« Google Images reveals newt | Main | Whiskey on the decline of women’s tennis »

January 24, 2012

Comments

I can't link to Whiskey's blog (my workplace blocks it as "porn"), so I haven't read the article, but...

Charles Murray has done some important research into the lifestyle differences of upper and lower-class whites, and found that the former still practice the virtues that conservatives lament were more common 50 years ago (like marriage and churchgoing); but that they don't "preach what they practice" and are highly tolerant that divergent lifestyles are just as honorable for others.

With one exception -- educated women have fewer children. It's obvious from domestic as well as worldwide data, that the more options you give women about how to spend their lives, the fewer will choose to raise multiple children. Call the the dysgenic effect of feminism. (Could this be part of the reason IQ gap are narrowing?)


"white women have become sluts, and instead of only giving up sex to their husbands as used to be the norm, they now prefer to sleep around with alpha men"

Whiskey's theory sounds plausible, unfortunately the evidence may not support it. Marital infidelity rates by women have not been increasing. From a 2009 article in Psychology Today:

"Arguably the best research on this subject is the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted annually since 1972 by University of Chicago researchers. For 37 years, they have asked a representative national sample about infidelity. The results have been consistent. Every year, 10 percent of spouses admit cheating--12 percent of men, 7 percent of women."

OTOH, if your biggest consideration is having a President who is a good example, you really can't beat Obama. Whatever his faults (I am a Republican), he has led an exemplary life. Educated, married, never divorced, fine family man, puts up with Michelle. ;)

You know that there are tons of white chicks that want to do him. He could totally be another Clinton. But unlike Clinton, you get the feeling that he never would do something like that (Lewinsky).

Whiskey seems to pander to a WN-lite audience, but that besides the point. We shouldn't be forced to think like women, that's what has gotten us in this mess in the first place. What is missing from Whiskey's analysis is that the Republican base needs a candidate that can energize them enough to actively support their party, not merely to vote against Obama. It's the "red meat" Republicans who offer the highest potential for victory. These guys are in the midwest and urban areas, they detest liberal ideology but see the GOP as not offering anything much different. Romney is too placid and moderate for them to get excited about. At least with Gingrich he can differentiate himself and actually fight back.

Newt's ancestors were as louche as he is: http://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/newt-gingrichs-ancestors-apple-falls-close-to-tree-again/ . Perhaps it's in the genes.

Peter, Murray's argument is that marriage has increasinly become something that only the better sort of people do, so it's not surprising if infidelity has not become more common. Fewer people get married these days.

It's not about the sex life of the politician, it's about the policies. obama is publicly pro-middle class but privately his supporters make sure his policies are antiwhitemale to the extreme. Trust me. Feminists, faggots, black groups have all the power.

The reason why Romney is better than gingrich is that Gingrich will be erratic, while Romney, knowing that conservatives distrust him, will be forced to cave in to them on most issues.

But polls show that women actually prefer Newt to Mitt. Whiskey is completely off base here. Anyone who reads Chateau can tell you why - Mitt, like a lot of Mormons, has a lot of Beta personality dressed up in Alpha clothes - he compromises, he is a conciliator, he is polite and self effacing. Newt is the overconfident braggart, the hungry sexual predator that lots of women seem to instinctively respond to. Men prefer Romney because Romney is the model gentleman, but women apparently don't want that.

Actually if Whiskey would just reread his post on Murray, he would see why he is wrong about Mitt.

Sig, you're so desperate for Romney to win that you're citing whiskey now?

Lol, you must be REALLY getting worried now.

I think Gingrich just took longer to mature, and I am certain that he will not be making many dumb mistakes between now and the convention. Romney has to step up, or chubby will step on him.

Whiskey's post about elites seems to argue that because you almost 'never' see elites in highly demanding cognitive professions, they must not be that smart.

I'd wager that common sense explains the lack of representation more than cognitive ability. Who wants to become a 'g' slave?

Whether it's because of value transference or something more mundane, if an engineer and a lawyer expend the same amount of 'elite cognitive' effort on a task, the lawyer will probably receive more money.

So, if you can go to an elite law school without any fear of debt, why wouldn't you?

Eventually the GOP will see itself unable to win an election at the national level, perhaps fairly soon. The question then is this: Do we pander to Hispanics or do we follow the Sailer Strategy? I suspect the later is the better idea. The Sailer Strategy is getting more Whites to vote GOP, since 40% don't. There are still a lot of Whites out there. But crafting a message that will appeal to both professional suburban, rural and working class Whites will be a challenge.


Peter - the point isn't that more women are cheating *in* marriage, it's that more (prole, mostly) women are slutting around before, or instead of, marriage. Thus young men try to become the men that young women want to fuck instead of the men that young women want to marry.

"Who wants to become a 'g' slave?"

I love this phrase. I've definately felt like an IQ prostitute at many corp jobs I've had.

"The path to sex, and fatherhood, is based on not life in the work-force and provider beta loser-dom. But rather pure male sexiness. This is the model in the Black ghetto and Mexican barrio. It is how most of the world orders itself sexually and socially. It is how most families are formed, and have been formed, in human history. It optimizes for female satisfaction, at the expense of wealth formation for all but a few." - whiskey


Matriarchy is the state of nature and the west has reverted back to it. This is why places like Saudi Arabia have religious police that enforce virtue especially among women. Sure their tactics are absurd but their apprehension is not. Patriarchy is fragile.

Whiskey is right that women have come to prefer alpha men to beta provider types. The provider types have been made superfluous because of welfare to lower class women and government jobs and affirmative action for middle class women. Of course, that can't last in the long run because you need the beta males to keep working hard and paying taxes to support it all and that's not going to happen. H.S., do you have an opinion on Roissy type game? He seems to be suggesting that betas get women by mimicking alpha behavior and fooling women into thinking they're alpha bad boy types. Does that work or not? I don't feel like I'm that good of an actor and that it would be a lot of work and maybe not worth the trouble because the quality of women that I would win over with that alpha bad boy act would be pretty low. Maybe it would be worth it if I was a younger guy but as an older guy the cost/benefit analysis might be leading me in another direction.

"Of course, that can't last in the long run because you need the beta males to keep working hard and paying taxes to support it all and that's not going to happen."

If we really are in a post scarcity world, then the system can go on indefinately without beta males. Automated machines will do 90% of the work and a few beta technicians will be employed to keep the machines running and thrown a few scraps for the oppotunity.


"He seems to be suggesting that betas get women by mimicking alpha behavior and fooling women into thinking they're alpha bad boy types. "

No, its a lot more subtle then that. If your rich or muscular, you run that kind of game. If you aren't you still need to act confident but its different.

The number one thing to take away from Roissy is not to trust women or get too invested in them.

"The path to sex, and fatherhood, is based on not life in the work-force and provider beta loser-dom. But rather pure male sexiness. This is the model in the Black ghetto and Mexican barrio."

Hey, how's it worked out in those places?

I think Murray makes the argument that the reason why poor people don't get married anymore is because the welfare state makes it too easy for women to raise kids without a husband.

So who was the only politician to ever significantly roll back the welfare state? Newt Gingrich.

***and it’s because white women have become sl*ts, and instead of only giving up s*x to their husbands as used to be the norm, they now prefer to sleep around with alpha men, and this changes the behavior of young men who compete to be the most alpha instead of trying to be good male providers that women would want to marry.***

This point is also made by Roissy/Heartiste. It also reminds me of the discussions by people like Ed Miller, Sailer, Cochran & Harpending about Cad/Dad societies. In the female farming societies where women are more independent there is less requirement for paternal provisioning and less selection for beta and nerdish traits.

"Conversely, overconfident arrogance among men becomes like a plague in societies where shaming mechanisms to rein in female sexual predilection are dismantled. Again, it all comes back to the female sex drive being the wilder of the two sexes, and thus the more necessary to corral to the benefit of society’s well-being.)"

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/overconfidence-is-the-heart-of-game/

"In the female farming societies where women are more independent there is less requirement for paternal provisioning and less selection for beta and nerdish traits."


People constantly babble about how 2/3rds of the world's work is done by women. The next logical question should be why is most of the planet a third world hell hole. Many of these civilizations (like in Africa) have failed to impose patriarchy. Women dominating the labor force is a very bad thing. Unable to channel male sexuality properly through the provider paradigm they fail to develop. Women are the enemies of civilization. Humans have existed for millions of years but only in the last several thousand with the advent of patriarchy has civilization arisen.

Whiskey speaks about White women like an anti semite speaks about Jews.

His comments are filled with bigoted, extreme generalizations that are the byproduct of his own insecurities and personal failings.

"But polls show that women actually prefer Newt to Mitt."

GOP women prefer Newt.

But there's no way that Newt would do better amongst the broad spectrum of women in the general electorate.

So what you're saying is that what has happened to lower class Whites is similar to what Steve Sailer said happened to Blacks when the welfare state was initiated, that is marriage rates plummeted, illegitimacy rose, and male participation in the work force declined? Aren't the parallels between these two groups interesting? It seems that there isn't much attention focused on the similarities between Blacks and "Prole" Whites in this and other regards.

Whiskey is quite correct that the sexual liberation of women is a key factor in explaining these cultural changes. But I don't see this trend reversing, and if anything the stratification of society along genetic lines will only increase.

Newt is as committed to his ideas as to his wives.

The comments to this entry are closed.