Girls Suck at Math

Girls Trying to do Math

Girls Trying to do Math

Scott Locklin recently posted an article On the Intellectual Capacity of Women. His very presence at Alt.Right is emblematic of Richard Spencer’s failure to effectively define the meaning of the “alternative right” or understand the true meaning of Radical Traditionalism. Locklin is integrally Modern, eschewing the importance of more traditional ethnic, national, and racial differences and emphasizing the importance of class divisions. He’s an unapologetic individualist, responding to the call for him to embrace his heritage and marry a woman of his own kind with the bottom line: “What’s in it for me?”

He’s hip to HBD, and everybody erroneously assumes that acknowledging those heretical facts makes one a Rightist or a Traditionalist of some sort. This isn’t the case. Facts are just facts, and can be integrated into virtually any worldview. Locklin understands what open borders entail for America’s future, but doesn’t really care. Roissy understands that women are instinctively attracted to confident men, coaching his followers on how to mimic that attribute to have casual sex. Hell, Robert Lindsay is fully cognizant of human biodiversity, and says stuff like this

If I had a daughter, I might even let him [the pedophile] take pics of her, if that’s all he wants to do, provided he doesn’t put them on the web. He could look at pics of my daughter and jerk off all he wants to for all I care, assuming that’s all he’s going to do.

Clearly, acknowledging HBD, being an advocate for our people, and being Traditional are three different things.

Contrast those perspectives with the Traditional one. The Traditional perspective toward gender relations is one in which the natural differences between the genders is acknowledged, respected, and accounted for in assigning roles and responsibilities. The sexes clearly complement each other, and the notion that males and females should perceive themselves as separate identity groups – whether it’s via feminism or misogyny – is degenerate. Stripping sexuality down to its most basic biochemical effect is degenerate.

Granted, we’re in the middle of an historically unprecedented misandry bubble. White American men who’ve been raised without little sisters in the shadow of domineering single moms and coached our whole lives to act like “herbs” would do well to learn a bit of game. It just needn’t be drenched in the bitterness and frustration so pervasive in those circles. That’s why I enjoy Mormon Men, a blog that approaches the lost art of being a confident grown man in a traditional and patriarchal context.

Countess of Lovelace, World's First Code Monkey

Countess of Lovelace, World's First Code Monkey

In Locklin’s article, he draws attention to the fact that the average female IQ is a bit below the average male IQ, with a steeper bell curve that has shorter tails. He fails to mention the relevant facts that more women than men are graduating from both high school and college, that there are more retarded men than retarded women, and that female minds might feature desirable attributes in addition to this quant’s beloved g.

Men will continue dominating the hard sciences and leading in innovation (with exceptions) because they’re innately superior in these pursuits. But women are the fountainhead of life – and not only in the obvious way. Women, particularly our own especially fair and delightsome ones, bring aesthetic beauty into the world. They care for children, nurse the sick, cultivate the gardens, and implore us to reach our full potential.

Sure, most of them have been reduced to androgynous harpies by this Kali Yuga of decadence we’re drowning in. But most of us men have been reduced to androgynous shadows of our potential selves, as well. The key difference here is that men, being the natural leaders, are ultimately accountable for the situation. Just as our nation’s natural elite are derelict in their innate role as stewards and protectors, we natural patriarchs are too often derelict in our innate role as stewards and protectors in our own domains.

Locklin’s insightful, and so are Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu. However, they’re all content to fiddle while the West burns. Girls may suck at math, and they may be in for a rude awakening when the lies and distortions of Modernity come crashing down around them. But the gamers will be among the biggest losers in the inevitable reckoning

When the restoration comes, the patriarchs will put a stop to the “game” subculture by offering women an alternative which is both instinctively and practically preferable. Our women, our single most important possessions, will be returned to their natural and respected role. The alpha male game geeks will find less and less desirable prey and their lifestyle will be perceived as being every bit as foul as the scabs they pick.

This entry was posted in Anthropology, Traditionalism, Tribalism. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Girls Suck at Math

  1. mindweapon says:

    We definitely need to patrol the borders of what is acceptable and what is defective/freakish. Locklin definitely belongs on the outside of that border. Lindsay has always been a freak, but the above quote is disgusting. I’m glad he doesn’t claim to be one of us. He’s a very confused and disturbed individual — therefore, drawn to “teh Movement.”

    Not sure what to say about Richard Spencer. His site is a bigger tent than I would have. Perhaps it’s the “let a thousand flowers bloom” theory.

  2. Reginald says:

    To be honest, I liked the Locklin article.

    “Contrast those perspectives with the Traditional one. The Traditional perspective toward gender relations is one in which the natural differences between the genders is acknowledged, respected, and accounted for in assigning roles and responsibilities.”

    And why don’t we have Traditional roles now?

    A large part of it is simply because of the very Feminist line about the sexes being interchangeable that Locklin was criticizing in his article.

    More specifically he was attacking the Feminist line of female economic productive equality that undergirded the move to stop women from being assigned gender roles distinguishable from those roles assigned to men, and which was used to justify the imposition of a regime of anti-male discrimination.

    “In Locklin’s article, he draws attention to the fact that the average female IQ is a bit below the average male IQ, with a steeper bell curve that has shorter tails. He fails to mention the relevant facts that more women than men are graduating from both high school and college, that there are more retarded men than retarded women, and that female minds might feature desirable attributes in addition to this quant’s beloved g.”

    It is true that there’s a lot of people who fetishize IQ.

    But if you look at how much Affirmative Action women get, it’s beyond what they would need based on the small differences between the sexes in IQ.

    When it comes to doing the average job outside the home, women seem to do worse than you would expect based on IQ.

    Otherwise they wouldn’t need so much Affirmative Action in the context of a society which is so Feminist that women get Affirmative Action.

    “Men will continue dominating the hard sciences and leading in innovation (with exceptions) because they’re innately superior in these pursuits.”

    And that was Locklin’s main point, that something is being pawned off to a vast male conspiracy that is actually driven by natural sex differences.

    He thinks this is worth talking about because he considers a society which denies the reality of sexual dimorphism to be unbearable, and this is part of why he’s thought of leaving the Country.

  3. Randy Garver says:

    When I hear WNs imploring people to marry within their own race, it sounds to my (admittedly infidel) ears much like folks in the 1990s exhorting people to buy American cars out of a sense of patriotic duty. If you want people to support the domestic industry, it’s imperative that the local product be the best. Otherwise, a rational man may consider looking abroad.

    This probably goes without saying, but a key to success in returning to traditionalism lies with young parents. What fathers teach their daughters today is what society will be like 2 decades from now. Get to the dads, change the future.

    At this point, the picture isn’t pretty. Many children these days are trainwrecks-in-progress. They’re so often imperious and overindulged. It’s heartbreaking. Hoping that traditionalism emerges from some type of near-term catastrophic societal upheaval is specious wishful thinking. Enduring cultural change is generational.

  4. Matt Parrott says:

    Reginald,

    Locklin’s article must be understood in its complete context, including his previous articles and the comments he has offered in those articles. It’s part of a general pattern of destructive criticism toward American women that’s both lopsided and largely ambivalent toward the equally troubling problems with our males.

    The main point of his article was that women are intellectually inferior, as part of a pattern of writing articles insulting toward women.

    I think you’re imagining redeeming motives on his part.

    And why don’t we have Traditional roles now?

    The reason we don’t have these roles is not, as you suggest, due to the nonsensical rationalizations offered by our elites. It’s due to our elites, elites who are working to destroy our Traditions.

  5. Wandrin says:

    I think Alt Right is a generalized vehicle of political incorrectness rather than a coherent platform. For now at least.

    Feminism was divide and rule bolted onto some legitimate complaints. The current bout of anti-feminism is just as divisive imo.

    The biological reality is that traditional motherhood made perfect sense in terms of being a good way of producing offspring that had a good chance of reproducing themselves. The women of my grand-parent’s generation did a far better job at that than women of the post-feminist age and women are biological creatures and most will understand the truth of that instinctively. On the other hand the balance of life for the women of that generation was probably a bit out – 95% for children and family and only 5% for themselves is not something i’d like either.

    A sensible compromise should be quite possible once all the unneccessarily divisive stuff has been got out of the way.

  6. Matt Parrott says:

    Wandrin,

    On the other hand the balance of life for the women of that generation was probably a bit out – 95% for children and family and only 5% for themselves is not something i’d like either.

    A sensible compromise should be quite possible once all the unneccessarily divisive stuff has been got out of the way.

    Advances in technology have done quite a bit to remove much of the idle drudgery from motherhood. Unfortunately, instead of having bigger families or living more comfortable lives, they’re frequently stuck working menial service jobs while the children they do have rot away in crowded daycare centers and the collective inheritance they were supposed to enjoy is frittered away to third world invaders.

  7. Wandrin says:

    Yup, if things had progressed naturally from the 50s onwards i think we would have all been better off, male and female. External factors have twisted things off true centre.

  8. Randy Garver says:

    Advances in technology have done quite a bit to remove much of the idle drudgery from motherhood.

    LOL! I’m guessing you didn’t run that statement past any actual mothers.

    All mirth aside, I do agree with your basic premise. Also, in many traditional cultures you have aunts, grandmothers, and other family who play critical roles in the care of children. Mothers were never intended to raise children alone.

  9. Matt Parrott says:

    Randy,

    My dad got made-from-scratch pancakes for breakfast with sausage butchered fresh on the family hog farm. What did I get in my generation? I got store-bought crap from the microwave, and I even had to get up and put it in the microwave, myself!

  10. mormonmen says:

    Thanks for the link love. I really enjoy the quote at the end of your post.

  11. Randy Garver says:

    Matt,

    Your dad had it GOOD. That’s a mouth-watering mental picture right there.

    My generation also got microwavable food, plus margarine, tang, and TV dinners. Thankfully, at least food traditionalism is back in a big way.

    I’m going to amend my earlier assertion that traditionalism begins with families caring for their elderly relations and add to that “making pancakes (or biscuits if you’re in the south) from scratch”.

  12. Dermot Walsh says:

    We need to sell women on the advantages to them of taking traditional feminine roles rather than just insult them.

    Scott Locklin is a typical modern middle class young White. Completely selfish and couldn’t care less about the future of White people.

  13. K(yle) says:

    The key difference here is that men, being the natural leaders, are ultimately accountable for the situation.

    Isn’t this argument valid for every situation? Everything is the way it is because of the white male patriarchy?

    The reason we don’t have these roles is not, as you suggest, due to the nonsensical rationalizations offered by our elites. It’s due to our elites, elites who are working to destroy our Traditions.

    Except you conspicuously don’t assign blame to white men here. As natural leaders are white men not ultimately accountable for the situation? Why is it that we are accountable for the behavior of women? You might be able to train your own dog not to bite Matt, but you can’t train your cousin in Oklahoma’s dog not to.

    Why is it ok to blame the elite, the Jew or any other hostile alien, but when it comes to any female centric issue, ultimately it’s all about whitey not keeping his bitches in line?

    White american women are far and away the most priveleged class of people on the face of the earth, in any period in history and are likely to be at the apex of privelege for all time once this whole charade we call a civilization comes to an end.

    Your gynocentric instincts don’t suit your cause. For instance:

    the relevant facts that more women than men are graduating from both high school and college

    Which wasn’t always the case and is a big issue because…

    Men will continue dominating the hard sciences and leading in innovation because they’re innately superior in these pursuits

    Whenever the issue of women comes up you become this total mangina. You attribute such malice and spew such venom at white men on behalf of white women I might mistake you for Joe Biden.

    You don’t have to insult women, but you go to such lengths to specifically abase yourself. You aren’t just casually being uninsulting. You are insulting white men on behalf of white women to curry favor. You literally blamed white men collectively for the pathos of modern feminity. You aren’t doing any leading here, natural or otherwise.

    ‘White Advocacy’ is such bullshit because it isn’t about circling the wagons. It’s all about preventing yourself from getting stabbed in the back. The black bloc doesn’t demand shit except being black. It didn’t matter that OJ preferred white women. He still had the support of blacks, and he was a murderer. Scott Locklin backhandedly insults women, and doesn’t have a half a dozen white babies and he’s up before the White Advocates to be weighed and measured? Give me a break.

    Your movement is sparse on women, because you are a literally an advocate of the named and labelled big bad wolf of their sociopolitical movement. White Male Patriarchy. Your target demographic should be white men. You don’t need to be insulting to women to win men over. It’s certainly not prudent to be insulting to white men to win white women over; especially because you aren’t going to with that method. You’ll win more women over to your point of view by demonstrating there is an actual sense of community and comraderie in your world. That they aren’t going to be socially ostracized shut-ins by voicing approval.

  14. Matt Parrott says:

    K(yle),

    If you review my work, starting with my very first blog post at OD, you’ll see that I put ownership of our entire predicament on ourselves as an ethnic group. I believe that Jews exploited an opening they did not create. “Our elites” includes the White males who are serving the Jewish agenda. It couldn’t function without their complicity.

    White american women are far and away the most priveleged class of people on the face of the earth, in any period in history and are likely to be at the apex of privelege for all time once this whole charade we call a civilization comes to an end.

    They, like the Irish up until recently, are being offered privileged status by our enemies to turn them against their own. The “sour grapes” attitude our previous generation had toward the Irish was strategically inadvisable. Having this attitude toward White females is breathtakingly stupid.

    Whenever the issue of women comes up you become this total mangina. You attribute such malice and spew such venom at white men on behalf of white women I might mistake you for Joe Biden.

    You’re imagining things. I cast a critical eye on the late behavior of both genders. I even called them harpies, ffs. You’re so rabidly hostile toward females that you’re incapable of seeing anything other than the aspects of the article that are critical of contemporary males.

    Your movement is sparse on women, because you are a literally an advocate of the named and labelled big bad wolf of their sociopolitical movement.

    Our movement is sparse on women because we’ve failed to demonstrate a basal line of competence and credibility in being capable of advancing our shared agenda. Our own local group sports a 50/50 gender ratio, with women among our most active members.

    You’ll win more women over to your point of view by demonstrating there is an actual sense of community and comraderie in your world.

    This post was not an attempt to “win over women”. You don’t win over women by going on about women. I do take issue with people who mistake our women for a hostile identity group to attack, which appropriately describes Scott Locklin.

  15. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Backlog Edition (NSFW)

  16. Scott Locklin says:

    Hey Matt: thanks for the link and thoughtful comment, even though you think I’m some kind of eeeevil race mixing misogynist. It’s pretty obvious to me that you’re not looking at who your real enemy is here. If you took all the Jews and Colored people in America, and shot them into orbit around the moon (not that we have the technology now that Nasa is a diversity camp: for the sake of argument), this country would still be on greased rails to hell. That’s kind of the point of my less than complimentary little features about the ladies. Do you have any idea what Title-IX applied to physics departments will do to what is left of science research in America? Well, as a former physicist: let me give you a visual aid:

    Granted, this is a small issue compared to the over all death of Western Civilization, but it’s important to me, and it’s a symptom of the disease. I’m not the only one to notice that things really started to go to hell once we gave women the right to vote; I’m just the one who says it most forcefully.

  17. Matt Parrott says:

    Scott,

    Non-Whites aren’t necessarily “the enemy”. The genetic blueprint unique to my people is part of what makes us who we are. Which is more important: my brain, its electrical firings, or the emergent thoughts that are products of the brain’s electrical storm? Thus the blog’s motto: tribalism, traditionalism, and transcendence. They’re only enemies to the extent that they threaten the ability of my own people to exist and master their own destiny.

    If this were a research laboratory, I would be especially sure to wear my safety goggles near the workstation of the scientist who jumps to conclusions about causation as readily as you have in this context. According to my model, it has been necessary for the invasive elite to co-opt indigenous groups and play them off against the indigenous elite. Our women fall for it. Our men say “sour grapes”, as if women were an autonomous identity group. Our situation worsens.

  18. Scott Locklin says:

    Matt: I no longer work in physics -I work in phynance: let the jokes about one data point regression models write themselves.

    Look, I don’t really care who you’re mad at -that’s your affair, and I support your right to be angry with them, even if I don’t share in your theories. All I’m asking you to do is consider, like, the entire tapestry of human history. Why do you suppose our forefathers; the ones who built western civilization (and, for that matter, the other fellows forefathers who built eastern civilization), didn’t give women political power or attempt to put them to work in dumb office jobs? Don’t you think this question is worth considering as an honest conservative? Is not offending your wife or the dames at the local WN coffee klatch so important you can’t give this idea your honest consideration? I think trying to fit Anglosphere women into a gay-man shaped hole has irreparably damaged their souls. What is more, I think any man who is unable or unwilling to notice this is a damn fool. The fact that they’re bad at math is no more a surprise than the fact that they’re bad at Deadlifts; the assumption they should be is the madness I’m worried about. If you’re worried that they might be offended by people like me: I can assure you -they’re not. As Baden Powell put it on Boar Hunting, “Not only is pig-sticking the most exciting and enjoyable sport for both the man and horse as well, but I really believe that the boar enjoys it too.” You want more dames in your WN movement? Make it successful and exciting: nothing succeeds with the ladies like confidence and success. Sucking up to them; that doesn’t work at all.

    Going back to my present day job; we have a machine learning technique called “boosting” which starts off knowing nothing about the data. It tries a little of everything, then boosts the learners which do a little better on the data. It works like gangbusters on trading problems: I suspect (and of course hope) it will eventually make me embarrassingly rich. I, personally, see the alternative right as being along those lines. Try a little of everything: see what works on the data, and boost. You’re in love with your ideology, but I’m a data man. I’m agnostic to theory. Theory is what gets people broke in my business.

  19. Matt Parrott says:

    Scott,

    I’ve had long and thoughtful conversations with my wife and daughters about the data for years, even showing them the peer-reviewed studies on the differences between male and female brains. You would like to frame this as a battle between ignorance and knowledge, with you being attacked for telling the truth. This is about whether men and women in the same community are on the same team or two separate identity groups in competition. I accuse you of being in the latter camp and that’s my beef with you, not your acknowledging peer-reviewed research data.

    You’re in love with your ideology, but I’m a data man. I’m agnostic to theory. Theory is what gets people broke in my business.

    Isn’t it ironic that the most feverish deniers of Intelligent Design in the evolutionary context are the most feverish supporters of that same theory in society, its memeplexes, and its traditions? You may have been intelligent enough to make it up as you go along with everything else in life, but no single human is capable of fathoming or arbitrarily replacing the vast seething emergent intergenerational phenomenon that is Tradition.

  20. Scott Locklin says:

    Irony can, indeed, be pretty ironic some time. Have a look at David Stove some time; his bit about women only touches on the surface of his work -he’s one of the greatest philosophers of modern times. Mostly for stating the transparently obvious, but whatever: he’s really good.

    So, you think I’m some kind of “men’s rights” type? Perish that thought. I’m merely a fan of sexual dimorphism. If some women can’t handle that, well, they need to look to their own souls; I sleep easy at night.

  21. Junta says:

    :Women, particularly our own especially fair and delightsome ones, bring aesthetic beauty into the world.:
    Men can create androids which feel, smell and are as feminine as the flesh and blood kind.

    :They care for children:
    Single fathers actually do a better job of raising children if given the chance. Single mother households raise large number of delinquent youths, especially sons.

    :, nurse the sick,:
    Men have been known to show a sincere form of compassion and unconditional love for a brother than cannot be matched by a woman.

    : cultivate the gardens,:
    Pedro the migrant worker from Mexico can make short work of the pleasure garden without any of the whining and at a fraction of the cost of a housewife.

    : and implore us to reach our full potential.:
    I can reach my full potential with or without the encouragement and support of a submissive, feminine woman.

  22. namae nanka says:

    Women are not fountainhead of life, how can that which is decaying one egg a month can be fountainhead of life? They are incubators, baby-makers.
    And lovelace was the first code monkey? haha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s