Very Disturbing Trend

I have noticed a very disturbing trend in current events and social studies as of late.  You can either be feminist, or you can be multicultural.  But one cannot be both.  It appears that multiculturalism, culture-loving ethos is drastically opposed to feminism.  It must be chosen between one or the other.

In many of the less-developed third world countries--  Ah heck, stop being so equivocal.  I mean one of these in grinding obliterating poverty.

There are sick horrifying vile nauseating transgressions against humanity.  Some so-called "multicultural" practices have emerged that are diametrically opposed to regarding women as whole, complete healthy human beings who have feelings.  Violates their right to a life that is safe, healthy, and whole.  Crimes against human rights-- in those very same "diverse" cultures that we are supposed to look to for wisdom and guidance, and emulate in our quest for actualization or something like that.

Why must this sickening dichotomy even exist?
1)  There is a sick vile practice being carried out in some parts of Africa.  fgm- this is part of another "culture."  the accepted liberal stance in the general public is the following:  we must be open-minded, we must be accepting and understanding of other cultures.  But I don't think liberals ever foresaw having to be open-minded to anything like this.
2)  Child brides.  *forced marriage of young girls -- children who are not even yet technically teenagers, off to grown middle-aged men.  disgustign sick perverts.  for example, in the remote villages of rural afghanistan.
3)  children being impregnated and then being forced to carry the fetus to term.
4)  Murdering baby girls in India.  I knew already that they value boys way more than they do girls.  But I did not envision that it would ever permeate to this sick, criminal extent.

This is beyond devastating.  I thought that the extent of those countries' problems is that they were poor and that's all.  I never imagined that their problems plunged waaaayyyyyy beyond that, into the fabric of their very existence.  Thanks a lot, internet, for bringing us more shipwrecks.

Child brides,
---- Stop calling them brides.  They are not “brides.”  This is a systematic disease of forcing little girls into abuse, violence, nnn rppp.  Keep in mind that these are small **children.**  Nearly half of them are between the ages of nine and twelve.  These are children being forced into this.  Rather than using this equivocating vague blather, we need to call it what it is:  r-- of a child.  It is vile, sickening, fgm.

Liberalism says we should all be open-minded, multicultural, open to new and different cultures.  We should welcome diversity in all its various permutations.  Including that of a foreign, strange land.
__but what is the point of being liberal if it only [[[sides with,, defenda,, brings in____]]]]]] the worst extremes of conservatism??
This was severely devastating to uncover.

Back in high school, I was genuinely optimistic for the future.  The world was mine to discover.  I was optimistic for the future because I thought the world genuinely had the potential to flourish and improve.  I thought the world including third-world countries had the full capability to prosper and get better.  I thought it was just untapped, undiscovered potential, like gold reserves or maple syrup.

I thought the worst injustice to befall the world was poverty.  That's it.  My family donated money to charitable causes regularly.  That included myself.  I donated whatever I could from my minimum wage resources working part-time at grocery stores.  We all still do.  Poverty is very bad, but let's be honest.  All it is, is being really, really hungry for a while.  It can be remedied by an influx of food.  Or go gardening or farming or something.

It is not *truly* horrific or sick or vile.  It is not any sort of [[___what I am trying to say is, it is not,,, like,,, where the people are backwards minded,, sick,, primitive,,, abusive,,...  Poverty is bad, but it is not criminal.  Poverty does not necessarily really indicate there is something seriously wrong with the people that inhabit the land.
It is not violent, it is not being an ahole.  It does not indicate criminal tendencies.  Poverty is not really seeing women as less than half the worth of men.  It is not a violation of human rights.

But the sort of sick crimes that occur around the world are aaALLLlll of criminal, abusive, violent nature.

The criminal pseudo-culture is murderous, it is exceedingly misogynistic.  It is the severe kind of antisocial, psychopathic behavior studied in psychology circles-- that they have no human emotion, no ability to respect other human beings.  They do not regard other human beings as actual living breathing homo sapiens.  Instead they evidently think other humans are only inanimate objects that have no consciousness, no sentience, no self-awareness.
There is something seriously wrong with their mindset, with their perception of how to regard women and girls.  They do not see women as equal beings with equal social status to men.  They do not see women as full human beings.
They casually dismiss women as being little more than animals, property.  They think women are just chattel they can toss around, an object no different than a wheel of cheese.  They think a woman is an object or commodity they can just exchange for monetary value like a farm animal or farm equipment.]]]]]

I did not know there were sick horrifying crimes against humanity.  This is not something that can just be remedied by donating food or old clothes.
[[With a dilemma like this, it is far more of an invasive problem.  Like an alien entity that has conquered their brains and consciousness.  It has insinuated itself and sunken its body into the delicate cushioning layers of the people's cerebrospinal organs.  This has been permeated, grafted onto their brains. 

Why has the world deteriorated to this sick, sad state?  Why has it become we must choose either human rights for women and girls -- or multiculturalism?  Why must we choose between one or the other?  This is sickeing and troubling that we cannot have both.

--- nowadays, most of them fall under the guise of "multiculturalism."
--- hnr killing
__but what is the point of being liberal if it only [[[sides with,, defenda,,____]]]]]] the worst extremes of conservatism??

The solution is obvious.  This vile disgusting act must stop being "a part of that culture."  If people commit an act that violates human rights, then they need to cease having it be a part of their culture.

Do not use this [[[[___ii can imagine that the proponents of this sick garbage will try to defend it by calling it """tradition."]]]]]  'Oh, but it's part of the culture,' perpetuators will say.

Rubbish.  ••***Human rights is human rights is human rights.•***••*
-- I do not give a crap what your so-called traditions are.  Your so-called "traditions" do not matter one iota.  These crimes need to stop being traditions immediately.  Do not try to hide behind a false catch-all shield of ""tradition."

Don't try to hide behind the excuse of this being a part of another culture and therefore we should tolerate it.  The school of thought of "tolerance" does not condone this.  "Tolerance" does not mean "tolerate abuse and cruelty." It would cease to be a part of a culture if people stopped doing it.

If an action goes against human rights, then it cannot continue to be allowed under the umbrella defense of multiculturalism.  It is simply but exactly what it is -- a violation of human rights.

By the way, my culture also has many festivities and traditions.  Guess what -- none of them, absolutely none of them, require the execution of violations against basic human rights.

What you speak of is not tradition. It is simply abuse of women and girls.  Nothing else.  They are crimes against humanity.

Odd Pop Psychology on Ambition

Oddly enough, some people try to spin this in a really weird way.  There are pundit pop psychologists, political talking heads, and obscure modern musicians that make this perplexing declaration.

They try to say, "they have forgotten what is really important."  Or, "they have forgotten to value their family."  "And instead they only value achievements."  "Rather than teach people about competition and goals, shouldn't we teach them to be nice?"  "Shouldn’t we teach them to be good people?"

Tons and to-UHNS [to-HONS] of TV shows exist that portray an ambitious person as being self-serving, rotten, not caring about others' feeeeelings.

They try to make it appear that the trait of having goals and ambition is in direct conflict to being a caring, loving, good person.  Most plot arcs on TV depict ambition thusly.  A main character is rushing off to a big company meeting, or to an academic competition of some kind (academic team, science fair project).  And in the process, or in the rush, they somehow neglect their family.  Maybe they show someone having to go to the hospital.  And the evil ambitious person is sssoooooo evil that they would rather prefer to attend the company meeting, than serve/keep vigil at their family's side.

Or someone has a business they are trying to run, or they are a company hiring manager.  This someone usually has a friend that is a complete incompetent slacker, loser, horrible at his job.  Unfortunately, the loser friend barely scraped by-- in the exact same profession as the responsible person.  The responsible person understandably does not want to hire the loser.  But then, the responsible person’s family starts to rail against him/her, wailing chastising him/her, “oh how could you not hire your friend, he is your best friend, he looks up to you, it doesn’t matter that he is terrible at his job, hire him anyway because that’s what friends do for each other.”

To that I say:  yeah, we are good friends.  Which is why I will go bowling with this person, or gather for a nice relaxing picnic in the park.  But I sure as hell am not going to hire this incompetent idiot in a *job.*  Hire this dingbat to serve in a job placement on which my livelihood depends?  My job that I need so that I can afford my rent and groceries and utilities and bills and food?  And you want me to hire this moron so that they can ruin my profession??  Are you nuts?

"They have forgotten that it's what's on the inside that counts."  This last one is the strangest of this strange line of reasoning.

Ah, excuse me?  This DID come from the inside.  My mind, my consciousness, my mode of thinking, my concentration, my studying, my hard work -- THAT is what allowed me to accomplish these things.  Not my shoes or my new sunglasses.  Do you think it was external motivators that drove me to achieve these monumental tasks?  You never considered that *I* set these goals for myself.

Blacks And Education, And More Notes On Affirmative Action And Asians

It is a horrible idea to put lazy black students in the same class as nerds/geeks.  They were bullies.  They were violent.  They were always getting into fights.  Okay, fine, so the violence specifically, was mostly outside the classroom.

But inside the classroom, black kids still did not conduct themselves with much more decorum.  To be sure, fistfights broke out within the classroom only once in a rare while.  But that did not mean they were magical angelic little pristine angels.  They were rude, noisy, disruptive, disrespectful to the teacher.  The teacher had to stop teaching every five minutes to tell them to be quiet.  I know of what I speak.  I went to a middle school that had an incredibly sizable population of very low-class blacks.

Look, if they don't want to learn, then they don't want to learn.  Fine.  Stop wasting everyone's time.  Blacks, just leave the classroom.  Public School administrators, just usher the juvenile delinquent black kids out of the classroom and let the kids who actually do want to learn, to have their peace.

The teachers are absolutely exhausted.  They have to expend all their time and energy just on discipline alone.  This is effectively turning them into mere baby sitters.  They do not have any time left over to actually teach.

[[___ slowly deteriorating quality of public grade schools____]]]]

slowly dwindling [hopes ???] [[[[expectations]]]

Let it be noted that the nasty, apathetic, lazy attitude towards education described above is hardly limited to just black people.  I just read over this and I realize how terribly, horribly, disgustingly racist this sounds.

All throughout elementary school and middle school, there were also plenty of white kids that were bullies and aholes.  They are part and parcel of everything that is wrong with public education.  they teased and harassed the smart kids,
They were bullies that picked on nerds, sometimes physically and violently.

They did not want to be there, and we smart kids did not want them there.  The school and the kids' parents should have just done the logical thing and put those kids out of school.  Let them drop out of school and let them go ahead and start working in crap minimum wage jobs, which is the only thing they will ever be able to handle.  Don't waste the smart kids' or the teachers' valuable time.

Getting back to the subject of black kids in school.  The middle school I attended was about 25% black.  (They were mostly bullies and jerks much like the white kids described above.)  Out of all those black kids, there were maybe two or three who were serious about their education.  They were in advanced math and English classes, and they were enrolled in the AG program.  In high school, there were a few black kids, less than ten of them, who also were good students, were pleasant to be around, and they were serious about their futures.  They were enrolled in the advanced classes, they were in involved in several extracurricular activities.  The elementary schools I attended when my family moved to the South had similar demographics and similar performance from black kids.

This is why I cannot just walk around all happy-go-lucky like, "oh yeah, racism is totally gone and it's a thing of the past, we have achieved total equality now, there is no more racism, college admissions standards are like totally fair and unbiased; get rid of affirmative action and colleges will automatically start evaluating students on merit and skill and ability and potential; they'll magically behave even if we don't tell them to, like magic!!"  It's not that simple.  That's why I cannot just say, "oh suurree get rid of affirmative action because it's just not needed any more."

White people in this country are already born into privilege.  They have connections, they are more able to have ready admission and acceptance into quality colleges and academic programs.  White people already have tons of advantages.

Parents of white kids already went to college in this country.  Whereas my parents attended college in an entirely different country.

Minority students who are kids from immigrant families that came into this country, do not have the same already-familiar background that is comfortably snugly settled into this academic culture.  They have had to work from the ground up.  Their parents came to this country with no roots here.  Yet their kids work so hard to become excellent students and have earned a rightful, lawful spot in top-ranked universities and academic programs.

This is something that must be emphasized. Affirmative action is NOTTt about lowering the requirements for admission.  Colleges should still most certainly maintain their standards.  They should still check students' qualifications to ensure they will be able to keep up with the course work and rigorous demands.

That's why I don't think that if black people have horrible attitudes, they should still be allowed in.  I genuinely do have a good attitude.  I want to learn, I want to obtain an education, I want to prepare myself for the future.

Black people, the ones that do have good attitudes and do prioritize education, should be helped.  They should be supported in their academic and career endeavors.  Colleges and places of employment have this duty incumbent upon them.  Again, it's not about relaxing admission standards.

The few black kids who are good students should be encouraged to do their best.  The rest should not be the public school district's concern.

About Feminism Being At Odds With Virtue, Self-Restraint, Self-Respect

There hovers an asinine, completely unfounded notion that professional success by necessity must be accompanied by whorishness.

The stupid, hysterical media has once again gotten it phenomenally, cosmically wrong.  They say crap like, “women are stronger and being more powerful in the work force.  “They are casting off the shackles of society's rules/stereotypes of being weak in work, therefore they must necessarily cast off society's rules of self-respect, decency, and decorum.  If women are forceful in work then they must be forceful aggressive with shoving their naked bodies into people's faces." sex.

But this makes no sense whatsoever.  I do not understand why people are struggling with this issue so much.  There is no significant reason for this non-conflict to cause so much inner turmoil, within anyone's own mind or anywhere within the ranks of feminism.  This has already been addressed, this has been tackled.  This has been dealt with in a comprehensive solution that neatly addresses all concerns.

But what is the correlation whatsoever?  Where in the world is any possible semblance of inter-relatedness betwixt being career-minded -and- being a slts?

Let me reiterate the Asian talking points once again.

Many, many of the Asian women I knew growing up are intelligent, capable women who have prestigious careers and college degrees.  They are close friends with my parents.  NONE of them, and I do mean NONE, had to be sutss to do it.  Not a single one of them had to put topless pictures of themselves on the internet to become educated women.  They magically somehow managed to be strong capable women in charge of their own life -- markedly *without* needing to resort to sluttery posing for "playboy."  They managed to have Bachelor degrees in their chosen fields, and many of them also managed to have Master degrees.  They managed to have prestigious, respectable careers.  And nowhere in there did they feel the necessity to show people where the sun don't shine.

Not a single, not one solitary movie sex scene among them.  They all magically managed to become successful professional women without allowing details of their personal private lives to leak into the public arena.

The media keeps saying gibberish like, "pp must be alsts in order to be a strong woman in charge of your own life.  Be a slttt because you are a strong career-minded career-driven girl power person.  Be a sltt because this is commendable and desirable and is mandatory on the way to self-expression."  Some rubbish like that.

Remember how I exposed and pointed out the seedy, nasty underbelly of extremist liberal males?  They are notorious perpetrators of this delinquent myth.  Mtv, rolling stone magazine, those girls gone wild trash.

(Ugh, I loathe mentioning them in the same essay as my Asian sisteren and brethren.)

First of all, this makes no sense whatsoever.  See above.  But also-- I am surprised that so many girls nowadays are so scared to plan realistic careers.  They seem totally unaware that it is very possible to be forward-thinking, progressive, and smart about planning for one's future -- without compromising core integrity and self-respect.

And they don't know what they want to plan as their careers.  Apparently they feel that they are being discouraged from studying the sciences.  In this day and age, really?

The reason I always knew I had to be something when I grew up was that, back in the '80s, we all had to plan to be something when we grew up.

I had tons of positive, strong, respectable female role models growing up.  Teachers were all girls.  All main characters in books were girls; many book authors were girls.  Beverly Cleary had all of her classics including Dear Mr. Henshaw.

We had the absolute best school supplies, too-- Trapper Keepers, Lisa Frank.  1980s was very encouraging of girls to have careers.  This was, astonishingly, NOTTtt because they were "feminists in charge of their own life."  Surprisingly, they did not bring up the subject of girl power or feminism at all.  You do not plan a career only because you are a girl who is empowered.

No.  You plan for your future because you are a human being who is of this world.  All people need to plan for their futures in a respectable, enlightened, optimistic manner.  This is what they imparted to all of us, girls and boys.  I feel like perhaps, in many ways, this is more powerful than constantly repeating and reminding everyone about feminism, or rebelling against the establishment, or rebelling against so-called "tradition," etc.  It has more impact, it is more solid a declaration. This directive can be taken more seriously if we impress upon everyone the importance of planning a future career.

They Do Not Want To Help Smart Kids

**On the topic of social promotion ...
A widespread pandemic spreading like hardy encapsulated fungus spores that unfortunately can withstand all manner of logic.

Phenomenon in which kids are promoted from the current grade to the next even though they _failed_ the schoolwork.  This is done because the school district looks really bad having a 16-year-old in eighth grade.  Or, once again the kid feels really bad because they are surrounded by kids much, much younger than them.

A lot of them say, "how dare the smart kids think they should have more educational opportunities??!  They are already smart, they don’t need any help.  They will get by just fine.  Don’t worry about them.  They are already good enough."

What they really mean is, they think the smart kids should not be able to reach their full potential.  They should just be happy with being average.  “Well, they’re not failing!!  They are doing just fine.”

Therein lies the heart of the problem.  These people that are driving education standards down the drain in this society -- they want everyone to be content with simply “getting by.”  That’s it.  They don’t want for anyone to truly become accomplished.  Or to truly become winners.

They think, "oh they should be happy with just being where they are."  They say, "be happy with who you are."

But wait a minute.  What makes you think that just because I want to have accomplishments and get an education, that this somehow means I am not "happy with myself?"  What if I genuinely do want to improve myself and make my life better, and education has been established as a proven method towards that end?  What if I really do feel happy when I have a sense of accomplishment?

This is just such a weird idea being spread through popular culture like a disease.  This idea that wanting success, wanting accomplishments, wanting to achieve accolades in life, doing exemplary work, setting a goal and then achieving it -- are all somehow clues that a person is unhappy.

I think quite the opposite is true.  You must look at it this way.  If a person participates in a contest, if a person actively is competitive, what this means is that that person is living life.  That person is being active and energetic and is taking part in life.  This person is making positive things happen.

If a person participates in a competition of some sort and then demonstrates that they are the best, I think this shows extraordinary happiness.

a person might have natural, inherent skills and puts those skills to good use by enrolling in training and education.  This training and education earns the person some credentials.  Also, the training helps hone, refine, and sharpen the person's skills so that they may contribute positively to society.  Such as when a person has a natural dexterity for biology and healing, so they decide to go to medical school to become a doctor.  Or if a person has a natural inclination towards finding out how things work, they might major in engineering, so they may usher in the next generation of technological advancements.  This is all because they are very happy with who they are, and they want to become even better.  They want to improve themselves.  They want to be the best version of themselves.

It is such a counterintuitive, nonplussing idea that it took me this long to even write a coherent essay in rebuttal.

Patronization Apparently In General College Life

This is a continuation in reference to claims that women are not taken seriously in science classes.  I will be focusing on broader topics, including that of the overall student experience in higher education.

I see criticisms in news magazines all the time that declare that students that do distance learning or take courses at a local community college are somehow "missing out" on the essential experiences that traditional on-campus learning provides.

Supposedly, there are the experiences that higher education mongers go on and on about being so great.  There are the so-called experiences that college students will fondly remember with warm happy fuzzy memories for the rest of their lives.

There are the unforgettable moments of expanding your horizons that defenders of traditional four-year universities say is so much better than the option of people deciding to lead normal lives while taking courses.

About how teachers in college are sooooo much better, more knowledgeable, much more dedicated, much more invested and caring in their students' success than are high school teachers.

I have been taking classes at a traditional university in addition to classes at community college.  I can tell you that the above claims are utter garbage.

-----
I read an article recently in some sort of publication of modern college life.  This article was very revealing of the unflinching truth that women face on so-called "traditional" college campuses.  There is a very worrying trend -- a lot of male students are accusing feminist school of thought of being absolutely anti-creativity.

Erm, excuse me?  Feminism is "anti-creativity"?  What, pray tell, are the beautiful, artistic, inspired from the depths of the soul bits of creativity coming out of the mouths of the male students?  And what is this alleged feminist "oppression" of which the male college students claim to be self-proclaimed victims?

Guess what.  All it is, is that the feminist students would like the male students to come up with something other than sex and violence.

Erm, did the males not take high school English?  Sex and violence are not creativity.  These are the anti-theses of creativity. 

I am guessing feminists are saying this because genuine creativity requires some pondering and contemplation outside of easy knee-jerk stock hoards of sxe and violence.  With which I agree.

I suppose it's possible for an authored work to contain elements of that trash and yet still show gleaming signs of genuine creativity.  But if one truly does not possess the capability to create a written world without resorting to this unoriginal rubbish, then I would say one's creative faculties are limited.

college campus rapes.  alcohol-fueled date rapes.  binge drinking.  kegger fraternity parties with more sickening, infuriating behavior towards women.

Is this the sort of bullcrap they encourage young middle-class white kids to engage in on college campuses?  This sounds disturbingly depressingly like the attitude that the some of these stupid late night talk show hosts... exhibit.  That stupid smarmy craig kilborne with his round feminine cheeks.  Seriously, there is something unmistakably feminine about that ahole's bone structure.  This idiot's attitude smacks of the spoiled middle-class white frat boy that went to college just to get drunk, party all the time.  He probably really did only go to college because his parents are paying for all of it and he does not have to pay a penny himself.  He is a late-night talk show host and not a very good one, so chances are that he was a C-average student in some crap liberal arts major.

We cannot and should not let these white frat boys get away with the assertion that they are "taught" this at typical college campus in typical mcw culture.  to allow that so-called explanation is to let them avoid any responsibility for their own disgusting behavior.

These are the unforgettable memories that students are supposed to cherish for a lifetime??! 

Is this the "unforgettable experience" that the media keeps telling people they are missing out on if they choose to go to vocational technical school rather than the typical on-campus enrollment???

Is this what's supposed to be so damn great about the college experience that on-campus dorm life ensconces?

You know what?  If this is all that the so-called traditional (har, har) college experience of a bunch of unsupervised, buckwild youths can offer, then I am glad I chose not to go back to traditional college life.  I am glad I am attending a two-year technical college that offers an option to transfer several regulation-grade college courses.  I am glad I chose not to live on campus any more while I take classes at a university.

Patronization Revisited, Or Disrespect Towards Women From "Science"

Maybe I was a little insensitive in my earlier essay where I stated that women are not subjected to demeaning patronization in science courses.

There are a lot of editorials saying that women still face discrimination, sexism, generally not being taken seriously at all in mathematics and science courses.  I am taking a closer look at everything around me and I see evidence that they might have a point.  I cannot just see my own positive experiences and assume this holds true for everyone.  This is in temperance to my previous essay where I wondered why girls say they feel discouraged from studying science.

The sociobiology-evolution thumpers attempt to claim that women do not have natural affinity for math and science.  So, basically they are finding bullcrap excuses to reject and exclude women from math and science.
--the ahole in hihg school.  I was the only person in the class who knew what do do ini chemistry class lab exper.

Sexist Evolution Crap
I didn't take the time to address this gibberish specifically.  It is a long time coming. A so-called medical professional made the following crap claim.  He said that the reason women tend to go through more severe depression and mood cycles is that they are *not* constantly in a state of pregnancy.
His nonexistent logic was the following.___

As you can see, this is nothing more than a slight twist on the "basal unevolved animal urges as excuses for modern-day human behavior" brand of sociobiology.  "Not supposed to be not pregnant."

That is hell on the body.  I'm not even in medical school yet, and I know this.  Everyone knows this.  This is common sense.  Do you have any idea what that sort of physical strain of constant pregnancy, what burden that puts on the body??!!  You're supposed to be a medical professional, you stupid.

Actually, it was a psychiatrist, not a real medical physician.  So I guess its stupidity and vast ignorance has a source.

The human body is not meant to produce a nonstop parade of offspring.  This is more of the complete and utter BS that is sociobiology.  This misinformed notion that people are meant to reproduce at an unchecked rate, with no thought to the damaging consequences this has on physical health, and indeed emotional health, is indescribably stupid.

NO.  Humans are supposed to have a few limited number of children.  And then they are supposed to invest enormous amount of energy, infuse intelligence into those small few children.  Humans are not meant to produce litters of unnumbered countless children and then not give a hoot what happens to those children after they are born.

A woman constantly getting pregnant one right after another.  The human body cannot feasibly sustain that many pregnancies. The body needs time to recuperate, replenish.  It also needs time to raise the current born baby, possibly thru breast-feeding.  And also basics like simply taking care of the baby.  The mother would not be able to devote the time and attention necessary to growing a first baby if she soon becomes pregnant with another one.  Changing diapers, feeding it, bathing it, getting it to adapt to a sleep schedule, keeping it alive.

I have never had a kid, and I am not a medical doctor yet.  I do not need any of those qualifications to make these declarations.  This is all common sense.

Humans make a voluntary, willing, conscious effort to raise their families.  We voluntarily make an effort to invest time in a child if someone brings one into the world -- because that is the right thing to do.

This is what I mean as an example among other things, that humans have transcended the basal biological evolution that still rules and dictates animal behavior.  Humans have gained consciousness.  They have gained the ability to consciously decide for themselves whether or not an action is morally right.  Humans know that it is not okay to just stop caring about a biological child once it is born.

Lower animals think they have fulfilled their biological duties by simply creating an offspring unit.  They think they have fulfilled their roles in this universe.

Well, I use the word "think" figuratively, as if lower animals had a voluntary, conscious choice in the matter.  Obviously they do not think, do not weight pros and cons of decisions; do not choose the most rational, logical, moral path.  All their life directions are driven by instinct alone.  They merely act on the biological part of continuing the species, with no regard for the life, health, well-being of that offspring once it is hatched.  They simply bring forth offspring into existence on this planet, and that is the extent of their responsibility.

While we are on the subject, a very important objection.  Where are people getting the idea that just because a population accepts technology, this somehow automatically makes that population more egalitarian and respectful towards women?

Hasn't anyone here heard news reports of the embarrassment that is trade show unveiling of a newfangled technological marvel?  They severely demean and objectify women.  Many of them have a sick custom of treating women like pieces of meat.

At these so-called technological product expos, they have females wandering around dressed like strippers, acting like strippers, with no purpose other than to sell their bodies and hopefully sell some tech gadgets.

I remember an article in Newsweek magazine last year, that stated that this sick, shameful approach is a growing trend in the tech gadgets industry.

It is the creepy, useless nerd version of russel crowe.  All of the articles about this guy reveal that he is a complete ahole.  This specimen randomly beats up innocent lookers-by.  This jackass has a really short fuse and blows up at anyone that disagrees with it.

It seems to think that it is its birthright to do all this crap.  Why the hell aren't the cops arresting this specimen?  This specimen is a complete waste of oxygen and space.  It should just do the world a favor and punch itself out.  Perhaps this specimen can beat itself up so violently that it can put itself into a coma and not wake up for thirty years.

It's almost as if the manufacturing corporations peddling their wares do not have confidence in their product.

Why would they feel the need to resort to these cheap lowest-common-denominator tactics to get attention for their product?

The stand-alone concept of generating buzz for a new product is reasonable enough.  After all, the producers and manufacturers want to get the word out to potential customers that there is a new product for sale.  They want to be able to sell the product.

Okay, great.  Then sell it, then.  If the product cannot stand alone on its own merits without having to resort to this cheap, trashy, tacky, tawdry method of publicity that stupid celebrities use.  If the company has to resort to this playboy-porn bullshyte to sell their product, that reveals that the product is crap.
---
All this complaining and fussing, as in the fact that I must address this and get the word out, is infuriating.  The need to have to do this is infuriating.
This is so aggravating.  For goodness sake, the question is not, "Why can't girls be nerds?''

The true question is, "Why can't you realize that girls *ARE* nerds?"  This is a far more accurate question that summarily sates the dilemma that science-minded girls face.

I do in fact like science fiction.  I like the biological-based science fiction.  I like them because, in many ways, they always show the female of the strange, unknown, mysterious natural species to be the dominant gender.  If you have not done so, then observe these science fiction works carefully, and you will see what I mean.

They all reinforce what I have suspected for a while.  Out in biological nature, females reign supreme.  There are many examples.  In many species, males are the ones that must engage in colorful, ostentatious displays of looks and demonstrations of physical prowess.  One could say that much of this is for visual entertainment for the females.

One could even say the males are objectifying themselves.  Whereas the females of many of these species are plain and boring-looking.

That is perfectly fine, because the female will be the one doing the important work.  The female is respected, revered by the males for doing work.  Males fully acknowledge this, which is why they vie and compete with other males for the females' attention.

Out in nature, it is ladies' choice.  The males have relatively little say in which ones of them will ultimately get to reproduce.  Notice also, that male gametes are described as being "cheap and plentiful," in other words, unimportant, easily replaced, easily replenished, not a big deal at all.  Even male scientists fully admit all this; there is no "sexist against girls" propaganda.

As you can see, this is in stark contrast to what sociobiologists, i.e., people that claim they like evolution but evidently do not have all the facts, tend to declare.

Philosophy Majors' Working Qualifications

Grocery store workers are the only job for which Philosophy majors have qualifications.

Working in a grocery store or working in a fast food restaurant.  Yeah, I know those are crap jobs.  Those are not professional careers that people would plan their long-term life for.  The job duties are a lot of hard work that an employee has to do, but they are not difficult to understand.  Those are minimum wage gross jobs that you barely have to have half a brain to adequately work at.  But those are the only jobs that Philosophy majors are qualified to do.

Looking back on this, I realize this is always true.  Back in high school, they kept telling kids to go to college or else.  But even back then, I had a nagging sense of, I guess one would call it “practicality realistic conscience.”  Even back then, I realized that the generic call to college for everybody was not necessarily the best solution.

More importantly, they did not ever specify exactly what these kids should be doing in college.
I was sitting in MedTerms sp2001 class, and this revelation hit me -- kids go to college just to party, have spring break, and prolong their careless, carefree adolescent phase.

I am suddenly reminded of the TV show "Friends," which I think embodies the phenomenon of spoiled middle-class-white kids in college just as well as it obviously, blatantly displayed regarding spoiled mcw grown-ups.

I feel that these are self-evident truths about college education which leads into paths that one chooses for oneself.  Kids, try to remember that this is just a TV show.  You cannot major in philosophy of communications in real life and then expect to afford a spacious, fairly new, fairly clean apartment in a nice part of town in one of the biggest cities in the world.

Is this attitude of college kids just left-over relics, or dregs from wishful thinking from watching "friends?"  Did a generation of people fool themselves into thinking they could achieve this comparable lifestyle by doing comparably the amount of work they saw the "friends" characters doing on TV, which was nil?

Ohhh, now I get it.  All those nasty disgusting spring break diseases, grils gone wild, all that driveling, drooling mess -- it was all transpiring while these people were pursuing crap majors.  All these disgusting things that girls kept doing to themselves, screwing themselves into a hole, that was whilst they were pursuing degrees in philosophy and history of English.  (I apologize for using the word "drooling." That is an insult to babies.)

(hmmm.... this could work,  this sounds like a more feasible and smooth transition.
I heard someone talking about how their kid was a Spanish major, and the other guy then asked him, what the hell is she going to do with that?

That is when it all fell into place.  Even heretofore, I myself still thought of Spanish and African-American Studies as being reasonable, somewhat useful degrees.  African-American Studies is multi-cultural, so at that point I still thought of it as a worthy degree to pursue.  This was a devastating realization to make that multicultural degrees which increase one's awareness of the world, make one more well-informed, and ___ might not truly be practical.

What Is Even Worse Is When Females Treat Themselves Like Pieces Of Meat

It is already bad enough that all over the entire frickin world males abuse and beat down women and treat them like sh!t. worse than sh!t. Like the stuff that sh!t wipes off its shoe and says ew gross at. Forced "prostitution," r--ing children in Thailand.  Child "brides," again r--ing children, in Africa.  Islamofascists r--ing and otherwise abusing women and children.  So-called legalized prostitution in Amsterdam.

What is even worse is when females treat themselves like pieces of meat. Like some sort of life form lower than pieces of meat.  Strippers, prn, The girls gone wilds, the b----es and h-s in gangsta rap videos, the hip-hop lifestyle (huh?), paris hiltons.  Who are actually stupid enough to believe some bullshit line about how taking off your clothes and showing your genital region to complete strangers is liberating and empowering.  They are convinced they made the conscious, informed choice to do this themselves.

Back in the 1990s, there was not much objectification of women.  At least not in my entertainment circles.  It sure as hell was not mainstream and routine.  There were supermodels on the catwalk that starved themselves... and that was it.  That was the extent of reducing women to sex objects or property.  Honestly I was never under the belief that males somehow "made" women do this.  Those females did this to themselves.  I still feel that way.

But this latest rehash is much, much worse than that.  This could not possibly be just the females inflicting this onto themselves.

It is the sickening convergence of everything misogynistic in this world.  It is the treatment of women like trash plus it is the sexual objectification of women -- all snowballed into a horrific runaway train.  It is a system of glorifying violence and other abuse against women.

Jennifer Lopez is supposedly hailed as being great because she is bringing multiculturalism and Latinos to hollywood.  Are you kidding me?? That is a sick, mirthless joke.  This is an extreme insult to real-life Latina women.  Jennifer Lopez is a grotesque parody of Latina women.  She has no respect for herself, she has no dignity, she has no grace.

I see also out in public, in the malls, in grocery stores, real human girls cheapening themselves, demeaning themselves, kowtowing to this mess.  Wearing those hoochie shoes, with a really small mini skirt, wearing backless halter tops.  I never imagined I would ever be writing a turn of phrase such as that.

I'm not even going to give them the dignity of calling them girls or women.  This is because you see, those terms imply human beings.  The above-mentioned specimens, on the other hand, might be female, but we don't know yet female what.  I cannot turn on the effing television or the computer without seeing this 3hi+ all over the place. I have resigned myself to watching only CNN, the six o' clock news, and Nickelodeon.

In my eyes gangsta rappers and all of them are in the same class as criminals, all low-life scum, the lot of them. Ugh. I can't believe that it's so widespread, pandemic, epidemic, that I feel a responsibility to actively state that this is NOT what feminism is.  A lawn overgrowth like bacteria in a Petri dish, a fungus mold mildew infestation.

Why in the world are you so adamant, aggravating, like enthusiastic in a violent manner, to show everyone your urogenital region?

Maybe They Are in fact Afraid Of Revealing Something.  Something big.  Well, it might not be so big, it might be merely adequate-sized, or simply pinky-sized.

Are you in fact a male that had a transsexual operation?  And now you are scared to death that someone might get to wondering about whether or not your pelvic region is homegrown?  And so therefore, in efforts to combat [stave off]]] any suspicion with a preemptive strike, are you launching these measures?
And is that where this deep-seated need to prove that you have female genitals, originates?

And so you are shoving this down everyone's eyes, “loookkk loookkk at me!!!  Looookkk looookkkkk at my vulva!!!!  i am completely 100% female and i can prove ittttt!!!!!”

Are you secretly insecure about the fact that you are not genetically female?  And so you are trying too hard to prove to everybody ELSE that you are female.  By showing the public your genitals, this is proof positive that your phenotype resembles a person with double-X chromosomes.

In the vain hopes that if you insist and beat people over the head with it, maul them on the head with a hammer, they will then be convinced enough, and they will never ever, ever question your gender orientation.  Are you trying to ensure they will not discover your secret?  That you are in fact secretly used to be a man?  This is little more than the female equivalent of that old hackney, of a flasher in a trench coat, lurking around dark alleys and corners of buildings, slithering up to innocent, unsuspecting pedestrians, and causing them to go blind.