Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Do you know the way from san jose?

I'm back from California. I survived the trip relatively unscathed, even though the levels of viral leftism there were high enough to concern the CDC. I'll tell you after nearly two weeks of negotiations and networking in San Jose (first at the Streaming Media West Convention then in various biz-dev meetings afterward ) it really felt good to be back here in the saner land of Florida. And not just because it was colder than a witches tit in a brass bra out there neither. I swear if I had had to smile and nod through one more soft headed liberals tragically uncomedic bush impression, (I blame you Jon Stuart, you made horribly inept impressions cool again) or listen to one more left coast wanker explain to me how much better life is in a town where you're lucky if you get to keep half of your income so they can employ an army of broomsmen to keep the streets clean, I would have gone postal. Of course being an anti-American state California doesn't respect the 2nd amendment so I would have had to do so with a sharpened letter opener which would have made it a bit more difficult.

Either way I'm back, and I have a few moments to blog, so I'm gonna loosen the literary bowels of my mind with the laxative of insanity and evacuate my peculiar brand of lunacy tinged wisdom upon those few brave souls who have the strength to withstand my philosophical onslaught.


Ready?

First off, I got banned from www.girl-wonder.org/forums



Not that this should be a surprise, despite the fact that I bent over backwards to avoid offending their delicate little sensibilities, those frail femi-nazi's simply couldn't handle a man with an unapologetically different viewpoint. But then when can lefties ever handle a different viewpoint? From the moment I got there the hostility was thick enough to eat with a fork, and when I would post information which they found inconvenient, those posts would disappear like a fart in the wind. Which just goes to prove what I've been saying all along, feminists are nothing more than angry bitches with sand in their cunts who wanna dominate men. And if you don't allow yourself to be dominated by their inane and twisted definitions of "equality" then its war, bitch, or censorship. I must admit though it was really satisfying that they acted and reacted exactly they way I said they would, now if they had actually thought about anything, rather than just reflexively quoted "theories" at me, that would have been surprising.

You can see some of my work here, here, here, here, (this was a thread that was started because one of the modies there didn't like some inconvenient facts I posted and erased the posts) here, and here. Needless to say it is not for those who are offended by hypocrisy, double standards, blatant misandry, or gross sexism masquerading as "equality"




Random thoughts.
Why DO feminists so hate evolutionary psychology? Simple, and for the same reasons conservatives hate the liberal media. Because they fear it.


Mention any findings, or studies done by those in the evo-psych field, even mention the idea that maybe, just maybe, several hundred thousand years of natural selection might have had more effect on "gender" than a few centuries of intermittent civilisation, and the average feminist goes as bat shit nuts as an evangelical christian from rural Kansas standing in front of an abortion clinic across from a gay bar on Christopher street. You get the same reaction from partisan democrats when the subject is republicans, and from republicans when the subject is Al-Queda. And in all these cases the reason the reaction is so out sized is primarily fear. Conservatives fear the liberal media is going to poison our children's minds; liberals fear conservatives will turn America into a cross burning, wife beating, theocracy; republicans fear Al-Queda turning new york into a smoking crater filled with atomic ash. Now in some cases these fears are understandable and reasonable, in some they're not. But fear, and fear alone, causes a knee jerk rejection of anything associated with, or springing from, what you fear. And feminists, whether they admit it or not, are scared shitless of evolutionary psychology. And for good reason.



Evo-psych, despite being a form of psychology, and therefore not a true science, is still a scholarly subject. Women's studies on the other hand is neither scholarly, nor rational, nor logical, its really nothing more than Marxist classim infused with victomology. More to the point, feminists are scared shitless because they know, just as we all do, that several hundred thousand years of natural selection really is more important than a few hundred years of intermittent civilisation. You see feminists wont admit this, and in fact publicly deny this, but much of what they consider to be "societal enforced gender differentiation" is actually sexual differentiation. Why are men more aggressive an violent on the whole? Well we needed to be. Why do men and women cheat in different ways? Because we have different sexual roles to play. Why do women have better pain tolerance than men? Because they need it, as anyone even loosely associated with the birds and the bees can easily see.


You see, its exactly these types of questions evolutionary psychology attempts to answer in a rational way whereas Feminists just tell you to "check your privilege" and "stop being so misogynistic" the moment you ask the question. And since threes a damn good chance that the answers will be ones feminists don't like........


In other news two surprising and counter intuitive studies found out that most universities are left wing echo chambers. Who'd a thunk it? I mean its not like they are teaching that all whites are racists and that minorities cant be racist or anything.


Also the left wing economic tropes we've all heard the last few years are dead false. Remember how lefties kept telling us that "during the bush years average wages have declined in real terms"? Wrong. "Income inequality is worsening"? Wrong. "Income Mobility is declining"?Wrong. "The rich aren't paying their fair share" or "the rich pay less thanks to bush"? Wrong. The truth, America's workers are up 24% in real terms over the last decade, most of those who were in the bottom income level ten years ago have moved up, most of those who were in the top 1% have moved down, and the rich have been paying MORE under bush not less. From Opinion journal


As usual the victim party and its mouthpieces have substituted their theory for evidence. I suppose this does help explain why most feminists are democrats. After all once you've defined yourself as a perpetual victim in need of "field leveling" it only makes sense you're gonna affiliate with the party of, by, and for, victims.


In comics news last week was a really light week, not much came out, and most of the femi-nazi vaginal hive mind/eunuch underground coalition are still bitching about wizard, a magazine they never read in the first place.
However a few new "controversies" have been manufactured by the Vaginal Hive Mind to feminist about. For example the word "special" is now apparently homophobic.

Now I know that as the arbiter of all things relating to equality, and because she has a vagina and I don't, Kalinara is dead correct that this was a homophobic statement. It doesn't matter that the exact same language you would use in the workplace to describe a employees romantic liaisons with another employee, or that Batman could have just as easily been upset by the fact that she was dating someone on the team. But ohh NO. Its homophobia, pure and simply, oh and of course its sexist that Batman doesn't think thunder belongs on the team.


God I love it when those of little intelligence are also those with great passion. Nothing says comedy like a motivated idiot. Which is why I find WFA so amusing I suppose.

Finally, did any of you read Black Canary/Green Arrow #2 this week?
Awesomeness. Speedy, you are a real woman, stick it to those apokolitptian femi-nazi's!
Hmm Feminism, Apokolips, such a natural connection. But if feminism really were one of Darkseid's plans, wouldn't he have recruited more competent servants?

Oh and the Teen Titans East Special?
Now that was good.

16 comments:

Quinn said...

Hey-

Gonna have to disagree with you on the whole "special" debate. Feel free to call me a feminazi if it makes you feel better though :)

Coming from a lesbian perspective, the whole "special" thing is rather belittling. I've heard it many times throughout the years, and it always implies that my relationship is less important than a heterosexual one. There are lots of things Batman could have said instead of that. If he had just called it a relationship, I'd be fine. It's just that comment, especially with it being from Chuck Dixon, that kinda pisses me off. I understand if you as a heterosexual, don't get that. It's something you really have to experience to understand. Anyway, have a good (and rational) night!

Rational Mad Man said...

Quinn, and right there is the problem. Ive had the exact same term used about my relationships in the workplace. I have also used the exact same word to decribe interoffice romances myself. Id also submit that any connotations of "less importance" has more to do with what youre hearing than what others are saying. Im aware that Dixon has a less than perfect record in the eyes of many gays, due to his views, however I would also submit that if the same scene had been penned by another author no-one would have noticed.

Quinn said...

Maybe that's true. In my case though, I read the scene, responded unfavorably to it, then realized it was written by Chuck Dixon, and liked it even less. Plus, there was that whole thing about the rest of the plot being pretty shitty as well.

Rational Mad Man said...

Quinn,
Not sure what you mean by "the plot being pretty shitty" I thought it was a pretty damn good issue, as I mentioned on my review site. Personally i think that scene was meant to show that Thunder isn't emotionally disciplined enough to be on the team, I also thought it did a good job of showing the difference between the old outsiders and this new version. but your milage may vary

Unknown said...

The problem with evolutionary psychology--the problem with its interpretation, rather (science is fine; it's people that are stupid)--is that biological tendency is often equated with a normative statement, and they're not even remotely the same thing. Statistically you can say men's brains are hardwired for competition and aggression and women's brains are hardwired for conciliation, deference and the avoidance of overt conflict.

There is, however, choice, and biology is neither destiny nor a code of law. What nature sets before us is not necessarily what is right.

There is, for one example unrelated to gender, a decent (if not entirely convincing) body of evidence that supposes humans are biologically disposed to religiosity and a belief in supernatural powers. But even if that's true, that doesn't mean there's any reason to regard the religions of the book as anything other than the superstitions of illiterate desert nomads dead for millennia. Similarly, inequities of size, strength, aggression, and the physical costs of childbearing will naturally select against human females for positions of power, but that does not mean that that is just.

Rational Mad Man said...

The problem with evolutionary psychology--the problem with its interpretation, rather (science is fine; it's people that are stupid)--is that biological tendency is often equated with a normative statement, and they're not even remotely the same thing. Statistically you can say men's brains are hardwired for competition and aggression and women's brains are hardwired for conciliation, deference and the avoidance of overt conflict.

There is, however, choice, and biology is neither destiny nor a code of law. What nature sets before us is not necessarily what is right.

===================================
Ford if there is a statisical case for sex based traits, then it is normative. Like it or not me are as a norm, more competitive and agressive. Of course its a "normative"statement, its the norm.


===================================

There is, for one example unrelated to gender, a decent (if not entirely convincing) body of evidence that supposes humans are biologically disposed to religiosity and a belief in supernatural powers. But even if that's true, that doesn't mean there's any reason to regard the religions of the book as anything other than the superstitions of illiterate desert nomads dead for millennia.
===================================
Really? I disagree. The fact that we are predisposed to religon means that religous beleif is a survival trait, and adaptation on par with opposable thumbs. As such, religon is far far more than the superstitions of illiterate desert nomads, it is in fact a a institution whihc is dedicated tot he preservation and advancement of humanity.
-----------------------------------
Similarly, inequities of size, strength, aggression, and the physical costs of childbearing will naturally select against human females for positions of power, but that does not mean that that is just.
===================================
Doesn't make it unjust either. it simply is. Injustice occurs when we use the those inequiteis to lower the standards for those unsuited to a task. Such as when we lower the standards for police officers, fire fighters, and soldiers in order to get women to serve.
It also arises when we use the effect of these biological inequities in order to advance an argument of sexism. Such as the so called "wage gap" which is an effect of the fact more women choose not to work, than of sexism as is usually implied.
When men and women of equla quilifications and experience are compared, the wage gap dissapears. Yet somehoe the average of all womens wages being lower, becasue many choose to draw none, is still used as "proof" of sexism.
Bottom line if a womans (or mans) biology has maded her/him "unsited for a given position it aint sexism, or bigotry, its genetics.

Rational Mad Man said...

oh and ford, you might also be interested in this newer post.
http://rationalmadman.blogspot.com/2007/11/bad-news-for-biological-egalitarians.html

Unknown said...

Yeah, I caught that Slate article already. Interesting stuff. I'd drop some thoughts in there, but I'm at work and frankly too groggy. I also feel foolish for slotting in the value 'just' when that wasn't really what I meant. I'm less interested in justice than in our improvement as machines (eugenics, machine intelligence, &c.), and it's sometimes easy to conflate the two.

Rational Mad Man said...

Ford, Ive always had the same interests, human achievement is one of my things. Its also one of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to minortist thought, becasue even in situations where bigotry isa to blame for failure, its better for yourself to act as if it isn't. For example say a woman is fired becasue of a sexist workplace, if she accepts that, she has no motivation to improve, if shes acccpets that she was fired due to a lock of skills however she will imporve herself, and in so doing, make it far harder for her to be fired due to sexist reasons in the future, as her value as an employee will be too high to waste. Affirmitive action and other programs designed to "level the playing field" only end up hindering those its supposed to help from reaching their true potential.
Eugenics, despite its asociation wiht the Nazi's and Sanger, is an interesting science. Like I said Americans are a superior race becasue, we ar both the mixture of all other races, and becasue we are the most competitive society on earth. thats evolution at its finest.

BackyardBaby said...

Gosh... I actually thought you had a lot of valid points here and in earlier post, until I read these comments. First off, the wage gap exists. No use denying or shrugging it off. If you compare average men and average women, the gap will be quite large (16% in my country)due to the fact that women work a little less and they are underrepresentated in professions of high income. If you compare men and women in THE SAME professions, the differences will be less (Around 4%) It is important that people understand the difference in the two categories, sure, but you cant just dismiss em.

And Im from Sweden, the most equal place in the world, or so they say. You americans fall far behind.

And Im not even gonna take you up on your use of the word 'race' at the end, cause honestly, that must be some joke Im missing. Yes, you evolved greatly into the fattest, least educated, empathy-lacking nation on earth. Good for you

Rational Mad Man said...

backyardbaby.
re: the wage gap -I always figure if I cant say something better than someone else already has, quote them.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/07/wage-gap-myth-is-hazardous-to-mens.htm

The "wag gap" is not only a myth, its a very harmful one. If you compare men and women in the same profession who have made comparable choices, the wage gap dissapears. WOmen take more time off from work due to family, are less likely to work overtime, and are more likely to work fewer hours, the wage gap, is an function of the fact that on average men and women choose to prioritize different activities.
Re sweden - BWahahaha. Sweden isnt a country, its a friking village. seriously, your entire country has a smaller population that the county I live in. The studies that show Sweden as the "most equal" are not only flawed but substansially so. For one it assumes socialised healthcare is prefereable to market based healthcare which is untrue, it also assumes Affrimitive action programs increase equality. Socialism has never increased equality, except by making everyone more miserable.
Re race - Youre just jealous the swedes are too poor to get fat. Americans are fat cause we can afford to be nyah nyah nyah

Unknown said...

While I envy Sweden a lot of things (largely irreligious populace) and not others (uh, what do you mean I can't have all the handguns I want?), yeah, it's hard to get worked up about the advances of such a tiny hamlet. I'm not sure where RMM lives, but the entire population of Sweden actually is in fact smaller than the city I live in, which is also seen as a bastion of progressiveness (the cool kind, not the stupid California kind).

Also, yeah, it's kind of embarrassing when you go abroad to see what fatasses Americans tend to be. On the other hand everyone likes our movies best, so I think that's an acceptable tradeoff.

Rational Mad Man said...

I live in broward county FordMF, I suspect Fort lauderdale alone has more than 10 million residents but given how small the cities are here (even though there no real border between them and you cant really tell when youve left one and entered another since all of eastern south florida is a 60 mile long strip of concrete) I am not entirely sure.
And like I said, we can afford to be fat.
Once controleld for vioent deaths the USA still has the longest life expectancy in the world, not to mention the best healthcare available anywhere.

BackyardBaby said...

Uh.. Yeah. Okay, I read the article you linked, and while it contained some interesting facts, I saw no numbers supporting the fact that the wage gap is a myth. And even if you completely buy the fact that wage differences result only from lifestyle choices, you dont think those choices can have anything to do with social expectancy? And honestly, one example quoted was done on a bookclub with ten members. WOW! Surely then the conclusions drawn must be valid for the population as a whole!

And by all means dismiss my country as a few villages on wind lashed coast. Your scientists all come crawling for that Nobel Prize... We might be 9 million people but 400 million morons bought ABBA records :)

As for private health care, well, its kinda rough to state outright that its wrong. It has its share of problems. So does your system. And while I thought the level of debate in Michael Moore's latest movie 'sicko' was deplorable, cant you entertain the idea that some of the points rasied there can contain a grain of truth?

And we are not goddam socialsts! Never been! Our communist party renamed itself (dropped the 'communist' part) 15 years ago and has never gained more than 14% of the vote.

Thats another problem I have talking to *some* americans. Instead of arguing actual points, you dismiss Europeans as socialists, mutter vaugely about free trade and think that will solve everything. Mind you, Im all for free trade in most areas. I'd just like to be able to support my thoughts with something.

Yes, high taxes kinda sucks... Still, I'd gladly pay 40% of my wage my entire life. Otherwise I'd be an asshole. Someone elses money is finacing my studies right now.

My simple beliefs is this. People are born very unequal. That is a fact, that wont change. Genetics, upbringing, parents monetary situation will make sure of that. So why not give everyone a guaranteed level of health care and education? That makes me a socialist?

As for being poor, the average swede earns about 80% of what the average american does. Mind you, that comparsion was done before your dollar plummeted. Keep growing fat while I check the numbers again :)

Rational Mad Man said...

Uh.. Yeah. Okay, I read the article you linked, and while it contained some interesting facts, I saw no numbers supporting the fact that the wage gap is a myth
-----------------------------------
Then You obviously didnt read anyu of the studies he cited in said article. They have many numbers.
===================================
And even if you completely buy the fact that wage differences result only from lifestyle choices, you dont think those choices can have anything to do with social expectancy
-----------------------------------
If by that you mean "do women have far mroe social choices available to them than men"? Then yes. I do.
===================================

And by all means dismiss my country as a few villages on wind lashed coast. Your scientists all come crawling for that Nobel Prize... We might be 9 million people but 400 million morons bought ABBA records :)

-----------------------------------

Running a country of 300 million is not comparable to one of 10 million.
===================================
As for private health care, well, its kinda rough to state outright that its wrong. It has its share of problems. So does your system. And while I thought the level of debate in Michael Moore's latest movie 'sicko' was deplorable, cant you entertain the idea that some of the points rasied there can contain a grain of truth?
-----------------------------------
You miss my point. When people say that "seweden" is ther fairest country in the world, they are ctiing publications which rank countries based on freedom. The problme is that all such ranking assume that socilaised health care is superior. As a result the USA is artificially lower ranked due to our belief in actual freedom.
as tot he grain of truth, the truth is that nationalised ehaltcare always leads to rationaing, to wait lines, and to lower over all quality of care. Yes more people have access, but what they have access to, is substandard by American standards.
----------------------------------
When you add up your local munici[pal state EU and VAT's you pay closer to 75 cents on the dollar. I know I used to be a fincial advisor for european high net worth investors, and one of the first thigns I did was to show them what their total tax burden was. Swedes average (assuming your at least middle class) between 60 75% when all is said and done.
------------------------------------
My simple beliefs is this. People are born very unequal. That is a fact, that wont change. Genetics, upbringing, parents monetary situation will make sure of that. So why not give everyone a guaranteed level of health care and education? That makes me a socialist?
===================================
WHo are totsay they should value education and healthcare? What about the freedom not to go to university? Should those who exercise that be expected to subsidise those who dont? More to the point if you value education, why should you pay for it. Human nature is what it is, when we get soemthing for free it has less value and less worth. Id prefer to see only those who value an education enought to fight to get one go to univeristy, so as not to waste time or money. Same wiht healthcare. i currently do not have health insurance. I can afford it, I choose not to. WHo are you to override my choices?
===================================
As for being poor, the average swede earns about 80% of what the average american does. Mind you, that comparsion was done before your dollar plummeted. Keep growing fat while I check the numbers again :)
-----------------------------------
In gors income perhaps, after tax, y'all are at 40%
We have over double the disposable income, thats one reason why we have such a dynamic economy.

Anonymous said...

"Actual freedom."

That's what I love about this blog: if you bother looking, you can find progressively more shockingly stupid things RMM has to say.