Categories
Political science

Women, taxes and voting

Many libertarians defend women’s voting rights (suffrage) by reference to general principles about equality of legal rights. The historical reason for this move, I think, is that libertarians and classical liberals was a political reaction to the extra legal rights of the nobility and royalty. Thus, their goal was to equalize such rights, and this also implies equalizing them for women as well as non-European groups (most famously, African descent slaves).

History aside, the stance of libertarians is odd politically because women really don’t like libertarianism, a few Twitter liberty hotties aside. For instance, sex composition of US libertarians as measured by this 2013 survey was 68% male. I think it underestimates because it didn’t look at voting, and voting results tend to be more extreme than various kinds of self-report. There’s some more numbers here and here, but again they are not based on actual voting patterns as far as I can tell. Pew research produced this figure based on 2014 data (US again). For a broader comparison, see also Karlin’s Coffee Salon demographics.

We can also have a look ourselves since Pew releases their data after 2 years (data collection). I am actually surprised fewer people use these public datasets, which are high quality, representative surveys that cover many difference topics. There are even a few surveys with IQ-like items, mainly related to scientific knowledge. Back in 2017, I downloaded one of these surveys to plot the demographics of preference for smaller government. Simple race x sex breakdown looks like this:

The female preference for larger government shows up pretty much no matter how you slice the data:

More numerically, we can also fit a regression model with all of these proposed explanatory factors at the same time:

To produce this plot, I did:

  • Fit 5 logistic regression models (using rms package for R) with varying predictions. The first has just sex, and then we incrementally add more covariates to see if they can make the effect of sex go away.
  • Extract the probability of favoring bigger govt from the 5 models, and combine these to a dataset.
  • Plot the probabilities with appropriate error bars (95% confidence predictions) and labels.

So, all in all, we see that the sex difference actually does not get smaller with controls, it gets slightly larger (because male % decreases slightly). Numerically, the logit changes from 0.452 to 0.567 between first and final model. Because of this, one cannot explain female bigger government preference out of their present social conditions in society, it must have deeper roots, meaning evolutionary. Leaving speculations about the origin aside, we can also predict that giving women votes should increase the size of the government. Does it? We can rely upon policy changes in history that extended the vote to women. There are a few of these studies actually. The most obvious country to examine is the United States:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross‐sectional time‐series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

This is the most famous, I think, mainly because the author is naughty for other reasons.

Switzerland is another good choice:

  • Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women’s suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300.

In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland’s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women’s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.

Authors explain on their results:

The results for the key variable, suffrage, are striking. Based upon our estimates, giving women the vote in Switzerland raised the level of social welfare spending by 28%, after accounting for other influences on that spending variable. In Switzerland, social welfare spending is about half the government budget, so this result implies an increase in overall government spending of about 14%. Qualitatively, this result is consistent with the Husted and Kenny (1997: 76) finding of “. . . strong support for the prediction that welfare spending rises as the decisive voter moves down the income distribution.”

In an attempt to shed some light on whether the effect of suffrage on welfare spending was immediate or occurred with some lag, we estimated several alternative models (not reported here). In these models we varied the date at which the suffrage variable switched from 0 to 1. Rather than indicating the year in which suffrage occurred, this alternative formulation indicates alternative years when suffrage may have begun to influence spending. The values for the suffrage coefficient and t-statistic are maximized when suffrage equals one beginning in 1973: the coefficient equals 0.295 versus 0.25 in Table 2, while the t-value is 6.30 versus 4.31. This simple test suggests the reasonable conclusion that the political mechanism in Switzerland did not respond immediately to this sweeping change in the nature of the electorate, but with a lag of about two years.

In contrast to the positive impact on social welfare spending, enfranchisement of Swiss women appears to have reduced the rate of government consumption spending in Switzerland. The estimates for model 2 suggest that, as a result of women’s suffrage, the level of government consumption spending is about 5.8% less than otherwise. This finding differs from the Husted and Kenny (1997: 80) study: they found that “. . . nonwelfare government expenditures were unaffected by various measures of political influence of the poor. . .” Examination of Swiss government spending suggests that at least part of the observed reduction in government consumption spending may e attributed to cuts in military outlays. In the period 1963–1971, military spending averaged 2.46% of GDP. In the period 1972–1983, following the enfranchisement of women, military spending averaged only 1.99% of GDP (Source: U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency).

Government consumption spending in Switzerland is about 38% of total government outlays. Thus, the 5.8% reduction translates into a 2.2% reduction in total outlays. That impact, combined with the estimated positive effect on social welfare spending, suggests that the overall effect of women’s suffrage on total government spending in Switzerland is around 12%.

So, women moved spending from military (national defense) into enjoyment/health, and also increased the overall spending.

Thus, overall, the conclusion seems to be that anyone who is against large government should be against women voting, at least prima facie. One could defend it on other grounds such as keeping a fair and simple rights setup in society. If one wants to avoid a direct sexist solution, one could attempt to target problem voters in other ways. For instance, one idea is to limit voting rights to people who are employed in the private sector, i.e. who are not dependent on the welfare state for their own salaries. Another idea is to remove voter rights from people who are living off non-earned welfare payouts (unemployment/disability benefits and the like, but not including earned pensions). The latter solution is in line with the typical rational voter framework of economics, but the results above for effect of sex do not generally align with self-interested voting since the effect of sex was remarkable stable no matter which controls were employed.

Categories
Evolutionary Psychology

Battle of the sexes: island survival edition

I don’t know of any scientific studies, but there’s been a bunch of shows where they put teams of women and men on islands and had them try to survive etc. The results were quite predictable, though I want to note that the producers could have biased things by picking particularly incompetent women and competent men. Given the left-wing bias in the media, seems unlikely they would have done such a thing. In fact, they probably did it the other way around to minimize any outcome gaps.

I didn’t find any more formal review of these, so here’s my attempted at a more curated list. I have downloaded copies of these videos in case for when Youtube deletes them as being too accurate of reality insensitive.

A lot of these are not in English. It seems that every country tried these on their own and had to learn the result that way. Most of them have subs.

Commentaries by others, mostly redpill-y people:

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1xaupa/what_happens_when_you_drop_a_bunch_of_women_on_an/
  • http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

Dutch Expedition Robinson (Survivor)

https://survivor.fandom.com/wiki/Expeditie_Robinson_2002

The original video was deleted, I found another one. The new one lacks the built-in subtitles, but someone (Gee Trieste) posted them in the youtube comments. I repost here for posterity.

woman 1: “Welcome on Uma (name of island)!”

black haired woman: Stay in the water we’ll give you a fishing rod immediately.

Frizzy blonde: “We already have a little list with all kinds of tasks for you”

Surfer (I guess?); “I was kinda greeted, like a guest…but you could also say I was greeted like a guest labourer”

Frizzy Blonde; “Say I have a fun little list here; Fishing Making fire Woodchopping, of course, because in physical terms we are inferior, we do the absolutely necessary things.

Random woman: “Hey I have cut wood before”

Frizzy: “Yeah but it’s not like we got mountains of it.” “But what we would also like a lot; good conversation and being able to raise the morale” Random woman: “Your presence alone will already do good for us, I think”

Surfer starts speech: “You kinda have to see it like sports, you have to consider yourself a team, like with volleyball you are also a team, and you also dont out any of your teammates. Here you are together as a team, then you also have to act like you are a team. And sure there might be things that you think of someone else “yeah but I dont like that she does that in that way”, but you have to do it as a team.

Mensirip

Woman: “it looks super. I thought I landed on a dream island. A nice hut, sleeping spots, dining table. It was like a cafe on the beach. Only need a cocktail to finish it.”

Man with headscarf: “We are very interested in what your island looks like.”

Woman: “I would have to say something different (implicit comparison where she says the men have it far better than the women)”

Back at Uma

“While Raymond (apparently surfer’s name) is labouring, the women simply don’t stop talking about their new hero”

Black haired woman: “I think it’s cool that he said what I’ve been wanting to say for 12 days now. Have respect for each other.”

Frizzy: “I hope he can be the influence that makes us become more like ourselves(!) and stop doing this stupid shit.”

Woman to Raymond: “You’re busy cleaning up aren’t you?”

R:”yeah”

Woman:”We are having fun sunbathing. They say you should squeeze your slaves dry right?”

Mensirip

“On mensirip Christina has also gotten a fitting task”

Christina: “I absolutely dont mind to do this. I was scared I would be chosen as some sort of manservant. I expected they would let me do shitty tasks. ”

Man: “She’s really a cutie. Very direct, spontaneous, and open. And she’s from Antwerp.” Cue some song of Antwerp that I never heard before.

Uma

Women singing.

“Alies and Raymond have chosen to go to a quiet spot, to great hilarity of the other women” Frizzy:”On the little hill, the little mountain, woo!”

Blackhaired women some satirical shit in very proper Dutch I cant be bothered to translate

Frizzy’s name is Holleke: “I think there’s a special bond between Alies and Raymond. You can see that they have a certain click with each other.”

Alies: “You have pulled me through it (??? I dont get the context either. I am assuming she means he has given them a kick under the butt of some sort)”

Raymond: “No you do that to yourself, I only give a bit of energy.” “Giving up is the easiest thing to do, it is the easiest way. Lets go back we dont want to give the wrong idea”.

Christina and Raymond now have to point out the most complete “Robinson” (- reference to robinson crusoe obviously):

Raymond chooses Holleke/Frizzy Christina chooses Derk/Dirk

Show guy: “These two coouples will form two new camps. The camps will be divided anew. In a minute, Dirk and Holleke, and their secondants, will take it up with each other in the test. And the couple that wins, may not only choose which camp they take, but also on which island they may live.”

Derk and Christina win the hard firsttest, where a canoe has to be gotten above sea. Derk chooses Menserip as island. He chooses his cooking buddy Olivier.

Ok so this is simply a redivision of people in new camps, its really only interesting for people who have actually followed this show.

Walter: “We actually had it pretty good; everything was easy and fluid.” Holleke;”yeah we can sing tonight!”

For Walter its quite a shock when he gets confronted with what the women’s camp looked like on Uma.

Walter: “We built everything up together, have kept reserves, acting well-thought-out, and then you get pulled away from your mates by fate and ploppled on another island where they have lived quite a dissolute life. It’s kind of a garbage heap, and then you think to yourself “Damn I have to clean up all this too?””

Raymond: “Yeah I was also unpleasantly surprised. At least I’m happy I have got some people around me who I built up the other camp”

Walter: “The other camp was quite a bit more comfortable”

Raymond: “For sure”

Walter:”We should try not to bitch too much.”

Raymond: “Yes we have to try to make something from scratch”

“The arrival at camp North at Mensirip takes place in a far more relaxed atmosphere. The ladies are happy they have arrived on the Men’s island.”

Loes: “you would think women would have everything all neat and tidy, but our place was more like a trashcan. And here everything IS neat and tidy.”

“At camp South Walter cannot fathom that the women have created such a mess”

I cannot grasp everything that is being said here.

Walter: “I dont get how you can then still cause so much debris individually”

Holleke:”What do you mean, individually?”

Walter:”Well something here, something there, its everywhere”

Holleke:”Well nobody wants to listen to each other”

Walter:”I would expect from a woman that they would keep their clothes in a bag, that you close that bag in such a way, that they remain dry”

Holleke:”I also have my own little spot here because I grew tired of loosing stuff. I lost my rain coat, then I lost my sheets, then this, then that (implying it got stolen I think)”

Walter: “Yeah we had that too, then you would ask “hey boys have you seen my sheets?” and then they would say “yeah here I got it””

Holleke: “Yeah I think you have to be careful with your things and you have to use them for a long time. So I put my things there, and you (the other women) dont get your hands on it”

Walter: “I guarantee you within half an hour, you will get in a massive fight with someone.”

Holleke: “Us?! No way. We have never had fights.”

Walter: Not that relevant, dont truly get what he means

“After a heavy storm that night, Camp North wakes up. The men immediately start working to get the fire up and working. Annelies, again, has a breakdown.”

Annelies (this is Alies, got her name wrong initially): “I was probably crying for at least 2 hours. I was up. I can feel myself break. ”

“Christina is worried, and tries to cheer her up”

Christina: “Next time you feel so down, try to look at the bright sides, and try to bite through it. You only have to do this once. You have to bite through it and be hard for yourself. Right now you have a little depression every two days. Just keep going.”

Annelies:”I just keep telling myself I will leave”

Christina: “Try to benefit from the fusion”

Annelies: “I will try my best but I can’t promise anything”

At Uma

“The men of camp South are busy trying to make their camp more livable. The women watch appreciatingly.”

Holleke:” I have to say it looks quite a bit more ordered and cleaned up. Then you also feel like doing work yourself again. Now its all cozy again, and neat. Now only for a few washing lines where we can hang the laundry. And we should also get rid of all the garbage cuz that doesnt look nice at all either”

Woman: “I read an interview with a sociologist and he said that if we had depended on women, we would still be living in the stone age. I start believing it more and more!” Woman 2: “You shouldn’t say that!” Woman 1: “Yeah but its true. We have all lived like a bunch of pigs together” Holleke: “Well I don’t really like to be called that” Woman 1:”Yeah but it’s true though” Holleke: “I want pancakes”

Walter:”I put oil in the cooking pan, and that oil was simply some brown muddish substance for the first 4-5 minutes cuz the pan simply wasn’t clean. Expected a whole lot differently from the women. What I have to do is clean up the mess and set order here, and wait for what the tests will become.”

Survivor UK

Maybe also has another name. Unclear.

(These apparently were deleted)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAWfK5LEGIg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L5Gqgnkkec

Survivor USA

The Island with Bear Grylls (UK)

Season 2 Episode 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_with_Bear_Grylls#Series_2_(2015)

Feminists complained in season 1 that there were no women, so the host added a women team, and their performance you can see below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=812EaQL_y4A

I think video is maybe a summary of the season? It’s hilarious.

More?

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen more of these, but I didn’t immediately find them again when writing this post.

Categories
Feminism/equality

Quote: /lit/ anon on female writers

OP:

“I’ve been pondering. Why have so few significant
female writers been produced (or auteurs for that matter)?

Visual media is overflowing with female talent.
However, behind the scenes where looks bear no
weight, women are hardly seen.

(An interesting side note: Every single song from
female singers revolves around men/love)”

Cool guy:

because

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_capital

Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive?
http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf

Sexual Economics: Sex as a Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
http://www.femininebeauty info/suppression.pdf

Female polygyny/hypergamy
http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2008/si2008/EFABG/saint-paul.pdf
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_v2a_paper.pdf
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000202
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743334
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n1/abs/ng0109-8.html

In the history of mankind as a species, some hundreds of thousands of years, 40% of men have successfully passed their genes to future generations, whereas 80% of women did. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. This is statistical, scientific, genetic proof that women function as sexual selectors, and men evolved risk-taking and ambition behaviours to compete for mating rights. The study was conducted by Michael F. Hammer. A lecture on the implications:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Esther Vilar’s seminal work on the concept that women enjoy a parasitic relationship with men.
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vilar,Esther/ManipulatedMan.html The text itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Vilar&oldid=442296393 Synopsis.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html A preview.

Female characters are defined more by their passive attributes and their emotional responses; male characters more by their actions. This is why male protagonists are preferred in fiction, by both women and men.
http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

Culture sees men as expendable blank slates, whose self-sufficiency is their own responsibility, and who must prove themselves worthy of accolade or interest. Conversely, women are inherently valuable, but typically function as inert commodities or motivation for male actors. The TVtropes links serve as quantitative evidence that this basic dichotomy proliferates the culture, to the point that it can be casually and humorously catalogued.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderDynamicsIndex
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

“Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.”
Charles Darwin

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.”

Im not sure if the entire wall of text above is from the same person. It is compiled from several different posts. Anyway, i agree with most of it. I dont agree with the extreme misogynism in the last part. The Darwin quote is cool. I checked it, it seems legit.

Categories
intelligence / IQ / cognitive ability Psychology

Paper: R. Lynn and P. Irwing – Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices a meta-analysis

A frend wantd this. It is a reconstruction based on a scan. Som of the tabls ar mising, but it is reedabl.

R. Lynn and P. Irwing – Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices a meta-analysis

Categories
Evolutionary Psychology Psychology

Roy F. Baumeister – Is There Anything Good About Men?

Caine at FRDB posted a very nice article that I will post here as well for others to enjoy. Do not be fooled by the title. It is very much science and not your typical newspaper rant about a particular sex.

Roy F. Baumeister – Is There Anything Good About Men?

I made a nice pdf version, both because it is nicer to read and because it will still be available if the link goes dead.

Is There Anything Good About Men

The beginning:

“You’re probably thinking that a talk called “Is there anything good about men” will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like “Men Are Not Cost Effective” speak for themselves. Maureen Dowd’s book was called “Are Men Necessary?” and although she never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer was no. Brizendine’s book “The Female Brain” introduces itself by saying, “Men, get ready to experience brain envy.” Imagine a book advertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior male brain!

Nor are these isolated examples. Eagly’s research has compiled mountains of data on the stereotypes people have about men and women, which the researchers summarized as “The WAW effect.” WAW  stands for “Women Are Wonderful.” Both men and women hold much more favorable views of women than of men. Almost everybody likes women better than men. I certainly do.

My purpose in this talk is not to try to balance this out by praising men, though along the way I will have various positive things to say about both genders. The question of whether there’s anything good about men is only my point of departure. The tentative title of the book I’m writing is “How culture exploits men,” but even that for me is the lead-in to grand questions about how culture shapes action. In that context, what’s good about men means what men are good for, from the perspective of the system.

Hence this is not about the “battle of the sexes,” and in fact I think one unfortunate legacy of feminism has been the idea that men and women are basically enemies. I shall suggest, instead, that most often men and women have been partners, supporting each other rather than exploiting or manipulating each other.

Nor is this about trying to argue that men should be regarded as victims. I detest the whole idea of competing to be victims. And I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause.

Also I think it’s best to avoid value judgments as much as possible. They have made discussion of gender politics very difficult and sensitive, thereby warping the play of ideas. I have no conclusions to present about what’s good or bad or how the world should change. In fact my own theory is built around tradeoffs, so that whenever there is something good it is tied to something else that is bad, and they balance out.

I don’t want to be on anybody’s side. Gender warriors please go home.”

Categories
Evolutionary Psychology

Excerpt from David M. Buss – Evoltuionary Psychology

Some science about the inference about sexual interest in the other sex, showing that males infer it much more often than females.

David M. Buss – Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology