CEO’s ARE Sexist – Study Shows

This will blow your mind. The following study I’m about to cite has finally proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that 99% of male CEO’s are sexist. The elegance of this study is stunning because all that was needed to reach this conclusion was to collect data for a single metric: “whom do these men pick as mates?”

You’d think such a study would render trivial results but it turns out 99% of these male CEO’s discriminate on sex and gender when making this decision and perhaps the most important and consequential decision in their lives. Far more important than who they choose to hire. The 99.9% number is broken up into two categories. 97% will discriminate against men and ONLY pick a female mate. 2% will only pick a male and will always reject and discriminate against women. The shocking findings don’t end there. When the same study was conducted on female CEO’s it turned out they were complicit in this discriminatory behavior for they also show similar signs of sexism. Yes indeed, the majority of women will only pick a man to be a long-term sexual partner and completely reject the idea of mating with another woman.

The study also proves that men and women (at least 99% of them) are completely different and, in fact, display opposite preferences from one another. Because while men seem, by and large, to prefer women, women seem to, by and large, prefer men in their life. Could this really be true? Could it really be true that men and women have diametrically opposed pair-bonding preferences? Astounding!! What’s more is that the study appears to be consistent across cultures and socioeconomic status thereby rendering null the notion of this phenomena being socially constructed. The number, in fact, grows from 99% to 100% when studying tribes that have been isolated from modern cultural influences. Granted such tribes may not offer the numbers necessary for such anomalies to emerge in the studies.

So if men and women are, in fact, different, what does this mean? Could this mean that the thing men love about women is different than the thing women love about men? It’s impossible to conclude otherwise because if men had the same preferences that women did, then men wouldn’t be discriminating against men so readily. But furthermore, could it be possible that men and women have different preferences in other areas, beside sexuality? Logic and reason would conclude “yes” because if a woman wants to attract a man, evolutionary speaking, she must have adopted (over evolutionary time) the traits that men like. And if a man wants to attract a female mate into his perimeter, he must have (over evolutionary time) acquired the qualities that most attract a woman. In fact, it’s because of this, that we even exist today. And out of this evolutionary phenomena, have emerged innumerable tendencies that are predominant in women but not in men, and visa versa. Astounding!

So what are these differences? What is it about a woman that triggers the male desire for her? And what is it about a man that triggers the female desire for him? What are the implications of this and how does it affect men and women in the work place? In my future posts I intend to explore this very topic in depth, so stay tuned.

Dissecting feminism

I’ve noticed a tendency in women to want to tear down other women. In particular the women they are “closest too.” I’m uncertain if this is a recent trend or not but i HAVE noticed  that this behavior is most prevalent (ironically) among self-proclaimed feminists.  This became especially apparent to me when i was employing two admins for a company i was running ten years ago. Interviewing them, and training them, all went well.  They even did a great job, but when time came for them to collaborate and work together, i was shocked at the back-stabbing they engaged in.  The thing that was most sickening was observing that when they would interact with each other they were very kind, friendly, even loving with each other (words and notes of kindness, cordiality, sister-love, etc), but when they would meet with me one on one (in private) I would be shocked by the manner in which they bad-mouthed each other. Both of these women were self proclaimed feminists.

I think it’s a tribal thing. See, feminists see their own sex/identity in a similar way to how a Mormon sees their doctrine.  Feminists see themselves as women (first and foremost) that just so happen to be human.  Similarly a Mormon identifies as Mormon first and human second.  If they identified as being human, then their interactions with other people wouldn’t always have to be about their religion and they’d take a genuine interest in learning about other people’s beliefs as much as sharing their own.

Here’s the thing…whenever you have an identity that supersedes being human, you know you are a member of a tribe.   For instance, the human rights movement already encompassed tenets ascribed (supposedly) by feminism (that of equal access to opportunity by all humans), but since feminism is a tribal movement that focuses solely on the augmentation of females, it formed to lobby for these interests only and was never truly interested in the equal opportunity of the sexes, but rather, the mere augmentation of women. You need only look at feminist dis-interest in getting more male representation in any industry dominated by women (education, medicine, nursing, etc) or their disinterest in female representation in jobs where men dominate but aren’t necessarily jobs that empower the ego (plumbing, mining, war, garbage disposal, construction, manufacturing, etc)

So yes, feminism ultimately only cares about augmenting women, not equalizing them to men.  The evidence plainly bears out this fact.  But there isn’t anything inherently bad with tribalism. This form of order was crucial to human survival for millennia.  But to turn the sexes into separate tribes is simply moronic.  Furthermore, tribes vary in  methods of cohesion (reward/punishment models) and feminism uses some of the worst.  So in that sense, not all tribal models are equal and some are clearly better than others. Let’s take religion as an example again. Sure it’s very tribalistic and has a very specific set of rules that each member must conform to in order to be a member of said tribe. But the reward for following the rules is available to all. In other words, you’re not scored on a curve where access to heaven is limited to the top certain percentile only.  Heaven is available to all that follow the rules. Plain and simple.  With feminism, however, the rewards are entirely market-based. And by that i mean positions of economic power are the “heaven” equivalent to the rewards provided by feminism for “following the rules” of the tribe. This is why when two feminists work together at the same work place, rather than helping each other (as the tenets of their tribe would imply they should do) both of these women will immediately be antagonistic one to the other because their tribe has ultimately pitted them against each other as they are both called (by their tribe) to aim for the same promotion, of which only one of them will be awarded. This is fundamentally why feminists ultimately destroy each other and why, as a tribe, it’s utterly destructive to  women as a whole.

Feminists reading this would argue that feminism is not about gaining economic power, but that’s like a mormon claiming their visit to my house is not about converting me and just wanting to share their message.  You’re a liar, through and through. You’re clearly lying to yourself so why should i expect you to utter a single truth when speaking to me? How do i know you are lying to yourself? It’s simple… all tribal models ultimately embody a lie to their followers. This lie is the glue that binds them together. Whenever your view of the world comprises an “us” vs “them” paradigm, you know you are being lied too.

What’s particularly strange about this is that if you live the lie long enough, the lie ultimately becomes true.  Because the longer you live your life in a tribe that identifies you as being different, then over time, those differences will become very real and you will, in effect, create real differences and there really will be an us vs them. I mean heck, our skin color is the physical equivalent of this phenomena.  All humans used to be African and dark skinned.  But as travel, mating patterns and cultural differences emerged, the more we identified ourselves with these differences and the more real the difference became and more tribal we became about them.

But despite the toxicity of this, I’ve never witnessed a more toxic tribe than that of feminism which pits the sexes against each other. That is by far the most divisive movement ever created because it creates antagonism between one half of humanity against the other half (in perpetuity).    I would suggest that every woman look deep inside and ask herself if feminism truly seeks to benefit her. Because the truth of the matter is that feminism was a tribe founded by the labor parties of nineteenth century Britain which sought out to (and continues to) mechanize the sexes for industrial pursuits to increase tax revenues, dues, and destroy the family unit in the process, which is the only tribe (in my opinion) that truly provides value to society.

And if you don’t have a family and therefore long for a tribe to belong too, don’t be a feminist. Be a humanist.

Eliminating Existential Suffering

What follows is my explanation on how to become happy. Or at least on how to eliminate unnecessarily sadness (and by extension, suffering). By unnecessary sadness I mean the kind of sadness (or depression) that plagues many people in western nations; where resource, wealth and opportunity are ample by comparison to poorer nations and where, despite this, depression isn’t as prevalent.

In order to address this happiness “formula” I first need to address the age-old question: Is the outcome of your life predestined?  Because in some sense the answer has been proven to be “yes”. For instance: Do bear cubs behave just like their bear parents when they grow up? Does a blooming rose look, behave and smell just like the one that preceded it?

When looking at all mammals, insects, plants… yes, pretty much every single life-form… it’s pretty obvious that there is a causal link between genetic inheritance and the physical outcome of said life-form. And by outcomes I’m referring to appearance, diet, behaviors, instincts, size-shape, color, flavor, and even personalities. In some sense, humans, are quite special because of the way in which we exhibit wonderful and extensive variations in our personalities and even our appearances. But apes show similar variations, though not to the same extent. Therefore while personality is clearly genetically inherited it probably only emerges in creatures with large enough brains to contain such a feature. Or at least organisms that have had to evolve and develop complex social structures where such personality differences are warranted. This would be especially true with humans given how much specialization has played crucial roles in our evolution (the need for a potter, a blacksmith, a soldier, a carpenter, a farmer, an artist, etc).

I am alarmed, however, that, as of late, variations among humans are being atrophied while those new ones emerging seem to be largely cosmetic and have little or nothing to do with our biology or even evolutionary pressures from nature. A mechanization (or domestication) that conditions us to fall “in line” with the preferences of a select “few”, and not at all to do with what really best suits us as an individual (and I would argue, even as a species). In other words, these are variations that are not at all driven by evolutionary pressures or any need to specialize for social cohesion (or the maximization of desirable outcomes), but a conditioning that is suited for an artificial political framework.

For instance, instead of seeing a true variety of personalities continue to emerge in society, we see more variations in clothing and hair color and we accrue social pursuits that dull our character rather than enhance it. Instead of a diversity of roles and specialties, we see cliques, clubs, movements, religions, cults, political denominations and a number of other intellectual tribal constructs proliferating through top-down pressures rather than bottom-up emergence. This is clearly evidenced in human sexuality where rather than reproduction being at all central to the practice itself (of sex), humans are finding themselves increasingly allured by fetishes and desires to, themselves, become a fetish unto others. Again, I want to argue that most of these differences are purely cosmetic and manufactured over-top our genetic underpinnings. Much like wearing a dog costume over top any functionally-serving garment serves no evolutionary purpose.

The reason I feel the need to go off on this tangent and address this is because I firmly believe one of the greatest causes of depression, sadness, discontent, discomfort, disatisfaction has to do with any living being behaving (or being forced to behave) in a way that is not “true” to the way their biology has wired them to be. For instance, if someone has a body that is wired for atheltic pursuits but is stuck behind a desk job, their body is going to suffer tremendously and bring about sadness in that individual. Bottom line is that when you aren’t able to express outwardly what you were designed for inwardly, you will inevitably encounter sadness. So what I am contending in this thesis is that most modern-day cases of depression stem from this one single issue. To be clear, I’m not talking about very exceptional cases (e.g gender disphoria and the like), but I’m talking about the every day person. I’m talking about the seven in ten women (yes 70%) in Great Brittain, whom are currently on anti-depressants. Prescriptions for whom doubled between 2005 and 2015. So this is seriously a problem worth exploring. And if drugs aren’t doing the trick (clearly), you’ll have very little to lose by continuing to read this brief composition.

Ok, so to put all of this simply, there are two dimensions to our individuality: One is our biologically determined physical nature and personality and the other is our socially constructed domesticated and mechanized behavior. And my contention is that the more these diverge from each other, the more existential the level of suffering will be experienced by such an organism. In other words, if you can figure out how to be yourself (truly) instead of trying so damn hard to be something you’re not, you’ll be much happier.

Now that I’ve explained how variations can stem from biology and (also) society, it brings me back to the question of nature vs nurture which I feel is imperative to answer in order to get through this thesis. After all, it’s been relevant in behavioral science for hundreds of years and remains relevant to this day. The question being: “To what extent is the outcome of your life determined by your genetic code.” Does it even matter how your parents raise you? It seems that now very few in the public believe that genetics play much of a role (at all) in our outcomes as human beings. We seem to be under a socially-constructed-illusion that our outcomes are all about environment and our genes play little to no role. The suggestion is that (because of this) as long as our institutions provide the proper conditions, there will be no differences in outcomes among humans and sameness will finally be the norm. I guess I would also then wonder, why the heck is it even desirable to have no differences in outcome? Unless, of course, something or someone is domesticating humans on a de-evolutionary path toward behaviors mimicking those of an ant colony. A collective hive mind in service of a single queen? Communism/Marxism sought out to do just that by seeking to eliminate the family unit close to a century ago. Such movements that centralize wealth and power will inevitably become corrupted, which is why it’s always best to keep power and wealth as distributed and democratized as possible.  If we can agree that the nation’s power grid shouldn’t stem from one central power station, then why can’t we agree that human power and wealth should also be similarly decentralized?  The free market system has been the best so far to achieve this, though the last fifty years have proven the system can also become corrupted when there is no separation between business and state.

But let’s take the Marxist view on things and confess that it is certainly true that our behaviors can be modified through changes in our environment. It’s called conditioning. For instance, you can isolate a rat from the other rats and condition it to behave differently when given certain environmental queues and incentives. In fact we humans do this every time we stop at an intersection upon being queued by a red light to halt. We’ve been programmed to do so because conditioning is simply another form of programming. Just like genetic code is a program that tells a bear cub to grow up and become a mamma or papa bear, society can also impose its own programming to override or sit over-top the hardware level programming that is our genetic code. But in the end, just like software doesn’t change the fundamental workings of computer hardware, our social domestication is ultimately an interface sitting over top the fundamental truth that is our biological mandate. Therefore any human, absent his or her social, religious, philosophical constructs, will inevitably fall back to their hardware level program.

This notion of human behavior being akin to hardware programming (for our evolutionary biology) vs software programming (for our social conditioning and domestication) is a concept that is being put forth for the very first time through this essay. And it’s a topic I intend to explore further in future postings. What’s exciting about this paradigm and intellectual framework is that it serves as the basis for a myriad questions that can make what was formerly a complex issue (that of finding happiness through personal pursuits), into a far more simpler one.

Recent twin studies confirm my thesis. The studies have involved observing twins that have been separated at birth by monitoring behavioral difference and similarities as they grow up into adulthood yet coming from very different families. What is noticed is that their “software” level conditioning (the training provided by the two different sets of parents) has significant effects on the child’s behavior, but once each twin grows old enough to live on their own, over that time period, they revert back to their hardware level programming and the twins then start behaving and exhibiting very similar personality traits (one to the other) even though they’ve never seen or even known about each other. In other words, the influence a parent has (and now a days mainstream media + public education) on the outcome of its children, very rarely extends beyond the borders of their upbringing. Once the child moves out, graduates and carves their own path through life, the new adult is very likely to behave as their DNA asked them to. There are exceptions to this, in particular for those children brought up in a religious tradition. If the child stays firm to their religious convictions and takes them into adulthood, the religion becomes like the invisible parent that keeps the adult from straying from the software level programming imposed on them. In essence, religion can be like an artificial father-figure that follows you through life and helps you moderate your behavior according to some socially constructed standard and therefore prevents you from falling back to your genetic mandates.

This is why as generations of children have distanced themselves more and more from the traditions of their forefathers, we see emerging a more hedonistic and narcissistic generation. We see this today among Americans whom are often second or third generation atheists. Places like Great Britain and Japan are much farther along in this path and therefore you see this tendency even more pronounced in those parts of the world.

This concludes the introduction to this topic. Stay tuned for the final segment where I’ll explain the ramifications of these truths and how we can work within them to find happiness in a life that is increasingly surrounded by lies about who we are and what we should do and become. Thanks for reading!


Emotions can serve to amplify aspects of your life. If you feel happy, you will notice more clearly all the things you are happy about. If you are angry, you will remember all the things in your life that make you angry.  Therefore as emotions arise within you, use them wisely to identify aspects of your life that should be nurtured and those that should be weeded.