Uber study (pay gap) between men and women (more than a million drivers included), where men work longer hours, drive faster, cover more dangerous areas, work more days than women, and therefore receive higher wages.
Psychological study: The effect of personality traits on the average per capita income / the difference in income between the sexes is related to neuroticism / the difference in income between the sexes is related to narcissism
There's also greater male variability which means the top earners will almost always be men due to having exceptional intelligence in addition to the personality traits that you mentioned.
There is a raw gender pay gap of course. I won’t go into reasons for why it exists but suffice to say it’s an empirical reality that women (on average) earn less than men.
I was curious as to whether there is a gender *consumption* gap, namely whether women spend less than men. Most people live in mixed-sex households and it’s possible that spending is not as much in favour of men than income is. As well as that, consumption is a better indicator of welfare than income is. Granted this is not a simple question to answer as much household consumption is shared and you need to make all sorts of imputations and assumptions.
But I was surprised to find that this literature barely exists. There are tens of thousands of phd economists doing research globally, and dozens of pretty high-quality national spending surveys.
Yet almost none of them are either interested enough or brave enough to see whether men spend more than women.
But my personal opinion is much more patriarchal. It's funny to see that people in the 1950s looked at sex differences much more realistically. In fact, their view was exactly the right one: men are higher in intelligence, and women are corny emotionally kinder and less psychopathic.
Surprisingly, white men have created the most "pro-women" societies around the world, especially good for young white women, but women in Western societies respond to white men with an abnormal hostility by world standards.
In fact, the picture is clearly not in favor of women/feminism:
1. For the most part, men are just better. Higher in intelligence, higher in physical strength, better in teamwork and formation of groupings, even in Western modern societies retain leadership in science, art, wealth achievement and politics. Less emotionally vulnerable, more brave. Trite more honest, no matter how strange it sounds. This is not surprising, given that sexual selection was stricter towards men and selected qualities associated with high status (intelligence, strength).
2. From an economic point of view, gender relations look essentially like this: men earn, accumulate wealth, pay taxes - women consume and use government spending. Something similar works, to a much greater extent, in racial/ethnic relations: white people pay taxes, and non-whites excessively consume and use wellfair.
3. Women themselves, no matter what they say, being inclined to leftism, sexually prefer white men (the politically "right-wing electorate"). And not just white men, but rich, beautiful and at least relatively masculine white men who would simultaneously combine the qualities of a "benevolent sexist" (financially support a woman and somehow especially play the role of a "bodyguard") and at the same time a "bad guy" (relatively high psychopathy, especially in self-confidence and fearless).
For these reasons, I think a gender-egalitarian society is simply impossible, as communism is a stupid utopia. It is important to add to this that demographic trends also completely destroy feminist dreams: children are made (even after controlling income factors, IQ, and the like) by religious traditionalists, politically right-wing conservatives, women who earn less than their husbands or are housewives in general, people who believe in traditional gender roles. In a gender-egalitarian society, where there will be no "sexist politically extreme right/conservatives", wage differences, the concentration of women on the roles of motherhood rather than career (this still exists even in Sweden), social pressure on women to become mothers (and preferably younger than 30-35), "gender stereotypes", "toxic masculinity" - people simply will not reproduce at a level above the extinction of the group (2-3 children per woman).
But this is all of course, just my personal opinion. Frankly speaking, I think Western societies lack patriarchy.
Another problem is that any movement, even just an opinion towards women, should automatically be "feminist". Women have historically obviously worried about their interests, but is it possible to call it something "feminist"?
I will probably not say exactly, but I will try to give an example: suppose a white grandmother, being conservative, wants to give her granddaughter advice on improving her life. I do not know how this happens in the west (I live in eastern Europe), but I will assume: a grandmother will advise her granddaughter not to date black guys, not to lead a promiscuous sex life, not to dress too sexualized, look for a "good guy", study well in college. Are these grandmother's advice concerns about the female well-being of the granddaughter? Yes, absolutely. Are these grandmother's tips "feminist"? I doubt that there is a feminist in the whole world who will call all these grandmother's advice "feminist".
The same applies to the groups of men's rights /"manosphere". Although there is an intersection between more traditionalist views and the "manosphere", in many ways they contradict each other. For example:
Is, for example, the advice "be a man - don't cry like a woman" an expression of concern, for example, a conservative father about the male status and position of his son? Absolutely, yes. Will such advice be supported by the "men's rights movement"? No, of course - this advice contradicts the movement.(regardless of who is right: the conservative father or the men's rights movement)
"Here, we demonstrate that Liberals are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups....." is a delightful understatement. Liberalism (if defined as 20th c liberal Leftism) is in fact Bias-on-a-Stick. It is the mentality whereby - in polite society - feelings must always trump facts.
I don't know what has happened to men, but they need to stand up and reclaim their place in society. Societies function best when family units are filled with a male and female role model for children. Women continue to fall for the independent woman trope when they know deep down, they'd rather be at home taking care of family. They've bought the lie meant to keep them and their children dysfunctional, so they have to keep working, etc. Men have been demonized and denigrated, but they need to find a way to get over it and take back what's rightfully theirs. Signed, a mom of two men.
Uber study (pay gap) between men and women (more than a million drivers included), where men work longer hours, drive faster, cover more dangerous areas, work more days than women, and therefore receive higher wages.
https://codyfcook.github.io/papers/uberpaygap.pdf
Psychological study: The effect of personality traits on the average per capita income / the difference in income between the sexes is related to neuroticism / the difference in income between the sexes is related to narcissism
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917305962?via%3Dihub
60% of the women did not (finally) negotiate with employers about the salary and preferred to resign over that.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/women-more-likely-to-change-jobs-to-get-pay-increase.html
There's also greater male variability which means the top earners will almost always be men due to having exceptional intelligence in addition to the personality traits that you mentioned.
There is a raw gender pay gap of course. I won’t go into reasons for why it exists but suffice to say it’s an empirical reality that women (on average) earn less than men.
I was curious as to whether there is a gender *consumption* gap, namely whether women spend less than men. Most people live in mixed-sex households and it’s possible that spending is not as much in favour of men than income is. As well as that, consumption is a better indicator of welfare than income is. Granted this is not a simple question to answer as much household consumption is shared and you need to make all sorts of imputations and assumptions.
But I was surprised to find that this literature barely exists. There are tens of thousands of phd economists doing research globally, and dozens of pretty high-quality national spending surveys.
Yet almost none of them are either interested enough or brave enough to see whether men spend more than women.
Women make up 80% of global spending, an economic report from (Forbes Economic) magazine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2015/01/21/top-10-things-everyone-should-know-about-women-consumers/?sh=668bce06a8b4
Women make up 80% of global spending, an economic report from (Forbes Economic) magazine.
Good post, Emil.
But my personal opinion is much more patriarchal. It's funny to see that people in the 1950s looked at sex differences much more realistically. In fact, their view was exactly the right one: men are higher in intelligence, and women are corny emotionally kinder and less psychopathic.
Surprisingly, white men have created the most "pro-women" societies around the world, especially good for young white women, but women in Western societies respond to white men with an abnormal hostility by world standards.
In fact, the picture is clearly not in favor of women/feminism:
1. For the most part, men are just better. Higher in intelligence, higher in physical strength, better in teamwork and formation of groupings, even in Western modern societies retain leadership in science, art, wealth achievement and politics. Less emotionally vulnerable, more brave. Trite more honest, no matter how strange it sounds. This is not surprising, given that sexual selection was stricter towards men and selected qualities associated with high status (intelligence, strength).
2. From an economic point of view, gender relations look essentially like this: men earn, accumulate wealth, pay taxes - women consume and use government spending. Something similar works, to a much greater extent, in racial/ethnic relations: white people pay taxes, and non-whites excessively consume and use wellfair.
3. Women themselves, no matter what they say, being inclined to leftism, sexually prefer white men (the politically "right-wing electorate"). And not just white men, but rich, beautiful and at least relatively masculine white men who would simultaneously combine the qualities of a "benevolent sexist" (financially support a woman and somehow especially play the role of a "bodyguard") and at the same time a "bad guy" (relatively high psychopathy, especially in self-confidence and fearless).
For these reasons, I think a gender-egalitarian society is simply impossible, as communism is a stupid utopia. It is important to add to this that demographic trends also completely destroy feminist dreams: children are made (even after controlling income factors, IQ, and the like) by religious traditionalists, politically right-wing conservatives, women who earn less than their husbands or are housewives in general, people who believe in traditional gender roles. In a gender-egalitarian society, where there will be no "sexist politically extreme right/conservatives", wage differences, the concentration of women on the roles of motherhood rather than career (this still exists even in Sweden), social pressure on women to become mothers (and preferably younger than 30-35), "gender stereotypes", "toxic masculinity" - people simply will not reproduce at a level above the extinction of the group (2-3 children per woman).
But this is all of course, just my personal opinion. Frankly speaking, I think Western societies lack patriarchy.
Another problem is that any movement, even just an opinion towards women, should automatically be "feminist". Women have historically obviously worried about their interests, but is it possible to call it something "feminist"?
I will probably not say exactly, but I will try to give an example: suppose a white grandmother, being conservative, wants to give her granddaughter advice on improving her life. I do not know how this happens in the west (I live in eastern Europe), but I will assume: a grandmother will advise her granddaughter not to date black guys, not to lead a promiscuous sex life, not to dress too sexualized, look for a "good guy", study well in college. Are these grandmother's advice concerns about the female well-being of the granddaughter? Yes, absolutely. Are these grandmother's tips "feminist"? I doubt that there is a feminist in the whole world who will call all these grandmother's advice "feminist".
The same applies to the groups of men's rights /"manosphere". Although there is an intersection between more traditionalist views and the "manosphere", in many ways they contradict each other. For example:
https://counter-currents.com/2015/02/does-the-manosphere-morally-corrupt-men/
Is, for example, the advice "be a man - don't cry like a woman" an expression of concern, for example, a conservative father about the male status and position of his son? Absolutely, yes. Will such advice be supported by the "men's rights movement"? No, of course - this advice contradicts the movement.(regardless of who is right: the conservative father or the men's rights movement)
I wonder if there is any research on how this may be counter-balancing (or over-compensating for) other deeply held stereotypes about women.
"Everyone's a feminist until there's a spider around"
- Bo Burnham
Men need to become more misogynistic for equity's sake.
Do survey respondents really believe that women are generally better than men?
Or are they pretending to believe it, perhaps even fooling themselves on some superficial level?
As the saying goes, "Women have all the p*ssy".
The Tin Men is an underrated resource on all these topics.
(Primarily on instagram, I suppose because that platform works well for him as he is a visual artist)
PS thank you Emil !!
https://instagram.com/thetinmen
"Here, we demonstrate that Liberals are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups....." is a delightful understatement. Liberalism (if defined as 20th c liberal Leftism) is in fact Bias-on-a-Stick. It is the mentality whereby - in polite society - feelings must always trump facts.
We need a new morality which will address these issues
We had an old morality that worked pretty well...
I don't know what has happened to men, but they need to stand up and reclaim their place in society. Societies function best when family units are filled with a male and female role model for children. Women continue to fall for the independent woman trope when they know deep down, they'd rather be at home taking care of family. They've bought the lie meant to keep them and their children dysfunctional, so they have to keep working, etc. Men have been demonized and denigrated, but they need to find a way to get over it and take back what's rightfully theirs. Signed, a mom of two men.