Bitcoin Proves That The “Glass Ceiling” Keeping Women Down Is A Myth

Bitcoin is further evidence that the “glass ceiling,” the idea that women are kept from reaching the ranks in corporations and in financial success because of a nebulous “patriarchy,” is nonsense.

Economists have disproved the glass ceiling on more than one occasion in the pastso the more well-read will not be shocked by this. Yet, the existence of the glass ceiling has remained a major talking point for feminists. The silence of feminists during the rise of Bitcoin has been deafening.

Bitcoin is an interesting case study because it is modern and doesn’t have the excuses that you hear when the glass ceiling argument breaks out. There is no Bitcoin establishment or “old boys’ club,” because Bitcoin has no establishment. Bitcoin is hardly established, and there is no one central authority.

Feminists claim that “institutions have always had biases” and “it’s a man’s game,” but Bitcoin didn’t come with any biases. It didn’t come with anything. It was nothing ten years ago, and its meteoric growth is well-known.

Bitcoin was created in 2009, a time where women had established themselves in various industries, most notably tech (see: Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandberg). Nine years later, only three percent (at most) of Bitcoin use (suggested through Bitcoin community engagement) is by women. 

Is this the patriarchy keeping women from investing? No. There is nothing that stops women from investing in Bitcoin. Women don’t even need to go to banks to introduce an intermediary which could discriminate against them.

So why aren’t more women investing in Bitcoin? There are a number of reasons for this.

1. Bitcoin is Boring

There are no emotions involved in cryptocurrency investing. Women are more likely to get involved in areas that stir their emotions, from the social sciences to humanitarian work to political rallies.

Bitcoin is mathematical. It was created with a white paper and some computer programming. Since more women take up studies in the arts or humanities than math, it is more difficult to understand the concept and takes more work.

Also, because women prefer soft subjects to hard ones, women end up in jobs related to the arts and humanities versus the hard sciences. They will be more likely surrounded by men and mostly women that also did not study math and computer science and will not be interested in—or understand—Bitcoin.

In addition, Bitcoin isn’t tangible. You can’t feel it in your hands, so you cannot wave it around to boost or lower your status without hopping on a male-centric Reddit page (HODL!!). This reduces the emotional connection to it because there is no physical thing to attach a feeling to. Where money can be a sign of prosperity or options, the numbers in a bit wallet are less tangible.

2. There Is A Lot Of Risk

Women generally value security and strength, which we have seen in relationship dynamics and the number of careers chosen as opposed to entrepreneurs. Men are more willing to take chances.

One of Bitcoin’s tenets is that it is less risky than fiat dollars because it is not subject to inflation and to crumbling governments, so it should be more stable. However, Bitcoin is still young and has a wildly fluctuating value. It is this perceived value that people see as risky, not the idea. It is these wild fluctuations in value that appeal to men.

Bitcoin is also a long-term investment. Bitcoin believers believe the cryptocurrency will be more durable than fiat and will be a superior currency. Women are much more likely to spend and distribute wealth than to build it through investing.

3. Bitcoin Is Competitive

Men eat what we kill. We evolved to eat the animals we hunted, and we still do that in the modern economy. In a tribal setting, the man that hunted the most for his tribe was rewarded with more power and more women to bang. We evolved to be competitive and to fight for the top spot.

These days, men are more likely to participate in sports and more likely to try new things to get ahead (see here). Bitcoin is competitive with other cryptocurrencies as people (men) race to market and grow their currency of choice. Bitcoin is also competitive as a store of wealth. The more men own, the more men can use our primal brains to associate with power and sex.

These are the reasons why only three percent of Bitcoin users—a completely decentralized, open world without bias—are women. These are the same reasons that men make more money than women in the workplace. It isn’t the patriarchy. It’s the evolutionary and behavioral differences in men and women that decide the numbers.

Men are competitive, find freedom in long-term wealth, and are more excited about new ideas and a new, selfish way to increase wealth. At least, more than women. 

Read More: Bitcoin Is Creating A New Class Of Millionaires 

53 thoughts on “Bitcoin Proves That The “Glass Ceiling” Keeping Women Down Is A Myth”

  1. The glass ceiling is simply another ploy handed down from liberal thinkers in an effort to “exploit” men and their ways. There is no inequality. There is no glass ceiling. In a world where hard work and long hours usually results in success and movement up the company ladder, more men are simply up for the challenge than women. See, if companies could indeed pay women less for the same work comparative to men, why aren’t most of these companies hiring predominantly women? It would save these companies massive amounts of money. As we can all see, this is not the case. It all boils down to the fact that some people are inherently not happy with the fact that men and women are not, and will never be, equal.

    1. There is no glass ceiling for females. If a female wanted to go and try to start a tech or engineering startup/company on her own and go get some of her female friends to join her….there is absolutely no one stopping her from trying to do that. So the whole “oppression” myth is an absolute complete lie invented by Marxists.
      Every big startup I’ve ever come across….started by men. Then, if and when that startup turns into a large successful company with many employees, women want to be given jobs at those companies and claim oppression when they aren’t allowed to go in and take it over. Women want to be handed things that they did not start, and then claim oppression and sexism if it’s not handed over to them.
      It’s the example I’ve used for years: If you had a large engineering and manufacturing company of 500+ employees where you have affirmative action women and minorities peppered into the workforce given artificial success (management position, lead position, etc) that engineering company would crash to the ground within a week if every white male in that company walked out. If every female and minority walked out, that same company would not only survive, but be more productive as well. Because when you have an all white male workforce, there is a camaraderie that develops (assuming the workforce is rewarded for their productive efforts) where everyone wants to kick ass. What takes place is that the workforce gets way ahead of the workload, which translates into leisure, time off, etc. But when you pepper females and minorities into that workforce, the camaraderie disappears. Then when you take some 20-30 something white female and place her into some management position making more $$$ than all the of the males because she “deserves” to be there because she’s “entitled” and “oppressed”…….that destroys any workforce.

      1. Why the hell you keep on saying “all pale skin (aka white) Males”, damn it !! And what do you mean by “minority or minorities” !??
        Do you mean if a MAN is not pale skinned, He is a minority or not hard working or has no intelligence !!??
        Wake up moron, wake up. Its not too late !!

        1. Because Whites BUILD and Create. Its Who we ARE.
          And why others of all races risk death trying to get to the nations we built and work for the companies we created.

  2. Thanks for the interesting article.
    “The silence of feminists during the rise of Bitcoin has been deafening.”
    I think this is mainly because unlike normal money, property, etc. cryptos generally (but not particularly Bitcoin) can’t be confiscated and redistributed through force (for now, at least). Something that can’t be stolen through the force by government and redistributed as free shit won’t be supported by feminists and the government because it completely cuts them out of the equation.
    With that said, Bitcoin in itself isn’t entirely out of reach of the law and is not anonymous. That’s where other cryptos such as Monero supposedly make up for it.

    1. Privacy coins will probably perform well in 2018.
      They’ll do better than BitConnect anyways…
      Right now I’m shilling Internet Node Token (INT) and High Performance Blockchain (HPB).

      1. Agreed, I think privacy coins will do well in 2018 and beyond. All the best to you sir!

    2. The problem with all of these things is that they can be banned and if they undermine monetary policy such as tax collection they likely will be. Thats there numero uno concern for any government. Even Monero if banned will be impossible to buy as which payment processor will accept money for it? Where other than the dark web can exchanges exist? And how many would realistically start buying products with these things if they are banned? They would become niche if banned thats what I fear could happen. It would be easy to catch sites that accepted this stuff.

      1. Privacy coins are the ones most likely to completely be banned by virtue of having ways of working which cannot meet regulatory requirements. When you regulate you then also ban stuff that cannot meet the stipulations which they cannot.

        1. If they can take porn they don’t like off the open Internet they could take the exchanges onto the dark web also it all depends how badly they want to take it down. Bitcoin is priced on hypotheticals BTW. If its used by Nazis, terrorists, paramilitaries, drug dealers, tax evaders and insurgents we will see how far they will let it rise. If they start losing revenues ie if it takes off a lot then expect enforced bans.

        2. It doesn’t matter if this doesn’t burst the short-term demand bubble it matters that this means it won’t last as a viable alternative currency as vendors cannot accept it openly and thus it becomes pointless.

  3. I am with women on this one. Bitcoin is not an investment, it’s a speculation, lottery, gambling. Investing is when you throw good money after good money.
    And please, give me a break with the idotic comparison that bitcoin is like hunting and killing to live. It’s ridiculous. You sit behind a screen sipping a cappucino and making a “killing” on the speculative market.
    That’s as emasculating as watching porn is. Yes, bitcoin is like porn, it’s for the wankers!
    I have the feeling Roosh is so desperate these days that he would publish anything.

    1. One friend of mine made 70k last year and another made 500k betting on Raiblocks in December.
      You’re the wanker talking about shit he doesn’t know anything about.

    2. yeah i find it weird that people are expecting to create wealth by changing currencies. Is it a new technology? yes it is, but is not a technology that is supposed to create wealth, like fracking or a technology that lets you dig deeper oil wells., or energy, is supposed to be a currency, and to much fluctation kills its raison d’etre. Its raison d’etre is to change it for goods and services, like the paper we got in our wallet, no currency can work like bitcoin is working. This is why mining bitcoins is not the same as mining other natural resources. In case of war what resource do you think countries would rather mine? Bitcoin is useless if it is not accepted as a currency, and sorry fellas, there aint no such thing as apolitical money. I believe that the technology will be adapted, asian countries are ponderring if they should ban cryptocurrencies but they will create their own cryptocurrenccies. And guess what economics is a social science, one of the “soft sciences”, find it weird that the article argued that because men studied math they understand how bitcoins works and made them more willing to invest in it. Sure the graphic is going up, but just because you studied maths does not mean that it will never go down

    3. What’s wrong with speculation? That is how the stock market works. It is not up to the individual investor to enforce market discipline or morality on what is basically an amoral entity – the stock market. Think of the stock market as a gigantic optimization supercomputer, there the computation is done by the inputs of 100s of million of individuals and (now a days AI trading systems). All these entities have their view of the market, their inputs, market intelligence, goals and expectations. They trade “speculate” or “gamble” based on their analysis and this is what “moves” the market of “values” the stocks and other financial instruments. This is no different than the meat market or the dating market :(. What you need to worry about is keeping the stock market free from collusion, manipulation and other corrupt activities that powerful individuals, entities and even the government may try. If the stock market is open, free from such distortions and is well policed – as the US stock market is for the most part – it is never 100% perfect, no man made system is – then it is the best engine to put capital to optimal use and the best way to evaluate the value of human productivity as well.

    4. Better call your self as; ovum or ovary or labia or bush or menstruation or tampon etc. !!

  4. Don’t worry if bitcoin finally becomes a standard of some kind, then and only then, they will complain that is a male dominated “space”.
    Computers were for freaks and losers, until it become a way to acquire immense status and wealth, then and only then, women started to complain about the “historical” discrimination in that field.
    It always follows the same pattern, women aren’t pioneers at anything (but stupid activist behaviour, like dyed armpits) they just adopt successful inventions and activities that were developed by men once they are proven to be a secure way to status and wealth, by shaming men into granting them access to those “spaces”.

    1. Exactly. Computer geeks, the one’s who made computers and the Internet what it is today (good and bad), were bullied and insulted ruthlessly, especially by women (“nerds prefer computers to women” jokes were endless). They did the dirty work building it up…then and only then women wanted in.

  5. Same thing is evident when you look at open source software devolepment effort. The female contributors are estimated to be around 3%. This when open source software development groups avoid most of the factors that women claim is keeping them down in for-profit, corporate tech environments. Open source also being socialistic and sharing oriented (not for profit) also reflects the proclaimed female values of community and sharing. Still only 3%. Women in tech are stupid, not at all creative, not at all community oriented if they do not personally benefit from their contributions, are risk averse and simply don’t have the passion and levels of interest in their chosen calling. They also don’t have the grit, determination and the physical, mental stamina for the long and difficult lonely grinds that you often need to put in to excel in your chosen field. This is why you see men dominating, even in fields like cooking! And fashion design! So next time anyone whines about glass ceilings in any field, just blow them away.

    1. I was thinking about open source software and how no women really ever do it. Feminists try to say womens commits are of a higher average level when analyzed than mens average commits to Github. This I think is true but its very deceptive because the women commiting are usually professionals with computer science degrees, and there are many men in that boat also ( actually far more ) BUT a huge portion of almost exclusively amateur commiters are male without formal training who commit relative spaghetti where you see few amateur females commiting as hobbyists and self-trained web programmers. Do the feminists and female code groups who always cite this know it is massively deceptive and push it or do they just have relatively irrational emotional female brains? I think this BS keeps occuring in social science these days. I remember the “gay gene” BS when obviously to anybody with a brain its most likely some malfunction around the assignment of sexuality, possibly even related to these weird modern lives we live!

      1. Okay, spergy, Open source is voluntary socialism. I never said anything about it being forced. It is collective effort and not for profit (similar to socialism ) as opposed to individualistic, for-profit and masculine like capitalism.

    2. Hey down voter, if you disagree, tell me why. Show me facts and figures and well reasoned arguments as to why I am wrong. Don’t be a coward and just sneakily down vote me because you cannot handle the truth I wrote. That is another female weakness. They cannot handle in comfortable truths. Too emotionally driven to maintain a ruthlessly rational mindset needed to excel in tech.
      Furthermore, most of them cannot compete fairly with their peers. They whine, complain and rat on you to upper management immediately when the going get tough. I have had so many women over my 28 years as a software developer, run and complain to the boss daddy almost immediately like children when I start asking tough questions, argue, disagree with them express valid criticisms of their work. They just cannot handle and oppositional view points (when you know they are wrong) and when you express them firmly and bluntly. Guys will disagree, often unpleasantly, but rarely will they run to boss daddy and whine. This is similar to calling the cops on boy friends and husbands. Same shit. Bitches.

  6. Its shocking the earnings are so close! They have different reproductive strategies and thus different incentives in life.
    Men get laid and have families, to a significant degree, according to their ability to provide. If a man can provide a lot he can earn a lot he will be able to maintain more women over the course of his life. The distribution of fertility is far more extreme when you look at the graphs especially in African tribes, and almost certainly in our evolutionary environment, where some men sire many offspring, and many men nill or few children. The difference with women is far lower ie their is less variation around the mean/smaller standard distribution ( they have more similar numbers ).
    A women thus has less or no incentive to take big risks as the fertility cannot swing so much hence the fact they do not spend years on theories to become a top academic, or years toiling in poverty to become a top entrepreneur. A man who gets to become tribal leader can breed many women. There is so much evidence that men take decisions over work far more based around earnings such as picking long commutes to get small increases in money that it is a shock that it is so close!
    “More women graduate though” ok correct, but go to your local college training plumbers, electricians, mechanics, carpenters, brick layers and other fairly well paid and crucial blue-collar jobs and you will see hardly a female in sight. Look at the most useless degrees financially speaking such as arts colleges and there will hardly be a straight man in the biulding. If we counted these as degrees, and didn’t count useless arts degrees, then more men would undoubtedly graduate. The women are getting degrees the men are not, but can you expect a BA in Art History from bum-fuck nowhere to be as financially viable as a plumbing qualification? It gives them a false sense of entitlement to feel discriminated against as more have degrees and feminists have created this BS victim complex from it.
    Its a feminist lie to try to get money and power from men in their suicidal attempt to take over society ( which will fail as any group of women that does this cucks their own men and own genetic line to death ). Men take the risks which means they are more common at the top ( politics, Forbes, Nobel prizes ) and bottom of society ( suicide, jail, homeless ).
    For me that women are so close, whilst taking few risks, shows sadly to me how compliant workers without contradictory opinions have become important today! Bitcoin was a risk and women have little reproductive advantage in taking risks but the men who dared and won. To the victor goes the spoils. ..

    1. All leftist -isms as with feminism, multiculturalism, socialism or communism a) Are not tested to work; b) The proponents are not bright enough to consider whether or not they will work; c) They deny fundamental biology such as that females have a different reproductive strategy because they have a different reproductive mechanism and d) They get touchy around this fundamental biology issue attemptng to remove the platform from those who wish to discuss this. To say that these differences are genetic as mens different reproductive strategy are different and that this is somewhat biologically driven through a mans desires/ego would get you kicked out of many jobs, colleges, ect.
      There are many truths in our age that are effectively illegal to discuss, as in any age. In the future this may be considered to be less of an enlightened and intellectually free age than many leftists would have you think.

    2. These structural differences in reproductive incentive structures, resulting from our differing distributions in terms of number of offspring, have manifested in differing biologically driven behaviors through evolution.

  7. Consider that the majority of Bitcoin transactions are for illegalities, paying for drugs, prostitution, for money laundering. Criminals tend to be male, hence male acceptance of Bitcoin.

    1. But that’s beside the point. Men who have reflected on this, looked at replicated psychology studies, unimpeachable stastistics and so on, realize the men are both constructive and destructive and that variance within male population is huge.
      Male groups consist of everything from lazy criminal psychopaths to industrious psychopaths, to agreeable nice guys, to aspie geniuses, to reliable middle men in blue and white collar professions, to god knows what. Women are more clustered in the middle, whether we talk about IQ, industriousness or creativity. There are for example female borderline geniuses in music, like Tori Amos and Lisa Gerrard, but those are very few compared to males. And then I don’t talk about Mozart or Bach when patriarchy was almost completely hegemonic, but contemporary music.
      Some other things, that many of us have emphasized, are that men are more risk-taking, assertive and interested in things and ideas. Risk-taking and competitiveness are indeed crucial for financial improvement, whether we talk about gangsters or guys who abide by the law.

  8. There was never a “glass ceiling.”
    The problem with feminists is that they believe in the Marxist model of “classless society”- in other words, no hierarchy.
    Then they turn around and whine about glass ceilings- that is, no promotions for them so they can get ahead- but ahead of who? Not all the women around Ms. Career are going to move up equally, otherwise, what’s the point?
    The reality is that most organizations can be represented by a pyramid, with less and less room as you move up. Obviously not ALL women are going to make it because other women want those positions; they must oppose each other unless you want a classless business, and unless running a lemonade stand that just isn’t going to happen.
    Watch the sisterhood collapse.
    Like it or not, humans are hierarchal creatures, and no amount of social engineering is going to change that. What can a feminist do if the one “keeping her down” is another woman? Guess Gloria Steinman left that part out.

    1. The problem with all these lies is that you then need a bogeyman keeping you down. With the far-right that is the Jews who are stopping apparently drunk Russians building a Facebook or the Germans after WW2 from still writing movies and music lol. Increasingly for black men and feminists rather than say well blacks are poor because they are less able ( which is a possible truth they deny to discuss ) or that women do less for the reasons stated in the comments section here they say they are poor because of white straight men oppressing them.
      The BLM and feminists cannot at this stage be controlled by anybody rational.
      Google any leftist newspaper and “white” and you’ll see some article hating on whites where this was unthinkable ten years ago. I googled Guardian and they had one such article yesterday “I’ve had enough of white people who try to deny my experience ” Its overflows with hatred of whites. But not all whites lol as her best friend is, presumably, white.

  9. Indeed.
    Women do not like to invest either. They do not like to save, they would rather spend.
    Every woman I know is in massive debt and many of them earn quite a bit.
    It’s almost impossible to meet a woman who doesn’t squander 1000s travelling each year, 1000s more on other useless garbage and usually they live paycheque to paycheque.
    They must buy the most expensive of everything and waste more money always eating out.
    They also don’t see debt as a bad thing when looking for a male. I know men who put themselves in debt to get a fancy vehicle. The debt doesn’t matter to the woman, they are simply impressed with the shiny moving object. They see it and go ohhhhh so shiny, I must sleep with this man now.
    Meanwhile you can have hobo mcgriffin who takes the bus, but owns a house. He can have a big savings, but it means 0 to the woman. All that matters is flashiness.
    Ooga booga avoid the jewgas

    1. Hell, they think are by default socialists and think capitalism is “evil”. My ex-wife, who grew up in Europe, thought socialism was best and capitalists were evil. My Russian born ex-girlfriend, who survived the collapse of the USSR, ironically came to the Bay Area (where I met her) and was freshly re-introduced to Marxism by a professor of ethics at San Jose State University that she attended briefly and became a capitalism hater once again. She told me that she does not believe in the stock market!

      1. BTW. the “professor” of “ethics” at San Jose State “University” was a, you guessed it, a woman.

  10. Some years ago, one of the Business magazines (I don’t recall which) ran a survey of business students. One question was if being a fortune 500 CEO was one of their career goals. Of those who said yes, 90% were male, 10% female. And that’s about the same percentages as are actually in those positions. Feminists insist that because the demographics of Fortune 500 CEOs doesn’t match that of the general population, or of business students, that’s evidence of discrimination. But you can’t look at those kinds of things. If you want to look for some kind of bias in hiring, you need to compare the demographics of those in the positions in question with those qualified individuals who are actively seeking such positions. Jobs are NOT randomly assigned to people in the overall population, they’re obtained from amongst the people who are pursuing them.

  11. All women can do with coins is SPEND them.
    They do not really create, protect or develop wealth.. they diffuse it!
    PS- Yes- Bitcoin notions WILL fail under heavy attempts at regulation in 2018.
    The key is not the privacy but the bank-manipulated conversion into “usable” daily cash.
    Taxes and fees will be attached at all “points of transaction”.
    The New Corporate Communist Governments of the EU and USA will see the greatest regulation-impediments … Arabia-Africa will have NO rules to speak of.

  12. Some people try to say that BitCoin is racist too. Well, as a Black man, I must say that Cryptocurrency is an excellent and (so-far) legitimate source of income that has helped me get out of working paycheck to paycheck just making ends meet.
    Nothing innately racist, ageist, or sexist about BitCoin. If you can buy things on Amazon and have general knowledge of computers, then investing is very easy. Charting might be more of a challenge, but buying and HODLing is about the easiest thing anyone can do.

  13. I would like to point out that men also dominate (excel and are famous for) the humanities/arts fields as well. List all the most famous and recognizable philosophers, artists, musicians, fashion designers, authors, screenplay writer/stage play writers, chefs, etc… and you get mainly men with a spattering of some talented women. So even the “soft fields”, where it is so called, more suited for women, men are by and large leaders of industry.

    1. Indeed, the best of women are as good as the worst of men.
      Essentially women are terrible at everything.
      All the world’s best chefs? Men too. Women are supposed to be masters at cooking, yet they are inferior at this too.
      If women would humble themselves they could learn a lot from men.

  14. Why do women not care about Bitcoin? Its no crazy theory or convoluted computation to figure out. Its simple actually, because it takes REAL work and and real Brain focus and attention to maintain and trade them.
    It would take away from the time and money they spend attention whoring and staring into their echo chambers of fans, and of course their own mirrors.

Comments are closed.