Sunday, 19 March 2017

This New York Times article about "The Decline of Men" is well worth reading. Key takeaways from the article are: While men still dominate top positions, there is growing polarisation among men. A small minority of men are doing very well, while a large number of men are not.
In 2016, 95.8 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs were male and so were 348 of the Forbes 400. Of the 260 people on the Forbes list described as “self-made,” 250 were men. ...But at the other end of the scale, men of all races and ethnicities are dropping out of the work force, abusing opioids and falling behind women in both college attendance and graduation rates. Since 2000, wage inequality has grown more among men than among women...
Women, in general are doing better from what are deemed to be structural changes in the economy than men.
From 1979 to 2007, seven percent of men and 16 percent of women with middle-skill jobs lost their positions, according to the Dallas Fed study. Four percent of these men moved to low-skill work, and 3 percent moved to high-skill jobs. Almost all the women, 15 percent, moved into high-skill jobs, with only 1 percent moving to low-skill work.
Males suffer more from the lack of a conventional family structure than females do.
Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower. 
“Relative to their sisters,” Autor and his collaborators wrote, “boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.” 
When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment: Employment rates of young women are nearly invariant to family marital status, while the employment rates of young adult men from non-married families are eight to ten percentage points below those from married families at all income levels. Autor and his co-authors conclude that family structure “is more consequential for the skills development and labor market outcomes of boys than girls.”
It turns out that men and women aren't the same after all.
High-paying, difficult-to-automate jobs increasingly require social skills. Nearly all job growth since 1980 has been in occupations that are relatively social skill-intensive. Jobs that require high levels of analytical and mathematical reasoning but low levels of social interaction have fared especially poorly. What this means, according to Deming, is that the economy-wide shift toward social skill-intensive occupations has occurred disproportionately among women rather than men. 
This is consistent with a large literature showing sex differences in social perceptiveness and the ability to work with others. Studies of gender differences, according to Deming, show that Females consistently score higher on tests of emotional and social intelligence. Sex differences in sociability and social perceptiveness have been shown to have biological origins, with differences appearing in infancy and higher levels of fetal testosterone associated with lower scores on tests of social intelligence.
Notice that it's permitted to acknowledge differences in non-physical aptitudes between men and women as long as the differences favour women. If, on the other hand, you said something like "Men are more aggressive than women on average, being a successful executive requires a certain among of aggression, therefore it's perfectly natural that more men than women should be company executives", this would be considered unacceptable; you would be hounded from your job and, in Sweden, maybe even prosecuted for "hate speech".

These privileged women turn their noses up at unprivileged men.
Women have strong mate preferences such that they do not want to mate or marry men who are less educated, less intelligent, and less successful than they are. And this, Buss said, “creates a surplus of men” at the low end who are not going to get married. Millions of these less well educated men are not going to get the benefits of marriage: Married men live longer, are less likely to become alcoholic, take drugs, commit suicide, etc.
And this is a problem because these unprivileged men are more likely to vote the wrong way.
In a phone interview a number of years ago, Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, was prescient: Men are really going to have to change their act or have big problems. I think of big guys from the cave days, guys who were good at lifting stuff and hunting and the things we got genetically selected out for. During the industrial revolution that wasn’t so bad, but it’s not going to be there anymore. 
Asked to confirm his earlier views, Freeman wrote me that what he predicted has occurred and continues, and perhaps is linked to the penchant for some male workers to be more favorable to right-wing populism than might have been the case.


  1. I think this is only partly true. Its about jews wishing that men go away, because men are bigger threat to them, since men are usually more anti-foreign and intolerant than women. I think that they are making some things up, in order to construct a reality that they wish would be true, but its not. So they look for ways to rationalize why men should have no influence in society, how this is normal, etc.

    I'm not sure about the claim of better female social skills leading to women getting better jobs. The best paying jobs are the male jobs, the lowest paying jobs are female jobs. The best paying degrees are male dominated degrees - mostly STEM, business, etc. The lower paying degrees are the female dominated degrees - mostly about social work.

    The average man earns a lot more than the average woman. He has 20 percent higher median earnings per hour, works more hours, is more likely to have a full time job, is more likely to be in the labour force (and to be working), etc.

    I think that the average woman in the US earns 65 percent of what a man earns after accounting for all of those variables above. Men pay 70 percent of taxes, while women receive the majority of welfare. A New Zealand study for example found that women take more from the government than they pay to it, while men pay more to the government than they take from it.

    My second point is that while women do better than in the past, this comes at a price - negative birth rate. So they do better at work because they don't have children. I do not see how this is good or sustainable. Clearly it is not normal situation, which means that if western women had normal birth rates (at population replacement rate), they will be earning even less that today, because having more kids will get in the way of working.

    As far as EQ (emotional intelligence) is concerned, it appears that it does not have a good predictive power for succes in life. The concept of EQ was invented by a jew and is largely not accepted in science.

    On the other side, it is well established that IQ and earnings are correlated. The majority of studies show that men have slightly higher IQ than women - 3 - 5 IQ points. Even if we go with the studies that find equal IQ for men and women, they still show that men are more variable, which means that there are more smart men than smart women, as well as more idiot men than idiot women - in other words men are both smarter and dumber than women. For example in MENSA you have 34 percent women vs 66 percent men.

    Since IQ correlates with earnings, it means that men should dominate the better paying jobs.

    "In a phone interview a number of years ago, Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, was prescient: Men are really going to have to change their act or have big problems. I think of big guys from the cave days, guys who were good at lifting stuff and hunting.."

    This thing here is so false and i do not see how an intelligent person could claim something like this. It sounds really unprofessional. Men have better skills in many, many areas, not just physical power. I would say that men are both better in more cognitive ability areas and have greater differences in their favor, not to mention greater variability.

  2. For example men are better at: math, biological science, social science, spatial ability (very important for inorganic sciences, map reading and piloting), mechanical reasoning, science reasoning, general knowledge, reading (later in life), etc. Women are better at reading and writing (in high school) and among adults, men get slightly better at reading and women remain better at writing, as well as at several clerical tasks. Not much to brag about. Moreover, the biggest differences in individual abilities favor men, for example the gender difference in writing among adults is very small, some 0,2 - 0,1 standart deviations, but the difference in spatial ability and mechanical reasoning is very large - 1 standart deviation, which leads to a situation where women are only 15 percent of engineers and only 5 percent of pilots (to be a pilot you need good spatial ability). Third, men are more variable in their abilities, while women are not. This means that men are both better at math and have more math geniuses. Women are slightly better at writing but have few writing geniuses due to their lack of variability in that skill. (For example the majority of the best writers and poets are men).

    The greater IQ variability of men leads to a situation where they dominate the top levels of society, and are 90 percent of people who earn more than 1 million per year (IQ and earnings are correlated), 95 percent of pilots, 90 percent of surgeons, 90 percent of nobel laureats, 98 percent of science nobel laureats, 95 percent of inventors, 80 percent of professors, 66 percent of MENSA members, 70 percent of scientists, 70 percent of doctors and lawyers, 98 percent of Fields Medal medalists, and 98 percent of Turing Award recipients, 99 percent of top chess players, as well as the vast majority of human geniuses. According to some studies you have two men for every woman with IQ 120. Average IQ of Uni students is 115. Among people with IQ 170, you have one woman per 30 men.

    Now, why is that, you may ask? Smart men have more children than smart women. The smartest women are also those women more likely to be childless. In other words, intelligence appears to be a relatively good (or neutral) trait for men, but negative trait for women, therefore you can not expect to have many female geniuses, nobel laureats, professors, or inventors, as they will be dysgenic and genetically/evolutionary unsuccessful. And this is exactly what we observe.

    In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males.

  3. I would say that most of the problems that men have in western societies are due to gender quotas, the welfare state (that is involved in large resource redistribution, for examle towards single mothers), alimony, etc. If there were no quotas or a large welfare state redistributing stuff from men to women, you would see western men earning even more than today. In the West, there are special female only business loans with better conditions for women (yet even with that help women own only 30 percent of businesses and those are mostly very small businesses), special female only scolarships (but no scolarships for white men), various female quotas in STEM fields, female quotas in various corporations, in the governments of some countries, in board rooms, etc. But in countries without female quotas, such as Israel, Russia, South Korea or Japan, the gender pay gap is far greater than in the West. In other words, the whole women earn a lot thing appears to be artificially created in the West, and it is not seen in other developed countries who have no quotas for women.

    Some things in the article are correct though. Single motherhood harmed western males mostly. If you restore the family unit, males are going to benefit more from having fathers near them. By the way the family unit is very strong in Israel, and single mothers are rare there, i guess jews do not believe in destroying the family in their own country, they only work to destroy the family unit in the West.

    The proposition that women have greater social intelligennce is dubious, for example i already showed in my first article here that women do not understand very well human group relations and rarely form large groups. For example a man will be able to better understand that importing third worlders will have negative impact on his country, and a woman will have a harder time understanding that, and may even try to help the "poor refugees". Is this a sign of good social intelligence? I do not think so. It does not appear that the swedish feminists who imported muslims understand human group relations, and therefore, it is hard to claim that they have greater social intelligence, at least as far as the group aspect of social interactions is concerned. In other words, women are very good (and also better) at understanding personal relations, but have trouble understanding human group relations, and have trouble forming groups. So much for greater social intelligence.

    Here are several studies for example, that counter the assertions of the article, and show that the male social structure involves complex group-based interactions set up by automatic rank-ordering whereas the female social structure consists of triads, dyads and one-on-one interactions with related individuals. Consequently, men are more competitive, co-operative, collaborative, and more easily affiliate and work with genetically unrelated (not from their family) individuals.

  4. In ending, i think that there is high probability that the (((NYT))) tries to construct a reality that they want (for their own ethnic purposes), and not a reality that exists in practice. They basically claim that it is normal for male influence in society to decrease, and that this is based on sound science, and is good for society. As i showed above, i do not think that this is correct, to me it looks like there is deliberate push to decrease male influence in western society because jews feel threatened by white males, by male nationalism, and the rest is just a smokescreen (that tries to sound authoritative).

  5. I shouldn't worry too much; at some point in the not too distant future, all this fiat currency, impossible to pay back debt, third world invasion, overburdening and underpaying of the social infrastructures, etc. will lead to a collapse of this unrealistic Western business and social system, and at that point, the ability to grow one's own food, hunt, call upon skills to do the most mundane, everyday, but entirely essential jobs, all of this will bring an unpleasant crashing halt to the NYT's pipe dream, and a different balance of skills, mores and roles of both sexes will take place. History shows that this particular group of parasites, whatever their machinations, always ends up being outed and usually thrown out and I see quite a few people now understanding better what has been done to them, and their societies and cultures, for decades. Nemesis is on the way...