Women are, fundamentally, conformists. That is, they choose the “handshakeworthy” option largely regardless of ideology.
In the West that would be the culturally pozzed mainstream, i.e. anything but nationalism or the hard right.
This explains the Alt Right’s dim views on women in politics, culminating in memes like “thot patrols” and “white sharia” at its extremes.
However, what constitutes “handshakeworthy” has differed down the ages.
Two to three generations ago, it was well known that European women voted relatively more for Christian conservative parties. In most countries, more women than men consider themselves religious, while far more men subscribe to outright atheism; a vast socio-demographic echo from centuries past, when religion was the bedrock of society as opposed to just another consumer item.
In Russia, the handshakeworthy electoral choice is the conservative/patriotic “party of power” United Russia, but not so much the nationalist LDPR, the communist KPRF, or Navalny’s liberals. Even so, as Vincent Law points out, Russian women are not any more pozzed than the men. This is a true observation, and it is reflected in political participation. While the American Alt Right is pretty much entirely male (when I met up with Richard Spencer & Co. in 2016, there were just one or two women out of fifty people, as I recall), in an equivalent gathering of Russian nationalists they’d constitute perhaps 20%. Which is about reflective of default male/female interest in politics, anyway.
Almost no women voted for the Nazis in the 1920s, even relative to the men, when they were still considered a freak-show; however, many more of them voted for religious nationalist parties, while far fewer voted for the Communists, while support for the Social Democrats was about equal across sexes. However, by the time of Germany’s last free elections, support for the Nazis by sex was equalizing. If a free vote had been held in Nazi Germany by the late 1930s, I suspect Hitler would have done relatively better with the women.
It is pretty incontrovertible that women tilt moderately left relative to men on economic matters. For instance, the historical extension of female suffrage in the American states was associated with the accelerated growth of the welfare state in those regions (Lott & Kenny 1999). (Though given the absolute barebones state of the safety net before that time, it’s not obvious that that was even a bad thing). This is also why I suspect that there was virtually no sex gap in support for the statist Marine Le Pen in France, versus a huge gap in support for the arch-capitalist Trump in the US.
I am not making any sort of normative point here, just pointing out how things work.
Good post, thank you. I find the conformism of many women to the predominant Zeitgeist annoying (especially since some of it is so bizarrely stupid from a point of self-interest, like being in favour of Islamic and African mass immigration), but on the other hand this means there might be potential for rapid change if the framework of acceptable discourse is changed.
The ‘gender gap’ appeared in American opinion surveys around about 1982. The phenomenon got a great deal of attention from pundits like Ellen Goodman, who fancied what women want is a norm and what men want is deviant, and fancy that without thinking about it. I think if you unpack it you discover that there is not a significant difference in certain coarse preferences if you’re comparing married men with married women. You see it when you compare single men to the married and single women to the married and to single men.
I’m remembering signing up for discussion circles 30-odd years ago and discovering that their membership was 70% male and half the women in the room did not participate at all. The one girl who held her own and then some and had fun with it is now a law professor at Cornell. I’ve found that true in online discussion circles as well. At most 20% of the participants are female and the women who participate are quite recognizable according to the manner of their presentation or have a masculine aspect to their biography. (One I’m thinking of grew up on a ranch in Montana and did a stint in the Navy). Women participants generally offer meanders wherein they adopt a mediator’s voice or they’re episodically indignant.
I agree with you that women’s viewpoints tend to be much more protean and conventional (though you see the phenomenon among men as well).
I remember reading an anecdote about the French revolution which stuck with me. IIRC, the revolutionary factions did not want women to have a free say right away. This is because women were perceived as more conservative and less radical than men. So you had a clash between the radical egalitarian ideology pushed by the Jacobins on the one hand and the practical realpolitik of getting dominance over the political discourse on the other.
I don’t know if that anecdote was true, but it sounds plausible. Even among the far-left(with the exception of feminism-related stuff), men tend to outnumber women.
All of this is to say that if you want political change, you should focus on the men and all whining about “we need more women” is unnecessary because once you reach a critical mass of men, women will automatically follow in their footsteps. I believe Steve Sailer often made the point that married white women are a reliable bloc of GOP-leaning voters and single white women aren’t. He adds to this by pointing out that democrat-voting white women often change to red very quickly once they are in a relationship with a right-leaning man.
Of course you always have pole stars like Ann Coulter who blazes her own path, but there are exceptions to every rule.
Huge gender gap in both columnists and commenters at Unz.com. But the age gap ( +half century/-half century ) I believe is bigger.
Women only got the vote in France in 1944. Don’t really know how it was during the French revolution (would have to look that up), I guess there were a few proto-feminists, just as there were proto-socialists, but they were hardly in the revolutionary mainstream.
As with German_reader, rather skeptical about this – Jacobins were not feminists by any stretch of the imagination, they associated female political agency with the feminine court intrigues of the ancien regime, i.e. something to be stamped out in the new France.
What we would think of as proto-feminism was very much the province of overly intellectual Enlightenment thinkers (whose utopian visions quickly went by the wayside amidst the practical exigencies of a an extremist revolutionary government fighting a war for its survival) and of the most Hard Left people – basically proto-Communists – like Babeuf (who were repressed by both the Jacobins and the Directory).
Conformism might be one feature of women’s involvement in politics, but it’s certainly not the only significant one. Conformism is not the issue in regard to radicalism/conservatism, which is what concerns me (as you point out, conformism arguably produces conservative – nominally – voting in a conservative society and radical voting in one that is dominated by social radicals).
It’s notorious for instance that female support was key to getting Prohibition passed in the US.
It’s not just about what parties ordinary women vote for but how their activists behave and what kind of individuals they vote for, and the kinds of issues their activists push desperately virtue signalling representatives to support, or to fear opposing. Membership of a nominally “conservative” mainstream party certainly doesn’t require being meaningfully conservative in practice, and probably never has. Activist women (unlike women as a whole, necessarily) seem to skew strongly against traditional social structures such as marriage, clear gender role models etc, and I think the reasons for that are pretty understandable.
It’s clearly not the case that having a vote is the only way women have influence on a society and on politics. But it does seem to me to encourage all the worst aspects of women’s influence and fewer of the best aspects.
Off topic, but interesting piece on Chinese innovation. An interesting tidbit:
The piece is here: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-global-innovation-leader-by-simon-johnson-and-jonathan-ruane-2017-12?a_la=english&a_d=5a466c5478b6c72b54455ef8&a_m=&a_a=click&a_s=&a_p=%2Fsection%2Feconomics&a_li=china-global-innovation-leader-by-simon-johnson-and-jonathan-ruane-2017-12&a_pa=section-commentaries&a_ps=
The authors are probably a bit too optimistic, but for those of us who never bought into the racial stereotype that “East Asians are just good at copying but not innovating”, the next 5 years are going to be interesting as this stereotype becomes harder and harder to defend. The sheer number of high IQ graduates that China is producing, per year, is going to have a massive cumulative effect, like a juggernaut, going forward. In many ways, it already is.
I think the most interesting question is whether China’s per capita performance on elite science converges to Japan’s level, or something more in line with its average IQ level.
If the former, it will converge to the US in absolute terms.
If the latter, it will blast well past the US and will be even more dominant in the 20th century than almost anybody expects.
Well, Napoleon didn’t really have great opinions about women.
“Women are nothing but machines for producing children.”
I’ve read critical studies that said that his regime was oddly inconsistent in promoting equality in all men while reversing any gains that women had made previously.
Its true – and I actually find them the most interesting of leftists, for example, the ones who wish to abolish the notion of family or actually wish to punish any genetic distinction as “unearned advantage.” While quite nutty, many at least they don’t seem to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the mainstream left.
Not all men, he had slavery re-introduced in the colonies iirc.
But yes, the Code Napoleon was actually quite patriarchal in its view of women, I believe in some ways actually more so than pre-revolutionary law.
Huffington Post Editor’s Photo of ‘Diverse’ Meeting Immediately Backfires
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/21/huffington-post-editor-posts-diverse-meeting-photo-twitter-sparking-social-media
Moving it back to this topic, China has no voting which is what I support, they clearly have superior politicians compared to the suffrage regimes. Compare Xi to Merkel/May/Trump/Macron, clearly democracies produce the worst types of leaders.
Indeed, my understanding was that it was actually a proto-Anglo philosophy that flowed from utilitarianism such as from John Stuart Mill:
“the legal subordination of one sex to the other – [which] is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality.”
The basic idea being that if there is a key to maximizing happiness for the maximum number of people, then liberating as much as possible of the potential productivity the population will increase the quantity of goods and services, and increase the indepndence and moral self-reliance such that there would be no kings or priests to be able to judge anything as wrong(and thus require the individual to depend on the judgment of others).
Given that just today, Trump has soundly rejected the White Trashionalist ideology by publicly slamming Steve Bannon, the only real White Trashionalist candidate in the US 2016 election was Bernie Sanders.
Of course. White Nationalism is a left-wing ideology after all, and is 99% male (usually bottom-tier males, thereby ensuring almost zero female participation).
On top of that I think women, especially young ones, like promises, especially from men. Politicians leave them with broken promises and lovers with bastard children.
woke as fuck
I think you might be extrapolating a little bit too much from a limited number of cases.
Counterexamples (in no particular order); Stalin, Mao, Hitler (take that one however you want), Pericles, Jan Sobieski, Enrico Dandolo
Absolutely, Art. All this matches up with my experience online, in which at most 10% (5% if you exclude transsexuals) of people in settings involving serious political analysis happen to be women (even when the setting is overwhelmingly conventionally liberal). And when women are there, they tend to be unusually masculine (generally self-described bisexual or lesbian) and tend to rise to the top of the social hierarchy within the discussion for whatever reason (even when their analysis is mediocre).
Nah. Non-democratic governments produce a greater variety of leaders. So the worst and the best leaders almost all get there by non-democratic means.
The amount of academic fraud in China is massive. I see all too many low-quality papers published by Chinese even when they aren’t clearly fraudulent.
Speaking of Japan and women’s suffrage, something I have always found interesting is the lack of women in the Japanese houses of congress (the National Diet) even though universal suffrage has been around in Japan for quite a while. I think Korea has a higher percentage of women involved in government, how does this compare to other parts of Asia?. Can anyone expand on this topic?
AK above links to Vincent Law’s article on this topic, and it’s worth sharing VL’s view in more detail, explaining the paradox of why Russian women are still nationalist but Western women are ‘refugees welcome’
VL reasonably posits that in female attitudes regarding foreign migrant invasion, there are
Japan has a number of powerful “cliques” that serve as a deep state of sorts, and these mostly exclude women. Shinzo Abe, for example, has ties to “ultraconservative” political groups that embrace views seen as ridiculous in the modern world such as the belief in actually rolling back the right of women to work outside the home. In all practicality, though, this is a kind of corruption and does collude against workers and so on.
South Korea, as with Taiwan, have a strong Western presence and thus powerful feminist organizations including the Orwellian Ministry of Gender Equality. As in the West, there is an active effort to include and increase the amount of female representatives in the government and to present portrayals of powerful women in media. Both have, or have had, female heads of state.
China, not being a democracy, runs her completely different train on different tracks and has been decreasing the number of women in her government.
https://twitter.com/adrianzenz/status/923076695262924801/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbloodyshovel.wordpress.com%2F
In some ways, after all, China is government by standardized exam(exaggerated, but still, the gaokao has a huge influence in who is in the government). Women haven’t really been able to rock the world in that aspect.
An interesting thing to look into on that would be whether the lack of female participation had anything to do with the sudden and violent swings (from far-Left to far-Right, Paris Commune, Imperial Monarchy etc) in French government from when it became a Republic up until that time.
Certainly European party politics has become far more boring, with much duller personalities, than the 19th century.
“A people who are commanded by a woman will not succeed.” – reported in Bukhari
Now, the wife and I started watching this great series on Netflix about the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman dynasty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhShZLJKnWA
It is trending in the Muslim world big-time right now.
One of the treats of this series has been the elderly mother of the lead hero and the wife of the tribal chieftain (she is easily my favorite character* – I’m cheering every time she’s on the screen) – very strong portrayal of a mother figure. She is absolutely involved in all the important decisions and holds the tribe together whenever her husband is absent, always rendering wise and highly spiritually-grounded counsel. It was brilliantly done in displaying how traditional women can wield an immense amount of influence on society and policies while never having to outwardly take on male roles or struggle with them for power.
Peace.
I am not opposed to any of those observations, however I do think it’s worth keeping in mind that female suffrage has not been around for very long. It’s likely that some of this political conformism has been the result of the peculiar cultural shifts of the 20th century. i.e. that women have been culturally conditioned to be conformists in this time in particular, and also that they were under the influence of strongly communal, conformist moralistic ideologies (in the Anglo-Saxon world, at least, moving from various flavours of Victorian moralism to modern-day feminism with its emphasis on sex solidarity).
Talha:
Unfortunately I find it hard to believe that males would give almost any credence to females in those societies.
BTW, I have great ongoing respect and appreciation for your contributions to the UR commentator world. (Of course all made possible by Ron’s beneficence.)
In Hungary meetups for online forums are frequently organized due to the small size of the country. I’ve been to a meetup of a political discussion group, over 80% male (and I know this is the norm). That was my impression reading the comments, but a meetup is where you get definitive proof. Also interesting that you never had real surprises, guys had guy-sounding or neutral monikers, gals had neutral gal-sounding ones. The writing style was usually easy to recognize.
I’ve also been a regular at the meetups of a WW2 sub-forum. 100% male, zero female, without exception. It wasn’t exclusively military history. In fact, it was more political and economic history than pure military history. But not one woman was interested. Occasionally a woman commented, mostly just asking questions like “my son is into ww2 military history, which books would you recommend I buy for him for Christmas?”
I also went to a few meetups of a silly sub-forum without a clear topic for the conversation, mostly just chatting. (Participants were mostly young, and without exception with higher education. Uneducated or stupid participants were made feel unwelcome. Flirtation between participants occurred occasionally. All of the very few older participants were male.) It was 50% gals.
Participants of a long distance runner discussion group including marathoners and ultra runners were roughly 50% gals (maybe a little less), too.
I’m aware there were more female friendly topics, but not one where I participated, so cannot comment on that. But it’s clear that women didn’t have an aversion to online discussion as such, nor did they have an aversion to IRL meetups. It was only certain topics.
In contemporary Pakistan they voted for Benazir Bhutto in great numbers.
The early Turks did not look like that, they came from Central Asia and would have looked like people in Central Asia look like. The Turks liked their white meat and committed mass miscegenation in the lands they conquered, even then those actors they picked are the whitest looking they could find, Turkey has a generally swarthy looking population. This show is the strange inverse to how the liberals have black people increasingly showing up in shows set in old European history.
Few people would consider Trump an “arch-capitalist”. I don’t remember any political opponent making the charge at the recent elections. America is a Corporatist State, that is the controllers of the corporations tell the politicians what to do. If Trump were an arch-capitalist, he might want to break up oligopolies, reinstate proper competition laws and annul anti-competitive laws like the Telecommunications Act 1996. He would be a serious opponent of the Corporatist State.
In reality, Trump gets along with the Corporations very easily.
Great man, sadly born too early. Had to rely on backward and inefficient handcraft methods of producing cannon fodder, and this was his undoing.
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-artificial-wombs/
Karlin Empire will not have this problem, and will last for all eternity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez0X632bAlI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dovd1clLJ4
Hey neutral,
Sure and they likely didn’t speak Turkish according to the modern standard either.
Who doesn’t – gentlemen prefer blondes. After succeeding generations of producing heirs with European concubines, many of the Ottoman elite were basically White people – you can see this in their portraits.
That usually happens in the Muslim world – have you seen movies from the classic cinema days of Egypt?
I’ve never noticed this trend among the Turks I’ve met – they are usually lighter skinned – though it depends on which region you are talking about; Western vs Eastern Anatolia. Going back to Central Asia, I can’t think of a single Uzbek (and I’ve met plenty) that was dark-skinned. They and Turkmen (which would be more like the conquering Turks) certainly have Asian features, but the vast majority I have come across are white-skinned – often with rosy cheeks:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1344&bih=736&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=TFBOWp_lEITn_QaYnKVQ&q=turkmen&oq=turkmen&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.231092.232538.0.233016.7.6.0.1.1.0.108.487.5j1.6.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.490…0i67k1.0.xwx82Pn_Dzo
Peace.
No, he did not use peasant army charges.
On the other hand, you have Merkel who exemplifies political conformism.
http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-950837-breitwandaufmacher-xvcy-950837.jpg
The guy on the photo is Peter Altmaier, her number two and most trusted aid who was a pro-Greens member of his “Conservative” party years before Merkel became federal chancellor. He is less of a conformist than her.
Hey Dan,
Thank you for taking the time to read them (and sorry for my wordiness at times).
Traditional societies can sometimes surprise one. Many times they are big on keeping the “forms” and a social veneer. What happens behind the scenes can throw one off.
The Second Caliph Umar (ra) adjusted the time frame for how long each warrior was out in the field, before being rotated back to his family, based on the advice of his daughter. His daughter said a wife could bear to be without her husband for four months maximum, so that was what he based the Rashidun policy on.
Also, living around traditional Muslims of various cultures (and especially the Pakistani culture), there are definitely some families that are very dysfunctional where the husband and father are absolute tyrants. My spiritual teachers have told me nightmare scenarios and are involved in fixing those marriages. But, in normal households which are the majority (not perfect or always-happy by any means), the wife makes deference to the husband in how she addresses him and what not (again keeping the forms) but holds a significant influence in all decisions. And as mother – that is where they hold tremendous power – often far greater than the father (again, by the testimony of my teachers who counsel hundreds of families). I think this is the great tragedy of post-modern women – they have forgotten what a tremendous station “motherhood” is and what status it confers upon them due to the tremendous sacrifice involved (honor and respect are earned, right). We call our nation the “Ummah” – it derives from “mother”.
“A man asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, ‘Who is most deserving of my good company?’ The Prophet said: ‘Your mother.’
The man asked, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said:’Your mother.’
The man asked again, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: ‘Your mother.’
The man asked again, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: ‘Your father.'”
– reported in Bukhari & Muslim
Peace.
Say that to Elizabeth 1 of England.
Hey Philip,
There are always exceptions to the rule – rules are not defined for exceptions.
“Harem Women and Politics:
The excessive interference of the harem women in state politics was instrumental in the decline and fall of the empire.”
http://www.theottomans.org/english/family/harem16.asp
Everything in moderation…
Peace.
If you believe what is written on unz , white gentlemen now prefer Asian students girls.
Having multiple wives/concubines who then all try to promote their offspring as the sultan’s successor, with palace intrigues, murders and massacres the inevitable consequence, is a pretty dumb system tbh. Its defects are probably more due to the natural tendency to favor one’s close kin (common to both men and women) than to any specifically female traits.
And while I’m generally not impressed with female politicians today, there were indeed a few strong and capable queens in European history, like Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great or Isabella of Castile. Current problems must also be due to the general defects of party-based democracies.
Isn’t it time to breed the Eurasian master race?
Objectively, with this system, the Turks moved the border between the Christian and Islamic world far to the West. But the everyday life of the family of the Sultan was probably a nightmare.
Oh big time – that is a real stupid system to adopt. Very worldly, materialistic – loses all purpose, vigor, etc. It’s like that with so many empires and kingdoms and civilizations – they arise from the hard work and dedication of generations and then become lazy and greedy and eventually die off.
Sometimes I’m surprised the Ottomans lasted so long – they hold the world record for a single successive dynasty. Pretty amazing.
I’ll agree there, especially with Catherine. If I recall, she intelligently made use of the very capable men around her court; generals, advisers, etc.
Peace.
Exactly. This race is depicted in the anime
http://lurkmore.so/images/a/a8/Alien-nya.jpg
I, for one, welcome our large-eyed overlords.
And while I’m generally not impressed with female politicians today,
HRC and Martha Coakley excepted, they tend to be less likely to involve themselves in shenanigans but also less likely to offer their constituency anything but business-as-usual leavened with displays of ineptitude. The recently departed Mayor of Minneapolis comes to mind.
Utah had it in 1870.
Women certainly tend toward conformity. But, I’m not sure that explains open immigration by itself. After all, women had the vote for a while before these policies. Some would argue that it was a process; that the welfare state had to be created before it could attract people, and when it attracted people, women were conflict averse, when it came to expelling them. But I still think there are other elements involved.
The keystone, I believe, is imprinting. All those ridiculous diversity ads. People watch too much TV. Most of the faces people see nowadays are the odd collection of hues which one views on the TV. For many, especially women, it gets so that seeing a bunch of white faces is like looking at an outgroup. These are not the TV friendships. The TV doctors, scientists, and kids. All the racist subplots don’t help, but it is primarily the faces.
That’s partly why Gen Z isn’t quite as crazy. More time on the internet. More time streaming narrow interest videos, which are less likely to have these rainbow relationships, where best friends usually seem to be black and white.
Finland has had universal suffrage since 1906. However, after progressive world revolution leader Finland elected the world’s first female members of parliament, patriarchal oppressor Tsar Nikolai II refused to sign most laws that female representatives wanted (eg prohibition) and they had to wait until doormat prince Lvov.
Women are perfectly capable of nationalist sentiment and grievance and it’s constantly on display in my country where the media and liberal arts academia are now filled with female leftists who hate Russia and Russians. In the 100th independence anniversary year I could not open a newspaper without running into some Red witch complaining about how Russia prevented Finland from making history books as the world’s first socialist nation, how we demonstrate to the world that we are better people than Russians by loving the gays and the trannies and the browns etc etc. I’m almost getting alienated from russophobic nationalism…
The pozzed nationalist movements like Scottish and Catalonian separatists don’t seem to have trouble attracting women for their plans of feminist, socialist equality utopias. This kind of pozzed nationalism is not new at all and Finnish separatism was originally a Red, Marxist movement very similar to the present day pozzed small nation nationalist movements. There were female Red Guard units. There were no female White Guards.
It’s not better next door, either, as just about every Swedish woman I’ve ever talked to feels pride over Sweden’s progressive world reputation. It’s a mistake to think that women don’t feel national pride. It’s just that their world is a popularity contest. They’ll never care about the same things that men care about so they’ll never feel national pride over the things that men care about. It’s another reason to oppose democracy – men and women are innately different and democratic institutions that don’t take that into account inevitably create a gendered culture war.
I think queens who ruled in their own right tended to be competent because for a woman to rule, she probably had a strong interest in rulership and politics. Otherwise it was quite common and natural for her to let her husband rule in her name (jure uxoris).
An interest in ruling, even if accompanied by some power-mad tendencies, seems to have made for better monarchs than those who didn’t really care to be in charge. The most salient and tragic example wasn’t even so long ago: Nicholas II.
the “won’t somebody think of the children” cultural stereotype targets conservative women but speaks I think to a general problem with women. especially (pardon the crude biologism) post-menopausal women. I think most of that which is wrong with Russia can be attributed to the relatively high status of women and mothers and grandmothers.
societies can be intuitively classed into male and female. Russia is female whereas Victorian England was male, as was Germany. Muslim world is female as is Black American culture despite all the macho posturing.
???? What evidence support this statement?
How is it proved? Why not the opposite?
Very well said. I totally agree.
I was being poetic. Of course societies are neither male nor female. I could’ve just as well said “solar” and “lunar.” Btw, that grandmothers play a big role in Russia is just the regular Hajnal stuff, I didn’t say anything new.
I’ll also reiterate the point wrt Blacks where I think the dysfunction (and the obscurantism and the cruelty) can be attributed to illegitimacy and the culture being generally feminized as a whole, with absolute certainty.
Haven’t women suffered enough? It’s time to end women’s suffrage!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_L5YH9Qlr4
Highly doubt it. Until recently, Russia was a rigidly Patriarchal society. Live with the husband, the wife was obliged to obey him unconditionally. Noble widows before the 18th century were sent to the convent (also in the monastery sent the tsar’s daughters). After Peter the Great among the aristocracy the position of women in society (legal and domestic) were approximately the same as in Western Europe. For the Russian peasants (as for european peasants) women were cattle.
Female suffrage is a barbaric relic of iron age monotheism and should be banned in any modern society.
Video 2006: Ending Women’s Suffrage
Video 2013: ENDING WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE
Video 2015: Students sign to END Women’s Suffrage
Until the 1970s, American women were more Republican than American men, by several percentage points. In the UK, they were more Tory.
Also, things vary greatly by region. The South was by far the coolest to suffragism. They also supported the federal welfare state vigorously, while dragging their feet in their own state capitols. They didn’t want to tax themselves.
There is also a huge difference in attitude between married and unmarried women on these things. Taxing generic “men” is one thing; taxing the breadwinner in your own household is quite another.
Mandarin tradition in new clothing.
Also the Party biases in promoting officials with families, which essentially discriminates against gays and to a more limited extent, against women who often take on fewer outside responsibilities after children(even though one of the main attractions of Party was that they offer free day care).
This isn’t a hard and fast rule, but its kind of an expectation. The argument for this is that “in order to sympathize and rule over a population of people with families, you should also have a family.” Obviously there are all sorts of hidden biases and assumptions in that, including the idea that “normal people have families.”
Now that you mentioned it. The type of small state pozzed nationalism seems to be a universal feature. I see the same kind of idiocy in Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The anti mainland attitudes you see in Hong Kong are generally coupled with shit like gay marriage or legalized right of abode for southeast Asian workers. Just last week I heard from a Taiwanese that it would be a good idea to import more immigrants to Taiwan so the demographics would be less Chinese and at the same time show the world their “moral superiority” (Their exact words) over those horrible wretched mainlanders.
That ought to keep the Green party afloat for a bit longer.
Its getting increasingly hard to take that rebel province seriously. I hope they progress to the next natural stage and beg Japan to accept them as colonists, for the lulz.
The situation with Taiwan is the potential problem that Korea could one day face, if South Korea is no longer majority Korean, what would a unification with North Korea even mean? I would guess that the remnants of Korean nationalists in the south would prefer a unification to not happen because it would mean North Korea would also end up not being Korean.
It also raises an interesting “what if”, if East and West Germany still existed now, would the East want to join the West if it no longer consists of Germans? My guess is that they would not want reunification now, it would be something like Poland is treated now where the West German side tries everything to get East Germany to become like the West and accept the same demographic make up.
Finally going back to Taiwan, if Taiwan is no longer racially Chinese, would the mainland even want that island?
That’s pretty much how it is anyway, a lot of West Germans look down on East Germans for their “racism”. It’s not uncommon to hear West Germans (not just lefties, but also Christian Democrats) say how they regret German reunification, how horribly xenophobic East Germans are, how the East was never properly denazified, even how the East is still “too white” etc. There’s a huge West-East divide on these issues.
I guess it would be much more extreme in North Korea, given how long and how completely the two halves have been separated. Korean reunification probably wouldn’t work.
Yes. After all, the Taiwanese find it fashionable to pretend that they are anything but Chinese as it is and China has minorities as it is. The Party will find a way to handle it. This is just part of a deeper problem with self-hate that’s pretty common with the Chinese-descended population but that’s neither here nor there. At any rate, the Taiwanese will pretend that they aren’t Chinese even if the governments change tomorrow.
Anyway, the stupidity is the entire idea of “moral superiority” rather than any pragmatic reason to invite SEA populations – if, for example, they were bringing high level skills missing, that might be something. But Taiwan has an aging population, brain-drained and gradually aging buildings and no economic plan or reasoning to this beyond, basically virtue signaling and cargo culting.
Like same-sex marriage and female presidents, its just all a lot of weird random stupidity to mimic liberal institutions without even seemingly a real benefit for it. Not a serious country, not a serious people.
A lot of these separatist movements were defined more by hatred of a particular “oppressor” than actual love of their own culture. Irish and Scottish nationalists were motivated by anti-English rather than pro-Irish or pro-Scottish sentiments. That might be true of Catalonia as well?
The problem with this is that once they gain their objective of throwing off the oppressive yoke they immediately set about destroying their own societies, because they never did care very much about them.
I think south east Asians in Taiwan is ok. The Taiwanese aborigines are of austronesian lineage, which is the same as island south east Asia, highest percentage in phillipines. Chinese south of the yangtze have austroasiatic (maninland south east asian) admixture.
A lot of Chinese men are marrying south east Asian women (mainly vietnamese) anyway due to female hypergamy. Racial purity like gay marriage is a western idea, don’t take it seriously.
The anti mainland attitude in Singapore is because of the large number of migrants from the mainland. We define ourselves by who we are not, thus Singaporean local identity becomes anti mainland due to them being the other.
Good point.
It would be fine if they were of a steady and smallish flow that they could be sinicized; obviously it’ll be a different story if that isn’t the case anymore. Confucianism can be rather inclusive ethnically, sure, but when they completely reject Confucian values that’s quite another story. Many Muslims, for example, whatever their race, will not honor the essential holiness that the Confucian cultures have given to exams and educators.
For Taiwan, anyway, there’s a much deeper problem with pervasive stupidity that seems to have overrun the place.
I recall seeing some old man-on-the-street interviews conducted in West Germany soliciting thoughts about reunification on its eve. They were curated, so impossible to tell how representative they were. But surprisingly, many seemed to be against it.
One such voice of dissent was a young woman who clearly understood the financial costs of such a move. She wished East Germans well but in their country. What a remarkable contrast to what seems like most of the young women of today!
For the most part Westerners only cared about not mixing with blacks and Asians in multiracial societies generally agreed with the Western negative view on blacks. When spaces were segregated into “whites” and “blacks” without a category for others, Chinese would go with the whites; when more categories were created such as in South Africa, Asians (both brown and yellow Asians) demanded categories where they don’t get put in with blacks.
So far the studies on Asians seem to paint a similar picture of an intelligence peak at the most northerly agricultural societies from northern China to Japan. The further south you go, the less intelligent, the more impulsive and more r-selected the population gets. Inviting Southeast Asians to Chinese societies is more or less the equivalent of inviting Middle Easterners to European societies. It is interesting (but depressing) if the Chinese in Taiwan have developed an equivalent of the European virtue signaling culture of inviting the darker and less capable racial cousins from the south into their wealthy society.
Is not the combination of intensive rice with Confucianism? From Vietnam to Korea and Japan the Confucian Nations show many similarities. And, if I remember correctly, the high IQ demonstrate the southern Chinese from Singapore.
IIRC it was the French and Spanish left that was against women suffrage as it would lead to more support for the Christian Democrat type parties, less support for explicitly socialist parties. Also, married white women in the US vote just about the same as their husbands. The huge difference in the white vote by sex is the white male unmarried vs white female unmarried vote.
Imo these are excellent descriptions of how the female contribution to human society is properly expressed in a manner that is constructive and supportive of a healthy society. In contrast, the US sphere feminist approach has devastated our societies and is largely responsible (via the destruction of the family, and of traditional authority structures) for most of the various social crises we now face.
Too busy trying to be second rate men instead of mothers, basically.
Hey Daniel Chieh,
I definitely agree here that some Muslims would be averse (especially those that are culturally predatory like many Wahhabi-Salafi tend to be), but I doubt this is a universally applicable statement.
I’ve read about the Caliphate of Umar (ra) which was when much of Persia and Byzantium were conquered; a massive amount of the original beauracratic structures and forms were adopted. This even included details like the horse breeding programs the Byzantines had in place.
Furthermore, and I’m not an expert on this, weren’t there quite a few prominent Muslims in China’s history that were either advisers, generals, etc. – didn’t they follow the forms?
I definitely know that Muslims adopted Chinese architecture for mosques and mausoleums – minus dragon statues and what not, of course. I found a lecture by Dr Faruq Abdallah on the subject that I had heard a while back – perhaps you can give your estimate of it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgyNqff8lw
I knew a few Muslim families from China in SoCal. They had fled to Taiwan after Mao’s revolution, but they describe a fairly friendly atmosphere for Muslims and even appointments in government positions before that.
Peace.
Yes, i agree with you that the flow must be smallish in order for assimilation to take place. As for the question of Muslims, the Hui have proven to be loyal presently but in the past did have their rebellions. Whether or not Muslims can assimilate depends on the culture similiarity(hui vs turkic) and the direction that Islam will take in the future.
Muslims advisers in China do not have the best reputation – were infamous for encouraging the Chinese dynasties to wage war in order to create a path to Mecca, among other things. Their factions would consistently be represented among the hawks for a more aggressive approach toward the world. They would later spur the Dungan Revolt, get slaughtered and to this day many remain a subversive element with the Uyghurs.
The Hui, who are sinicized Muslims, are fine. But they are also essentially secular, “fake” Muslims who consume pork, etc.
Really, I know a scholar in the Chicago area that went to teach a session on the Aqidah Tahawiyyah just a month or so ago in Hong Kong and reported many very practicing Muslims (including the ethnic Chinese). Maybe it’s very different from mainland China.
I think the Communists likely had an effect like in parts of Russia and places like ex-Yugoslavia.
Peace.
Non-Chinese Vietnamese score slightly lower than Han Chinese in IQ tests and Malays score much lower. Japan seems to have some internal division in this as some southern parts of Japan like Okinawa perform lower in many indicators – a quick Google gives articles like
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949
Most of these studies are not very high quality, sadly – the subject is not good for careers.
The Chinese in Singapore are recent migrants AFAIK mainly from southeast China. But southeast Chinese themselves are a result of various historical migrations from the north and genetic studies so far are consistent with the traditional view of Chinese origins as a demographic expansion from the Yellow River delta region ie this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_China_Plain
In the Chinese sphere the biggest demographic pump is actually a relatively northern region. For genetic IQ differences it’s important to remember that Chinese of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and so on generally had ancestors in the north for much longer than they have lived in the south so their genes reflect past northern evolutionary pressures. Even if they absorbed some pre-Chinese southern natives, a Chinese population in the south still means a huge influx of genes from the north.
Agree. One finds the same thing in the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire. One could foretell that serious political and social changes were in the winds when Roman princesses started pursuing marriage and other assignations with Germanic chieftains rather than Rome’s best.
The same thing is happening in throughout Western Civilization. White women are increasingly pursuing tall, dark, exotic, and athletic-looking immigrant males. White males are their alleged oppressors … at least that is the political and social ideology of about 50% of the white female population. I guess it follows that immigrant males are their liberators, does it not?
It is considered fact in sociological circles that women will always find a shortage of available (valuable) men to marry. Women tend to pursue the same men … the Alpha Males at the top of the Dominance Matrix who are by definition fewer in number. It does not matter what political ideology or religion Alpha Males front. Women do not pursue ideological positions or ideological purity in Alpha candidates. They have other things on their minds.
As with Rome, the barometer of serious social and political change is when women within native populations sense that their men are no longer “Alpha” and that they should shop elsewhere.
The overlooked issues are what social, environmental, and perhaps genetic forces are at work turning the current male populations of Sweden, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Britain, France, etc., into societies of cucks. Indeed, their women are not even willing to have children with them. Yes, it’s that bad. The numbers speak for themselves. These societies are already on demographic life support. They can’t recover.
Like Rome in its decline, are Western women sensing the end is near? Are they abandoning ship, so to speak? Is this what feminism is all about?
Non-racist Asians LOL.
Japan accepts 3 refugees in first half of 2017
Chinese museum accused of racism over photos pairing Africans with animals
Nanjing anti-African protests
Based on many acquaintances ( perhaps some selection bias) I could easily see Vietnamese amalgamating into China. I’m not too sure about the rest of SE Asia, except to say that I think it is obvious that Malays and Indonesians probably would not.
The practice of farming also selcted for high IQ. The longer a particular people have been practising farming the higher the IQ. The north/south theory makes sense only if we take into account agriculturalists and leave out the nomadic herders. Han have higher IQ then the Mongolians for example despite being south of them.
What do you mean by that?
This isn’t actually true in Europe where northerners score better on IQ but the north has a shorter history of farming and much higher genetic components from the original hunter-gatherers and steppe invaders (Indo-Europeans) than the south.
Mongols and Siberian nomads might still have their IQ depressed by parasitical load from poor sanitation, poor nutrition and such. The communists never seemed to know what to do with nomads since communism was an ideology invented in farmer societies that were transitioning to industrialization and now Ulan Bataar is a transitional place of shiny modern skyscrapers surrounded by tents. In the old racial data the world’s largest brain sizes were found in some Siberians which suggests unrealized potential.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/macroevolution/18663086/33404/33404_1000.png
from: Brain size, cranial morphology, climate by KL Beals C. Smith, and S.Dodd, 1984 published by Oregon State University.
The Mongols and the Kazakhs have the largest brain of all the Nations of the Earth, relatively and absolutely.
Mongolia and Kazakhstan in the 20th century has made a huge leap forward from the tribes hunting with a bow, to a viable modern States.
How so?
Women in France were more likely to be Royalist and Roman Catholic – eg Charlotte Corday.
This was also a theme during the Reformation and Civil War in Great Britain – staunch Protestant men having to cope with popish female relatives.
There is a reason John Knox wrote “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women”.