In the previous article I wrote something that sounds counter-intuitive at first: that women don’t cooperate. I probably wasn’t clear enough: yes, women seem to cooperate, they do things together, they function in groups, but there’s one important distinction: it’s not free. A woman will do something for you, but it will cost you. She will go see a movie with her best friend, but that best friend will have to go shopping for a handbag with her, later.

Nothing about what women do is free, everything about them has some kind of a price tag, and that’s the main reason why they have a hissy fit when men whistle and catcall them on the street: they interacted with them for free, instead of going through an elaborate ritual in which a woman can say no to them at every turn. They think they are the princess of the universe and if you communicate with them without explicit invitation from her divine grace, you need to be punished, because you took something from her for free: the permission to approach her exalted highness. They actually mindfuck themselves into a place where they are actually that cool and important, just because they have something everyone wants: a vagina. Vagina makes her royalty, and if you want her royal grace to acknowledge your humble presence or even bestow her divine countenance upon you, you’ll need a better reason than just be there and have a problem, or simply catcall. You need to enter into an elaborate social play in which a contract will be made to put you in her debt.

That’s why a woman won’t back down to make it easier for another driver: because she won’t ever meet that other driver again and he or she won’t be able to reciprocate, so why would she do social favors for free? It’s just me me me, want want want, now now now. If you want something, she will want something in return.

Sure, men won’t work for free either, but we’re not talking about real favors or real work. It’s the little things that people do – hold doors for someone who’s carrying big boxes, don’t park behind someone’s car and just leave, notice that someone needs something and make it easier for that person if it’s not that much of a big deal for you. Sure, there are men who behave like women and just do their own thing, not giving a fuck about anyone else if there’s nothing in it for them.

But there’s one important distinction. We call those men “assholes”. We do so because we expect each other to show a certain degree of empathy and acknowledgement of other. It’s a genetic thing. Women expect the world to revolve around their vaginae, and men expect other men to cooperate in a group, in varying levels of involvement, from not behaving like assholes in traffic, to joining them on the barricades with a rifle in case of serious trouble. It’s expected, and is done for free, as part of some implicit social contract that is seldom verbalized, but offenders are immediately noticed and frowned upon. Men cooperate, because that’s what men do in a society. They protect the tribe, they feed and protect the females and the children, and they work together to minimize potential for conflict and increase effectiveness of their collective efforts. It’s interesting how men separate things into those that will cost you, and those that are done for free – for instance, if you want a man do dig a hole in your garden, you need to pay him. This falls outside of the implicit constraints of the social contract men work within. However, assisting someone in performing a traffic maneuver won’t cost you a thing. Men do that for free, and feel good about it, because it’s a contribution to the welfare of the community. At first it seems to be graded by the level of difficulty – they’ll do the little things for free, but the bigger ones will cost you; not true. The biggest things are also free – like joining other men with a gun on the barricades, or carrying a wounded man to safety and taking a bullet yourself in the process. It’s not about the size of the favor, it’s about whether it’s a part of the social contract that’s genetic, or whether it’s something else, that falls into another category, that of trade. If women acted as they do, and had a man’s body, they would suffer such a horrible backlash for being assholes, they’d probably go kill themselves, because men really don’t tolerate assholes, unless they are female. Then it’s another matter entirely, because an asshole with a vagina is the lady queen of the universe.

There’s this “prejudice” that women suck at driving, and I’ve been thinking about that for a while, to see whether it’s true, and if it is, why.

And I came to the most startling conclusion: they do, and it has nothing to do with driving. They can control cars just fine. It’s just that they completely lack empathy and social skills, if by social skills we mean being able to cooperate with other people in order to solve common problems, and understand the parameters of the situation that surrounds you and adapt in order to confront and overcome it.

It’s interesting how there’s that prejudice about women, which says that they are very socially apt. I thought so too, for years and even decades, but then I started paying closer attention. You see, women see it only as a way of getting what they want. They express emotions because it’s a great way to mobilize other people’s compassion to their benefit, because they want others to help them achieve their goals. They gossip, because that gives them control over the behavior of others, and is an excellent passive-aggressive way of bullying people into doing what you feel comfortable with. But it’s always “me, me, me”. It’s their emotions, their feeling of propriety, their goals, their purpose, and they will cry and bitch and moan until they get what they want, but they completely lack empathy. They literally don’t give shit about anyone unless they can see themselves in that person’s position, which means that they wouldn’t give a fuck unless they thought it could happen to them; then it’s a tragedy.

Men, however, can’t afford this luxury. If they bitch and moan and cry, other men will laugh at them, at best, or even beat the shit out of them. They need to get their shit together and solve actual problems, and the best way of doing that is to realize you’re not the center of the universe and you need to understand that there are other people around you who also try to solve problems and do things, and if you stay out of each other’s ways it’s good, but if you can actually cooperate and make each other’s lives easier, that’s actually great, because you’ll get more things done more easily, and that’s a good thing for everyone. That’s also the reason why women are so into traditions, customs and laws. They probably think that the laws of society came written into the quantum states of the atoms and were discovered together with electricity and magnetism. They will obey all the laws of the road like the speed limit or the stop sign, and they think that’s all there is to it, and that’s why they suck at driving so fucking terribly. They drive like a train – it goes only in the straight line, cares only for what’s ahead of it, and if something changes, it is literally unable to do anything to adapt to the situation, because women aren’t very into adapting to situations, they are into crying and bitching and moaning until the situation adapts to them. Men on the road assist each other. When we see another guy trying to switch into our lane or make too tight a turn, we let them in or back away to give them the space they need, because it makes things easier for everyone. With men, it’s a routine thing (and men for whom it isn’t are colloquially known as “assholes” and “jerks”), but with a woman, no way. She will never back down or adapt to your needs. Whether it’s because they don’t notice your needs enough to give half a fuck, or because they think backing down is a sign of weakness and they need to be that tough bitch that roundhouse kicks men, I don’t know, but they completely and utterly don’t give a fuck. But when they need something, it’s like “need need need, me me me, now now now”. When I see a parking spot, but I just passed it and can’t get in without stopping the car in the middle of the road in rush hour, put the car in reverse, and block the entire lane with miles of traffic behind me, waiting for all of them to go away so that I could park, I just say “fuck, I missed that one” and I proceed to find something that doesn’t require the damn planet to start revolving around me. Not the woman. She will just stand there with that “me me me, want want want, now now now” attitude and do it until she either dies trying or the entire city’s worth of traffic reverses a car’s length so she can park her precious car. And that’s just because women are instinctively expecting the society to cater to their needs, to pamper them and to swallow their bullshit. Men are better at dealing with the real world, but women, they excel only at egotism and social manipulation. They know when to cry, when to smile, when to make hints of what kind, and they are used to it working, and based on that, they get an overinflated sense of confidence in their skills and abilities and they occasionally try that shit on the real world, and then they routinely get their ass handed to them, because that social bullshit they use to manipulate people with looks and emotions, it doesn’t work when you actually have to hunt or gather food or build shelter or do anything outside of the context where you have an entire human society trying to please you and make you happy.

And here’s where we come to the real point, that there’s nothing men could invent, be it good or evil, that women couldn’t perpetuate into infinity by turning it into a tradition, that is maintained by social ostracism of the offenders, because traditions are the social makeup of the society, and women so desperately rely on society to assure their survival and prosperity, there’s literally nothing beyond the law, nothing beyond society and its traditions for them. The law is the law is the law. Men, however, understand that laws are but a means to an end, that being making it easier to get real things done, in the real world, where they need to cooperate in order to kill a lion, plant the crops, bring water to the crops, defend their territory or provide food and shelter for their families. Women don’t have to cooperate in order to get things done. They cry, bitch and moan until someone else gets things done, and in order for someone to give a fuck about their bitching and moaning, they need either to have some intrinsic value (which is usually beauty and a hint or a promise of sex), or they need social customs they can draw upon in order to be able to pull on levers by crying, bitching and moaning; they need laws passed which say that if a woman cries, bitches and moans, someone needs to die. And the joke is, they are willing to support any tradition, as bad as it is to women, such as female circumcision (which BTW is practiced by women upon women, it’s a female thing from start to end), just to have a social framework that clearly defines the rules which will get them to belong to the “in” crowd, which can pull the society’s levers.

That’s why they tend to obey all the traffic laws, as they see them, because they think, instinctively, that by obeying the society’s rules, they are a part of the “in” crowd, and that’s all that matters – they obey the laws, and they realize their personal goal within that framework, and they are therefore safe. But that’s exactly why they drive so terribly, because driving isn’t about following the rules. The rules are secondary to driving. The primary thing is, we are all together on this road, and we need to see each other and help each other, because we want to arrive safely and quickly to where we are going, and we all invented a set of rules to help us with that, but it isn’t about the rules. It’s about seeing that the other guy’s lane ends in a hundred meters and he needs to go into my lane, so I slow down to let him in, because I know what he needs, and things will work better for everyone if we help each other, instead of just blindly following the rules and not giving a fuck about the dynamics of the situation which makes the traffic, or, in fact, life itself.

So what I want to say is: women, pull your heads from your assholes and start acting as if that man, whom you ignore because you don’t find him useful, is as important as you are, and you need to take his needs into account. And that woman, who is so much uglier than your pretty conceited self, actually needs to park there and you need to get the fuck out of her way, and no, you’re not important, and you should get over yourself. And when we’re at it, stop revolving around mirrors and start studying something that really matters, like mathematics, physics, engineering or molecular biology, or you’ll find yourself in your late 30s with your beauty gone, and more consumed sperm than connections between brain cells. If you don’t want to be sexual objects, then start acting like human beings. And human beings are defined by what they do, what they perceive, how deeply they feel the world and other beings, and not by how expensive their fucking handbag is.

I’ve been thinking about this whole thing about the feminists and how they supposedly liberated women from the evil patriarchal society and stuff like that.

Then it’s the other thing, about how there’s not many women in the tech industry, especially at the top positions, and how that supposedly proves that women are discriminated against.

And I’m thinking: what a load of bullshit.

Let’s look at things in my favorite way: by following the flow of resources .

One of the main social things women do is trade sex for things – affection, security, money, power. In the “evil patriarchy”, the socially negotiated and established price of sex was taking care of the woman and her children for as long as she lives. This is more-less the absolute maximum one can negotiate.

In the modern, female-emancipated society, the socially negotiated price of sex is two drinks, or a dinner.

You’ve got to ask yourself, who is getting screwed here? Basically, when women were “oppressed”, the entire society was organized according to the principles of chivalry, which meant “women and children first”, they had the best social contract, tailored according to their best interests and desires, and they were the most protected part of society. Now somebody will say that they were not educated and were prohibited from doing male jobs, to which I will roll my eyes. Yeah, they were prohibited from working behind a plough in the field until they died, or being killed in some war. For the greatest part of our civilization’s history, not being allowed to do men’s jobs meant being protected from the harshest form of exploitation and murder. Male jobs were not emancipating men, they were the most gruesome, cruel shit you can imagine. However, there were as many queens as kings in the western civilization, and in the noble classes women were in most respects equal to men. Yes, the death penalty for women was being burned at the stake, but for the same crimes the punishment for men was being hanged, drawn and quartered. Essentially, the women’s right movement is and always was pure bullshit, because in the western civilization, women were always respected and treated better than men. Men routinely died to protect women and children, and it was a point of social pride. The only problem women had in our civilization came from too much protection, because when someone takes care of you, you aren’t pressured by survival imperatives to develop certain faculties, and so women really got more stupid and incompetent with time, at least relative to men, who were effectively selected against some traits, literally – if they failed, they simply died. If they were stupid, they died, if they were incompetent, they died. For a woman, all it took for her to survive was to cry and be distraught, and ask for a man’s protection, and a man would live and die for her. This is why women got to be good at expressing emotions and manipulating people, and why men got to be good at solving real problems, from watering crops and killing wolves to making nuclear reactors. All that was expected from a woman was to do what she would have done anyway – make meals and keep the house clean – and not have sex with other men in order for the husband not to have to feed other men’s bastards. The man was expected to provide food, protection, comfort and, basically, everything else you can think of. From where I’m standing, and I had grandparents who functioned in such a traditional way, this is either an egalitarian or a slightly matriarchal arrangement, but it is in no way patriarchal. Women always had enormous power in a society and basically everything was arranged to fit their preferences and desired lifestyle.

Which leads us to “why aren’t there more women leading the IT companies”. Let’s put it this way. There aren’t women leading the IT companies because in order to lead an IT company, you have to be its founder, you need to create your company from scratch. This usually means two guys quitting college, selling what little they have in order to buy computer parts, sleep on the garage floor, eat yesterday’s stale pizza and code all day, not bathing properly, not having a social life other than your geek friends, and have no guarantees anything you do will amount to anything. Basically, it’s what men do: they risk their lives and wellbeing doing things that are fucking hard, without any guarantees any of it will end up well for them. Sure, women would like to lead Microsoft, but if a woman saw the beginnings of Microsoft, she would wave scornfully at the Bill Gates sleeping on the floor after coding for several days and nights on end, surrounded by other geeks who were all into computers. But when this thing got successful, and the guys got rich, there was of course no place for women at the leading positions, because those positions were rightfully divided between those people who happened to risk their future and work their butts off when any payoff was questionable. While the guys did that, the women of their generation were into social studies, feminism studies, law and similar bullshit, trying to fuck good looking, non-geeky students, trying to get safe jobs and marry safe men, not some college dropout losers who spend nights writing code. That’s why women are not present at the ruling positions: they play it safe, and are therefore not present among the life’s biggest winners, or its biggest losers. Women prefer to inhabit the safe middle of the pack. Sure, they will complain about missing out on the perks enjoyed by the super-wealthy men, but if you ask them to actually take the risks those men took in order to get where they are, they will want no part of it. Sure they won’t, because taking risks means you can lose and end up dumpster diving.

So basically, women have to learn that they can’t have it both ways. They can’t be the most protected part of society and at the same time be the smartest and the most successful part of society. Those things don’t mix well. Being successful and smart is a result of merciless culling of the losers, and women dislike being mercilessly culled. They want to live, to be safe, and for their children to live and be safe. Men are most likely to take risks, which is why they make up the majority of all kinds of life’s losers, but they also make up the majority of all kinds of winners. So basically, the female emancipation movement did make women smarter. Their IQ actually rose noticeably in the last century. However, life is also much harder for women, because now they have to work, and sex is no longer a way for them to solve all of their financial problems, by trading it for lifelong protection. Basically, a life of a woman is now more like a life of a man – riskier, shittier, more dangerous, but also more rewarding. And when a ship goes down today, thanks to feminism, an equal number of places in lifeboats will be filled by women and men, which means most women will drown together with men. But that’s what female equality means: you also get an equal share of losing, not just winning.

I was just thinking about feminism and the concept of gender equality and social justice and how it differs from my views on the subject.

A feminist view of gender equality is that for every occupation you need to have an equal percentage of men and women.

My view of gender equality is that all doors should be open to all people regardless of gender, and if a person is the best qualified candidate, he or she should get the job, period. I don’t give a fuck whether someone is male, female, intersex or whatever. If you need a math teacher, what you should care about is how well a person teaches math. That’s the only thing that matters. If you need someone who operates a fork-lifter, you need a candidate who does it well. If you need a pilot, the most important consideration is how well that person flies a plane, not whether the person has testicles or ovaries. Gender quotas are total bullshit, because you can never really know who the best qualified candidate will be, for any given job. A man can be the most qualified babysitter, a woman can be the most qualified fighter pilot. Talent isn’t uniformly distributed in any given population.

Also, there is sexual dimorphism in humans which makes different things appealing to different genders, and it’s rarely a 50-50 distribution in anything. What matters to me is that you are allowed to do whatever you like, and if a woman likes to be a fighter pilot, or a man likes to be a babysitter, fine. But you can’t prescribe quotas. You can’t say that there must be an Einstein or a Beethoven in every generation. You can’t say that there will be women and men interested in occupations that are usually associated with the opposite gender. Sometimes there just aren’t any women who are interested in fixing cars, so you can’t make a gender-based quotas for car mechanics. I do, however, think that there should be no barriers other than one’s personal competence, because I’m a meritocrat, and fiercely so. All doors should be open to everyone, and may the best candidate win.

There are other issues, however – people are usually stereotyped in public perception, and according to this perception women should suck at driving, while men should suck at sewing. I did encounter some American men online who actually think women can’t drive a car with manual transmission and don’t seem to be aware that here in Europe almost all cars have manual transmission and all the women drive them daily. Also, women are usually considered to be less tech- and sci- savvy than men, which is also bullshit, especially since it’s a historical fact that when a man (Charles Babbage) invented a mechanical computer and wrote a program for it, it was a woman (Augusta Ada Byron) who found and corrected bugs in it. There are other silly stereotypes and prejudice, and feminists are justified in calling bullshit there. However, being stereotyped against isn’t a gender issue, it is a human issue. I’m being stereotyped against all the time and I couldn’t give two fucks about it. If people think you can’t do something, take it as a challenge instead of whining and calling for momma society to fight your battles. The important thing is, if you aren’t prohibited in doing something, that’s equality. Being approved of or lauded, is a whole different ballgame, in the order of magnitude of “being able to state your opinion” and “being taken seriously”. You have a right to state your opinion, but past that all bets are off.

This is why I think the modern-day feminism is just full of shit. They make claims about gender disparity in wages and non-uniform distribution of genders in certain jobs and use it as an argument that women are discriminated against, and this is simply false. When I wanted to enter college, I had to solve the entrance exam. Nobody asked whether I was male or female, it was maths and phsyics, and I passed because I was good at that, not because I was male. I can honestly say that I never, ever had a situation where anything was easier for me because of gender, or that some doors were open for me and not for women. Also, when it comes to earning money, nobody ever tried to pay me more because I was male. They always wanted to pay me the least possible amount, and I had to fight and haggle. Gender equality is a total non-issue, and it was a non-issue for my parents, as well, and probably my grandparents. Feminism is a dead issue in the Western civilization, because there is total equality in rights for men and women, and has been for quite a while. In order to see what I’m talking about, go to Saudi Arabia and see how the opposite works. You want to drive a car – sorry, can’t, you have ovaries. You want to get a passport and go to Iceland and eat rotten shark – sorry, can’t, you have ovaries, need a male guardian. That’s what closed doors look like. That’s what it looks like when women aren’t allowed to do things, not because they aren’t qualified, but because they are women. That’s where feminism makes sense and should be introduced. Here, in the West, women can get a passport and go to Iceland to eat rotten shark until they vomit a bucketful. It’s just that most won’t feel like it, and that’s their damn right, too.

I wondered for years about why various charity organizations keep pouring enormous amounts of money into the undeveloped parts of the world, and there’s absolutely no result: the same areas remain undeveloped, people remain poor, conflicts rage and so on. On the other hand, there are places in the world which started as equally poor, and didn’t receive any aid, but on the contrary, they were exploited by the neo-colonial powers for cheap labor, and something very strange happened: there was a gradual improvement of the conditions to the level where they can no longer be considered developing countries.

And then it clicked: it’s because they made the poor people useful.

If you give the poor people money, they will spend it and then they are back on square one. They will remain forever dependent on welfare and this simply doesn’t work in the long term. However, if you find something they can do to contribute to the global economy, so that they are really useful, there is suddenly a demand for them, they are needed. And when they are needed, something wonderful happens.

You see, when you give charity money to poor people, what happens is that those poor people are completely useless. Nobody really cares whether they live or die. In fact, they are more useful dead, because they are merely a drain on local resources and don’t contribute anything of value. When you start pouring in aid, they become useful if they are alive but poor, because more aid is thus attracted to be stolen by the gangs and warlords and sold on the local markets. Since poor people are not a part of any kind of local economy, they are seen as worthless and useless, a mere object that serves to produce Western guilt and attract money and resources for thieves to steal.

But let’s say you don’t create an aid-distribution center, but a factory that will employ those poor people and pay them some wage that is miserable for the Western conditions, but is actually quite good money for the dirt-poor people. You are not exploiting them: you are making them useful. If they are not useful, they will starve: that’s how things work. If they are useful, they will work and be paid. When something useful is created, like a shoe factory, there is a need for security, because you don’t want gangs to rob and kill people randomly, and you usually employ one gang to protect you from all the others, and that’s how you get police. You want your workers to be able to follow instructions, so you build a school that will teach them to read and write. This provides employment for builders, teachers and book printers. You don’t want them to die of trivial disease, so you provide them with health care. This provides jobs for builders, doctors and nurses. You need water, electricity and sewers, so more investment is made into infrastructure. All this investment makes sense, because those workers are actually worth money to you: you manage to earn more money than you pour in.

The problem with helping the poor is that people who want to help them are motivated by wanting to feel good about themselves, and they will feel good if they unconditionally give money to the poor. However, when we look at what really happens, such unconditional help doesn’t really help the poor. On the other hand, if you try to exploit them, by finding something useful they can do for you, you will in fact help them more, but only if you don’t exploit them so mercilessly that you destroy them, which isn’t really in your best interest, because you can’t exploit them if you destroyed them, so ideally you make them thrive and do progressively more valuable work for you, and ideally you will raise their prosperity level to the point where they become the consumers of the goods and services that you yourself sell, so that they are both your workforce and consumers. And no, helping people is not about you feeling good about yourself because you handed some poor bastard a pittance. It’s about making them useful, about making them contribute to the economy. When you thus plug them into the system, you no longer have to provide them with aid. You just follow the logic of conventional economy.

I saw many cases where the Western socialists try to “help” the “exploited” workforce in some Asian country by shutting down the factory that “exploits them”, and they feel very proud of what they did, except that later they find the “liberated” workers selling sexual services on the streets. No, assholes, you didn’t liberate them – the guys who gave them a job and “exploited them” liberated them. You ruined their lives, because you made their work useless so they had nothing to sell but sex. But don’t let that stop you feeling so fucking good about yourselves because you opposed capitalist exploitation.

I just love the leftists. They keep seeing themselves as a progressive force, yet everything they touch ends up fucked.