For those unaware

Norwegian gender paradox is the phenomenon that countries widely considered to have more gender equality actually see more gender division into stereotypical male and female jobs.

So what does it mean?

To be clear, no one knows the answer to this yet. The answer itself raises it's own questions, so this is my take on it. Dr. Jordan Peterson stated that essentially, what you end up seeing is the naked biological preferences in job choice once you remove all the social elements. Which he stated "maximizes the gender difference effect." I believe this is not an accurate way to look at it. The statement as he puts it I believe is true, but false in spirit.

This was the part I had the biggest time confronting and understanding. If you remove the influence, and this increases the effect, this means that the "prejudiced" social element was actually influencing non-gender-typical choices, not discouraging them.

So I think the best way to look at it is this. Society's efforts to "remove undue influence on the choices of women" has done exactly that.

The liberal hypothesis was "if women did not have barriers to these jobs, they would be in these jobs in substantial numbers." This was the hypothesis, because this is how they felt. However, when they no longer thought what if, they made choices based on what they actually wanted. Do we know anything else like this?

What women want, is as Jordan Peterson put it, is people oriented jobs. Not thing oriented jobs.

Expounding out the thought process of the pre-Norwegian progressive movement

  • No one can tell me that this is a man's job.
  • I can do this better than a man.
  • If I had the ability to get that job...
  • What if women could

So what happens when you culturally propagate "women can do anything a man can do" and remove all the barriers to allow women to choose those jobs?

Well, they have no monsters left to slay. They just have a choice to make. "What do I want to do?"

And it turns out, women have always wanted to do jobs that are "stereotypically female" and men have taken the burden of "male jobs." And furthermore, these aren't even necessarily male and female jobs, but instead jobs with a people vs thing orientation. Or to make this more clear, the jobs are "stereotypically male or female." They are just jobs that men and women have always preferred to hold.

So this entire failed hypothesisexperiment was just a challenge to widely understood established desires.

"What if women want to do these jobs and you're just not letting them?"

The answer is clear. Women didn't occupy those positions because they couldn't have them, instead, because they didn't want them.

And furthermore, the muddying of the waters encouraged women to make choices to either challenge the system or make choices that do not seem to reflect their genuine wants, needs or desires.

Now the liberal challenge to this will most certainly be "some women will want to be programmers and engineers." And no one is disputing that. But what is clear, is that when you remove the element of doubt, and remove the lurking variables, only self interest remains.

Predictions

  • Expectations to change jobs with a thing orientation, into jobs with a people orientation. (Google adopting feminine operational structures)
  • Candidate surpluses in female centric disciplines within male degree paths (HR in business etc)
  • De Facto legal codification of gender quotas (Possibly as a way to usher in changes from thing to people orientation)

Strategy

  • When it suits you, train for jobs which will have a surplus in female candidates, which require little to no additional knowledge to undertake. For instance, obtaining an HR minor in addition to your desired minor in business, under your major. If true codification of gender quotas begin, you will have enormous leverage.
  • Become well versed in Rule 38 as you weather the storm.
  • Be prepared within our lifetimes for what we understand as a "red pilled male" to become the obvious mate choice.

We are in a transition time period where you are given great advantage. Right now, that which was at one time obvious (women want masculine men, and women want jobs with people orientations) is apparent to only a small minority of the population. It will be only a matter of time until, just like gendered jobs in Norwegian jobs are simply known as "male" or "female," women make the obvious hypergamous choices and the minority will be the women that instead chooses the guy who does not conform to the attraction archetype. And she will make those choices because she will not have to second guess herself.

She will make those choices because society has done what it set out to do. Which is "allow women to make the choices which best pursue their innate wants and desires."

So then, as we can see, it will be only a matter of time before reality beats down the false hypothesis. Because any person, when left with the simple choice "what do you want to do?" Will invariably make the choice with their best interests in mind, given the available information.

I will expand this out in PT2 to lay out how I believe this will play out with sexual selection. But suffice to say, enjoy the advantages you have while you have them. For those of you that were on the internet back in the dial up days, do you remember what it felt like after everyone knew about the internet, and you were no longer a wizard? Well... expect that in the SMV.