The Myth of Equality Between Genders, Races, and Peoples

[El_Caudillo]

Right well I've almost finished the book of Guns, Germs and Steel. The author does talk a lot about New Guinea as that is his area of expertise. He was very ambitious to try and cover 14,000 years of world history in 400 pages. I'd say some of the chapters give their topics a very cursory treatment, such as "How China became Chinese."

Anyway his basic premise is that different people developed at different rates due to the their environment not due to their race...and that just about everybody was willing to take on new technology when the opportunity presents itself. He runs into a bit of trouble with the Australian Aborigines though, as they seemed not to have too been keen on adapting technology - but he then points out that some groups of Aborigines were more open to change (read development) than others. So that appears to be a hole in his argument - if groups within races could be more apt to develop than others - wouldn't that then lead to the conclusion that certain races/cultures were more apt than others?

For example the Maori in New Zealand were much more ready to adapt to the changes Europeans inevitably brought to their world than the Aborigines. But then you could go back to the fact that the Aborigines had been isolated for longer. Anyway, I'm not trying to say European Australian life was better than the Aborigine way. White Australia certainly treated the Aborigines barbarically. I just get the feeling that the author had his thesis and looked for evidence to support it, if anything came up against his ideas he would ignore it. His views fit in well with the PC views of our time and this must of been a factor in his book getting pushed by publishers, Nat Geo etc. I tend to agree with this book to a large extent - but I'm not completely with the PC brigade that European colonialism was all bad. In fact I think as an attempt to synthesize a large chunk of history into on book, the right-wing historian Neal Ferguson's book 'Empire' is a much better effort. Basically Ferguson tells us what was good about the British Empire.

[Winston]

Right, and wasn't Africa better off under European colonization? When the Europeans left Africa, it went to shambles. Same with Philippines maybe. Some races just aren't good at self-governance.

I wonder if I can contact Jared Diamond and challenge him on some points. Yeah he starts out with his theory and then looks for confirmation bias to support it. He doesn't go with the data. His theory that agriculture and cattle are to blame for why some societies developed and some didn't, sounds hackneyed. I wonder how he would explain why darker skinned people tend to be poorer but more warm and down to earth? That seems to be a universal pattern.

Did you see the documentary too? It's only 3 hours.

[El_Caudillo]

Right, and wasn't Africa better off under European colonization? When the Europeans left Africa, it went to shambles. Same with Philippines maybe. Some races just aren't good at self-governance.

I wonder if I can contact Jared Diamond and challenge him on some points. Yeah he starts out with his theory and then looks for confirmation bias to support it. He doesn't go with the data. His theory that agriculture and cattle are to blame for why some societies developed and some didn't, sounds hackneyed. I wonder how he would explain why darker skinned people tend to be poorer but more warm and down to earth? That seems to be a universal pattern.

Did you see the documentary too? It's only 3 hours.

I didn't see the docu - the book is more in depth. I wonder how Jared would counter your idea about self-rule being only suited to some races. Yea those North Koreans aren't very good at it - but hang on the South Koreans are...and they are the same race.

That's a pretty big claim to say Africa was better off under European rule. Also it's a sweeping statement and I think Jared would have far too much historical knowledge for you. How much to you know about Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo, Mussolini in Ethiopia etc etc?

I think he is far from hackneyed in fact he makes a pretty good case - he's just a bit one eyed.

[Winston]

Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4V3HR696k[/youtube]

[Winston]

Right, and wasn't Africa better off under European colonization? When the Europeans left Africa, it went to shambles. Same with Philippines maybe. Some races just aren't good at self-governance.

I wonder if I can contact Jared Diamond and challenge him on some points. Yeah he starts out with his theory and then looks for confirmation bias to support it. He doesn't go with the data. His theory that agriculture and cattle are to blame for why some societies developed and some didn't, sounds hackneyed. I wonder how he would explain why darker skinned people tend to be poorer but more warm and down to earth? That seems to be a universal pattern.

Did you see the documentary too? It's only 3 hours.

I didn't see the docu - the book is more in depth. I wonder how Jared would counter your idea about self-rule being only suited to some races. Yea those North Koreans aren't very good at it - but hang on the South Koreans are...and they are the same race.

That's a pretty big claim to say Africa was better off under European rule. Also it's a sweeping statement and I think Jared would have far too much historical knowledge for you. How much to you know about Cecil Rhodes and Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo, Mussolini in Ethiopia etc etc?

I think he is far from hackneyed in fact he makes a pretty good case - he's just a bit one eyed.

Jared may have more knowledge but he's bound to interpret everything by political correctness. I'm not restricted that way.

Others here have said that about Africa. Ask Kradmelder. Also, what about the Philippines? When the Spanish left and the US left the Filipinos to govern themselves, it became the second most corrupt country in the world and a total mess, which is still true today. I hope Duterte cleans it up.

[Winston]

I just did a video rant about how gender equality leads to gender INequality and is a trojan horse and myth.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhiFcQEvMjA[/youtube]

[Moretorque]

Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4V3HR696k[/youtube]

People who are lacking mentally cannot build good institutions Mr.Wu.....

[Winston]

I gave these people a dose of reality below in these discussions about female classical music composers being equal to male classical music composers, which anyone can see isn't true just by listening to the music of female classical music composers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqhoAN0FLHo

Jose-Antonio Barros-Poblete
4 years ago
Franz Lizt recognized her as an equal without complexes. Chopin and others labeled her the best painist o her generation in times where machism were far worst than anybody could imagine.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
3 minutes ago (edited)
There's no such thing as equality. It's a myth and fiction. Nothing in nature is equal. The obsession with equality is a modern mental disorder and delusion and without basis. Moreover, if something is true it doesn't need to be repeated endlessly. Only lies need to be repeated endlessly. Think about it.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
0 seconds ago
If she was that great, where are her hit masterpieces that are timeless and that everyone knows?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CieC4L55hMs

Are you trying?
1 year ago
Thank you for this! I'm teaching my daughter about classical music in homeschool and today she asked me why we haven't studied any women. This helped a lot! THANK YOU!

Snarf
5 months ago
Because sexism reached its peak during the time that the classical canon was formed.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
15 minutes ago
​ @Snarf No because they weren't as good as the male composers. That's just a fact, even if you deny it. Women and men are NOT equal in every way, shape and form. Why do you think male and female athletes don't compete against each other in pro sports? Or compete against each other in chess? Think about it. Equality is a myth, it doesn't exist in nature or reality.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
14 minutes ago (edited)
No because they weren't as good as the male composers. That's just a fact, even if you deny it. Women and men are NOT equal in every way, shape and form. Why do you think male and female athletes don't compete against each other in pro sports? Or compete against each other in chess? Think about it. Equality is a myth, it doesn't exist in nature or reality.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
12 minutes ago (edited)
@Snarf Also believing that men and women are different and have different natures and different roles is not sexism or misogyny. It's just nature and truth. Equality is a myth and fiction. It's not found anywhere in nature. Believing in traditional roles is not misogynistic.

[Winston]

Another dose of reality I gave to feminists who claim that sexism is the reason why there are no great female artists or composers. What's your take on this @fschmidt? How come women are good at playing music on the violin or piano, which Asian women excel at, but not at composing music?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzUOimx051w

Virginia Valland
1 year ago
What a great idea for a playlist ! Enough to silence those who claim that there were no great female classical composers (or none at all), and all the theories suggesting that genius is necessarily male...When really how could we know they existed if they are never honored in the culture?
I'm definitely using this as my new study playlist until I get infused with the melodies, and sending it to all of my friends.

a_marie08
1 year ago
if you have time and want a great perspective on this, there is a great essay by Linda Nochlin called "why are there no great women artists?" which goes into great detail about the institutional obstacles that have prevented women from succeeding in the arts! One of the most interesting points is that many of the few recognized female artists are often the only child or oldest daughter of an artist father who wanted to pass down his craft but had no sons

Helvete_Ingres
1 year ago
@a_marie08 there's a much better book by Camille Paglia called 'Sexual personae' that says more succinctly and lucidly, that there's no female Mozart for the same reason there's no female Jack the ripper

Helvete_Ingres
1 year ago (edited)
@Ignacio Clerici the idea is that genius is a form of deviancy, of being very different to the norm. Creative people push the boundaries of normal society. Some deviants might write great music and be celebrated, others might stab hookers to death and be vilified - the unsettling idea is that the difference between them is a mere matter of perception. I was quoting a book called Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia

Norah
1 year ago
@Signo de Interrogacion I think @Helvete_Ingres 's point is that this kind of pushing boundaries and ignoring social norms is inherently male or that it is easier for men to do because they usually face/ faced less scrutiny. I find the second option far more logical but I'm not familiar with the book she quoted so I just gave you my two best guesses

Signo de Interrogacion
1 year ago (edited)
@Norah Interesting, if you're right I guess I get his point, but I think there has been female crazy geniuses throughout history, although I guess do to social norms they weren't as well seen. I still find these composers amazing thought.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
1 second ago
They are ok but not comparable to Mozart or Beethoven. Sorry. But women and men are NOT equal in every way shape and form. That is a modern mental disorder and delusion. There is no such thing as equality in nature or reality. Men and women have different roles in nature. That is not sexist, just reality. Deep down we all know it. But feminism has corrupted your sense of reality.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
0 seconds ago
@a_marie08 The reason is because women's IQ's tend to hover in the mediocre range, whereas men's IQ's range from very high to very low. Hence if you compare smart women to smart men, the men are much smarter. Only if you compare the dumbest men to the smartest women, as Hollywood movies do, do women appear smarter.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
1 second ago
@Helvete_Ingres Yes because women and men are different. Women are nurturers. Men can range from saintly to pure evil, whereas women tend to range in the mediocre level.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
13 minutes ago (edited)
​ @Helvete_Ingres True. When you are a misfit and don't fit in, you become hated or loved. Not neutral. Movie stars and rock stars tend to be misfits who were unable to fit into a normal 9 to 5 monotonous job.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
1 second ago
@LIyre Same reason why there are no female nobel prize winners. Women aren't good at that sort of thing. Their IQ hovers in the mediocre range because they are meant to be nurturers, not geniuses.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
0 seconds ago
@Norah It could also be because women are more conformist and trendy and easier to corrupt. For example in the 1920s Edward Bernays convinced women to smoke even though it was taboo for them to do so simply by running ads for women to smoke and calling cigarettes "liberty torches". Hence women are too easy to corrupt because they always follow trends and are overly materialistic, especially in Asia. Why do you think only women get off on luxury hotels, sports cars, and LV bags, whereas men do not? Why do think women love shopping more than men do? They are DIFFERENT.

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
1 second ago
@Signo de Interrogacion I thought female geniuses only exist in Hollywood movies? Not in reality? Same with african american computer whizzes? You see them in movies but not in reality. Why?

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

@Winston

I agree,
Man and woman are not equal biologically, mentally, physically, etc. The sooner people accept, the better for people in the long run.
How long will the current establishment hold onto everyone is equal idea?

People say women were held back by institutional oppression and they were under represented in the past.
Then how come for the last 70 years when institutions, government, companies opened up for women, there isn't any sudden explosion or a sudden boost of female led inventions, innovations, great leaders, etc? There are no "Great" female leaders of industry, no "Great" female Hollywood directors, no genius female inventors, no "Great female generals", etc. Females tend to stand on the middle of the bell curve, and tend to think small and be mediocre placeholders in society. Most women can't out compete, out perform their male counterparts.

Women being "institutionally oppressed" is flawed assumption because there isn't women as good enough or they don't have the same caliber as the great men.