Jordan B Peterson on Twitter: “Why isn’t the gender gap in death rate attended to as much as the gender gap in pay?
I appreciate Peterson’s efforts trying to explain the obvious to oblivious leftists. My own family thinks nothing of my own very dangerous career in construction. The houses everyone lived in were rebuilt extensively and run by me, the person who ‘knows nothing’ about all this. Many women love to pretend they know it all while having very little real life experience. In the EU and US and other ‘first world’ nations, all the dangerous jobs are still falling nearly always upon men, not women. Meanwhile, women claim, falsely, that they are as smart and strong as the strongest and smartest men while providing zero proof of this in any form.
When women compete with men who are disabled or on the lower end of the intelligence scale, these females crow about how ‘strong’ they are. But in real competition, we have ‘women only’ competitions because even a mediocre man can crush most top females in nearly any activity from intelligence or physical strength or speed competitions. Instead of examining why this is so (no examination is necessary, it is pure evolution at work here) universities and politicians and media all work overtime to lie about this matter.
It isn’t a situation of something not being reported, it is an outright conspiracy to lie about basic, logical, biological information so that twisted political policies can be put in place and elites can rule us with an iron fist. When people are delusional, bad things happen. Reality disappears in this mental fog. Already, activists, citing false information about women’s abilities to be as good as top men in any field, to push for women to take over systems they are incapable of running or figuring out.
I picked on chess which requires zero male muscle strength to play to illustrate this delusional thinking of leftists. Leftists sneer at me that females are not interested in chess which is also a fat lie. Many females play chess but not many in the US. In the Middle East and Eurasia and China, women cheerfully play chess and are the top players in the world. No top player is an American.
Meanwhile, ONLY one women player playing today is in the top 100 chess masters. So we have a very clear picture of women being incapable of being better than men in a field where the male testosterone supposedly gives no advantage. It has nothing to do with muscles. Anyone can learn how to play chess. The rules are a lot clearer than with Go which is more ‘zen’ in that all stones are the exact same value and can move the same way.
World Blitz Ch: Carlsen and Artemiev command the standings
by Antonio Pereira
12/29/2018 – Seven wins and four draws left Magnus Carlsen as the co-leader after day one of the World Blitz Championships in Saint Petersburg. The Norwegian is sharing first place with blitz specialist Vladislav Artemiev, who recovered from an early loss to complete the twelve rounds on Saturday with an astounding 9½ score. Two strong performances were also seen in the women’s section, where Kateryna Lagno and Sarasadat Khademalsharieh are sharing the lead on 7½/9.
The top 25 men’s speed chess game rankings start at 2939 and the bottom is 2675. The women’s top score is 2560 and the bottom is 2046. This is quite a few steps below the men’s rankings and the women earn these rankings while playing only women. If they played men all the time, they would be even lower.
So, women competing against women=much lower level games than men playing men. The top 100 regular chess players in the world start at Carlson’s 2835 rank and end at 2652. Only ONE woman is on that list, near the very bottom: Yifan Hou, a fine Chinese woman who has managed to break into the men’s only ranks via masterful playing.
Yet, she plays at women only tournaments instead of struggling along at the bottom of the men’s games and I don’t blame her. Losing too much crushes the spirit. So long as she admits she needs to be in the weaker sex games, I’m OK with this. Pretending women are the same as men? No pity from me.
I am a believer in the idea that one has to prove one’s case, not make up EXCUSES. The women’s movement and Californian radicals love to pretend that they are not interested in doing stuff they claim, they can do as good as men or better than men. Instead of proving this, they like to sit on their behinds, whining and whinging without actually doing anything to convince us we are wrong.
Here is Physics Magazine trying desperately to explain away the fact that women are not nearly as good at chess as men:
A team of researchers from the UK has shown that the under-representation of women at the top end in chess is almost exactly what would be expected, given the much greater number of men that participate in the game at all. Researchers Merim Bilalic, et al., have published their research on this statistical sampling explanation in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
There are NO BRITS at the top of the chess ranks. Many, nearly half, are Russian or former Russian territories or say, Chinese now that they are playing more often. One is an ‘American’ who is a Japanese male who immigrated as an adult to the US. It is really cheeky for the Brits to do this study, in Britain, which has few grandmasters compared to other countries like Russia or China.
The authors analyzed the population of about 120,000 German players as recorded by the German chess federation in April 2007. Based on more than 3,000 tournaments per year, the German chess federation measures the skill level of all competitive and most hobby players in the country (the rating correlates highly with the widely known Elo rating). The sample population included 113,386 men and 7,013 women (a ratio of 16:1).
There are ZERO German chess masters at the top. Zero! None. Germany used to produce masters at a high rate but WWI and then WWII took care of that. Today, nearly nothing. Iceland has more!
The excuse that women are doing poorly due to lack of interest or participation is pure BS. It is deliberately looking at the wrong things because this can be hauled out to explain everything on earth. It is false. Women don’t participate like boys in many, many areas of interest because girls don’t care due to the way their brains work.
Women are very different from men! But all modern ‘research’ and ‘studies’ and articles in once-sensible scientific publications are now hewing the party line that nothing is different between boys and girls and it is just that girls find ‘boy’ things like science, dangerous jobs, fighting wars, playing intellectual games: all this is stoooopid boy junk. NAAAY…Ickypoo stuff! Yuck.
Calling this ‘science’ is childish. It pisses me off. I want to clunk these ‘scientists’ who are ‘social studies’ people by the side of the head to wake them up. Here is a comment to the above whiny article pretending to be ‘science’ in a top ‘science magazine’:
BTW, has it occurred to anyone that fewer women than men participate in chess, not because it’s too hard for their tiny little minds, but because most women find chess a boring waste of time and ability?
ALL feminists use that tiresome, childish excuse. It is cemented into our culture. Women fail at many things not due to being different or anything basic or biological, nope. They just find ‘guy stuff’ to be boring and stupid! HAHAHA. Here is a woman’s comment which is very revealing:
I can’t answer for other women, but here are the reasons I quit playing chess:
– other women don’t play, meaning my only opponents were male
– males don’t take being challenged by a woman seriously, and they throw attitude
– when they lose, it’s not a nice scene (excuses, whining, display of temper)
So, she can’t play because no women? HAHAHA. She is the same as the men but she doesn’t want to play them because…they are sore winners and sore losers! That’s the trip here. What is she? Not a sore loser, nope, she just…didn’t enjoy playing and losing to losers who were nasty. And here is the one comment that I heartily endorse:
For me the differences seem obvious and I would say are a result of our biological evolution. They are summed up in the argument between man and wife about the mess in the garden. For the wife, it is a mess. That is what it is…and you cant argue with her, she is right…But for the man, the mess is in the process of becoming a new patio, or perhaps a fence..or a kitchen table. And if he does it, he is also right. That is the essence of the difference. Men look at the world and rearrange it into new things (and there have been studies done on very young children that have shown boys do have a better ability to rotate objects in 3 dimensional space, so this isn’t just opinion). For men, the tree beside a river is a bridge, or a boat…so on.
Men use these “virtual realities” within their minds to play out endless games of chess. But the price is not cheap. A sacrifice is made for this skill, and that is in his ability to think of the world as it is presented to him in the moment (probably why good chess players tend to be socially inept). And this is why husbands infuriate their wives…because half the time they aren’t there…their minds simply aren’t in the moment…they are drifting off to other points in space and time, whether real or imagined.
Of course, women (in general) are far more anchored to reality as it is. And thank god for that…without them men would probably float off into space never to be seen again. So women know the date of the next birthday, and the name of the next door neighbors children, and what happened to auntie whatever last Christmas…and the husband goes “really? oh my oh my”. Women talk with each other about these things and maintain a somewhat stable state of the world as it is…essential for raising children. And for women this is a sacrifice also.
Women and men have utterly different biological evolutionary histories. Women who were distracted by non-domestic stuff didn’t have children who survived. Throughout history, groups of females who didn’t reproduce are legendary. I had an Auntie Helen who didn’t have children while my mother had seven children, for example. All the childless women I knew growing up as a child were famous scientists, for example, that being my parent’s social circle.
They wrote books, went on expeditions, climbed mountains, etc. They didn’t babysit. My mother did all that, too, but then I got to do the babysitting for her (she PAID me, though!). The fact is, girls ain’t boys. We have to accept this biological fact. Nearly all the female leaders in Europe who are Bilderberg gangsters also have no children. Even the feminist males there, no kiddies, either! Isn’t that strange? Not.
32 responses to “Modern Feminists Continue To Lie About Sex Differences: More Chess Sex Stuff! Enjoy!”
Men had to develop highly focused minds because the survival of the family depended upon it. The men who didn’t died, because they had enemies and wild animals sneaking up on them.
Women don’t have highly focused minds because children are like whirling dervishes with 15 different activities in mind all at once. A woman who focused on one thing quickly lost her babies.
In regard to chess, I admire any woman who can play it well. I tried. I saw the myriad of choices for different moves spreading out around me and it put my brain into lock down. I was almost completely incapable of making a choice. Perhaps if the chessboard was a baby, moving around at the slightest whim…HAHAHAHAHA!
My daughter likes to play chess and I recall last time we played she beat me. I think if I put my mind to it I could beat her every time, but there would be no joy in that. Plus, I have other games that I prefer.
Man what is going on here today? Melponeme_k – that was an incredible post! Really. I enjoyed it. Thanks.
93% of the work place fatalities are men. When will women catch up? I doubt ever. They have a tendency to take more office type of jobs and work in education. Men have a tendency to take on more dangerous jobs such as construction. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Where have we heard that statement before? They are two totally different biological entities. Men and women think totally differently. Men look at porn visually. Women see porn mentally. That’s why romance novels are women’s porn.
Hey KHS71 – how about you and I come up with some porn that we appeal to both sexes! Talk about a money maker!
ooops so many typos, and I know you probably already know, but I meant to type: ….that WILL….appeal….
Saw the movie yesterday. Man did that bring me back to some serious memories.
Dick Cheney loved his family and for that I will give him credit.
Happy NY everyone and may it be safe for all of us.
Saw the movie “VICE”. That was an omission that needed to be corrected.
And now off into the sunset….
There are reasons for the gender stereotypes of our recent past, male and female humans are actually different! Whooda thunk?
And there’s a lot of variability in humans as well. Both genders. All shapes and sizes. If you look at any family tree chart, there are always a lot of branches where the women do not have children — the biggest factor is education. There are so many other interesting things you can do besides having children. . .
I was never any good at chess, it was always hard for me to see more than 2 or 3 moves into the ‘future’. So I didn’t play it, and never got any ‘better’. It started with arithmetic, when I didn’t want to memorize all those tables in the 3rd grade. I figured, they have machines to do that stuff, why do I have to learn it? Later on, I got better marks in calculus and diffie-q’s. It was interesting to learn about the relationships, but never interesting to grind out an answer. Someone else had already constructed detailed tables of logarithms and sines and cosines and etc. so why do all that work again?
But then, my lifelong fascination was with computing machinery. I figured that with enough memory and processor power, a computer could beat a human at this game. Although it took several more decades than I thought, it happened. Of course, the computer plays a very ‘mechanical’ game, if you’re into the creative aspects of chess.
I find it interesting, and sad, that neither England nor Germany are producing many chess grandmasters following the two world wars. I recall a study that was done in England which found that highly intelligent men (based on standardized IQ tests given to all solders) were more likely to die in battle. Probably the same was true of German solders.
I don’t think that any explanation was ever given for the disparity. However, I suspect that it is due to highly intelligent brains being able to overcome fear and do “what must be done” in a battle. Even at the expense of one’s life.
The United States suffered many fewer deaths during the wars, and (not surprisingly) we came to dominate science and engineering after the wars. Not so much chess, but then it never really caught on over here.
I do not know how Russia factors into this, since they suffered horrible losses in the second World War, and yet still are very good at chess, science and engineering today. Any thoughts from the readers of this blog?
@#8 Ken: For one thing, Chess is like a National Past time in Russia (and former Soviet States). Soviet (Russian) losses in WW2 were due mainly to the fact that until D Day in June 1944, the Nazis could devote most of their War Machine into attacking Russia. And the former Soviets weren’t prepared for a major war. As far as the Sciences go, education is a priority with Russians, whereas the folks running the American Ed system are Agenda driven. In the American system, it’s all about Inclusion. Celebrating Diversity, It’s all about “normalizing” the LGBTQ agenda. In other words there is no effort made in improving Math skills or reading skills and certainly NOT teaching Critical Thinking skills.
‘Queen of chess’ resigns after five moves, having repeatedly been made to play women
Apparently the whole thing was a coincidence, but Yifan was upset enough to stage this dramatic protest.
And Hikaru Nakamura moved the the U.S. when he was 2; he speaks with no accent and is not fluent in Japanese; in short he’s as American as anybody.
Oh and the challenger in the most recent world chess championship was an American; he tied Champion Carlsen in the classical portion but got rolled in the rapid tiebreaks (as people tend to do against Carlsen).
+++ even a mediocre man can crush most top females in nearly any activity
That is a bit too generic, and quite misleading, mostly men and women are specialized in different ways (one totally obvious one) as you say, and the spread among men seems wider than across women, that is there are more “better than average” or “worse than average” men than women.
+++ from intelligence
That find really unconvincing — average men and women have much the same intelligence, for a broad meaning of “intelligence”, or like with “race” the difference between average men and women is much smaller than that among men of that among women.
I’ll give an example to contrast chess: in one very advanced european country women have been for a long time 90% of the students for math degrees, and 40-50% of those for physics degrees, and they do extremely well, at least as well as men students in the same areas. However among university math and physics professors men are still 60-80% of the faculty.
The reason for both is simple and nothing to do with “intelligence” or even specialization: in that country a math or physics degree gives the best chances to become a teacher, and school teaching only happens in the mornings, leaving afternoons free, which means lots of time for looking after family; typical teachers in that country leave school at 1pm and during the afternoon work some hours from home preparing lessons or marking tests. Teaching is not that well paid, but there are men for that :-).
On the contrary, becoming a math or physics university professor requires fanatical effort with long hours, and thus is not family-friendly.
As to chess, I know several top chess players, and the common trait is obviously (like BTW for the many maths and physics professors I know) a certain degree of aspergerism, which is uncommon in women, because as you say reproduction is a harsh sieve.
As to that sieve in 1-2 generations what is currently known as “feminism” will have simply disappeared, because right now only two categories are reproducing: “irresistible” pump-and-dump chauvinist men, and baby-obsessed women attracted by those men. Current style women “feminists” are not having many sons or many daughters, and unattractive, reliable men are being shunned for reproductive purposes by all women.
+++ Men have a tendency to take on more dangerous jobs such as construction.
Men have had a need to take on whichever jobs allow them to provide for a family, else they didn’t get to have and children, and for a very long time for many poor men the dangerous jobs were their only option. The same pressure to be able to provide for a family or else we wiped out of the gene pool has not applied with the same intensity to women, even poor women.
Apart from that a lot of people forget that up to a few decades ago child mortality rates were huge, and pregnancies and deliveries quite often fatal, so that there was usually a dire scarcity of viable births; therefore there were many laws or customs that forbid women, even those few willing to, from taking risks, for example forbidding women from dangerous work (but not for example male children, and never men of course).
One of the reasons women were forbidden to take on dangerous jobs is because they determine the population of the specie. Men do not thus men are expendable. Women can only get pregnant once every nine months while a man could get 270 women pregnant during that same time span.
KHS71 – I think you got your numbers wrong. I think it is more like 910.
So, if you got the right man for the job, then you ought to keep him around. Know what I mean?
And if the correct women comes along, then there is no other. Understand that?
It is not complicated.
About chess: I was talking about the top, not the middle of anything. Even in the middle, women of the same weight as men and same intelligence level, still men will be better at nearly everything due to men having different hormones and muscles and BRAINS.
Women, on the other hand, up until now (it is declining now) have this wonderful thing called PATIENCE. Teaching babies and small children requires repetition and patient supervision, for example. This is a great thing to have and is required if one is to be a good parent.
Singing the same silly nursery rhyme over and over again for half a hour is an example of ‘patience’. Answering the same questions endlessly: patience.
Another thing Women have a hard time getting along with each other! In the workplace, they always form little cliques–and they’re mean to female outsiders. And they bring their personal issues into the workplace, so if little Cindy is having boyfriend problems, she will take it out on her co-workers. A key flaw with the feminazi’s is that they can’t get along with each other, let alone fight the Evil “White Male Oligarchy”. The survivors, the feminists who “keep the Faith”, end up as bitter Old Maids.
the final excerpt in this blog entry is extremely enlightening! no wonder my wife is constantly pinching me when we are together
The best mathematicians all have less testosterone than the average male, but more than the average female. The difference could be closely tied to a hormonal interaction with brain chemistry.
If I had to guess I would say the most likely evolutionary driver for this difference goes back to division of labor in hunter gatherer societies, and the only candidate that comes to mind is tracking.
By the last Ice Age, Stone Age men were using a new ally, ‘dogs’, to hunt. This boosted ‘eating’ tremendously as well as ‘protect the home cave’. Smart people who used former wolves to live and hunt thrived.
Women raised the puppies. Women love puppies, they are adorable little things! Little children play with puppies. So the women raised the pups, turning them into human-friendly animals and the men hunted and fought and protected their tribes with the help of the adult dogs.
Hmmm, Puppyphilia hypothesis. I think your love of puppies is showing. 🙂
The best mathematicians all have less testosterone than the average male, but more than the average female. The difference could be closely tied to a hormonal interaction with brain chemistry.
Black males have more majic T than White males.
Whitey has more than Yellow men.
#22 about those dogs —
You’ve probably heard about the Russian geneticist who demonstrated that it only takes about six generations of selective breeding to domesticate a critter like that. To go from a rascally animal that will run away and/or bite your children, to a nice well behaved member of the family.
He demonstrated this by domesticating foxes. If he had used wolves, people would say that he had swapped out the wild pups for dog puppies at some point …
When I was a child, I wanted to domesticate SKUNKS! Had one for a pet. And people have played with that idea, skunks are quite friendly, you know. Just don’t irritate them. 🙂
We didn’t just breed dogs to like people, we bred ourselves to like dogs. I have often wondered why many more Caucasians I meet liked dogs than other people I see around the world, some absolutely terrified of them?
Immigrating homo sapiens fought a genocidal war with Neanderthals in Europe. The Neanderthals were bigger, stronger, had larger brains, used similar tools, had fire, had spears and other weapons (except small hunting bows), practiced ceremonial burial (but not art) and were on their home turf. By all reasoning the Neanderthals should have been able to hold their own. But the Neanderthals didn’t keep dogs; while the European homo sapiens did. In small hunter gatherer groups, dogs keep the other tribe from getting the element of surprise, which is a huge advantage. Seems to me, Caucasians who didn’t keep dogs were wiped out at a greater rate. Those who did keep dogs could survive until they had the element of surprise. European Caucasians who remained have 1% Neanderthal DNA.
Compare and contrast with immigrant groups of homo sapiens from different parts of Asia, who crossed the bearing straits into the Americas. They cooperated and their DNA was merged fairly evenly.
Dogs were all over Eurasia and north of the Sahara Desert in Africa. Dogs called ‘dingos’ went with the human who went to Australia, too, before the Ice Age ended.
But dogs did not go into Congo-Africa and southwards. Dogs DID go into the New World via Siberia, again, during the last Ice Age. But not the southern half of Africa.
Yes, that would account for the outsized fear of dogs in certain places, like the MIddle East and Africa. But, only in Europe did dogs equal survival vs Neanderthal.
A few years ago my rather wild Karelian ran into some wolves on a winter hiking expedition in Alaska. The wolves tried to woo her. I thought she must be in heat. Until later, native Alaskans told me afterwards that’ is how the wolves trick dimesticated dogs into joining their pack, only to eat them.
Then I realized why Caucasians are the best liars in the world after that European ice age. Lying equals cannibalism.
Funny that you run on GMT.
About the Asian immigrants to the New World during the last Ice Age: there were never any hominids there at any time at all. The invading humans were the first to arrive along with some other creatures.
Horses evolved in North America but moved over the Ice Age land complex into Asia and then all the horses in North America were eliminated by evolutionary events.
Elaine, you might enjoy this reference to a remaining North Dakota echo of the ancient past https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/08/28/neanderhorse/