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.
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.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment