Wishful Thinking Rears Its Ugly Head- The Troubling Trend of Research Bias in Psychology

I have noticed a peculiar bent as of late in the anthropology-related fields.  This is more strong evidence of the trend that people see what they want to see.

I have come upon a curious and very disturbing trend in popular psychology in recent days.  Any crackpot, cockamamie theory can be presented as "science" if the predicators are adamant enough in their marketing of it to the mass populace.

Even though there is plenty of evidence contradicting a theory, effectively rendering it nonexistent, this is evidently not a point of consideration for behavioral biology.  A frequent culprit and violator of common sense is the field of so-called "evolutionary psychology."

Evolutionary psychologists are usually able to find ample so-called evidence for their theories.  The reason they are able to do this is that, after five hundred thousand years of existence of the human species and its ancestry, probability is on the researchers' side.  Statistically speaking, there is bound to be some evidence buried in there somewhere that cements the evpsychs' expectations.

In the vast cosm of the existence of the human species in its entirety, everything has happened.  Every sort of imaginable gruesome crime against humanity -- slavery, violence, murder, r---, infanticide, genocide, all of that and more has happened, including the existence of sick individuals that have tried to justify these acts with some sort of excuse.  The chances are great of some sort of evidence coming up in the researchers' favor, some sort of data and information that supports their hypothesis. 

And this little bit of evidence is enough for them to gain credibility and respect in the scientific community.  In five hundred thousand years of existence of the human species, if there is one hundred years' worth of evidence to support any given hypothesis, this is sufficient to present in a peer-reviewed psychology journal to be approved of by other like-minded individuals that are fond of breaching common decency.

What do I mean when I write, "one hundred years' worth of evidence?"  This can be measured in the form of historical events, recurring human behavior, social and cultural trends.  An event that is submitted as evidence can be graded for the amount of time it occupied.  A war can last ten years.  A famine can last thirty years.  Over a period of one year, there are numerous muggings and violent assualts.  Each of these assaults takes up a little bit of time on its own.  Combined, they total a few months.  Any given human being generally lives less than one hundred years.   Therefore, one hundred years' worth of evidence is often enough to sway their opinion as well as their world view in favor of those researchers of evolutionary psychology.

Even though there is also plenty of evidence that proves the opposite of their theories, they can still manage to dish up sufficient support for whatever already exists in their heads.  Looking at these studies carefully, it seems that proponents of these theories have an already-existing agenda that they, whether purposely or subconsciously, wish to promote.  They therefore gather all evidence from which their already-existing conclusion can be deduced.

They do this while simultaneously ignoring all the evidence that points to the contrary.  They manage to completely ignore mountains of observation, logic, rationality, reasoning, and common sense that demonstrates that the results are actually null.

If the evpsychs are not necessarily fabricating evidence, they are in fact fabricating a conclusion deriving from this evidence.  Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of human existence, said conclusion can appear to have ample support dug up in favor of it.

But the thing is, the exact same thing can be said of those mountains of conflicting data that might very well be good-hearted and logical -- that there is plenty of it, but plenty of evidence exists to the contrary of even that.

**A good example is the two-sides-of-a-coin that are the claim that this country was founded on Christian beliefs, and the claim that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs.

Well, what exactly is meant when someone utters the phrase "founded this country?"  Do you mean the first European settlers that came to the New World in escape from religious persecution of a sort back in western Europe?

They established colonies that each had a central governing body, at least one church, and a judiciary system of sorts.  These were fully-functioning, though sporadic settlements.  These pilgrims came here so that they could practice their sect of Christianity that they were most comfortable with, which they were not allowed to practice in Britain and elsewhere.  And they also pillaged and ransacked the Native Americans.  Their descendents eventually led to the country being founded and developed into what it is today.  Does this count as the founding of this country?

Or do you mean the Founding Fathers, the original drafters of the Declaration of Independence, along with the other fathers of our country, all that good stuff?  The forefathers, who were mostly nondenominational deist, officially began declaring this a sovereign nation about a hundred fifty years after the first pilgrims arrived.  They also wrote the Constitution which more or less recognized the white-dominated settlements all as one unified governed entity.  Does this count as the founding of this country?

As you can see, there is plenty of evidence supporting both arguments.

***tie this in with the fact that I have noticed that reviewers and customers on Amazon.com tend to favor and lean towards their already-existing beliefs.***
I have noticed this with political leanings and sociopolitical opinions.  I have noticed this on message boards of news articles and political commentaries.

This can unfortunately be extended to the scientific and research community.  Now, remember that the hard sciences that sample and analyze the physical world are usually spared from this biased treatment.  This is because hard sciences must succumb to concrete distinct delineators that determine whether or not the experimental procedures follow academic protocol.

However, the more wishy-washy and abstract "sciences" of psychology and behavioral evolution are often prone to taint.  They are often subject to this sort of extreme, if possibly subconscious, personal bias.  This has very disturbing implications.  For example, some of the more gruesome "evolutionary" theories display these biased subconscious trends.

•• The infamous race and intelligence studies.
The notion that different races have different inherent intelligence capabilities.  Some studies have been done recently that controlled for environmental factors that affect performance on IQ tests.

I'll be honest with you, I love these IQ statistics because they make us Asians look good.  Who doesn't like to be scientifically proven to be better?  I am okay with these tests because in recent research undertakings, Asians have consistently come out on top for whatever reason.  And I am Asian.

Keep in mind that my approval does nothing to ensure the validity of this.  All that is assured is that I, like every human on the planet, like it because it agrees with my pre-conceived opinions as well as pride in my family ancestry.  See how deeply self-satisfying "science" goes?

The fact that I, an Asian, like this crap and am not really arguing against it demonstrates that bias colors everything.  (Even though I am South Asian and not East Asian, but goshdarnit we're from the same continent and I will stake my claim on this territory.). Personally I do feel that it is conclusive, but that follow-up needs to be done.

•• However, the mass response from most academics as well as the herd populace has also been unscientific.  Simply considering the possibility that behavior might be rooted in inherent intelligence, has been rendered verboten.  With their cries of, "Intelligence can't be measured, it is not quantifiable," and "Intelligence does not actually exist," "What is intelligence?," "There is no such thing as inherent intelligence," "Intelligence is a social construct," et al.

That feeling of distaste, nay disgust at encountering one of these studies that most likely prompted this mass response -- I get it, believe me, I get it.  Reading one of these reports when they go into unflinching detail about what low IQ implies...  At first one only feels indifference, oh huzzah another social science article.  But very quickly, it is nauseating, it is sickening, one feels ill reading one of these things.  Plus, James Watson is kind of an ahole.  He stole his so-called groundbreaking pioneering DNA research from Rosalind Franklin.  And now apparently in an effort to boost his low self-esteem from having no self-made accomplishments, he is trying to put other people down.

I feel ya.  But the sweeping blanket response from the scientific community has been an emotional one, not a rational one.  The logical approach would have been to say, "These are very serious allegations.  This might appear to be superficially racist, but perhaps we should not dismiss it so reflexively.  There does seem to be some merit in this hypothesis.  After all, look at the state of African Americans in this country even though there have been affirmative action, welfare, government housing subsidies, educational help, et al., all sorts of social programs for decades.  And that is nothing compared to the state of Africa.  Again, I know it is extremely offensive.  But the truth usually is."

•• At least these recent studies were conducted with much more empirical testing standards than the infamous "experiment" done by __ in the late 1800s.  In that one, ___scientist__  was filling deceased human craniums with cottonseed.  He would then measure how much cottonseed was used per brain, and he took the average for each race.  ...And then it turned out he had subconsciously been filling the craniums of deceased whites with more cottonseed than the craniums of deceased blacks.

However I do have questions about this that I would like answered.  How does lack of IQ points translate linearly into a penchant for violence?  Assault, violence against women, mugging.  Plus the long list of legal fiduciary crimes like skimming money from a corporation and calling this "capital gains."  I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, ironically, etc.  I really do want to know.  What are the current theories in psychology?

Also, why would a drop in IQ points proportionately translate into increased violent urges?  What is the correlation?  Again, I am not asking to be sarcastic, sardonic, ironic, to put anyone in their place, etc.  I am truly curious.  There must be some neurological basis to this.  Some sort of brain chemistry that would offer some insight.

It needs to be noted that IQ does not necessarily correlate with morality.  Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't automatically mean they are a good person who has respect for their fellow human beings.  Having good judgement in matters of how to treat people, politeness, respect for someone's right to bodily autonomy, someone's right to personal space.  High raw intelligence on a person -- ability to solve puzzles and brain teasers, ability to understand science and mathematics -- does not automatically preclude that same person from turning into an evil villain that wants to block the sun from the earth thereby forcing the human race to bend to his/her will.

Now, many people with high IQs *do* have a strong sense of morality.  But are the two things intrinsically tied together as a neurological trait?  These two facets of a person's being, how much do they have to do with each other?  How closely related are a person's innate intelligence and this same person's sense of right and wrong?

My note that high IQ does not automatically correlate with increased morality was not quite based on whole facts.  This was mostly anecdotal; you know, the Nazi "medical" experimenters that were an excuse to torture and maim people, and the atom bomb, and the hydrogen bomb.

Hmm...  Perhaps not so anecdotal, after all.  This is a very interesting population survey that was published in Gene Expression online.  This might be due to the possibility that smart kids are better at risk-assessment:  any possible temporary benefits of casual sex are far outweighed by the possible long-term consequences of casual sex.  This guy here has some good commentary on the article.  In biomedical research, higher testosterone levels are documented to lead to more risky behavior, including increased aggression, increased sexual urges, increased violent urges, lower IQ, less impulse control, less ability for risk assessment, and less capacity for self-control. 

Okay, I went of on a branch for a bit, since I do not consider this part of the titular "wishful thinking."  It was just a fascinating bit of statistics that I thought worth mentioning.

•• The notion that women are less intelligent than men.  [[[___study that compared brain mass in women to brain mass in men___]]]]]
this was carried out in the late 1800s___
This is mostly juvenile hogwash.
they left out a few key facts, though.  ^it is the mass ratio of brain-to-body that determines intelligence, not simply brain mass. 
The ratio of brain mass to body mass does in fact determine intelligence.  blue whales have larger brains than humans.  However, an average blue whale is ___ kg, or __ pounds.  Humans have the largest brain-to-body mass ratio of all animals.  This comparison spans the entire kingdom animalae, from blue whales to gorillas.  In addition, female humans, on average, are smaller in mass than male humans.
^Besides brain mass, there are a host of other factors that determine intelligence.  Good cholesterol for neuron sheaths, sodium electrolyte content, to name just a few.

•• One of the more laughable theories is the one that claimed that in humans, outward signs of female fertility has moved from the butt to the boobs.  I wish I were making this up.  Hopefully, this has already been discredited with a swift guffaw.

•• Different types of intelligence.  I suspect that this list was devised partly to counteract any politically incorrect conclusions that have been drawn from previous intelligence tests.  On this list are things such as empathy, musical intelligence, sports intelligence, and art intelligence.  Erm, ok, well, those things are important of course; it is always good to have extracurricular activities and hobbies.  But to call them forms of straight-up intelligence seems a bit silly.  And things like empathy are very important, no question about that, but these are character traits, not the same thing as intelligence.

Monikering all these different -- and admittedly very important -- abilities in a human being as "intelligence" seems like a saccharine ploy to appeal to irritating parents, to try to reassure them that their kid isn't stupid.  Intelligence is important, but it is not the most important thing that makes a noble human being, and it certainly is not the only.  And musical or athletic ability is not dictionary-defined "intelligence."
I kinda sorta feel it's just bending to the will of PC types as well as powerful PC social lobby groups, like bloggers and stuff.

•• Ranting, raving nutbags that have the gall to call themselves "radical feminists" claim that the family unit is destructive, oppressive, abusive.  And that we should disband the family unit altogether because having any connection to one's heritage and ancestral culture is bad for society or something like that.

Well, to be fair, I don't think this was ever presented as being actual science.  It is unfortunate that proponents of this, um, theory, call themselves feminists.  They make normal, sane feminists look bad.  The fact is that the majority of feminists do want to get married and have families.  They just want that their husbands be involved and invested in the family and children, as well.  Look at the majority of feminists in the public sphere.  Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Bev Perdue, Eleanor Roosevelt, Indira Ghandi, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Nafisa Sadik, Queen Noor of Jordan -- they are all feminists, and they all have families as well.

These are but a few examples.  True, there are women such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who never married nor had children.  But they are still normal, and they aren't sitting there saying that society should do away with nuclear families altogether.  And the vast majority of feminists, believe it or not, have not said that family is evil.  The central dogma of feminism is that of a woman pursuing career vs. family.  Feminists are not saying that either one is worse or better.  As individual human beings they are simply trying to decide which one is more important to themselves in their lives -- a sense of family or a sense of accomplishment.


I'm just trying to do my civic duty in exposing pseudo-science, separating it from true science.  Like James Randi, or like these guys:
http://loveofallwisdom.com/2010/01/cross-cultural-anorexia/

All that bias existing in the social sciences is unfortunately possible because it does not truly take heed to rigorous scientific protocol.  It does not truly pass standards of scientific research, data collecting, experimental design.  Any abstract concept such as psychology is always at the mercy of the opinions, whims, and personal experiences of the people that dabble in the subject.  It is not a distinct cut-and-dry field such as any of the science, math, engineering, technology fields.  It is obviously fluid and open to interpretation, and therefore it can unfortunately be manipulated to suit the personal agendas of its proponents.

It's all just opinion and conjecture anyway.  From the vast epochs of human experience, it is not a difficult task to be able to draw samples that can support just about any hypothesis your pretty little head can think of.  It might take some time, but invariably, it is realistically possible.

No better than other hoaxes that have come before it.  We have more sophisticated instruments nowadays, such as 3-D simulating software that can reconstruct skulls and stuff like that.  This only allows us to fool more people, more effectively, more believably.
P.T. Barnum "A sucker is born every minute."
Piltdown man

**And I'm not the only one that thinks so.  Recall the hoax enacted by the guy who successfully got a bullspit article published in an academic peer-reviewed journal.  He veritably played a social experiment prank on social studies itself.  He was able to demonstrate that in academia, the cloudy areas of philosophy and psychology, sure enough, there is a lot of fog backing up the prodigal airwaves.  Wishful thinking and empty pomp are perpetrated on the gullible academic world all the time, and this eventually trickles down to the unsuspecting public.

I tried half-heartedly to get through his essay, but I didn't understand what the hell it was talking about.  Good god, it was chock full of a bunch of words that were pedagogical, epistemological, epistemically, philosogistic, logogistic.  (I got those words from Wikipedia, so I hope they are accurate as used here.)  All of which the author probably crammed in there on purpose.

Well, in the social scientists' defense, this is not a recent trend.  Social research bias has been going on for as long as there has been social research.

Academic journals that set research guidelines are also aware of this.  Research parameters for recording data__  That is why double-blind methods were established for conducting behavioral research.  Double-blind means that the research subjects, the ones being experimented on, are unaware of what the experiment is testing for, like usual.  But also the researchers themselves who are observing and collecting data are also unaware of what the experiment is testing for.

An example is the double-blind method often used in clinical trials of new medications before hitting the market.  These precautions were enacted to correct for possible selective observation carried out by the researchers themselves.  The researchers who record results might subconsciously notice only the behaviors displayed by the test subjects that jives with the forecasted behaviors that the researchers expected to see -- this is what the double-blind method corrects for.

Unfortunately, double-blind research methods are not always used, due to the usual suspects of time and money constraints.  In many instances, not using double-blind methods is understandable.  The sheer magnitude of available information is overwhelming, and furiously jotting down every single behavior displayed by test subjects is wasteful of resources and of time.

Social darwinism
Eugenics
Sure, they certainly would not describe _themselves_ as social Darwinists, no argument there.  Nobody ever identifies themselves as social Darwinists, just the same as how no one would ever describe themselves as racist, sexist, misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic, hypocritical, closed-minded, prejudiced, stuck-up, conceited, up on one's high horse, up on a soapbox.  People do not like to use negative terminology to describe themselves, even if they do exhibit all the defining behavior.  What's in a name, all that good stuff.

Just like how zodiacs, horoscopes, dowsing, other forms of radiesthesia are all pseudosciences.  Hey, I love reading the horoscopes every day, meself.  It's fun.

Things like visiting a fortune teller at a carnival, practicing mind-reading with card tricks, seeing performance of a stage hypnotist.  Most people agree that with things like this, we don't even need to bother calling them "pseudoscience."  Leave the "science" word out altogether.  Nobody in their right mind thinks of any of this as "science."  Although we do have fun with it anyway.  Just call it what it is -- entertainment.

The Cooperative Gene

I have discovered a new guideline for evolution:  Cooperation.  This can be seen all throughout the timeline of evolution.

We are all aware that Richard Dawkins and his asswipe self has dogmatically declared that only the selfish gene exists, and that this is somehow justification to be cruel aholes, even for self-aware, sentient beings such as humans.

But I do not agree with this.  Look around you, observe your community, watch and read the news every day.  You will see that when humans act in selfish, cruel, abusive ways, this harms everyone around them.  Same deal with behavior that might not necessarily be cruel or abusive, but it is phenomenally careless and it is bad decision-making.  It does not even necessarily benefit the person exhibiting this behavior.

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  We have evolved to the point that we can consciously, purposely decide whether we want to continue letting our so-called evolutionary destiny (i.e., biological imperatives) determine our fate -- or to choose our fate for ourselves.

Now to return to how cooperation drives evolution, rather than selfishness driving evolution.

Cooperation drives evolution, from molecules that needed to form large, common aggregates, to societies that work together as a cohesive whole.  These are safer, more advanced, more compassionate and better for humans than disjointed flurries and tumbleweeds of "every man for himself."

The more centralized and localized a molecule's energy can be directed, the better.  Subtle nuanced ways.  There exists a very delicate balance between weighing the needs of specific aspects of targeted electronic behavior vs. the needs of the entire population.  The smallest transgression will cause a tumble and fall down a slippery slope.  For example, delocalization of electrons across a small molecule will stabilize that molecule.  However, macromolecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA are the basis of living organisms.

E.g., a society needs to work together and be socialist, with evenly distributed responsibilities, to a limited extent.  At the same time there needs to be a head of state and society, a working central government to keep things running smoothly.  "Every man for himself" does not work for permanent civilization.

We see the same theme with a cell.  The more compartmentalized a cell is, the more advanced it is.  Compare eukaryotic cells (meaning "true cell") to prokaryotic cells (bacterial, therefore primitive and not "true" advanced cells).  The more advanced "true cell" has specialized organelles and machinery that are tasked with the various metabolic, digestive, respiratory, and storage needs of the cell.

A sponge or coral reef located deep within the darkest trenches of the ocean is more like an aggregate of several million cells, rather than a true single organism with cells working on concert. It is classified as one of the most primitive members within the kingdom Animalia.

The presence of neural material -- this arose as a way for the entire multi-celled organism to be connected and organized.  This is a highly efficient way for the various far-reaching parts of an organism to communicate (exchange information) with each other.  For example, plants and fungi are not nearly as complex in structure or physiology as animals are, even though they are multi-celled.  They have no neurological tissue.  There does not exist the lightning-fast method of communication from one part of a plant to another.

A cockroach is slightly more evolved than any given plant.  Because of this (or perhaps "therefore" rather than "because"), the cockroach has delocalized neural ganglia, spread throughout its body.  By contrast, higher species more evolved than the cockroach, have most of the neural capacity concentrated in one area.

However, a very important point must be noted.  Cooperation [[[   altruism, collective common, the greater good, the collective community, the benefit of the comm ]]]]  the concept of doing what benefits the greater community only works if *everyone* contributes.

Cooperation does not work if there are severe discrepancies in inherent ability.  it only works if all the people [individual members of the population] are intelligent in the broad sense, and more importantly if they are roughly equal in intelligence.  it also only works if all people feel an inherent ethic, an obligation to the community.

It does not work if there are vastly ___ [[ different, contrasting, conflicting??? ]] cognitive capabilities between many members of a population.  you can't have one segment reaping and sucking all the benefits of so-called "cooperation" while another segment does all the work of empathizing and cooperating.
disparate, contrasting

This is demonstrated with division of labor in an interacting population.  As history progressed, fields of study became more engorged and corpulent with knowledge, driving the need for specialized skills in the trades.  Certain types of work were delegated to learned experts in their given fields.

Before this, one family might have taken care of all of its own needs -- farming livestock, farming vegetational nutrition sources, food preparation, building a house, providing warmth... and sometimes teaching children to read and write.  As you might imagine, oftentimes all of the former responsibilities of root survival were such that parents were unable to teach their children the latter three R's.  Generations passed where large percentages of the population were illiterate.  But in the modern age, there is shared responsibility between all the members of a settlement.

Centralization, that is, accumulation in one place drove interaction.

As specialization increased within many different fields, this drove members of a population to cooperate and interact with each other.  They were forced to trust other members of the community with certain tasks.  Specialization and centralization drove cooperation.

Centralization drives unification.  Rather than having to do everything for themselves, a family could take advantage of specialized skill sets offered by the community at large.  And in turn, the family would offer their skills to the community.

The selfish gene?  We have evolved enough so that we no longer have to allow any sort of slavemonger selfish gene to make our decisions for us.  We do not have to be ruled by the selfish gene.  You've heard of post-modern.  Here's post-evolution.

The topic of banning books and other media

I just realized something, a strange line of commonality that connects people that want to ban various stuff.

People that say that belief in a deity leads to violence had better also say that looking at violent video games/movies/TV shows etc. leads to violence.

One can easily posit the argument that religion does not lead any one person to violence any more than watching or reading "a clockwork orange" leads to violence.

Many people are religious, and the sheer statistics/proportion/percentage of religious people to religious-people-that-commit-violent-acts-in-the-name-of-religion are staggering.  Simply put, there are a lot more non-violent religious people than there are violent religious people.

Entertainment liberals make the claim that video games, et al. do not lead anyone to commit violent acts.  Any given criminal would have committed violent crimes even in the absence of having witnessed the portrayal of violent acts in entertainment.  The violent act comes from the perpetrator, not from the entertainment medium.

However, if this is true, then whoever supports this claim must also support the notion that religion does not lead anyone to commit violent acts.

Bleeding over

We have all heard irritating compaits from housewvs or other females catetwaulig that, ""ohhhh mens always bring eork problems bome; they complain abot theor jerass bosss, __ their incompetent slacking-off coworkers, __ their disprespectul underlings.""
-usually when in som crap job like customer service.

- yeah, and tu know ehat else is true?  Women brign bime rooblems to work.
- whatevr dude she is currently havin sxe with at the momsnt.

- I'm sittig here thinking, "lady, shut up and donyur damn job."

Women are intimidated by everything

any measure in which another woman might be perceived to be superlative, even if only superficial.

** women are, for the love of God, they are intimidated and threatened by a goddamn picture in a magazine.

Remember the whole anorexia ((craze notorious, controversy)) of the 1990s?  I never wuite hndrstood why some pictures ofi heroin addicts in magazines would drive anyone to starve themsleves and induce vomiing.  Jsy because soem stupid model in a magazien is anorexic, why the hell wouls this threaten you?  What the hell do skinny strangers have to do with you?

Now,  If you were concerned for their well-being, that is anoher story entirely.  But that's not what teenage grils got themselves caught up in.
** thye are indimidqted by atupid plastic dolls.  Granted, this one involves children and not teenagers or grown women.  But I still find this to be a shoddy excuse for growth and emotional solvency as a human being.

** They say they want to be good at their jobs, but they are offnded and humiliated if siemone calls them "bossy."  Ah, exvuse me, but if a wiman is a boss, manager, or aupervisor___ then she has to be bossy.  That is a job requirement.  I am a biss.  I have to supervise a large team of people.  If somoen calls me 'bossy,' that is a compoiment because it means I am doi my job.
_Mrs. Westlake gets it.

-- by models.  Are you kidding me?  They are intomidated by inanimate emaciated zombies whiese only talent is having erect nipples (hehe, thats from MAD TV way back in the day) and walking ina steaigt line?  Like Edna Mode said, "stupid little stick figures__ with poufy lips."
__my objections to __ is a human rights and morals issue;; respect formwomn, wanting society to imprive and mive towards true social evilution.
ii cannot blv that so many women claimed the reason bikini models send them into a [[quivering sobbing stupor_]] is that they hineslt think those human caricatures are better than tham.  This was a hugr source of feelings of [_inadequacy, unworthiness_]] [[__that was taletold, toldtale_ reportedly_]] last decade; I have not jept up so I do not know if this isstill the case.

Women are intimidated by other women

I think most people are aware that men are intimidated by intelligent professional wom.  This is not news to anyone.  this has been affirmed, made fun of, and reinforced countless times in pop culture and in normal everyday life.

You know who else is intimidated by intelligent scientific women?  Oher wimen.
- mw are intimidated by anyone they perveive to be mre exteaordinary in any eay.  More intellgent, better-looking, better able to take care of their families.

i cannot count the number of times I had reaf in wmn's magazines that some such denizen wishes "that btc would quit braggi about how smart she is."
- they primoted an attitude of jealoiusy and bitriol and rage.  a magazine simply "promoing" a skewed mentailith would not be a big deal -- if women jut wised up and decided for themselves, "you kniw what?  I'm not going to allow this mental abuse in mymlife.  I'm goig to be smarter and emotionally healthier than this."  And then they could simply stop reading thise magazines.  After all, a glossy magazine cantt "encourage women" ot do anything.  And it certainly cNtt *make* women do anything -- unless they were so damn weak and gullible that they allowed it.

That was back then on tree and ink.  Nowadays this attitude is spread in the new media of the internets.

the only thing I can surmise is that these articles continue to get written because wom agree wih them.  I have had so majy conversations with wom__  they ask me waht I do for a living.  ___as soon as I mention that I am a biomedical reararcher, they contract sligkty nervous looks on their faces ,,their voices drop, and conversation grinds to a halt.

Now that I am a medicL resident, thye show marginally more interest in making concersation about my daily job experiences.  I am guessing gthis is because they have seen doctors on TV, and they are pateints od doctors inr realife, so they are somehwt aqcuainted with what the job entails. job.
But bakc when ij was working on my Ph.D in biochemistry, this is not the reaction they had upon learnin what I did for  a livin.  Their vOices wilted, Thye cast their eyes downward, and conversation died off.

I remember being in high achool and interviewing at colleges for scholarships and things of that naure.  At one interviea,  there was a group of professors and administrators intervewing me.  I was tellin them of biw I wanted to major in microbioloyg qnd thwm go on to medical school.  Their smiles faded, they lookd down and stilopped amkig eye ckntact, and suddenly couldnt think of any follow-up questions to ask.

** women are intimidated by good moms.  They are seethingly jealous___  They choke and sputter and are rabid foaming at the mouth __when_ another woman who actually pays attention to her kids and cares about her kids and does a wonderful job taking care of her kids.

_ They are jealoius and angry of a woman who has raised well-behaved, polite, well-read chikldren ,,,who are lerhaps star students in school, are involved in a bumber of exteacurriular activities, are not hooked on drugs or alcohol or sex.
-- there are articles all over the internet ((there are commercails on tvv))) that portray a good mom as beig a stuck-up anal retentive judgementla bct.  While the onlooker, the party that I guess we are sipposed to identify with, is a pathetic loser who cantt keep a man and is ravenously jealous of the good mom.

they say that these wives and mothers are somehow responsible for these strong-capable-career-women's lack of happiness.  Theys ays these bousewuves are setting impossible to ajieve untealisti standards that no realmperson could ever possibly hope to reach.

they say that they feel unadequate and [[like a failure when compared to bomemaker wkmen. -- this is stupid.  It is an asinine iterprtstion of the existncd of wives and mothers.  Why should you feel intimifaed by them?  I would think that instead of that, they should be a role model.  Ii think this entiltes her toilmense respect amd admiration.  The wondeful way that they manage their families should serve as an inspiration to you.

they say that these "perfect housewives" are runinjng modern standards of evalitaruon.  They say that they are oerpetuatig a sexist culture__  they accuse these wome of setting femisnims back to the 1950s

- bill cosby, growing pains, full house, who's the boss
Back in the 80s, most sitcoms featured a set of parents who were good parents.  They put effort into their child-rearing.
But nowadays, with the advent of irony and co.___, where a good mom cares about her kids' well-being and prepares them for the future,,, she is always painted as being stuck-up, judgmental, holier-than-thou, conceited, etc.

"Mad Men" and Victorian Sex

Everyone has commented about how the ladies on that "Mad Men" show especially Christina Hendricks are glorious, womanly, voluptuous, curvy in all the right places, all that good stuff.  And rightfully so.  And everyone has commented on what a tall, delicious slice of meltingly hot ass Jon Hamm is.  Okay, so far so good.

Also more than just a few people have waxed nostalgic about the good ole days when women were womanly, seductive, sensual, sensuous, enjoyed being women as pretty feminine beings, and didn't screech and scream histrionics about how being a fat slut was empowering because she's a strong woman in charge of her own life.  You know, you had the Gibson Girls with Evelyn Nesbitt and Camille Clifford, to 1940s cigar girls and pinups, to sexy secretaries from the 1960s with cat-eye framed glasses.  And you also have a lot of people reminiscing about the good ole days in which men actually cared about how they presented themselves to the world, took pride in their appearance, debonair and dashing, tended meticulously to personal hygiene, dressed gentlemanly and more importantly they acted gentlemanly, and they weren't antisocial fat losers that played video games in which they r-- women and they complain about why women won't have sex with them.

But as of yet, nobody, and I mean nobody, has made the observation that Jon Hamm could be considered the modern-day Arrow Collar Man.

Come on people, I had to find out about this by looking up "Victorian clothing" in the Google?  Don't get me wrong, I love vintage clothing from the Victorian era, Edwardian era, and other olden times.  But I can't believe no one has yet bestowed upon that fine male specimen the honor of the label "Arrow Collar Man." It should have been so obvious.  I don't actually watch the show myself because from the reviews it seems that Jon Hamm's character not only has a nice ass but also is an ass, and most of the characters all around all not savory people.  But come on, the show takes place in a vintage-retro era, and the guy is gorgeous.  Look at him.

Tina Fey has noted that Jon Hamm looks like a cartoon pilot, so that's progress.  But come on.  Arrow collar man, people.  That should have been the first thing to pop up in everyone's mind.  Him and that other dude on the show that often tends to play a gigolo/man-golddigger in a lot of his roles.

Women and visual stimulation

This is a biggie.  What's all this pop culture babble about how women supposedly are not visually stimulated?  "Women are not visual creatures."  "Women are not turned on by images of hot men."  "Women are not responsive to visual cues."  Images.  Pictures of good-looking men.

What is all this crap?  I don't buy it for a second.  _Of course_ women are visually stimulated.  I'm not going to encounter a picture of a shirtless athletic muscular guy and then dismiss it and be all like, "What's more important is whether or not he would help out with chores at home and raise the kids and bring me flowers just for the heck of it."

Erm, it's a picture of a stranger.  If he is really gorgeous, that's good enough for me.  It is a stranger, so it's a given that we are not going to do anything intimate, of course.  But in terms of garden variety arousal, impeccable looks is most definitely a positive.  Perhaps seeing only looks are not going to put me in a mad frenzy.  However, I am certainly not going to avert my eyes and proceed to wonder if he would be okay with visiting my parents on Sundays.

Are there truly any women out there that are sincerely going to try to tell people that a picture of a male underwear model is not arousing?  Go to the men's underwear department of any retail store.  Take a good look at the product packaging.  Hot.  Delectably hot.  Why is popular psychology so hell-bent intent on insisting that women are not visual beings in the least?

There seriously seem to be males as well as females out there that still feverishly foaming-at-the-mouth insist that women do not register any male physical attraction.  They screech and squawk shrilly that women are just fine being attracted to fat balding ugly men with pug noses and beer guts.  They furiously try to pimp out at the public that women are _only_, but _only_ attracted to friendliness, sense of humor,
--and that all of that would be acceptable in a package that is a hunchback with a peg leg.

I don't think there is any straight woman on the planet who would be unappreciative of a gorgeous male specimen.  I don't think any woman can say, if she were being truly honest with herself, that she would apathetically dismiss a prime example of a male specimen at physical peak and say, "meh.  I would rather look at a picture of a fat dude who delights in heart-to-heart conversations."

Men should not go on believing whatever pop psychologists tells them since it somehow fulfills their ultimate nerdboy fantasies.  Men should not go on nurturing a whole lot of wishful thinking and self-projections that they wish were true.  You should not go on pretending that negative self-projections and insecurities are somehow validated by the latest pseudo-psychology philosobabble.

Ohmigosh, high blood pressure, gigantic body percentage of fat, and zero social skills are _so_ hawt.  Ohmigosh , greasy skin, and pus trapped under pockets under flabs of skin that don't get accessed and cleaned out on a regular basis because the guy is too lazy and miserable to bother washing himself properly is SUCH a turn-on.

Why does this myth still persist that women don't care about a man's looks?  That women don't want a man that is desirable, sexy, lights her loins on fire?

Do not allow yourself to stoop to that level.  I'm not even talking about the sake of romance anymore, I mean in terms of who you are as a human being.  I'm talking about how you perceive yourself as a man.

You do not want to be one of those fat-ass pathetic losers, gigantic beer bellies, horrible grooming and hygiene, who spend all day sitting on their asses in front of a computer screen or gaming console, rubbing around and ___ their joysticks as well as their video gaming controls.  Stuffing his pustuled, greasy-complexioned, whiteheaded, blackheaded face with double cheeseburgers and soda and corn chips, living out some make-believe world that is all in their head.  Their thumbs are the only part of their body that get any exercise on a regular basis.  Well, after further consideration, they probably do need all ten fingers to play with their joysticks.

Do not allow yourself to become one of these males that have convinced themselves that women who desire well-groomed, hygienic men that keep themselves in shape absolutely must be no-room-for-questions shallow.

Do not allow yourself to fall into the trap of turning into a loser living vicariously through his video games, wishing he were a special forces Covert Ops Black Ops officer.

You cannot keep ignoring how frenzied women get at bachelorette parties screaming and stuffing dollar bills down the jock shorts of a mouthwatering young specimen.  Go on and ignore how massively, rampantly, successfully those "Firefighter" calendars sell every year.

You cannot go on ignoring the plain evidence, the plain facts that are right in front of your face.  You cannot go on ignoring common sense.  You cannot go on disregarding all the grecian godlike male celebrities that make women scream and faint and wet themselves.

The Truth: Margaret Sanger Was Not Racist, Nor Was She Pro-Abortion

Why do so many people keep demonizing Margaret Sanger?  She was not, as far too many people mistakenly believe, in favor of abortion.  Nor was she preoccupied with exterminating non-white races.

Take the time to read her own accounts of this.  She had originally been charged with performing abortions for women who did not want to have more children.  Margaret Sanger herself was shocked, appalled, disgusted, and horrified at the fact that the women had to resort to this to keep from carrying pregnancies to term.  These women had no choice but to rely on having their insides sucked out, probed, prodded, scratched out, and subject to this kind of violence simply because they wanted to give their bodies a break from the grueling labor that was pregnancy and childbirth.

Because of what Margaret Sanger witnessed, she became a staunch advocate of birth control.  Precisely because she was against abortion is the reason that she founded an advocacy group that provided women with contraceptives.

She was a happily married woman who wanted safe, reliable birth control for herself and her husband.  The vast majority of women for whom she wanted access to birth control were married women who just wanted reasonable spacing between having children.

Margaret Sanger advocated BIRTH CONTROL.  Say it with me, people, birth control.  Now spell it:  B-I-R-T-H-space-C-O-N-T-R-O-L.  She did this for the express purpose of reducing abortions.

People seem to think she was racist.  Why, because she thought mentally handicapped people and poverty-stricken people should not have children?  How the hell is that racist?  That is not racist; that is common sense.  It is good judgment and it is showing concern for the future of society not to desire reproduction from mentally handicapped people.  Mental handicap and poverty can strike anyone of any race.

The fact is, mentally handicapped people and poverty-stricken people are NOT equipped to be good parents.  Social and emotionally-evolved creatures such as human beings need parents who are fully capable of raising a child with love, discipline, structure, and order.  A child fares best if he/she is raised in a stable, loving household where the two parents are married and treat each other right, neither one is violent or asshole-ish, neither one does drugs, and both are educated.  Mentally handicapped people are not capable of this.

It is a crying shame that general pop society is given to stupidly-swayed political correctness, because this prevents truth from being broadcast.  Raising children costs money.  Raising children requires nutritious, healthy food, it requires clothing, it requires ample hygiene and sanitation, that means laundry detergent, soap, toilet paper.  Raising children requires the parents to be able to afford regular doctor check-ups; it requires being able to easily afford rent each and every month; it requires being able to live in a safe, clean, secure place and not just any old ragtag slum housing; that means working functioning pipes with clean water.

I have witnessed that the type of people that are convinced that Planned Parenthood is "evil" are twisted, messed up people with horrific, tragic lack of intelligence.  This includes both extreme conservatives as well as extreme liberals.  They have a complete lack of good judgment.

----
More on Sanger and the Negro Project: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/) is an excellent resource for debunking many of the other myths about Sanger.
----------
Original Link: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html

“The Sanger-Hitler Equation” #32, Winter 2002/3

Search for Margaret Sanger’s name on the Internet and you will quickly be bombarded by claims that she supported Hitler and the Nazi’s human elimination programs, or at the very least inspired the Nazi architects of race improvement. “Hitler and Sanger Join Hands” blares one anti-Sanger diatribe; “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization and the Swastika” is the title of another; “Let us look forward to the day when Planned Parenthood clinics are made into holocaust museums,” concludes another attack on Sanger’s writings. One web site features photos of Sanger and Hitler united under a Swastika. Another inserts the phrase “concentration camps” into a 1932 Sanger speech to demonstrate her real motives, a novel form of textual annotation that is then passed on like a virus to other sites who point to the phrase as documented evidence of Sanger’s final solution.

Though this disinformation campaign, designed to arouse anger and anti-choice activism, resides largely on the Internet, in colorful, sensationalized pages, even the more respectable print outlets have picked up many of the most extreme Nazi-related allegations about Sanger as voiced by anti-abortion activists at newsworthy events or on Op-Ed pages. They then print them without comment, in effect publishing them as fact. The Associated Press, for example, reported on an anti-abortion march in Birmingham on October 14 of this year, quoting a participant who described Sanger “as racist as she could be,” and linked her to Hitler’s race policies. A Canadian paper, the Calgary Sun, ran a Sept. 1 opinion piece that claimed Sanger “backed the Nazi race purification program until it became unfashionable.” And even though mainstream publications are not actually calling Sanger a Nazi, they are, increasingly, referring to her (as the New York Times did in a September 19 article on the opening of the Museum of Sex in New York City) as a “eugenicist” before associating her with birth control.

Every year there are dozens more characterizations of Sanger as a pro-Nazi, genocidal racist appearing in newspapers, right-wing biographies and purported histories of planned parenthood, and especially on the Internet. Sanger is by no means alone among controversial social reformers and liberators painted as grotesques by extremist opponents of their beliefs and accomplishments; Martin Luther King, Jr., and Eleanor Roosevelt can ably compete with her for this posthumous fame. But the attacks against Sanger resonate in a way that attacks on others do not, largely because of the emotions generated by the abortion debate.

Unfortunately these misrepresentations of Sanger as a Nazi sympathizer who carried out her own quiet form of genocide through abortions, the spread of harmful contraceptives and the advocacy of racist “eugenic” policies – supported by the circulation of Sanger’s controversial writings on eugenics – have begun to infect unbiased student research that is increasingly dependent on unverified and unsubstantiated information only a mouse click away. Granted most of the Internet sites that link Sanger and Hitler as the dark angels of human carnage don’t hide their pro-life, anti-choice associations. But the “Big Lie” theory works – the more you say it, the more it sticks.

Sanger never met Hitler, except in her unconscious (see below). And the reality is that despite the fact that Sanger’s anti-militarism and isolationism during the 1920s and 1930s at times obscured her abhorrence of the Nazis, she was deeply shocked and horrified by the evils and dangers of fascism, Hitler and the Nazi party. “All the news from Germany is sad & horrible,” she wrote in 1933, “and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.” (MS to Edith How-Martyn, May 21, 1933 [MSM C2:536].) She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and “gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.” (“World War II and World Peace,” 1940? [MSM S72:269].) For Hitler the feeling was mutual; in 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger’s books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others. (Ellis to MS, Sept. 3, 1933 [LCM 3:385].)

How then does Sanger end up keeping company with Hitler? In this predominantly Internet-based netherworld of revisionist Sanger profiles there are two paths linking Sanger to Hitler, and they frequently intersect. On one, Sanger is accused of murdering millions through abortion, either directly as an abortionist, or as the primary force in creating a culture that devalues human life as evidenced by the rising number of abortions through the twentieth century. This is the unacknowledged “holocaust” commandeered by Sanger. In these absurd depictions she was an even more efficient killer than Hitler or Stalin. One well-quoted assault on Sanger’s legacy, George Grant’s 1995 book, Killer Angel, charges Sanger with the “brutal elimination of thirty million children in the United States and as many as two and a half billion worldwide.” The fact that Sanger’s clinic did not offer abortions and that she advocated birth control as the only remedy for abortion does little to dispel the myth that Sanger pressed abortion upon the masses.

But the main vehicle used to metamorphose this feminist liberator into a Nazi is Sanger’s limited and largely self-serving role in the short but spectacular rise of American eugenics – a movement that sought to apply the principles of genetics to improving the human race. By lifting passages from Sanger’s writings on eugenics and sterilization while failing to provide the complete argument or proper context, and by linking her with notorious racists within the eugenics movement, debunkers of Sanger’s achievements have given her a fiendish make-over.

In one of the seminal texts in this extremist assault on Sanger, the 1979 Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (both its title and cover – pictured here– prepare the reader for the many leaps of faith to come), the author suggests that Sanger, through her “eugenic” writings and speeches, put into motion a “‘polite’ genocide with an army of biologists, sociologists, eugenicists and psychologists at her side,” and did so without raising any suspicions among the people. (p. 24) So effective was Sanger as a propagandist, claims the author, that her debased “values” have become “those of modern Western civilization and are rapidly becoming the morals which dominate the rest of the world.” (p. 9)

What is, of course, overlooked is that Sanger used the popular eugenics movement to help promote birth control as a science-based remedy for overpopulation, poverty, disease and famine. Incorporating the rhetoric of the eugenics movement into her writings allowed Sanger to make a stronger biological argument that fertility control was necessary for the improvement and health of the entire human race, not only as a means to liberate women. Sanger did seek to discourage the reproduction of persons who were, in the terms of her day, “unfit” or “feebleminded,” those, it was believed, who would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. And she did advocate sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control. This was a popular position espoused by many progressive medical leaders, scientists and health reformers of the day – those groups who Sanger hoped to win over to the birth control fight. But in approaching eugenics as a propagandist rather than a scientist, Sanger’s language became dehumanizing, her eugenic recommendations overly simplistic, and her understanding of genetics flawed. Take the oft quoted 1931 “My Way to Peace,” in which Sanger recommends that the government:

  . . . keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class . . . apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. (Jan. 17, 1932 [LCM 130:198].)

These are harsh words intended to appeal not only to eugenicists, but social and health workers who came in contact with all manner of sickness and suffering. Sanger was not referring to short stature or pattern balding when she used the phrase “objectionable traits,” rather she was talking about diseases such as syphilis that were ravaging especially the poor. Unfortunately, she did sometimes apply the term to moral as well as mental defects, though never as virulently as others in the eugenics community.

Offensive terminology aside, Sanger’s beliefs, however inhumane they may seem in the current age of medical enlightenment when human suffering is much less visible in our daily lives, actually came from her direct experience with the poor and oppressed. An illustration can be found in a 1932 letter written to Sanger by a woman requesting birth control advice:

  “I will be thirty-six years old on December 16, 1932. and I shall have been married fifteen years on December 13, 1932. During this time I have given birth to eleven children, of whom four are now living–a boy of 13 1/2 years–a girl of 12 years and twin boys two years old. Three of these eleven children were born badly deformed–one with a hare lip and split palate and two with excessive water and a frog-like form. The last birth (one of the deformed ones) was in August 1931 and had to be accomplished with instruments and the Doctor . . . feared for my life and warned us against further pregnancy.” (Client to MS, July 5, 1932 [MSM S7:218].)

Such dilemmas led Sanger to the strongly held belief that the best way to reduce human suffering was to first provide greater access to birth control. It was also necessary, she argued, to somehow regulate the procreation of those individuals likely to pass on physical or mental disease and disability who were incapable of using or denied access to contraception. But her writings on eugenics, including her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, argued that eugenic measures in and of themselves were not practicable. Instead, she concluded that women’s empowerment through birth control offered the only viable means of improving the human condition.

While “My Way to Peace” is brutally frank and among the most extreme of any of Sanger’s eugenic writings, it does not condone race-based eugenics. Sanger never accepted the racial hierarchies that led to the deadly racist policies of the Nazis. Rather, she vehemently rejected any definition of the “unfit” when it referred “to race or religions.” (MS to Sidney Lasell, Jr., Feb. 13, 1934 [MSM S8:541].) This was not true of the broader eugenics movement, both in Europe and the United States, which blurred the distinction between good science and racial prejudice, and generally failed to protest the perversion of its ideals under the Nazis. A number of American eugenicists excused or even commended reprehensible Nazi race policies camouflaged, however poorly, under the veneer of science.

Sanger did write to and share organizational memberships and conference programs with any number of eugenicists, including such champions of scientific racism as Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, who ran the genetics laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York; and Leon Whitney, secretary of the American Eugenics Society. All of them conflated physical and mental deficiencies with racial ones. While Sanger publicly criticized these most notable eugenicists for their opposition or indifference to birth control, she never publicly condemned their racial views. Her silence is damning in retrospect, but it does not make her a Nazi.

Those who insist on labeling Sanger a Nazi claim time and again that she inspired the men who unleashed the barbarism lurking in eugenics, yet many of the men she supposedly roused to action had, in the main, only a grudging respect tinged with contempt for the woman they saw as a major deterrent to their quest to breed more of the “best.” And though Sanger sought their support for birth control, in most cases she failed to win their endorsement. With few exceptions, American eugenicists advocated increased breeding among the “fit,” defined by them as white Anglo-Saxon Protestants with middle or upper class values, and viewed birth control as the major impediment to the proliferation of these “better stocks.”

Even more than her links with American eugenicists, Sanger’s so-called association with Ernst Rudin, the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich, who helped align prevalent eugenic theories with Nazi race policy, has been featured in nearly every right-wing assault on Sanger’s legacy. The grounds for charges that she knew, corresponded with, or influenced Rudin stem from the April 1933 Birth Control Review (BCR), a special “sterilization number.” Rudin did contribute an article to this issue, as did Harry Laughlin and Leon Whitney and other eugenicists. The issue also included excerpts from the works of Havelock Ellis and influential gynecologist Robert Dickinson. Taken as a whole, the issue presents a clear, if not always comfortable, debate on compulsory sterilization, with forceful arguments for and against, and calls for further research on sterilization as a eugenic measure. But Sanger had resigned as editor of the BCR in 1929 and no longer had any affiliation with the publication. Nevertheless the BCR issue has been held out like a smoking gun in the campaign to brand Sanger a sterilization missionary and Nazi sympathizer. What is never noted is that the one voice absent in the issue is Margaret Sanger’s.

Historians must grapple with the phenomenal amount of material that is being dumped on the Internet. This flood of historical “evidence” is at once liberating and dangerous, for it includes information and disinformation, and there are no help menus to tell the difference. This has become an immense challenge to historical editors who seek to deliver accurate texts in historical context. Some of the incredible attacks on Sanger have existed in book and pamphlet form for several decades now, but in the past only the most zealous would pay for them or go to the trouble to track them down. Now search engines bring them in an instant to our desktops. With sensational headlines, comical juxtapositions, bold assertions and a kind of Twilight Zone aura about them, these anti-choice, anti-Sanger web sites appear to have a sizeable and growing audience. And therein lies the problem; the proliferation of extremist material makes it all seem less extreme, more acceptable to students, journalists and others looking for a quick take on a controversial and complicated figure. History is never that easy.

Men Suck at Logic and Women Suck at Communication

Can we be done already with the idea that men are good at logic and that women are good at communication?  Neither is true.  Their reciprocals are also most certainly not true, and most people know this.  But it needs to be acknowledged that these oft-held assumptions are also definitively untrue. We must tear down these universally-consented-upon notions, for they are false.

Men are not logical.  Now, women are not rational, reasonable beings; no argument there.  Everyone knows this.  But the evidence has spoken -- men are not logical/rational/reasonable/etc, either.

Men like to think that they deal only in facts, figures, and absolutes.  Things that can be quantified, measured, things that have definite right and wrong answers. Men like to spout the notion that they are logical rational beings who only acknowledge concrete information.  I don't mean that they think only in black and white. No, not at all.  They think that they appreciate nuanced variables that can be solutions to a given problem.

What they do not know is that they are governed by emotions and hormones almost as tumultuous as those of any woman.  Men experience hormonal cycles, which a lot of people do not know.  It might not follow a month-long pattern the way women's hormones round.  But men do experience hormone fluctuations that affect their ability for risk-assessment and their foresight.

This is why they approach business mergers and acquisitions with such frenzied gusto, too rashly and without that much forethought.  And it is why these hasty decisions, whether concerning money transactions or going to war, often end in disaster. 

Consider these queries.  Where did the concept of religious zealotry come from?   Who issued fatwas on people's heads?  Who said that gays caused Hurricane Katrina and felt so strongly about it that they preached this on national television?  Or at least preached this notion to mass meetings of people?  If males were logical, then we would not have psychos flying airplanes into buildings.  We would not have carbombers, we would not have airport shoe bombers, we would not have school shootings.

There would be no such thing as r--.  If males were logical, then they would realize that, she said no, let it go, that's it, move on.  If males were logical, then there would be no such thing as asking a woman out, then she said no thanks, then following the woman into a public bathroom and beating the s--- out of her.

From many men's accounts, men inflict onto other men far more damaging, abrasive abuse and harm than anything women inflict onto men.  Including sexual terrorism.  Women are not telling young boys, "oh you’re not getting any?  You’re not a stud?  What are you, a wimpy wussy sissy boy?"

Women are not the ones sending young boys, children really, into war zones to die for what is, in honesty and truth, absolutely no good reason.  Read a dam' news article or two from the last thirty years.  Women are not sending men into war zones to lose limbs or die.  Other men are.  Women are protesting wars.

Men are less safe drivers than women.  Insurance companies are well-aware of this.  This is why they charge higher premiums for male drivers than for female drivers.

Men are not any better at managing money than women are.  Sure, women spend money they do not have on crap they do not need like designer clothes, name brand hair, nails, jewelry.  Now, comedians and everyone else always joke about women's atrocious judgment with money handling.  Which is all true -- women rack up credit card debt on crap like jewelry, hair salon stuff, designer couture name brand clothes, designer shoes, Botox.

But men also are horrendous at managing money.  They rack up credit card debt on things like SUVs, Blu-ray players, DVD players, plasma flat-screen TVs, video game consoles, outdoor camping equipment, gambling, drinking.  Men spend money on electronics, toys, gadgets, video game consoles -- and that includes grown-ass men.

You think that because males play creepy, misogynistic video games wherein they dismember women and then r-- the individual severed limbs, this indicates that they are logical?  Not hardly.

Men start foolhardy business schemes of opening a bar or starting a band without doing the market research of what kind of businesses do best in a given location.  Or finding out how much work and money investment it takes to open a bar.

Men often claim that the only legitimate reason they have to communicate with others, especially with other men, is to exchange useful information.  This sounds reasonable enough until you take a close look at what they define as "information."  They often cite the fact that they keep astride of sports stats.

Hang on a minute.  Oh what, you think that because men quote sports figures and statistics, this means they are logical?  Why?  Because they like sports?  Guffaw.  Your beloved "sports" are nothing more than grown men hitting rubber balls with sticks and running around a playing field.  It is silly comical juvenile fantasy of batting balls around a court, perpetuated by peter pans that refuse to grow up.  It is an overgrown, outdated relic of childhood that is ruefully, wistfully rehashed by people that are legally adults that are trying to relive boyhood fantasies.

There is nothing wrong with liking sports.  Although you couldn't tell from my rant, I really do not think sports are a waste of time.  Sports are fun; I love watching the Olympics myself.

It is common knowledge that women enjoy sports as much as men do.  There might be a slight difference in population percentages, but any given woman sports fan will like sports as much as any given man sports fan.  It is not confined to only one gender, not by a long shot.

Source

But please have the balls to call it what it is -- entertainment.  It is not logical, it is not practical, it is not realistic.

It is entertainment.  It is laughable that anyone would think that exchanging meaningless drivel such as this has any profound meaning.  It is laughable that a grown-up, who supposedly possesses critical thinking abilities, would opine that looking at sports stats has any characteristics whatsoever rooted in "logic."

Now, I personally luurrrve entertainment.  I like movies, TV shows, music, etc.  But I am not laboring under any false pretenses that this crap is "logic."  I call it what it is -- entertainment.

Fine with me.  I like entertainment myself.  But be honest about it.  Either be actually logical, and give up the ghost in the shell, or admit to not being logical.

Now for the next phase.  Women are horrible communicators.  Men are certainly horrendous communicators, no argument there.

Men are bad communicators in that they refuse to communicate at all, and they never listen to what people say, even if the other person is saying stuff straightforwardly.

Women are bad communicators in that they dance around a subject, fudge about, beat around the bush, talk in circles, do anything and everything except come right out and say what they mean.  I am well aware that in pop culture, in pop psychology, and in discussions with friends, the common knowledge that is shared and agreed upon by everyone, is that women are great at communication and men are terrible at communication.  Females love to toot their own horn and declare that they are skilled communicators.

But the truth is, this is simply not the case.  Think about it for a minute.  Really rack through your brain and go back through your memory.  Try to remember conversations you have had with a wife or girlfriend or female friend.  Did she honestly and clearly come straight out and tell you what she was thinking?

Or did she try to tell you, "well why do I have to ask?"
Or, "why didn't you already know that?"
Or, "you should know me better than that.  if you know me so well, why couldn't you tell how I was feeling?"
Or, "why don't you already know what I want for my birthday?" or "our anniversary?" or any major event or holiday.

I read some crap on the internet written by a female, "why can't men just come right out and say what they feel?"

Huh?  Yeah, fekkin right.  As if women are honest and straightforward and come right out and say what they feel.  They don't even know themselves very well.  They cannot easily identify, explain, or even name their own motivations.

"Why can't he just come right out and talk about his feelings?"

Yeah, right.  "Just come right out," as in simply and easily come right out.  Oh yeah, sure, because that's just like SUCH an easy thing to do and women are SO good at expressing their thoughts and/or feelings.

Are you truly one hundred percent aware of your own feelings?

Yeah, right.  That is laughable and a bit sad that you are so hell-bent on getting this person to be in tune with his feelings -- when the whole truth is that YOU are not aware of or in tune with YOUR feelings.  Do you know the difference between love and lust (physical sexual attraction)?  Do you know the difference between love and infatuation?

Love is a decision.  It is something that must be handled delicately and carefully.  Otherwise we have the pandemic of _any_ sort of feeling, whether physical or psychosomatic, being mistaken for love.  It might be fascination, it might be infatuation, it might be a craving for attention.  But I cannot believe it is real, true, peaceful love.

Or from the flip side, I see that some females have a bit of elation at the acknowledgement that someone is finally paying them a bit of attention.  But you have to really truly ponder over it so that you can arrive at the truth.

You have to know the difference between emotions and physical feelings.  You must learn how to distinguish emotional feelings from physical feelings.

Consider for a minute the sheer number of females that are in crappy relationships.  They are in this situation because they are terrible at listening to people.  Some male tells them in no uncertain terms that he is not looking for any steady relationship, and she convinces herself that he will change his mind once he finds out what a stunning fascinating goddess she is.

Or if females, surprise, DO believe a male when he says he is not looking for marriage, then the sneaky manipulation begins.  She will try to seduce him, fool him.  She will try all sorts of underhanded, gutless, cowardly, passive-aggressive tactics to make him think he was the one that thought up the idea of half-baked pseudo-commitment.

They drop so-called "subtle hints" and expect you to be able to read their minds.  Then they get all mad and huffy and puffy that you could not infer their intentions from the psychic brain waves they were sending to you through the ether.

They also refuse to listen to what someone else is straightforwardly saying.  You see, being receptive to other people's communication is crucial to being a good communicator.  Listening and truly paying attention to other people are paramount in any two-way conversation.

Women are horrible at this.  This is why they are terrible at character judgment.  They make excuses for people's behavior.  They think, "oh they don't really mean that."  They think, "oh when they think about it for a while they'll change their mind."  Or, "I'm sure they're just going through a phase; this isn't really them; I'm sure they are a nice person who is considerate of others and cares about their feelings."

I've noticed that females are very easily manipulated.  A guy whispers some crap about love and the next thing you know, bam, her panties are off.  This is again because females believes what they want to believe, they hear what they want to hear.  Or, females assume______  Reverse psychology works excellently on them.  There was this one episode of "Scrubs" where a guest character was described as a "strong, independent woman."  And yet she was very easily manipulated into rebelling against some office-dating rule, and she thought the rebellion was her idea.


All that mess is just more wishful thinking.  That is ignoring someone's behavior that is plainly in front of your face.  Instead of seeing what is truly there, women make up excuses in their heads.  They add false interpretations that don't exist for someone's behavior.  They do a crappy job of interpreting people's behavior.  They believe what they want to believe.

Women need to *stop* trying to fill in the blanks that are not there... and actually start listening.

Gossip

Yes, yes, "Twilight" fans are annoying as f---, we all get it.  I seen it and I wholeheartedly agree.  Now, can we take a minute to talk about "Firefly" fans?  They are seriously deranged, unhinged, f---ed in the head, and mentally unstable.  Say one tepid word about "Firefly" and they will produce death threats, wishes of bodily mutilation and injury, sick twisted macabre acts of torture, gruesome ends, psychological emotional torture in addition to physical torture, and long languorous painful death.  Not cool, aholes.

I know body confidence is a washed-up, has-been, dead topic...

...But I came up with a little nugget just recently, about foodstuffs.  Yeah, I noticed that too.  Why does western culture do absolutely everything psychologically possible to keep girls away from food?

First, it was "Save the whales" or some 3hi+, so make the girls go vegetarian.  Oh poor little babe the pig and Fluffy-toes the cute little lamb ("Mad TV," hehe).  They're so cute and fluffy, you totally can't eat them.  Because of course it is like totally a given that an animal's life is more important that a human's life and health and well-being.  Save the cows and chickens, they're people too.  They have hopes and dreams and desires and heartbreak and joy and happiness and emotions and a need to be actualized and self-realized.

Second, No that's not good enough.  They’re still getting vital nutrients, so we need to prevent that from happening.  Go vegan.

Third, Then it was oh you're a strong independent woman in charge of your own life so stop cooking.  At all.  Anything.  Don’t cook ever.  But what if cooking is a practical, vital necessary skill...  No.  Food is just something that men thought up to keep women submissive.  Food is just something that keeps women meek and in their place and keeps women from voting.  You are not a submissive subjugated woman, are you?  Everyone knows that a strong independent woman in charge of your own life does not know how, and more importantly, refuses to cook for herself.  Be a sexy strong capable woman in charge of your own life.  Cast off the shackles of food and nutrition.

It pains me to observe that last one because I do consider myself a feminist.  You know, I'm thinking that that is just some nonsense coughed up by media that does not know what actual feminism is about.  So they guessticulate and make up some random extremist barely-even-realistic drivel, which in their warped minds, they think has to do with feminism.

I know plenty of strong, educated women in real life and nearly all of them cook their own food on a regular basis.  Not a single one of them dregs up any crap about not wanting to cook food and how that somehow magically makes them less oppressed.

Fourth, Then they went just plain abusive.  It was oh you’re fat and ugly, go anorexic.  Don’t you want to be sexy?  After all, being able to get proper nutrients and nourishment, and having the knowledge and skills to be able to provide this for yourself -- no, that's not independence.  That’s not strength.  No, what is true strength is being desired as a sexual object.  That and that only.  When you are deemed worthy of being effed by a large number of males, that is true strength and independence.  Not being able to take care of yourself.  Not being able to grocery shop and feed yourself properly.  No.  Sexiness -- that is true strength.

Fifth, Then most recently it was the raw food diet.  Ppphhhfffttt.