Quote from: CoinCube on February 13, 2017, 01:18:52 AM

However, I view your position on this particular issue as myopic. In the long run a magnificent world of abundant diversity involves liberating our women and allowing them to fully participate in that diversity with us.

It is your position that women should not be educated and especially Mr. Donaldson's argument that women be forced into subservience that is the real monolithic solution one that turns the role of all women in society into a xerox copy without freedom. True diversity results from emancipation.

My first and foremost point, is that what I and any other parent does for their kids is none of your business. By sticking your (or by proxy the State's) nose in other people's business, you SJWs violate the diversity of investment of parenting. The parents are the one's who are investing 18+ years of their life, not you. By dictating to them what they can and can not do, you are spreading a uniform mayonnaise and destroying diversity. Just contemplate the personal sacrifice to invest 18+ years of your life in offspring. If we take away the control, then the parent is incentivized to invest in himself instead, where he does have more control. You in essence want to make us unpaid servants and babysitters of the State, not parents.

Secondly, you can't state conclusively that not highly educating most of the females would result in an inferior level of diversity. This assumption potentially fails for numerous reasons and thus to mimic what Eric Raymond recently wrote, it is not even on the See Spot Run! level of analysis.

Diversity does not originate from the volume of those educated or the volume of education, rather from the diversity of the experience of the child and cofactors. By not having mothers dull the minds of their sons with mayonnaise they were indoctrinated with in SJW education, we are likely to increase diversity. If we presume that the primary role of females is to maximize the production of offspring in their very limited fertility window, then wasting their time on education into her 20s is highly destructive. Since females are inherently prone to drama due to the drama of childbirth (and damn if you can find an exception to this, because the more I look, the more I see it every where I see a female involved but surely there are exceptions such as Barbara Liskov?), then they are much more likely to incorporate themes in education which are counter to intellectual production.

However, I arrived at a quite simple solution to this issue if ever I do have more children. I will simply provide the kids all the educational resources (including the arts such as music and painting) for home study and allow them to purse their autodidact education without any coercion. I pretty much taught myself everything I know (of course as written down by others). I have observed that Ainan was teaching himself college level chemistry at age 6 (btw, I ranked #3 out of 300 students in first year college Chemistry at LSU but as usual I hated boringly slow lectures and did all my learning by myself). Thus if there are any females who decide to not pursue their natural instincts of playing with baby dolls and other female type of activities, then if they themselves demonstrate exceptional ability that warrants subjugating the value of their ovaries to the value of their very valuable mind, then nature will have spoken. In short, disallow any infection of the brains of my offspring from mass media, TV, and so infected peers, and then let nature decide. I know that even without an education system, I was already hacking as an infant. There is a photo of me in diapers and I was already constructing things with a hammer. My mother said I was the only kid she knew who deconstructed all my toys to see how they worked, as a form of play (truth is I would play with them first until I got bored because I also enjoy dexterity, hand-eye coordination, and other physical challenges). The games I enjoyed the least were those which did not leverage creativity and instead just showed off the ability to memorize a pattern.

For females who do not demonstrate that their minds are more valuable than their ovaries (and/or who demonstrate their preference for unnecessary drama is too high), I would try to marry them at the earliest possible age after they reached adulthood. And I would encourage their female instincts and teach them how to be good wives and mothers. For boys who showed less enthusiast interest in intellectual pursuits, I would encourage them to work and marry at an earlier age. For sons that excelled in the intellectual and/or athletics, I would encourage them to pursue that first before marriage.

I expect if we stop socially pressuring women to not be women in their formative years, then women will en masse naturally revert to being females. And to have them not enter one huge defect/defect dysfunctional societal brothel, we also need to remove their access to for example Internet addictions such as social networking and mobile phones to prevent them from expending their entire day implicitly by proxy trying to figure out how to fuck Jeremy Meeks. Btw, this is why women typically need to be married at a young age, because that is what they really need and attempting to replace that need with SJW education and other drama, is destructive and dysfunctional. Additionally young men don't benefit from being exposed to porn (videos of real love making and fornication for producing offspring might be suitable though, as I would presume that kids were aware of this in our ancestral environment to which we are adapted). In my opinion, we expose our children to too wide a swath of social interaction at too early an age. This was not the case in our ancestral environment to which we are adapted.

Please contrast this with for example what may be the case in some Islamic parenting wherein ostensibly the females who are geniuses may be preordained to a life which doesn't fit their natural abilities.

Quote from: CoinCube on February 13, 2017, 01:18:52 AM

True diversity results from emancipation.

See Spot Run!.

How is the politically correct social pressure (get a feminist SJW college education, etc) to prevent females from following their instincts in their formative years emancipation? Females are very easily destroyed by influences that activate their hindbrain and need for drama. I keep mentioning to you Eve and the forbidden fruit, but you can't seem to understand the point that women are not really capable of thinking for themselves. You can't emancipate females. All you can do is subject them to another set of perverse pressures. Socialists (and statists) always think that they can change nature with legislation. Brouhaha. Cheesy

In reality though, women are really ready for husband around age 15 - 18 in most cases. Any way, I would be interested to see what is actually the case naturally, if one sits back and observes the reality instead of trying to force nature to not exist (as SJW attempt to do and will fail miserable with self-culling as the result in Stage #5 of your chart). Up until fairly recently as feminists have taken over, it was legal ("Age of Consent") in many States of the USA to get married I think as early as age 14.

Btw, I agree with JAD that the vast majority of women would be most happy in their traditional roles and without all this societal pressure for them to abandon the lifestyle for which they were adapted.

Quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-lowest-age-you-can-legally-get-married-around-the-world-10415517.html

On Friday, the Spanish government announced it was to raise the marriage age from 14 to 16 to bring it into line with the rest of Europe.

I think your incorrect assumption about my stance has been at least partially due to my inability to think out everything I would want to say about this issue, as well as you jumping the conclusion that I mimicked all of JAD's prescriptions even though I have stated several times that I don't. Coincidentally, this morning I was thinking about what my actual plans would be on this issue. And part of my research was spending an entire day watching videos on YouTube over the weekend, such as videos on gifted children of both genders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5FKjWfb-Y (Btw, I can add numbers in my head MUCH faster than those two in the final although I've seen videos of geniuses who are faster than me, but I don't have Ainan's extreme memory.)

As well videos about how very wealthy parents spoil their children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHGv3dsSPM0

As you know, I've been quite limited since Jan. 21 when I started taking 4-drug antibiotics to attempt to cure what is likely disseminated Tuberculosis. The antibiotics are extremely liver toxic to the point that a significant percentage of patients have to stop taking, and most patients experience some persistent nausea especially in the first 2 weeks. Also I had liver disease before initiating treatment, ostensibly due to the long duration (6 years?) of carrying the disseminated TB disease. It turns out that the abdominal pain I've been having over the years is apparently liver pain. And this pain did at times get worse during the initial intensive phase of this treatment. Notably I have discovered that 20,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 and eating everything 4 hours or so, eliminates the liver pain. So this appears to be a new approach to managing and tolerating the toxic medicines, further supported by the recent liver SPGT liver enzymes test which came back in the normal range down from double the upper threshold. I also confirmed this by stopping the vitamin d3 and not eating from breakfast to dinner and significant liver pain and nausea returned. Then I ate beef soup and took the vitamin d3 and the pain abated and hasn't come back significantly while maintaining the combined regimen.