The people who value men as highly as women are nobody's ancestors. That's a natural, biological, reproductive truth. Eggs, wombs and breasts are rare in comparison to sperm, which is plentiful. The consequence pervades all our inherited instincts: womenfirstism is necessary for survival.
However, this fact leads to a cognitive dissonance in men who believe in gender-equality. How can the genders be equal if all our primary instincts are based on womanfirstism? They can’t, of course. That women seldom seem to suffer this dissonance is interesting and should be researched. Perhaps it is a feature of the female mind.
But which is it to be, gender equality or women first?
Whether we like it or not, womanfirstism is well founded in nature. Rather, we need to challenge the other side of the dissonant equation, those who profess gender-equality.
Gender equality is an unnatural and distorted instinct. In fact it is a deception on an astonishing scale, just look at any quality of life measure if you doubt that. But the West is riddled with it and no-one of standing dares to seriously question it because women are the oxygen of the extended economy. Without their hyper-consumptive demands Western economies would slow down dramatically. This might save the planet, but it won't save a politician at the next election or a CEO at the next AGM.
While women cast the majority of votes and wield substantial consumptive power so it will remain - at least until nature steps in.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Saturday, September 24, 2005
The Inequality Taboo Squared
Until the perfect society is developed, social axioms will inevitably contain their own contradictions. Taboos are one of the most effective mechanisms our imperfect societies can deploy to suppress these contradictions.
Gender equality is a recent social axiom. As technological developments improved capital rewards, reduced the need for domestic labour and reduced the physical demands of productive labour the communities that successfully deployed capital and technology and successfully redeployed women grew wealthier. The most convenient social mantra that supported this change succeeded by success (to paraphrase the evolutionary process). Feminism and its instinctively more attractive partner, gender equality, were part of this. Becoming wealthier and stronger, the successful communities had a disproportionately influential effect on culture-wide communication channels. Other communities could not avoid the impact. They either changed or suffered crippling defections, wealth imbalances and in some cases defeat. This is far from the first time such shifts have occurred, of course. To survive, human communities have to be adept at adopting new axioms, new paradigms. But they have to do it quickly and without too much dissent. That means running roughshod over conservative resistence. That's an instinct in many, too.
However, as with all imperfect social axioms, gender equality does not conform to real life, to nature as opposed to dogma, even though the technological changes are real - if not all equally sustainable. Wherever natural reality butts up against idealised social construction the contradictions stand out. The sexes are different, less so now in production but still as different in reproduction and instinct as ever. Different isn't equal. It might be possible to concoct a notion of equality that only refers to social constructions and to make the sexes equal in these respects, but no-one is likely to be much interested because these aspects cannot include the real-world sex differences that make our lives so interesting; reproduction and all its ramifications being at the core of nearly everything worthwhile in most of our lives.
And so along with every imperfect axiom comes its taboo. The facts and evidence that contradict the axiom. The facts that demonstrate the reality, the sexes are different.
Gender equality is a recent social axiom. As technological developments improved capital rewards, reduced the need for domestic labour and reduced the physical demands of productive labour the communities that successfully deployed capital and technology and successfully redeployed women grew wealthier. The most convenient social mantra that supported this change succeeded by success (to paraphrase the evolutionary process). Feminism and its instinctively more attractive partner, gender equality, were part of this. Becoming wealthier and stronger, the successful communities had a disproportionately influential effect on culture-wide communication channels. Other communities could not avoid the impact. They either changed or suffered crippling defections, wealth imbalances and in some cases defeat. This is far from the first time such shifts have occurred, of course. To survive, human communities have to be adept at adopting new axioms, new paradigms. But they have to do it quickly and without too much dissent. That means running roughshod over conservative resistence. That's an instinct in many, too.
However, as with all imperfect social axioms, gender equality does not conform to real life, to nature as opposed to dogma, even though the technological changes are real - if not all equally sustainable. Wherever natural reality butts up against idealised social construction the contradictions stand out. The sexes are different, less so now in production but still as different in reproduction and instinct as ever. Different isn't equal. It might be possible to concoct a notion of equality that only refers to social constructions and to make the sexes equal in these respects, but no-one is likely to be much interested because these aspects cannot include the real-world sex differences that make our lives so interesting; reproduction and all its ramifications being at the core of nearly everything worthwhile in most of our lives.
And so along with every imperfect axiom comes its taboo. The facts and evidence that contradict the axiom. The facts that demonstrate the reality, the sexes are different.
Friday, September 16, 2005
The Inequality Taboo
Charles Murray writes a compelling article about the inequality taboo at: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html
I have (a few) issues with his arguments but, before discussing these, let’s get the main problem out of the way. It is well known that Charles Murray is [insert the derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and so anyone who considers his arguments seriously is [insert a another derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and must be ostracised. (Those struggling to come up with two different and original derogatory characteristics can seek appropriate advice and guidance at alt.feminism where an ‘ism’ or ‘ist’ can be selected from the many on offer. Irrational hate and ostracism are, after all, most rewarding when practiced as a group.)
So, with the bigoted now clicking elsewhere, we can get back to the topic at hand. On this, Murray writes:
Quote:
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
:EndQuote
I see nothing admirable about an ideal of human equality, other than men’s equality before the law. At its most essential it is difference that makes the universe, equality is non-existence. If everything is equal then nothing discernable exists. Equality is the philosophical mantra of nihilism. Murray’s notes illustrate the nonsense of applying this notion of equality to human gender:
Quote:
… try a thought experiment: Suppose that a pill exists that, if all women took it, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as men—including all the ways in which women now surpass men. How many women would want all women to take it? … To ask such questions is to answer them: hardly anybody. Few want to trade off the unique virtues of their own group for the advantages that another group may enjoy….. A Thai friend gave me an insight into this human characteristic many years ago when I remarked that Thais were completely undefensive about Westerners despite the economic backwardness of Thailand in those days. My friend explained why. America has wealth and technology that Thailand does not have, he acknowledged, just as the elephant is stronger than a human. “But,” he said with a shrug, “who wants to be an elephant?”
:EndQuote
There is nothing admirable about a lie. I regret that, on this point, Murray has fallen into the PC trap he is usually so careful to avoid.
Murray also writes:
Quote:
But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today’s language in The Blank Slate, writing that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
:EndQuote
It wasn’t even that of course. It was the old tenet of men’s equality before the law that governed them. When the American constitution was written no-one imagined that it would be so distorted as to justify total equality between men and women, in every walk of life.
As far as individuals being constrained by average properties, we all are. Its part of being a functioning group. We rail against the poverty divide and demand that the average constrains the extreme in that respect. And there are natural realities, such as the benefits of specialisation and the law of comparative advantage, that need to be considered dispassionately in this context too. If a community benefits overwhelmingly from specialisation then that fact needs to be recognised if the community is to be as successful as it can be. We all cope with our own natural strengths and weaknesses, and gain strength from each other’s, what crippling immaturity does society suffer that it can not cope with difference’s broader consequences? The confusion of better/worse with good/bad reflects the mindset of a child. A mindset that any caring parent works to correct, not reinforce.
Finally what Murray does not discuss at all are the forces that gave rise to the deeply unnatural western social philosophies of the second half of the 20th century. We need to understand these better so that we can recognise and avoid them in the future. Many will blame feminism, there is such an obvious correlation. Are they right to do so? If yes, what does that imply about the role of women in the political life of a community? What must we do differently in the future? We need to discuss this subject objectively too.
I have (a few) issues with his arguments but, before discussing these, let’s get the main problem out of the way. It is well known that Charles Murray is [insert the derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and so anyone who considers his arguments seriously is [insert a another derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and must be ostracised. (Those struggling to come up with two different and original derogatory characteristics can seek appropriate advice and guidance at alt.feminism where an ‘ism’ or ‘ist’ can be selected from the many on offer. Irrational hate and ostracism are, after all, most rewarding when practiced as a group.)
So, with the bigoted now clicking elsewhere, we can get back to the topic at hand. On this, Murray writes:
Quote:
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
:EndQuote
I see nothing admirable about an ideal of human equality, other than men’s equality before the law. At its most essential it is difference that makes the universe, equality is non-existence. If everything is equal then nothing discernable exists. Equality is the philosophical mantra of nihilism. Murray’s notes illustrate the nonsense of applying this notion of equality to human gender:
Quote:
… try a thought experiment: Suppose that a pill exists that, if all women took it, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as men—including all the ways in which women now surpass men. How many women would want all women to take it? … To ask such questions is to answer them: hardly anybody. Few want to trade off the unique virtues of their own group for the advantages that another group may enjoy….. A Thai friend gave me an insight into this human characteristic many years ago when I remarked that Thais were completely undefensive about Westerners despite the economic backwardness of Thailand in those days. My friend explained why. America has wealth and technology that Thailand does not have, he acknowledged, just as the elephant is stronger than a human. “But,” he said with a shrug, “who wants to be an elephant?”
:EndQuote
There is nothing admirable about a lie. I regret that, on this point, Murray has fallen into the PC trap he is usually so careful to avoid.
Murray also writes:
Quote:
But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today’s language in The Blank Slate, writing that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
:EndQuote
It wasn’t even that of course. It was the old tenet of men’s equality before the law that governed them. When the American constitution was written no-one imagined that it would be so distorted as to justify total equality between men and women, in every walk of life.
As far as individuals being constrained by average properties, we all are. Its part of being a functioning group. We rail against the poverty divide and demand that the average constrains the extreme in that respect. And there are natural realities, such as the benefits of specialisation and the law of comparative advantage, that need to be considered dispassionately in this context too. If a community benefits overwhelmingly from specialisation then that fact needs to be recognised if the community is to be as successful as it can be. We all cope with our own natural strengths and weaknesses, and gain strength from each other’s, what crippling immaturity does society suffer that it can not cope with difference’s broader consequences? The confusion of better/worse with good/bad reflects the mindset of a child. A mindset that any caring parent works to correct, not reinforce.
Finally what Murray does not discuss at all are the forces that gave rise to the deeply unnatural western social philosophies of the second half of the 20th century. We need to understand these better so that we can recognise and avoid them in the future. Many will blame feminism, there is such an obvious correlation. Are they right to do so? If yes, what does that imply about the role of women in the political life of a community? What must we do differently in the future? We need to discuss this subject objectively too.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
No-one’s ancestor
Carey Roberts, in her article about Ellen Sauerbrey’s UN speech, ‘Freeing Women from Exploitation and Despair’
(http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2005/roberts091505.htm), asks:
“What moral code says we should deplore the rape of women and ignore the killings of men?”
The answer: ‘Nature, evolution and, as a result, most human instincts’.
Reproductive reality dictates that a community that loses most of its men can quickly re-generate. Sperm is plentiful. A community that loses most of its reproductive women is not so robust. Evolution and nature combine against it. The people who valued men’s lives as equal to or greater than women’s are nobodies ancestors.
Every moral code that survives states that we should deplore the rape of women and, in times of crisis, overlook the killings of men. To feel or think otherwise is to be committed to your own genetic extinction. The bear stalking the room, the point Roberts has missed, the fatal error in western social philosophy, is that of gender equality. Unfortunately it didn’t work, it doesn’t work, it won’t work, it can’t work. Not in this universe.
Women's bodies are more valuable to a community than men's. Unless and until we have cheap and reliable artificial wombs this is an unavoidable fact. The consequences of it are everywhere you look; in the military, religion, medicine, law and commerce; indeed in almost every facet of human existence.
Gender equality is a fiction. A false icon. It must be recognised and rooted out before its consequences become irreversible. But, first, the people who promote it need to be confronted and exposed as modern day sirens, drawing western society to the rocks of genetic extinction.
(http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2005/roberts091505.htm), asks:
“What moral code says we should deplore the rape of women and ignore the killings of men?”
The answer: ‘Nature, evolution and, as a result, most human instincts’.
Reproductive reality dictates that a community that loses most of its men can quickly re-generate. Sperm is plentiful. A community that loses most of its reproductive women is not so robust. Evolution and nature combine against it. The people who valued men’s lives as equal to or greater than women’s are nobodies ancestors.
Every moral code that survives states that we should deplore the rape of women and, in times of crisis, overlook the killings of men. To feel or think otherwise is to be committed to your own genetic extinction. The bear stalking the room, the point Roberts has missed, the fatal error in western social philosophy, is that of gender equality. Unfortunately it didn’t work, it doesn’t work, it won’t work, it can’t work. Not in this universe.
Women's bodies are more valuable to a community than men's. Unless and until we have cheap and reliable artificial wombs this is an unavoidable fact. The consequences of it are everywhere you look; in the military, religion, medicine, law and commerce; indeed in almost every facet of human existence.
Gender equality is a fiction. A false icon. It must be recognised and rooted out before its consequences become irreversible. But, first, the people who promote it need to be confronted and exposed as modern day sirens, drawing western society to the rocks of genetic extinction.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Her higher value, naturally.
Think of the thousands of generations when people lived in extended families or small tribes. If all but a small number of the males were wiped out the clan could survive and make a rapid comeback given sufficient numbers of fertile females. The situation would be quite different if all but a small number of the females were wiped out, no matter how many males there were. The fundamental difference is that, in nature, sperm is plentiful while eggs and wombs are not, so the clans that tended to survive were the ones whose instincts protected the female at the expense of the male. As this natural force operated and its effects accumulated over long periods of time the successful human genome became progressively more feminacentric: female wellbeing took, and takes, instinctive precedence over male wellbeing. One might say that those whose instincts promoted male wellbeing as equivalent to or above female wellbeing are nobody's ancestors.
The net result is a bias in the psychology of modern humans towards instincts that look after the well-being of women more than men. This is so built into our tribal brains that to be a non-conformist and to not operate in accordance with its dictates will quickly get you outcast and hated. In fact people's built-in detectors are calibrated very sensitively on this sort of issue, always on the look-out for defectors even though many no longer live in a clan-based society.
Moreover, people feel a strong compulsion to intervene and enforce the status quo. At a subconscious level they become disturbed and unhappy if they perceive this instinct being ignored. After all the psychological bias toward feminacentrism would mean little if there were no built-in automatic corrective mechanisms to go with the deviance detection mechanism. The clans that survived better were the ones that enforced feminacentrism by making sure that any individuals that didn't feel it strongly were cast out. There are many similar instincts in the human psyche.
[Thanks for much of the above goes to http://www.martianbachelor.com/Science/, a highly recommended site.]
Those who promote first world liberal principles such as gender equality are seldom aware that they and their community labour under the influence of a deep instinct that fatally undermines this moral framework. You'll never be equal with your neighbour if, instinctively and unconsciously, both you and she value her more. My 'Prove it!' post (below) demonstrates just how strong and unconscious this instinct still is in western civilisation.
The net result is a bias in the psychology of modern humans towards instincts that look after the well-being of women more than men. This is so built into our tribal brains that to be a non-conformist and to not operate in accordance with its dictates will quickly get you outcast and hated. In fact people's built-in detectors are calibrated very sensitively on this sort of issue, always on the look-out for defectors even though many no longer live in a clan-based society.
Moreover, people feel a strong compulsion to intervene and enforce the status quo. At a subconscious level they become disturbed and unhappy if they perceive this instinct being ignored. After all the psychological bias toward feminacentrism would mean little if there were no built-in automatic corrective mechanisms to go with the deviance detection mechanism. The clans that survived better were the ones that enforced feminacentrism by making sure that any individuals that didn't feel it strongly were cast out. There are many similar instincts in the human psyche.
[Thanks for much of the above goes to http://www.martianbachelor.com/Science/, a highly recommended site.]
Those who promote first world liberal principles such as gender equality are seldom aware that they and their community labour under the influence of a deep instinct that fatally undermines this moral framework. You'll never be equal with your neighbour if, instinctively and unconsciously, both you and she value her more. My 'Prove it!' post (below) demonstrates just how strong and unconscious this instinct still is in western civilisation.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Intelligent men?
The Introduction to the Everyman Manifesto, a journal of men's issues and interests at www.everyman.org, states: “The 1st duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious. …. In the past, most prejudices favoured men over women.”
Think about that:
“In the past most prejudices favoured men over women.”
How could this be, exactly? What maintained these ‘prejudices’ these ‘favours’? If the maintaining force was some kind of natural law would that be ‘prejudice’ or ‘favour’? No, in that case it would be reality, by definition that would not be a ‘prejudice’ or ‘favour’. And if it wasn’t a natural law then what was it and how could it persist so universally for hundreds of thousands of years across thousands of cultures and billions of people?
What the writer means, of course, is something quite different. He means that seeing the world through the eyes of a Westerner around the turn of the 21st century, sex roles have changed recently. Domestic work has been largely automated, medical advances have offset much of women’s reproductive burden, technical and institutional developments have fuelled an extended economy that has all but eliminated poverty and danger in significant parts of the world. These developments have allowed women to participate more extensively in the economy, traditionally men’s area of concern, and this has encouraged a notion of economic equality to develop. Although in all probability these developments have reached a point, in just a few decades, where the host cultures’ consumption has become unsustainable in the longer term the notion of equality has taken such firm root that most people assume it is and always was a universal value. This is despite the fact that the notion is not, as it is mistakenly portrayed, ‘gender equality’ or anything that could be considered a tenable morality, however recent an invention and however careless of the laws of nature, the wisdom of the centuries and the divergence between peoples such a notion may be. There has been no meaningful encouragement of men’s equality in women’s concerns (other than in the slog) as, for example, in life quality measures ranging from longevity to incarceration (my Prove it! post has a fuller list if you are doubtful)
So why doesn’t he put things this way, our Everyman, having committed in the same paragraph to ‘restate the obvious’? Because he believes that historical reality is not a natural and understandable progression of developments but that the reason things were not, then, as he has fooled himself into believing they are now is ‘all his fault’. His species’ success has been facilitated by a tendency to emotionally adopt issues in this way in order to solve them so why stop now? The misunderstood equality concept has a deep resonance with his (and, perhaps more so, her) ancestral tribal instincts, before property rights promoted the concept of ownership and allowed him to develop all that he has now. So he buys hook, line and sinker into the ‘equality’ concept with all its guilty historical implications. A tremendous civilising effort, by men in the building and by women in the motivating of men through their sexual commitment to one man, that made everyone’s lives more comfortable, particularly women’s, is thus turned – in his own mind - into man’s failure, prejudice, chauvinism and wilful exploitation of his helpless and vulnerable victim, woman.
By so misunderstanding his past he threatens his own future. By forgetting the genesis of his success he allows the apple seed of destructive consumption to spread unhindered. Others knew this aeons ago and made sure to warn their successors. But wise as they were they would have known that men can become too conceited to listen. There was only so much they could do.
And so we discover, as they would have known, that the real problem lies somewhat earlier in the paragraph: with the phrase ‘intelligent men’. Not here, not anymore.
Think about that:
“In the past most prejudices favoured men over women.”
How could this be, exactly? What maintained these ‘prejudices’ these ‘favours’? If the maintaining force was some kind of natural law would that be ‘prejudice’ or ‘favour’? No, in that case it would be reality, by definition that would not be a ‘prejudice’ or ‘favour’. And if it wasn’t a natural law then what was it and how could it persist so universally for hundreds of thousands of years across thousands of cultures and billions of people?
What the writer means, of course, is something quite different. He means that seeing the world through the eyes of a Westerner around the turn of the 21st century, sex roles have changed recently. Domestic work has been largely automated, medical advances have offset much of women’s reproductive burden, technical and institutional developments have fuelled an extended economy that has all but eliminated poverty and danger in significant parts of the world. These developments have allowed women to participate more extensively in the economy, traditionally men’s area of concern, and this has encouraged a notion of economic equality to develop. Although in all probability these developments have reached a point, in just a few decades, where the host cultures’ consumption has become unsustainable in the longer term the notion of equality has taken such firm root that most people assume it is and always was a universal value. This is despite the fact that the notion is not, as it is mistakenly portrayed, ‘gender equality’ or anything that could be considered a tenable morality, however recent an invention and however careless of the laws of nature, the wisdom of the centuries and the divergence between peoples such a notion may be. There has been no meaningful encouragement of men’s equality in women’s concerns (other than in the slog) as, for example, in life quality measures ranging from longevity to incarceration (my Prove it! post has a fuller list if you are doubtful)
So why doesn’t he put things this way, our Everyman, having committed in the same paragraph to ‘restate the obvious’? Because he believes that historical reality is not a natural and understandable progression of developments but that the reason things were not, then, as he has fooled himself into believing they are now is ‘all his fault’. His species’ success has been facilitated by a tendency to emotionally adopt issues in this way in order to solve them so why stop now? The misunderstood equality concept has a deep resonance with his (and, perhaps more so, her) ancestral tribal instincts, before property rights promoted the concept of ownership and allowed him to develop all that he has now. So he buys hook, line and sinker into the ‘equality’ concept with all its guilty historical implications. A tremendous civilising effort, by men in the building and by women in the motivating of men through their sexual commitment to one man, that made everyone’s lives more comfortable, particularly women’s, is thus turned – in his own mind - into man’s failure, prejudice, chauvinism and wilful exploitation of his helpless and vulnerable victim, woman.
By so misunderstanding his past he threatens his own future. By forgetting the genesis of his success he allows the apple seed of destructive consumption to spread unhindered. Others knew this aeons ago and made sure to warn their successors. But wise as they were they would have known that men can become too conceited to listen. There was only so much they could do.
And so we discover, as they would have known, that the real problem lies somewhat earlier in the paragraph: with the phrase ‘intelligent men’. Not here, not anymore.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Work, damn you!
‘Work damn you’ says Jane Shilling in her article in The Times of 22nd July 2005. “What I can’t understand is why no one seems able to make a computer that you can take out of its box, plug in and use” she whines.
One day I hope the attitude behind this sort of article will be understood for what it is; a cry of unearned entitlement. “Its someone else’s job to do what I want”.
When you hear women say they’ll put in all the hard yakka to sort a problem rather than just whine about it then you’ll know we’ve reached some sort of gender equality. Unfortunately, you’ll also know there isn’t a man left standing on the planet for them to whine at.
One day I hope the attitude behind this sort of article will be understood for what it is; a cry of unearned entitlement. “Its someone else’s job to do what I want”.
When you hear women say they’ll put in all the hard yakka to sort a problem rather than just whine about it then you’ll know we’ve reached some sort of gender equality. Unfortunately, you’ll also know there isn’t a man left standing on the planet for them to whine at.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Like an old fool
There was a letter recently in the Sunday Times from an 80 year old woman complaining that the 5 year guaranteed equity bond she purchased at the height of the stock market had only paid out what she put in.
Her letter appealed, pleading age and gender, for her to be given the inflated profits she had been promised by the original salesman and to receive interest income for the few days her matured capital would take to clear the banking system.
The fact that there are stupid people out there, old women amongst them, is nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is the newspaper’s decision to print the letter without adding that she should be rejoicing at her good fortune and explaining that cleared funds are not the same thing as interest earning funds.
But no, by publishing her letter they present her case as if it was justified. Is this because the editors are fools or because they have a deceitful agenda?
If it is the latter it is also the former too, of course. The consequences of endorsing this old fool’s entitlement psychology is the eventual removal of freedom of choice from all.
Her letter appealed, pleading age and gender, for her to be given the inflated profits she had been promised by the original salesman and to receive interest income for the few days her matured capital would take to clear the banking system.
The fact that there are stupid people out there, old women amongst them, is nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is the newspaper’s decision to print the letter without adding that she should be rejoicing at her good fortune and explaining that cleared funds are not the same thing as interest earning funds.
But no, by publishing her letter they present her case as if it was justified. Is this because the editors are fools or because they have a deceitful agenda?
If it is the latter it is also the former too, of course. The consequences of endorsing this old fool’s entitlement psychology is the eventual removal of freedom of choice from all.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Prove it!
Some facts for you. Take them on trust - none are seriously disputed - or research them yourself:
- Women live significantly longer than men.
- Men commit suicide more.
- Men die in combat more.
- Women are not drafted and do not have to register. Society never demands their sacrifice.
- Men are disabled by, and die in, employment more.
- Men are the majority of victims of violence.
- Men suffer longer prison sentences for the same crime.
- Little is done to stop male rape, even for men in state care.
- Men are the majority of the homeless.
- Men are the majority of state incarcerations.
- Most Western education systems now serve women significantly better than they do men.
- Women have control over all significant reproductive, marital and custody options.
- Women commit paternity fraud on something between 5-30% of all children, although it causes great suffering and is a significant factor in domestic violence this is the one fraud the state does not define as a crime.
- Women are seldom sanctioned for false rape allegations.
- Men suffer domestic violence but have little support or refuge.
- Women are legally protected from childhood genital mutilation, men are not.
- Women have more votes and exercise more voting power in all western democracies.
- This has been the case for over 75 years.
- Women have more disposable purchasing influence, an ultimate factor in economic influence.
- Women have substantially more state expenditure dedicated to their health & issues.
At this point, if facts hold any sway with you, you might be having trouble breathing. Take it slowly.
Having regained their breath women often say ‘Well its all men’s own fault and men are in charge so men should correct it’. This is a common fallacy. Men do not act like women. Men are always in competition with each other for resources and ultimately sex. The fact that a relatively few men hold many of the top public and private posts does not mean, as it would perhaps if they were women, that they look out for their gender. In fact the reverse is true. Men’s instinct is to act against other men to protect women. This is obvious when you look at other primate societies, or the data on human society, but very few women have shown a willingness to understand this difference in behaviour. In amongst the vast collection of badly integrated mental tools that is the human brain is this bit missing in the female, after all would there ever have been a need for it in the ancestral environment? The best way for women to prove it isn’t missing, of course, is to wake up to the situation and help do something about it
Women decide elections – there are more of them – and women have controlled democracies for a very long time now. Every significant political party in the West thoroughly researches women’s intentions and targets women’s votes. Every political manifesto addresses women’s perceived requirements. Every major corporation researches women’s buying preferences and adjusts their products and services accordingly.
Women have substantial political, social and economic power and are capable of influencing these issues but are choosing not to do so. Instead they are increasingly focussing on the minutiae of their own condition. That makes women just as responsible as men, more so being in the democratic majority. That’s part of what it means to be the majority. A society is judged by its treatment of its minorities and women are failing in their duty. They can no longer pretend they didn’t know and that it isn’t their fault. Wake up, and wake up your sisters! Prove women are up to the job they have demanded.
- Women live significantly longer than men.
- Men commit suicide more.
- Men die in combat more.
- Women are not drafted and do not have to register. Society never demands their sacrifice.
- Men are disabled by, and die in, employment more.
- Men are the majority of victims of violence.
- Men suffer longer prison sentences for the same crime.
- Little is done to stop male rape, even for men in state care.
- Men are the majority of the homeless.
- Men are the majority of state incarcerations.
- Most Western education systems now serve women significantly better than they do men.
- Women have control over all significant reproductive, marital and custody options.
- Women commit paternity fraud on something between 5-30% of all children, although it causes great suffering and is a significant factor in domestic violence this is the one fraud the state does not define as a crime.
- Women are seldom sanctioned for false rape allegations.
- Men suffer domestic violence but have little support or refuge.
- Women are legally protected from childhood genital mutilation, men are not.
- Women have more votes and exercise more voting power in all western democracies.
- This has been the case for over 75 years.
- Women have more disposable purchasing influence, an ultimate factor in economic influence.
- Women have substantially more state expenditure dedicated to their health & issues.
At this point, if facts hold any sway with you, you might be having trouble breathing. Take it slowly.
Having regained their breath women often say ‘Well its all men’s own fault and men are in charge so men should correct it’. This is a common fallacy. Men do not act like women. Men are always in competition with each other for resources and ultimately sex. The fact that a relatively few men hold many of the top public and private posts does not mean, as it would perhaps if they were women, that they look out for their gender. In fact the reverse is true. Men’s instinct is to act against other men to protect women. This is obvious when you look at other primate societies, or the data on human society, but very few women have shown a willingness to understand this difference in behaviour. In amongst the vast collection of badly integrated mental tools that is the human brain is this bit missing in the female, after all would there ever have been a need for it in the ancestral environment? The best way for women to prove it isn’t missing, of course, is to wake up to the situation and help do something about it
Women decide elections – there are more of them – and women have controlled democracies for a very long time now. Every significant political party in the West thoroughly researches women’s intentions and targets women’s votes. Every political manifesto addresses women’s perceived requirements. Every major corporation researches women’s buying preferences and adjusts their products and services accordingly.
Women have substantial political, social and economic power and are capable of influencing these issues but are choosing not to do so. Instead they are increasingly focussing on the minutiae of their own condition. That makes women just as responsible as men, more so being in the democratic majority. That’s part of what it means to be the majority. A society is judged by its treatment of its minorities and women are failing in their duty. They can no longer pretend they didn’t know and that it isn’t their fault. Wake up, and wake up your sisters! Prove women are up to the job they have demanded.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Respect?
Whatever occupation any significant quantity of women pursue will never have the prestige and respect that they really seek. This is because, by definition, such an occupation has to be rare, difficult and dangerous so that only a few people can or want to do it and, bearing in mind the statistical distribution of most skills and talents by gender, these people will mostly be men.
In a century’s time the average doctor, lawyer and accountant are likely to be much more poorly rewarded, if only through a surplus of supply.
Will plumbing, construction work and soccer become the new aspiration for young girls and what laws will then be needed to ensure the rainbow’s end of women’s equality?
In a century’s time the average doctor, lawyer and accountant are likely to be much more poorly rewarded, if only through a surplus of supply.
Will plumbing, construction work and soccer become the new aspiration for young girls and what laws will then be needed to ensure the rainbow’s end of women’s equality?
Motivating Civilisation
Have we forgotten a significant force in creating and maintaining civilisation: the inclusion and motivation of men?
Historically this was achieved through many inter-related structures, an important one of which was confidence in paternity. Without this fatherhood process, and without some system that rewards men in the short term for their contribution to society, a substantial proportion of men become feral. At a certain tipping point civilized development then becomes impossible. There are many countries in the third world and communities (or more accurately ghettoes) in the first where this process can be seen in action.
Societies in which women, voluntarily or involuntarily, exchanged their natural desire for total reproductive choice for men’s commitment were the ones that civilized and succeeded. Societies like this are known as patriarchies. They usually include some specialization (or ‘liberty stomping’ as it is now known); the women towards the family, the men towards work.
When society becomes obsessed with women’s workplace equality does it unwittingly create the seeds of its own destruction through its aversion to risk, its problems motivating men and/or the number of feral men that result?
Historically this was achieved through many inter-related structures, an important one of which was confidence in paternity. Without this fatherhood process, and without some system that rewards men in the short term for their contribution to society, a substantial proportion of men become feral. At a certain tipping point civilized development then becomes impossible. There are many countries in the third world and communities (or more accurately ghettoes) in the first where this process can be seen in action.
Societies in which women, voluntarily or involuntarily, exchanged their natural desire for total reproductive choice for men’s commitment were the ones that civilized and succeeded. Societies like this are known as patriarchies. They usually include some specialization (or ‘liberty stomping’ as it is now known); the women towards the family, the men towards work.
When society becomes obsessed with women’s workplace equality does it unwittingly create the seeds of its own destruction through its aversion to risk, its problems motivating men and/or the number of feral men that result?
Friday, June 24, 2005
Shame!
You probably read the story of the lawyer who spilt ketchup over a clerk’s trousers and then tried to deflect the request to pay the dry cleaning bill by telling a story of family tragedy. How the community ostracised the lawyer when the clerk decided to email the story to the world in an deliberate effort to shame the lawyer.
Oh no, wait, I think I got that wrong. The clerk was married to a millionaire and the lawyer was in the middle of a ruinous divorce, in fact hadn’t he just been evicted from the family home?
Or was it all the other way round? Oh dear, I seem to have got rather confused.
One thing is for certain, though. The idea of anyone paying for deliberately ruining something (trousers, career, whatever) of someone else’s is shameful, isn’t it?
Oh no, wait, I think I got that wrong. The clerk was married to a millionaire and the lawyer was in the middle of a ruinous divorce, in fact hadn’t he just been evicted from the family home?
Or was it all the other way round? Oh dear, I seem to have got rather confused.
One thing is for certain, though. The idea of anyone paying for deliberately ruining something (trousers, career, whatever) of someone else’s is shameful, isn’t it?
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Lock up the incompetent
A contributor to the London Times reports today that one of the two key ideas taught at the school of military intelligence (yes, I know!) was that 'Locks stop only honest people'. That should be 'honest or incompetent people'.
Another contributor reports the delight of a seasoned criminal at the idea of ID cards. What a bonanza for the professional criminal and well funded terrorist!
But never mind, nanny will feel so much better if she's got a new card to show that nice policeman.
Another contributor reports the delight of a seasoned criminal at the idea of ID cards. What a bonanza for the professional criminal and well funded terrorist!
But never mind, nanny will feel so much better if she's got a new card to show that nice policeman.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Alice in GordonLand
I can immediately think of a lot of things a pretty, bespectacled girl called Alice might be good for. I like the name. It has nice associations. One of the things includes writing articles in girls’ magazines. But when Alice writes in a respected national newspaper about improvements in the bureaucracy of tax returns, whilst admitting she can’t handle complicated things like that, well my patience runs thin.
My patience is runny these days.
Well Alice admits she isn’t good at tax, or even at sums, because when she wanted to pay a nanny she worked out Nanny took home to the nursery 3p for every pound Alice had to earn to pay for her.
Now she knows she’s not good at sums because that can’t be right, can it? And of course it isn’t. But it got me thinking. How much does Mean Gordon take from us? The simplest measure is the Tax Take as a percentage of National Income. This is usually quoted at about 37% currently, rising to over 40% shortly now that we’ve re-elected the little ray of sunshine to No 11. But this doesn’t really tell the important story. The story of motivation.
Little Alice, remember, isn’t only pretty, she also writes quite prettily (despite having no idea what she’s talking about, or perhaps because of it, I can’t say), and nowadays these attributes mean she makes a very good income thank you.
So I got thinking about an illustration. Something that Alice might be able to understand. Imagine then, mighty Alice, that you do proper work; dig coal out of the ground, say, then sell it to people to cook with. Something your mother set up before she handed the company on to you. Being equally muscular and industrious and experienced and worldly and dusty (gotcha - you’d never catch Alice dusty, but this is fantasy, remember) Alice makes a decent living at this. Suppose then that she takes a moment to decide whether or not to do a little late digging one night, to dig out another £100 worth of coal, retail value. How much is the government’s tax take on that? How much of that money would be Alice’s to spend?
Alice would get £33.87. That’s how much. Out of the £100 the old age pensioner pays her for that coal Gordon Brown would take home £66.13 through VAT, Income Tax, National Insurance, excise duty, community charge and all the other excuses he has for stealing from her. Tax might average 40% across the whole economy but because Alice is making a marginal decision at the top of the tax scale (and that’s not far off the ground) on this lump of coal it works out that Gordon gets £66.13 if all taxes are taken into account.
And what does Alice get for all the £66.13s Gordon takes? Very little indeed if she is typical of a moderately high earner. The roads she uses, her rubbish collection and a notional police presence. That and a simplified tax return of course.
So after the flush of community spirit has worn off and her back and lungs ache from years of bone crunching effort, she decides to pack in early.
That’s what’s called the enterprise economy.
My patience is runny these days.
Well Alice admits she isn’t good at tax, or even at sums, because when she wanted to pay a nanny she worked out Nanny took home to the nursery 3p for every pound Alice had to earn to pay for her.
Now she knows she’s not good at sums because that can’t be right, can it? And of course it isn’t. But it got me thinking. How much does Mean Gordon take from us? The simplest measure is the Tax Take as a percentage of National Income. This is usually quoted at about 37% currently, rising to over 40% shortly now that we’ve re-elected the little ray of sunshine to No 11. But this doesn’t really tell the important story. The story of motivation.
Little Alice, remember, isn’t only pretty, she also writes quite prettily (despite having no idea what she’s talking about, or perhaps because of it, I can’t say), and nowadays these attributes mean she makes a very good income thank you.
So I got thinking about an illustration. Something that Alice might be able to understand. Imagine then, mighty Alice, that you do proper work; dig coal out of the ground, say, then sell it to people to cook with. Something your mother set up before she handed the company on to you. Being equally muscular and industrious and experienced and worldly and dusty (gotcha - you’d never catch Alice dusty, but this is fantasy, remember) Alice makes a decent living at this. Suppose then that she takes a moment to decide whether or not to do a little late digging one night, to dig out another £100 worth of coal, retail value. How much is the government’s tax take on that? How much of that money would be Alice’s to spend?
Alice would get £33.87. That’s how much. Out of the £100 the old age pensioner pays her for that coal Gordon Brown would take home £66.13 through VAT, Income Tax, National Insurance, excise duty, community charge and all the other excuses he has for stealing from her. Tax might average 40% across the whole economy but because Alice is making a marginal decision at the top of the tax scale (and that’s not far off the ground) on this lump of coal it works out that Gordon gets £66.13 if all taxes are taken into account.
And what does Alice get for all the £66.13s Gordon takes? Very little indeed if she is typical of a moderately high earner. The roads she uses, her rubbish collection and a notional police presence. That and a simplified tax return of course.
So after the flush of community spirit has worn off and her back and lungs ache from years of bone crunching effort, she decides to pack in early.
That’s what’s called the enterprise economy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Feminist Bigots
Take a look, if you will, at Jonathan Gornall’s article on Oona King in Monday’s London Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1620810,00.html.
We learn that Oona King (ex MP) stereotypes men at work as ‘slimy bum-pinchers’ and that she claimed in the Daily Mirror that George Galloway MP had sexually harassed her. A claim she was forced to withdraw and for which, after legal writs flew, she paid damages and legal costs and had to apologise publicly.
This is that same woman who has refused to name the MEP she claims offered her £10,000 for sex some years ago, a fact she hadn’t mentioned in the intervening 13 years. So we don’t know if this MEP was the same person she accused of being an ‘average mediocre white man who couldn’t do the job’? No question of stereotyping bigotry there, then.
On King’s last accusation JG says ‘lets not even go into the questionable nature of that ‘white man’ comment. Why not JG? Is it because, if you did, you’d never get anything published ever again by the feminist controlled media?
But if you are Sue Tibballs of the Fawcett Society you can accuse parliament of suffering from PMS – by which she means being Pale Male and Stale – in the Times letters page with nary a qualm.
ROTFL chaps, as least until the revolution.
At which point neither woman’s names should be forgotten.
We learn that Oona King (ex MP) stereotypes men at work as ‘slimy bum-pinchers’ and that she claimed in the Daily Mirror that George Galloway MP had sexually harassed her. A claim she was forced to withdraw and for which, after legal writs flew, she paid damages and legal costs and had to apologise publicly.
This is that same woman who has refused to name the MEP she claims offered her £10,000 for sex some years ago, a fact she hadn’t mentioned in the intervening 13 years. So we don’t know if this MEP was the same person she accused of being an ‘average mediocre white man who couldn’t do the job’? No question of stereotyping bigotry there, then.
On King’s last accusation JG says ‘lets not even go into the questionable nature of that ‘white man’ comment. Why not JG? Is it because, if you did, you’d never get anything published ever again by the feminist controlled media?
But if you are Sue Tibballs of the Fawcett Society you can accuse parliament of suffering from PMS – by which she means being Pale Male and Stale – in the Times letters page with nary a qualm.
ROTFL chaps, as least until the revolution.
At which point neither woman’s names should be forgotten.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Rape is....
…complicated. A simple issue wouldn’t need to be so misrepresented, would it?
Take the production, "Rape is..." for example (http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org).
30% of the film’s discussion guide is about prostitution and the sex trade.
Not ‘prostitution and rape’ but ‘prostitution and the sex trade’. So what is the link to rape you ask? Well, the guide makes only two links:
1. Vednita Carter’s “perspective” we are told “is that prostitution and rape are profoundly related. She thinks prostitution contributes to a climate in which rape is tolerated”.
2. “In Nevada, where prostitution has been legalized, the rape rates are the 4th highest in the country”.
We are offered nothing more in support of Vednita’s contention than anecdotes. She has worked with lots of prostitutes. We also gather that she was a prostitute herself once, forced into it by being driven to distant bars and given no money to get home, apparently. Would you trust someone who told you that story, and nothing else, to be a reliable source of behavioural science theory? You would? You are over 16 aren’t you? I know a really great bar we could go to, it’s only a few minutes drive from here.
But hold on, what’s going on in Nevada? That looks like evidence, doesn’t it? Well no, probably not.
For starters three other states, where prostitution is illegal, have a higher rate of rape. That needs an explanation, but gets none.
Prostitution has always been legal in Nevada, not in all counties all the time but in many counties most of the time. Now the rate of forcible rape in Nevada was very similar to that in the rest of the USA until 1970. Within 5 years it then rose to over 70% more than the USA average. While the average in the USA in 1975 was 26.3 forcible rapes per 100,000 of the population, in Nevada it had become 47.1 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Since 1975 this rate has fallen 10% in Nevada to 42.7 in 2002 while overall in the USA on average it has risen by 25% to 33.0.
Nevada’s other violent crime rate rose by 67% in the 5 years between 1970 and 1975. So it isn’t hard to see that something else went on over these 5 years. Who knows what it is? But it is clear that the idea that a straightforward link between prostitution and rape is established by these two factlets, an idea the film makers appear to want us to adopt, is plainly absurd. In truth the only connection most could draw from this guide is that the film makers think they are appealing to some seriously gullible people.
Rape is… complicated, if you look at it from all sides. Simplistic workshops that misrepresent the facts will be as likely to make the problem worse than better. Rape won’t be resolved until we start being rational and objective and truthful about sex and start treating the problem with a mindset free from political correctness in order to give it the depth of objective enquiry it deserves.
Understanding a complex issue rather than simply demonising men might also mean that we find ways to reduce the impact of rape. But maybe some influential people don’t really want that to happen at all.
Take the production, "Rape is..." for example (http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org).
30% of the film’s discussion guide is about prostitution and the sex trade.
Not ‘prostitution and rape’ but ‘prostitution and the sex trade’. So what is the link to rape you ask? Well, the guide makes only two links:
1. Vednita Carter’s “perspective” we are told “is that prostitution and rape are profoundly related. She thinks prostitution contributes to a climate in which rape is tolerated”.
2. “In Nevada, where prostitution has been legalized, the rape rates are the 4th highest in the country”.
We are offered nothing more in support of Vednita’s contention than anecdotes. She has worked with lots of prostitutes. We also gather that she was a prostitute herself once, forced into it by being driven to distant bars and given no money to get home, apparently. Would you trust someone who told you that story, and nothing else, to be a reliable source of behavioural science theory? You would? You are over 16 aren’t you? I know a really great bar we could go to, it’s only a few minutes drive from here.
But hold on, what’s going on in Nevada? That looks like evidence, doesn’t it? Well no, probably not.
For starters three other states, where prostitution is illegal, have a higher rate of rape. That needs an explanation, but gets none.
Prostitution has always been legal in Nevada, not in all counties all the time but in many counties most of the time. Now the rate of forcible rape in Nevada was very similar to that in the rest of the USA until 1970. Within 5 years it then rose to over 70% more than the USA average. While the average in the USA in 1975 was 26.3 forcible rapes per 100,000 of the population, in Nevada it had become 47.1 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Since 1975 this rate has fallen 10% in Nevada to 42.7 in 2002 while overall in the USA on average it has risen by 25% to 33.0.
Nevada’s other violent crime rate rose by 67% in the 5 years between 1970 and 1975. So it isn’t hard to see that something else went on over these 5 years. Who knows what it is? But it is clear that the idea that a straightforward link between prostitution and rape is established by these two factlets, an idea the film makers appear to want us to adopt, is plainly absurd. In truth the only connection most could draw from this guide is that the film makers think they are appealing to some seriously gullible people.
Rape is… complicated, if you look at it from all sides. Simplistic workshops that misrepresent the facts will be as likely to make the problem worse than better. Rape won’t be resolved until we start being rational and objective and truthful about sex and start treating the problem with a mindset free from political correctness in order to give it the depth of objective enquiry it deserves.
Understanding a complex issue rather than simply demonising men might also mean that we find ways to reduce the impact of rape. But maybe some influential people don’t really want that to happen at all.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
A chicken or an omelette?
The front of a Christian Aid pamphlet asks "Would you give Judith a chicken or an omelette?". From her picture Judith is, at most, 11 years old. We are told she lives in the Congo. If you haven't seen the pamphlet, and even if you have, think about the question for a moment. Decide your answer.
Did you come up with 'neither' or, maybe, 'what she really needs is a culture that is capable of nourishing the congolese in ways that are appropriate to their environment'? The answer isn't a chicken. In fact no-one has any no idea what the practical answer is. We have not a smidgeon of a jot of a Mus Minutoides of an inkling. To imagine that we have is to demonstrate an Argentinosaurus of a conceit. To pretend that carrying on 'doing something' is better than doing nothing when we know that it makes things worse is selfish conscience salving.
Would you give Judith a Sony Memory Stick or an Amazon voucher?
Did you come up with 'neither' or, maybe, 'what she really needs is a culture that is capable of nourishing the congolese in ways that are appropriate to their environment'? The answer isn't a chicken. In fact no-one has any no idea what the practical answer is. We have not a smidgeon of a jot of a Mus Minutoides of an inkling. To imagine that we have is to demonstrate an Argentinosaurus of a conceit. To pretend that carrying on 'doing something' is better than doing nothing when we know that it makes things worse is selfish conscience salving.
Would you give Judith a Sony Memory Stick or an Amazon voucher?
Equality?
"HALF of all girls born in Britain this year, and many of their brothers, will live to see the 22nd century." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2770-1621874,00.html
Where is the uproar about men's health and longevity?
Child rapist weds victim: "Fualaau was only 12 at the time. Letourneau was arrested in 1997.... a night of [rape] that “didn’t stop".... and, after six months in jail, was freed on probation..." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1622518,00.html
Where is the uproar about unequal treatment?
Where is the uproar about men's health and longevity?
Child rapist weds victim: "Fualaau was only 12 at the time. Letourneau was arrested in 1997.... a night of [rape] that “didn’t stop".... and, after six months in jail, was freed on probation..." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1622518,00.html
Where is the uproar about unequal treatment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)