Saturday, April 19, 2014

Feminism and the Risk Factor...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Came across an article in the FEDERALIST that is intriguing and thought provoking. It is one particular women's response to and article in the Atlantic and talks about risk taking and feminist perceived insecurities.

Why Are Feminists So Insecure? 6 Reflections On The Confidence Gap

I read the piece and was completely flummoxed by it, for a variety of reasons. Here are six reflections on the most serious problem of our era week: The Confidence Gap.
1) It isn’t about confidence.

The article is really about risk-taking and how men differ in their risk calculations from women. To give just two examples from the article, and to give you an idea of its tone:

“We watch our male colleagues take risks, while we hold back until we’re sure we are perfectly ready and perfectly qualified.”
“If a woman walks into her boss’s office with unsolicited opinions, speaks up first at meetings, or gives business advice above her pay grade, she risks being disliked or even—let’s be blunt—being labeled a bitch.”

Leaving aside the melodramatic stereotyping and bizarre generalizations about how people love unsolicited advice from men but abhor it from women, you’ll note that risk is the main ingredient in the supposed confidence gap.
2) Opportunity Cost. How does it work?

And in order to have a conversation about risk, it’s good to talk about opportunity cost, and even just the particular opportunity costs associated with risk-taking. We should look at how women, on average, value what they must trade in for the potential benefits of risk-taking. That’s not well discussed in the article.

Yes, men really do show, on average, a far greater proclivity for risk-taking. See, for example, all of human history. And they tend to have different calculuses about what they seek or are willing to make do with in terms of lifestyle and stress. It is true that risk-taking behavior works out very well for men. But it also works out horribly for them. How can that be? Well, they do have higher average outcomes than women. But when they fail, hoo-boy do they fail. We’re talking job loss, demotion, loss of status, physically problematic stress, serious inconsistency in pay, homelessness, prison, and so on and so forth.

None of the down-sides of risk taking are given proper weight, which makes the sloppily sourced article naive and unhelpful, at best. Maybe women should fight their nature and go match men in the CEO and imprisonment categories. I don’t know. But we should at least be honest that women choose less risky moves in part because they frequently don’t have to take risks like men do and frequently don’t want to take risks like men do.

The article also fails to note that women, on average, choose less risk for reasons having to do with things other than cash money. If you make one choice, you lose other choices. If you prefer making money and having a ton of power, you make different decisions than if you prefer having a nice work-life balance, a flexible schedule, non-remunerative benefits, and what not. The tradeoffs for risk-taking and aggression in a corporate environment might involve things that you are not comfortable giving up. This can be a bad thing, but it is by no means necessarily a bad thing. Either way, this issue should have been discussed far better.
3) Is second-guessing our nature really so empowering?

The article on developing confidence ends by telling women that their brains are malleable:

Almost daily, new evidence emerges of just how much our brains can change over the course of our lives, in response to shifting thought patterns and behavior. If we keep at it, if we channel our talent for hard work, we can make our brains more confidence-prone. What the neuroscientists call plasticity, we call hope.

Nothing shouts “be confident in your natural abilities!” like “your brain is mushy and able to be reshaped by propaganda!” But maybe that’s just me. Still, all this second-guessing of female traits doesn’t feel empowering. At all. Feminists seem to be on a constant campaign of obsessive gender reflection, the net result of which is to tell women they’re bad at what they’re doing. Don’t call bossy people bossy. Don’t be considerate of others. Please keep kids out of the picture for the vast majority if not entirety of your fertility. If you do choose to stop fighting your fertility for a brief period, you shouldn’t let kids affect your career. You need to crush or at least smother your maternal instincts at all costs. In order to succeed in life, you must be like men — emulate everything they’re doing.

I love being female, and I’m actually quite confident about being a woman, but the only time I even come close to feeling bad about myself is when major media outlets and elite feminists use their power to tell me there’s some major flaw with me being female.

Also, it’s kind of funny that the article is all about obsessive overthink keeping women from taking the risks they need to in order to succeed. I do hope that whoever wrote this at least noted that an article ostensibly against such overthinking ran 7,242 insufferable words. By the way, I challenge you to read the first section without gagging, either at the over-the-top generalizations about how universally awesome women are or about how victimized the elite authors are by their gaping self-doubt. The humblebrags in that section alone are epic. “Katty got a degree from a top university, speaks several languages” and yet thought “her public profile in America was thanks to her English accent.” Claire was CNN’s Moscow correspondent while in her 20s but supposedly deferred to the “alpha-male journalists around her, assuming that because they were so much louder, so much more certain, they just knew more.”

The thing is that even if we’re just talking about lower braggadocio levels, what if that’s an ingredient that makes women better at social bonding? Leadership is important to society. Absolutely. But so is a basic functioning community. Heck, call me a woman if you must, but I could make a good argument that community bonds are even more important than CEO leadership. There’s no reason that men and women must fill one or the other category (and every single person reading this knows men and women who fit various high-risk/low-risk/high-confidence/low-confidence categories) but neither do we need to insist on denigrating people who do the hard work of community bonding, whatever that given community is — in office environments, immediate families, extended families, local congregations, Brooklyn co-ops, boxing clubs, etc.

So if women have, as the article claims, a “part of the brain [that] helps us recognize errors and weigh options,” why do we want to get rid of it or curb it? Why are we ashamed of something that’s awesome? Why are feminists so down on women’s brains? I mean, again, leadership and risk-taking are great for humans. Don’t get me wrong. But so are wisdom and restraint.

There are 6 more reflections so continue reading the rest BELOW THE FOLD

All comments are welcome but in this particular instance comments from the female set are especially encouraged.

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, April 18, 2014

Chelsea With Child... Progressive Media Goes Bonkers!

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Not that the event of Chelsea Clinton being with child should be a big deal, except apparently to Crooks and Liars and as would be expected Momma and Poppa Clinton.

Well, I suppose if Momma Hillary gets herself elected to the presidency of our developing Oligarchy it may be a big deal because we may be looking at a possible Clinton Dynasty right here in America. Oy Vey!!!

At any rate one of the bastions of progressive "journalism" CROOKS AND LIARS just couldn't help themselves and threw out the bait in their article Will Chelsea Clinton's Pregnancy Become Another Right Wing Conspiracy? UPDATED

It's a plot!


... But I'm forgetting myself because Hillary is not allowed to be a happy mother. We may see a normal life unfolding, but Teabirchers see coverups and conspiracies.


I wouldn't be surprised at all if Hillary gets asked to comment on Chelsea's pregnancy by the media, since that's only natural, right? But after that happens more than once I really expect Limbaugh and all the wannabees to scream bloody murder that Chelsea's announcement was staged, a set-up plot which is being aided by the librul media to cover up Benghazzzzzzzziiii!

And they say conservatives can't let a sleeping dog lie and intentionally keep pointless BS alive.

Who cares really?

Have a Good "Good Friday" and a "Happy Easter."

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The Noble Lie...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Greek philosopher Plato introduced "the noble lie" to politics in his "The Republic." The concept is people are for the most part not bright enough to handle their own affairs so they need a few leaders who will feed them tales to keep them in line and presumably happy, thus avoiding revolution. Of course that is just a nutshell explanation but you get the drift.

There of course have been many such instances of such leaders throughout human history and the following article by Christian Schneider writing in the JOURNAL SENTINEL makes the argument President Obama is prone to such shenanigans. Whether this is in fact true or not is for you to determine after considering all the facts.

America's enlightened leader of today, President Barack Obama, appears to embrace the "noble lie" construct in order to feed the populace whatever he may be selling. Obama keeps reeling off the howlers, one by one, hoping that even though what he says isn't true, the public will side with him because it should be true.

We saw this last week with the "celebration" of Equal Pay Day, a quasi-holiday based on a fictional statistic. We might as well have a holiday celebrating Spider-Man's birthday. The idea that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, a "fact" trotted out by Obama in his State of the Union address, takes into account none of the factors why the illusionary disparity exists.

For instance, while the Census Bureau statistic compares full-time workers, "full time" means different things in different workplaces. As Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute have found, men are almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week.

The statistic also doesn't take into account marriage and family decisions women make. Children often take women out of the workplace, leaving them with less experience when they re-enter the workforce later in life. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012.

White House economist Betsey Stevenson even conceded that the administration's go-to was misleading when she told MSNBC, "I agree that the 77 cents on the dollar is not all due to discrimination. No one is trying to say that it is. But you have to point to some number in order for people to understand the facts."

Continue reading tghe complete article BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Democrats and Voter Fraud, is There Any Ethics Anymore?...

One of my regulars who frequently comments and always challenges that which she perceives is inaccurate or purely partisan challenged this site (me) to research and provide evidence that voter fraud is a serious problem that has effected presidential elections.

Shaw KenaweSat Apr 12, 08:55:00 AM EDT

"To be balanced the president should address democratic voter fraud,"

Okay. Fair enough. Could you tell us what the percentage of voter fraud is? We have approximately 100 million eligible voters. What is the percentage of voter fraud, say over the last 30 years, and how has it affected presidential elections. If you and the GOP say this is a serious problem, we need to see the evidence that it IS a serious problem.

As this site more often than views things in a shall we say more philosophical and ethical perspective rather than a outcome perspective as things are or have been the last 30 ears responded s follows.

Rational Nation USASat Apr 12, 09:23:00 AM EDT

My posistion has always been clear, voter fraud, regardless of how prevalent must be addressed. Fraud is like a cancer, left untreated it spreads and becomes more pervasive. Even accepted in some, perhaps many circles.

I'm getting too old and too tired to care much anymore. Besides, nothing you, I, or any other average American thinks or does will make a difference. The corruption in both political parties is slowly destroying our national character.

As I am sure the more astute libertarian and fiscally conservative readers of this site understand is that voter fraud, irrespective of which party is quilty will, if ignored continue to metastasize and like a cancer completely corrupt our democratic republic. Which BTW in my never humble opinion is rapidly turning into an Oligarchy. But that is a subject for another day.

I am very busy with the important things in life and haven't the time right now to spend the amount of time Shaw would have me spend detailing and comment on all the specifics incidents to which I referred.

In the interest of good faith I shall simply link to that which concerns me. Shaw, I am sure will read the links and as she always is may feel welcome to respond to specific links.

Another Case of Voter Fraud in a Texas Democrat Primary?

Democrats Honor Vote Fraud Criminal in Cincinnati

Woman Just Released From Prison for Voter Fraud is Honored by Ohio Democratic Party

WOW! Al Sharpton & Democrats Honor Convicted Voter Fraud Felon Melowese Richardson at “Welcome Home” PartyWOW! Al Sharpton & Democrats Honor Convicted Voter Fraud Felon Melowese Richardson at “Welcome Home” Party

Ohio Democratic Party should rescind endorsement of group promoting voter fraud

Dems’ Voter-Fraud Denial

Before I move on I will highlight that I have never said, nor will I ever say, that voter fraud is unique to just the democratic party or that parties (both) don't attempt yo suppress the vote in their parties self interest at times. What peeves me, and it is the point of a prior post, is that Democrats/Progressives in their holier than thou rhetoric will never admit to the truth IMNHO.

As I patiently await replies from my esteemed colleagues of the opposite political persuasion.

Via: Rational Nation USA


Related Posts with Thumbnails