thought is highly valued when creating new products. In entertainment, diversity of thought is valued for much the same reason as business, but on a more fundamental level since the entertainment industry thrives on one thing and one thing alone: story.

More specifically, most writers of fiction know, at least on a theoretical plane, that story itself is based in the resolution of conflict, but that conflict can only occur when there are opposing sides. The main character must be pitted against another character, entity, force, or unsolved problem or else the reader will lose interest. This is true throughout the entertainment industry. Movies and television must have conflict and the promise of resolution or viewers will not enjoy it. Poetry, too, has conflict, as do even the barest lyrics of popular song, and the best music always evokes some kind of emotion in the listener by relating itself to universal human difficulties. Even a simple news article or television exposé follows the pattern of story writing, albeit with a more rigidly defined and drier set of rules. As such, diversity is necessary for a good story simply because it naturally compels conflict, which in turn must be resolved. Resolution is the drug that keeps us reading and watching.

But zooming in too closely does not particularly help us or give us new insight into the effects of diversity, for we are dealing with stories rather than real life. In real life, we deal with sales, and whether or not something sells depends on what your target market is. For instance, this author at Tor.com writes an article with a specific target audience in mind, one which readily enjoys hearing about Disney’s apparent inability to provide true depictions of equality and diversity. The author asserts that Disney’s more recent princess movies, TangledBrave, and Frozen, all make the same “critical mistake.”

Where are all the periphery female characters in Tangled, Frozen, and Brave?

Look, we’ve got two main female characters in Tangled (Rapunzel and Mother Gothel), Brave (Merida and Elinor), and Frozen (Elsa and Anna). Tangled features brief, silent, and grave moments from Rapunzel’s true mother, and all of these films show the occasional peasant woman or palace worker. There are female rock trolls that look exactly like male rock trolls in Frozen, and the whole group basically function as a chorus anyhow. There’s a short cameo by a witch in Brave. And outside of these fleeting examples, every single character of note is male. All of them. Literally.

And yes, this is a problem in practically every movie we watch.

Everyone: let it be known. It’s a problem. No, it’s worse. It’s a mistake. Yet apparently this “critical mistake” did not prevent millions of kids (and adults) from liking the three movies. The reason for this is, shockingly, because the background characters are irrelevant. The story is not about the background characters. In a curiously twisted way, however, it is this same quality of irrelevance that draws the author’s attention and on which she pins her argument. I admit, the significance of this escaped me at first, but now I believe I understand.

It is because the author doesn’t actually want a story. The quotes below should shed some light on this.

Concerning Brave:

For example, what if Merida had triplet sisters? They would have been young enough to keep out of the fight between their older sis and Queen Elinor, but it also would have meant that the people Merida felt closest to in her family weren’t all male. She could have had a strong relationship with her young sisters, which actually would have helped to soothe the entirely gendered aspects of the argument she and her mother are having throughout the film. What Queen Elinor really wants is for Merida to accept some responsibility in her life—but when the entire fight gets codified using terms like “ladylike” and “graceful,” Elinor seems like a parent who is disappointed at her daughter for not fitting into the stereotypical gender boxes. It weakens the whole narrative.

Do you see what I see? If not, here’s another one about Tangled:

So… how to counter these female leading ladies and make certain that boys will still find themselves represented into the tale? Surround them with bands of men, of course! When Rapunzel and Flynn leave her tower, they wind up at a tavern filed with a variety of surly guys who want to turn Flynn over to the crown and collect the reward on his head. Rapunzel sings them a song about following your dreams, and the haggard crew reveal that they all have softer sides. Later, they come to Flynn’s rescue so he can run back to his lady love. And the two accomplices to Flynn’s recent crime, stealing the lost princess’s tiara? Two burly twin brothers.


For Tangled’s part, it would have been pretty adorable if Pascal—or Maximus the war horse!—had been lady animals. Or even better, that band of gruff ruffians at the tavern? Women. Just, the whole lot of them. Why not? Or if Flynn had been pulling his heist with twin sisters. And I’m sure someone is saying “But if they were ladies, he would have flirted with them!” But you know, he could have just… not. He doesn’t have to be interested in every age-appropriate female with a pulse just because he’s a scamp.

You see, what if Merida in Brave had had triplet sisters instead of brothers? Just as the author says, it “would have meant that the people Merida felt closest to in her family weren’t all male. She could have had a strong relationship with her young sisters, which actually would have helped to soothe the entirely gendered aspects of the argument she and her mother are having throughout the film.” Meaning, that the mother-daughter conflict that is the essential basis for the story no longer exists. I mean, gee, if Merida had a better relationship with her mother, then she would have never had the witch turn her into a bear, and everything would have been sooo happy!

And in Tangled, what if the crowded tavern had been full of women instead of men? For one thing, the beautiful Rapunzel would not have been able to charm them at all, and would more likely have been met with icy indifference or cruelty by the lesser female beauties such a place would attract. The story may not have halted in its tracks with such a change, but the roles would most assuredly be reversed, with Flynn flirting his way out of a jam instead of Rapunzel, or else physically cowing the women. But then who would have dared save Flynn in the end? Probably not the women—their nature would not lend itself to such an act. Instead, the story would have ended with Flynn’s execution and Rapunzel back in the tower, ergo, no story at all. Nor would it be in Flynn’s nature to avoid totally seducing twin female accomplices, not to mention making for less than terrifying bad guys. Flynn is, above all, a scoundrel, who likes pretty women and probably isn’t intimidated by less than terrifying bad guys.

In other words, the author’s assertion that “It weakens the whole narrative” is not about the story’s narrative. she doesn’t care about the story. She doesn’t want story. What she wants is grey putrescence because real story subconsciously reminds her too much of the greatest story of all. And when she says “it weakens the whole narrative,” what she means is “the story is too strong.” For such a person as the author of the article, forward is backwards and backwards is forward, and a blunder is preferable to success.

Ultimately the fact remains that the peripheral characters are just that: peripheral. They do not make the story. Nor is their gender an issue for children watching the movies, whose focus will be almost solely on the main characters. The peripheral characters genders will not teach children that women matter less or women matter more. After all, when was the last time that a girl said she wanted to be the background character and not the heroine? When was the last time a boy said he wanted to be the nobody instead of the hero? It is only the twisted mind of a twisted adult who replaces success with blunders and prefers ugliness to beauty. If the author had her way, there would be no true diversity in these stories, effectively removing their status as stories. Each character would think and act the same, and telling such a tale would not be a story at all, but a monotonous and never-ending description without conflict and without resolution.

And that would be a hell to be pitied for anyone who had the misfortune of watching or reading it.

%d bloggers like this: