Why has no one thought of this yet?

Here’s what I don't understand.  Why is there no such thing as underground, black market birth control?

It only stands to reason.  There are such things as illegal street drugs and back alley abortions with coat hangers, which are life-ruining.  The abortion thing is disgusting-- it's violence against women.  A female would be much better served by using birth control in the first place.  Birth control is a positive thing.  It is most certainly very badly needed.

However, to hear the chicken-little liberal bloggers on the internets, birth control shops are being barricaded and dismantled, and the DEA and Homeland Security are confiscating all the corrupt contraband condoms.  The apothecaries are not allowed to dispense birth control without three forms of identification from the patient, two of which are photograph IDs, a complete criminal background check, a signed declaration of waiver disclaimer, and a $10,000 bail bond.  Supposedly lots of people badly want birth control that can't get any.

So, this black market birth control.  Don’t try to tell me it's not possible to do.  If drug dealers can cook meth at home by stealing a big drum of methylene from chemical supply warehouses (hey, I watch "Breaking Bad"), and people can commit filthy dangerous septicemia-risking anti-sterile surgery (that's what abortion is) in a shack downtown...

Introductory college chemistry labs often have students make aspirin as a lab project.  So surely birth control, which is a chemical, can be manufactured outside of corporate labs.

I am sure there is some way to get condoms onto the black market.  Import them from other countries if they are impossible to get from US countries.  Street drugs come from other countries.  So surely someone can get condoms from other countries and then into the US black market.

And yet, you never hear about the DEA doing a drug bust on an extensive birth-control-distribution ring.

Or even better, do black market vasectomies.  None of that consulting several office appointments with a doctor crap.  If a guy does not want kids, it is his right to end that possibility of physical burden right then and there.  Without having to jump through hoops for the mainstream medical establishment.

-----

On an unrelated note, I can't believe no one sees this other than me:

+

=

Seriously, if the two of them had a kid on the show,

and it visited them from the future, it would look exactly like this guy:

Verdict is in-- women really don't care about science and math

This essay has been a long time coming.

This is an issue that it was always a tiny quiet murmuring (bad murmur, like a heart murmur), disquieting, unpleasant in the back of my head.  How come there aren't anywhere near the same numbers of women scientists and inventers as there are men scientists and inventors?  We really need to have a full feature-length essay discussing this topic.

--I always bleieved that
-> for one major reason.  I pesonally abslotuely love studyind science n nature.  physics, chemistry, string hteory (at least the pop culutre verson heh), all branches of biology n biochemistry-- cell bioogy,  [[menion all the cool philosopihcial __delve into the fantastical and phantasmagora of   __unlocking the secrets of the universe,
   And I have always been excellent at math, although I have no strong feelings for it one way or another. 

There has been a large conscious shift, in society, an acknowledgement that women should be encouraged to study science, math, engineering, and technology.  the dearth of women majoring in STEM subjects in college and the conspicuous absence of women employed in tech/engineering fields is a very [[_emergency]]] topic that needs to be remedied.  In recent years, a lot of outreach work has been done by booming tech companies to try to encourage women to become tech pros.  Very good on them for doing so.

To my mind, this seemed a truth that was no more and no less than self-evident:  if given the opportunity, any person should flock to study science.

So it has always perplexed me and astonished me that so many women don't major in any of the hard sciences or engineering fields in college.

But even more to the point, there have been so precious few women who are notable scientific achievers n discovers throughout all of human history.  So sparse and barren are female historical figures in the long epochal noble, storied chronology of unearthing the universe's secrets.

It left me scratching my head.

I concluded that the only way this could be possible is that throughout all of human history, women have been so tortured, brutalized, victimized that they have been scared senseless from pursuing their true passions and interests.  See, in my mind, a burning, fiery, passionate desire to study science is essentially a self-evident truth.  Therefore, surely the only way that the majority of a group of people would not be studying it is if they were subject to unspeakable, unfathomable acts of psychological and emotional abuse.  it must have been a breaking down of a people's spirit that demolished any whisper of perceivable possibility of them from ever considering STEM fields.

obviously, throughout history there has never been any sort of society-wide acknowledgement of the huge obvious fact.  The gaping wide hole that is the absence of women's attendance in science studies.
definitely not on the scale we are witnessing today, what with higher education institutions actively recruiting women and international students into stem degrees.
this must have only registered barely a blip in the minds of so many civilizations in eons past.  they were entirely indifferent to this plight of women and of all of society at large.  and certainly there were no sociopolitical movements enacted to effect this overlook in the forward direction.  Right?  That must be it; that is the only explanation that makes sense.

so, if only women were given the full range of motion in freedom n options, and life choices and possible destinies and full nahha control naha]]]] of what trajectories their lives may take,
->then surely they would choose to study science and math.  how can you not?  it is so [[[_list some superlatives here]]] vast and far and wide, so endlessly fascinating.  gazing in wonder and curiosity deep into the heart of space and time.

to me this was the only explanation that was fathomable.

Once they break the shackles, break free from the chains of oppressive "patriarchy" that prevented women from doing anything they want, women would surely rush to the science buildings in droves.

I rationalized it away with the follwoing:  wow, males must have severely beaten, abused, traumatized women all trhoguut history so badly that women simply could not reasonably study science.
in order to prevent women from liking science and majoring in STEM fields in college.

Polygamy analogy to gay marriage

If gay marriage is to be allowed, then why not polygamy?  Including polyandry

A lot of conservatives including myself are striking back with this hypothetical.  This is a small but effective way of holding up a mirror to liberals' flawed logic and letting them see that it is unrealistic.

Shoot, no reason not to.  If a male can marry a male and a female can marry another female, then there men can be allowed multiple wives, and women can be allowed multiple husbands.

Liberals struck back with their version of logic rebuttals.  They mostly said that family courts will not be capable of handling the mire that would arise with polygamy.  However, the arguments that "gosh it is just too hard" are asinine and irrelevant.  Family court law deals with "hard" stuff all the time.  They have already addressed many odd and perplexing household arrangements.  Never underestimate the weird labyrinthine lengths to which people will go, to make family life complicated.  Therefore family law must evolve to keep up with this demand.  There are so many odd combinations of stepchildren and half-children.  In other cases, oftentimes child custody is awarded to someone other than either biological parent, such as a grandparent, etc.

For example, a husband and wife with three children get divorced, child custody is awarded to the wife, and the husband is ordered to pay an amount of child support.  The wife had put her career on hold to raise the children into kind, decent human beings, so that ruling is just.  Now, suppose sometime down the road, the wife remarries and the new husband works full-time and is able to support them all.  Does the ex-husband still have to pay child support?  And what if the wife and new husband have a child?  How does that work into the equation?  Suppose the ex-husband now remarries, and he and his second wife have a child together.  What then?

That is only a small sliver of the stuff that family courts have to slough through every day.  But they handle it.  If polygamy were allowed, the family courts can handle that also.

So, sorry, no.  If the insane, illogical, ludicrous gay marriage is allowed, there is no reason that the insane, illogical, ludicrous polygamy should not be allowed.  If we can allow the liberal extreme just because people feel like it, then we can allow the conservative extreme just because people feel like it.

The role of the family unit in society

society needs structure and order.  _tio stay together.  to stay functioning, _performing well,,,__  to keep [[better word for running, keep functioing optimally___]]
--women, through their roles,,as wives and mothers ie the stronghold of the family,,__ lay the groundwork for society
--women establish the ___ that the greater society will follow in the future.
--women are tasked with this role of keeping society intact and helahty and whole.  ((by keeping the family dynamic strong and _the strongest influence in the members' psychological makeup,,__.  by establishing these [[[_patterns,,, nonono___ ]]]] from the
    by normalizing__

I was not necessarily saying that socety was better off when women stayed at home.  I am simply stating that the family strcuture is crucuial to well-being of society.

It is hardwired into humans to organize into male-and-female nuclear families.  It was hard-wired into Homo neanderthalis, as well.

_the strongest influence in the members' psychological makeup,,__.  was already established during their formative years.  the choildhood uears in which a human being is
-they are molded, they are brought up, ___{{darmnit, what what is???  neurological pathways nonono.
aha!  their worldview is shaped by their experiences during their formative years as a child.  these are the most impressionable years.  the morals and values imparted to the child during this time will set the course for the rest of their life.
--set the foudnation for society.

moresos than those othsoide distant largely irrelevant "authority" forces such as govt, police, credit score, etc.

liberals females want all of the rithts and priveliges [[avialable, made possible ,, conceinved into existenc___um nonon__]]] of a civilied, healthy, ____modern-day society, {expoiund more on the mental emotional psycholog stablity and reason}} -- with none of the respsonsibiliteis.

if you have kids, then you need to freakin raise them.  __don't dump them on nannies and babysitters.  they are YOURr reossinbislibyt, they are YOUrr job to handle.  noy anyone else's.
--well, you needt to freakin raisesssee them.
women set the social normasn and standards.  woeme [[[set]]] social expectaiotns.

women, you need to teel men and children, and other women, how to act.  set the limits on what is acceptable in poilite civized society, and make clear ehat is not acceptable in society.  raise the bar/ __more importantly, raise the bar by setting an example,  yoiu need to act civilized, polite, respectable, self-respecting, and dignified first.

Marriage and family vs. working: a continuing study, or On the subject of having it all

you cannot have it all.  this essay was inspired by a rerun of “The Cosby Show” I watched recently, or maybe was it "A Different World."  Denise Huxtable was doing a class presentation on important topics facing modern society.  Twenty years ago is still modern; that is barely a blink of an eye in human history.

((two disctisnt significatn but equally improtant parts.::)
1)  Women can't have it all.
Men sure as hell can't.  Therefore there is no compelling reason to think that women can.

does a man realllyy truly have both a carrer and a family?  or does he have the career -- and his wofe has the family?
look at sociological trends over the past thirty years.  modern fathers have been neglecting their families more and more.  the absentee father with the rise of corporate culture, corpro work force.  as evidenced here.  and here.  and here.

2) so called strong swomen complain that their husbands do not supprt her in her career.
let us peer at this more closely.
it turns out, that women do not much supprot their husbands either.

the wife often complains, ""ohhh you spend too much time at work,"  the kids hadlry ever get to see you anymore,"" ohh you don't spend any time with me.""  the kids don't even know who their father is.

the woman divorces the man bc he focuses on work too muchch.  she feels he is ignoring her or neglecting herr.
the owman compllains that the man prioritizes work too much.

-- men cannot have it all.  So there ks no compelling reason to think that women can.

--oh so you say he is not supportive of your career.
-well, are yo supportive of his career?  or do you complain, ''ooohh you're not home early enough;; ohh you work too much, oh you prioritize your work more than you do me;;; ohh you prioritize your work more than you do your family.""

let me geuss.  you want him to bestow you with all the fienr things in life, all the luxuries, pleasures, and privelages, like dinner out at fancy restauarnt, frequent jewelry, travel vacations to far-off exotic locations,

it is odd that people only ever blame the man for a divorce.  people never seem to think the woman should bear any of the oresponsiblity of a divorce.
--they say that especially sgtrong intelligent career women have trouble in marriage.  supposedlty bc men are intimditated by stron gintelligent career owmen.

---(((or rather))) husbands are itimidated when their wives make more money than they do.  [[]]  men cannot handle when their wives make more money oand are more successful than the husband.  oh, and you think the wife can handle it?

--it seems therefore that in many weird ways, these "strong inte career women" are every bit as gullible for stereotypes as men are.

some pop culutre exapmpes:  reese witherspoon, sarah mclachlan.  I am devastated to have to mention sarha mclach in this essay.  I was quite disappointed to learn that she is separated from her husband and they are in the stages of an official divorce.

The issue of drunken rapes is even worse than it seems

All of the emotional, hysterical, irrational grandstanding and clutching of liberal pearls has left me speechless with my head in my hands.

They are shocked, absolutely shocked, I tell you, that no one is rescuing the poor, angelic, precious, drunk little angel.  They are shocked that this female, whom I'm sure bears absolutely no responsibility whatsoever, finds herself the victim of a crime...

They are shocked that anyone would "take advantage" of a college girl that is unconscious, vulnerable, drunken past stupor, all of that mess.

Hang on just a second.  How exactly did this girl arrive in this state of being "unconscious and vulnerable?"  Was she accidentally hit in the head with a wooden beam that swung around and knocked her out cold?  Completely at no fault of her own?

Nope.  Not even close.  She continually chose to drink more and more alcohol, and she got herself into this state of being "unconscious and vulnerable."  It is a situation which, to be completely honest, she had a hand in creating.

This state of affairs calls for some examination and critical thinking.

We can expect drunk people to still have the presence of mind, and the conscious decision-making ability to choose not to drive when drunk -- and rightfully so.  A drunk person is still a conscious human being and is still fully responsible for his/her own actions.  If this person drives while drunk, they have to pay for their crimes.

If this is all true, which it is, then we sure as hell can expect a drunk person to still have the presence of mind, and the conscious decision-making ability to choose not to get themselves into a drunken coma even as they are already tipsy.  This includes tipsy females.  The fact of the matter is, a female who keeps drinking of her own volition has continually chosen to get in this predicament. She got herself into this mess.

This is what is most aggravating and infuriating and upsetting about the whole mainstream public narrative surrounding college frat party rpes.  This is the insistence from supposed "feminists" that females have no control whatsoever over what happens in their own lives.

Why is the mainstream narrative so focused only on the behavior of other people surrounding the drunk comatose female?

The common rhetoric is that a female is just a victim.  Just a rape victim.  Nothing more than a spineless ragdoll, tossed and thrown about, used as a punching bag, helpless, defenseless, weak, limp.  Completely unable to fend off an attacker.  Defenses rendered completely out of commission.

With no ability whatsoever to defend themselves.  No ability to be in control of her own life.  No ability to decide what happens in her life.

I remember an article in some entertainment magazine back in the very early 2000s that praised women who hit back.  It was an awesome article.  It was about TV shows and movies and junk instead of real life, but still.  The sentiment was that women can be fierce, strong, agile, can have a laser-focused intense, and can set their sights on winning with a steely gaze.

It seems that nowadays everyone is deathly afraid to suggest that maybe, just maybe, females should take a bit more responsibility for their own goddamn well-being and safety.

Women, like men, are supposed to be fully-functioning, fully-evolved human beings who are responsible for their own actions.  They are responsible for their own conduct and behavior.  An individual woman, like an individual man, is a sovereign entity who has the full breadth and capability to think before she acts, to weigh pros and cons of a situation, to examine a situation and predict possible and likely outcomes.

You the female are responsible for your own judgment, you are responsible for your own decisions, and you are responsible for your own actions.  Exactly the same as each man is responsible for his own judgment, decisions, and actions.  As a sovereign human being with a full range of emotions and psychological capability, you chose to get drunk and then after that you chose to have sex.

You are supposed to have your own critical thinking abilities, capacity for risk assessment, capacity for good judgment, capacity for weighing the pros and cons of a given situation, and capacity for predicting possible and probable outcomes.

You assessed the situation yourself and fully consciously decided that it is a good idea to consume an alcoholic beverage.  Anyone over the age of twelve knows that consumption of alcoholic beverages can lead to reduction of capabilities of good judgment, lowered inhibition, increased reaction times to any external sensory stimulus.

You voluntarily, consciously chose to drink that first drink.  You voluntarily, consciously chose to drink the second drink and the third drink.  As you got progressively more inebriated, you still continued to voluntarily, consciously drink more and more and get yourself more and more drunk.  You know why this logic works?  Because you are a human being and as such, you are responsible for your own decisions.  Everything that happened here was your decisions and your actions.

Oh, dear Lord- so the issue of drunken rapes is not the whole story

There have lately been a sickening slew of news reports about the increasing rates of drunken rape on college campuses.  Or rather, the worse news is that it is not really increasing, per se.  There is simply more media attention being paid towards this.

Apparently, this is not a random isolated event in which the victim truly was minding her own damn business and going about her day and then some sick ahole ambushed her and rdep her.

So, wait a minute.  You are saying this is not a one-time thing, as in, "she's genuinely a good, responsible person and she's not usually like this and she just happened to get drunk once and had the horrible luck of being a crime victim?"  You're telling me the unpleasant truth is that these are habitual drunkards that constantly check their good judgment at the door?

You are telling me that these are just a bunch of dumb lazy drunk party btces who just sit around and get drunk at places inhabited by frat aholes -- and then magically expect everyone *else* to be on their best behavior???

So the ugly truth is that these females freely and carelessly engage in this behavior with no regard to their liver and kidney health, and no regard to the horrible danger that is imminent.

So the horrid truth is that these females have a laissez-faire attitude towards their own safety and well-being, with no regard to the fact that perhaps there might not be an altruistic knight in shining armour that might rescue her at this party where people are generally aholes.

This changes the dialogue dramatically.

Females, stop it.  Stop putting yourself in harm's way.  Yes, I am calling out on you to make sure you don't get yourself raped.

We are not talking about a female who was just minding her own business and was assaulted through no fault of her own.  We are not talking about a female who was walking home alone at night.  We are not talking about a girl who decided to take a shortcut through the dark woods, and who fell victim to a sick f*ck that, out of the blue, decided to commit a gruesome crime.

No.  We are talking about females that actively, voluntarily seek out a dangerous, high-risk situation of their own free will.  And then these innocent, drunken little angels choose to participate, of their own free will, in activities that obliterate their judgment, their awareness of their surroundings, and their ability to react in a situation.

You are placing all the hopes of your own life [[[__you are placing a wager on whether your life will be safe from harm -- upon betting statistics that are not in favor of your desired outcome.]]]
You are forgoing your own responsibility to yourself to be ever-vigilant and prudent about your own safety and well-being.

You are relying entirely on other people to be careful and cautious and being concerned with whether or not they are acting in a moral, respectful manner.  While conveniently, casually disregarding the fact that maybe you should act in a moral, respectful manner.

Oh.  So **they** are supposed to care about your safety and health and well-being, but you are not supposed to care about your **own** safety and health and well-being?

If they are expected to be socially conscious, then you must be socially conscious also.  Don't walk into the fraakin lion's den as a poor, angelic partier drunkard and then complain that some horrifying shtt went down.  If they have to be held to that high standard, which they should be, then you have to be held to that high standard also.

There might not be anyone that will stop a potential sick criminal from seeing the path of no resistance, i.e., a passed-out drunk party chik, and_
Forgoing the possibility of a separate rescuer:  the potentially sick criminal might not have a sudden [[flare, bout, jump___]]]] of conscience and think, "wait maybe I shouldn't commit a crime."

---
Feminism has deteriorated into a pathetic mass of flaccid, saggy, limp

Yes, I know I'm being harsh, but that's because I care about the movement too much to just let it falter.  I care about women too much to just accept that this dredge is part of modern life.
---
Just so we're clear, this is still rape.  That fact is unchanged.  This is still rape.  The sick asshole did not obtain the female's consent.  He should be arrested and brought up on charges.  I have zero sympathy for him.  Frat boys do genuinely appear to be assholes, and the sooner they learn that having binge-drinking cattle calls are a nightmare blight on society, the better.

It's just that now, I confess that I have very little sympathy for the rpee victim also.  Sure, she should receive counseling if she feels the need, and whatever community support she can get.  But honestly, I do not feel that wave of revulsion and sharp burn of anger that I normally feel any time I hear about a ripp victim on the news.

Remember how, a loooong time ago, I said that the modern dating scene is crap?  And remember how an even loooonger time ago, I observed that the same schitt keeps repeating itself over and over and over again?  This is yet another demonstration of that.

I can't believe people still think that getting a bunch of spoiled brats that are [[[gointo college just to drink and party

Let us discuss the topic of "mansplaining"

In this article I am going to explain why I feel the accusation of "mansplaining" is complete rubbish.

If someone dumbs down an explanation for something highly specialized and technical, I never ever felt that this was aimed at me personally and was condescending specifically to me.  I usually assumed, because it is a correct assumption, that everyone else this person was talking to was rather stupid, and that the person dumbing it down has to do so in order to do their job properly.  The explainer has to make sure everyone more or less gets the concept before they can move on to the next concept.

This had been the case pretty much my entire life.  I'm pretty good with comprehending complex ideas such as oxidative phosphorylation at the substrate level, or proton-gradient driven assembly of ATP inside the mitochondrial membrane.  That doesn't mean everybody is good at it.  A lot of people might need a second or third or fourth go-round, and the explainer must accommodate them accordingly.

I don't know why so many females are actively expending energy and effort, and going out of their way to feel offended and insulted by this.  Stop it.  If you understood the concept quickly and easily, then great.  Zoom past it and move on.  Comprehend it.  Absorb it.  Then get over it and move on.  Be proud of yourself that you understood the concept quickly.  Don't sit there pouting about it.

All educators have to contend with making a concept absorbable and retainable for laypersons, i.e., for students.  People in specialized jobs have to be able to do this also.

I went to get air put in my car tires recently.  The mechanic guy who did this took the time to explain to me why tires tend to decrease in pressure more quickly in cold weather than in warm weather.  Now, I already know why.  But I did not fault the mechanic guy for explaining this to me.  He doesn't know that I have a PhD in Biochemistry.  There is no way he would know that air pressure is a very elementary concept for me.

I did not feel the least bit offended or insulted that the guy took the time to explain this to me.  On the contrary, I felt taken care of because the mechanic explained this to me.  It was a nice feeling.  I thought it was really sweet that he took the time to do that.  All the mechanics there have to explain this to their customers, because that is a vital part of their job.  It is a matter of safety and well-being -- that of cars functioning properly.  They care about their customers enough to explain this, in the hopes that customers will continue to take good care of their cars in the future.

People in that kind of work cannot just assume that everybody that comes through has a working knowledge of air pressure, gas laws, etc.  Mechanics cannot assume that everyone is well-versed in these concepts.  And why the hell would they?  The vast, vast majority of people do not have the knowledge.

--
You know what is almost as bad as mansplaining?  Chicksplaining.  I cannot stand how too many females are horrible at communication.  They beat around the bush, they hint, they send "signals" (whatever the hell that means)...

They do everything *except* come right out and say straightforwardly what is on their minds.  I have already covered this in a previous article.

There was also an article on cracked-dot-com where a female wrote a weird-ass, illogical, mind-numbing article where she was using all sorts of twisted gibberish to excuse away females' piss-poor communication flaws.  I don't feel like linking to it because I don't want to give cracked-dot-com a goddamn free backlink.

I see that liberal females use all sorts of twisted, skewed, convoluted non-logic as to why their lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, lack of owning up to their mistakes is somehow better than males' lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, lack of owning up to their mistakes.

Or in another version of this, females lecture males on their "insensitivity," why can't he see things from her point of view, why can't he put himself in her shoes, oh men are just horrible jerks, men just don't understand how hard life is for women, men are so insensitive to women's feelings, women work so much harder than men do, etc.

--An example: ____  Okay, fair enough.  But these same females then turn around and say that if a guy does not want to have sex but a girl is pressuring him into it, then this makes the guy a wimp, he is hindering her from being a strong capable woman in charge of her own life, he is preventing her from having body confidence, he is not allowing her to know and explore her body.  These females think there should be no such thing as a guy who has respect for his body and does not just want to jump in the sack with a girl.

And of course, too many self-proclaimed "liberated, empowered" females do not want to take any responsibility for consciously choosing to create a fetus with their own bodies.  They opt instead to blame the male for not piling on the birth control.  They blame the male for the fact the female chose to be lazy and slack and careless about birth control.  I've also talked about this at length.  Liberal females are such massive hypocrites it's ridiculous.

Libertarians and atheists assholes, a continuing study

Additional nauseating, sickening stuff.

It is sickening how many people, self-professed libertarians the lot of them, think prostitution should be legalized.  What is most shocking about this claim is that so many people think it will somehow magically limit and relegate itself to fully consenting legal adults.

Riiiiight.  So you actually think that a business that toils in the treating human beings like chattel, slaves, worse than physical property, will stop when they see a child being forced into this?

<ohh well they are consenting adults.>  And you think the propagators will pull their own leashes, enact their own checks and balances, and make sure they will not toe the line of the law?

Wrong.  What happens in reality is that you give them an inch, and they walk all over you.

Gradually, gradually breaking down the barriers of respect, decency, morals, humanity.

So many self-proclaimed libertarians and others claim that they are 100 percent in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they want, and that if anyone does not consent to doing this, this any one person can "just say no" and this is all the effort needed to keep herself (or himself) safe.  Faux-libertarians are under the impression that simply a written law on a government ledger book is all that is needed for people to act in a moral manner.  I am stunned that they honestly think rampant prostitution can blaze all within a population -- and that people will suddenly halt themselves at encountering a victim under age 18 who is forced into rape for profit by her abusive caretakers.

Libertarians pride themselves on their wisdom, their awareness of reality, on their enlightened yet supposedly practical stance on social issues, on their realistic expectations of human behavior.  They manage to conveniently ignore the fact that the above scenario never works out this way in real life and is only wishful thinking.

Let us look to other analogies that have happened.  Prohibition didn't work out that way.  Abstinence-based sex education didn't work.

This has already happened with prostitution.  First off, let us call it what it truly is.  It is not "sex trade," "sex slaves," etc. or any other euphemistic soft-sounding drivel that hides the true gruesome reality.  it is rape.  That is what it is.

Feh, typical libertarian assholery. Geez, where do I even begin. I found it quite entertaining that you equated "employment opportunity" and "freedom" to getting fucked for cash.

Big factual error: libertarianism is not the same as capitalism. Libertarians do not favor capitalism. They favor robber barons- mega-corporations torturing the middle class.

And you even made the classic libertarian move of insisting that prostitution is no different from poorly-paid manual unskilled labor. Here is the difference- one is a matter of personal morals, the other is not.

The biggest problem with libertarians (who often by pure chance tend to be atheist) is that they cannot comprehend the abstract, critical-thinking concept of morality as separate from belief in a god figure. They are very much like religious zealots in this way.

Morals have to do with logic, reasoning, empathy, compassion for fellow human beings. But like most libertarians, you think that because you do not belong to a deity, this excuses you from any moral obligation, much less seeing other human beings as anything more than sacks of bones and meat.

Sigh. I don't know why I waste my time. Libertarians are a lost cause.

Evolution Is So Overrated

I do mean "evolution" only as a talking point is overrated.  You can never have too much of evolution, as in the concept itself.

I read this somewhere on the interwebs:  "Homosexuality is pro-evolution because it allows a community to control for overpopulation."  What?  That's bullshyte.  Being homosexual does not prevent the ability to produce children.  How many people are gay and still fathered or mothered children back in the days before they realized they were gay?  Answer:  a lot of them.

When the subject of state rights for married couples is brought up, a common conservative response is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.  And the gay response is that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot produce children, so how come they are given state benefits.  I have to concur with that, that is a pretty good comeback.

But if this is true, then how exactly does being gay help with evolution?  Again, how does homosexuality align with evolution?  Answer:  it does not.  No, the most effective natural means of controlling for overpopulation is infertility.  You see both these facts mentioned everywhere, and yet gay right activists don't seem to be able to reconcile these two facts with each other.

Homosexuality is supposedly an answer to overpopulation?  This is a common gay activist answer any time anyone asks if homosexuality aligns with evolution.  But wait, what?  That's not true.  Back in ancient Greece and other long-ago cultures, they had gay people.  The earth was young and abundant, there was no lack of resources.

The point is, stop trying to justify everything in the name of evolution.  Not everything that happens on the planet is in line with evolution.  For god's sake, there are other fields of intellect.  Some examples are hormone and other protein production, art, string theory, economics, thermodynamics, classical music, and computational linguistics.  Stop knee-jerking with the stock response of "evolution."

Evolution as a sociopolitical defense argument is so overrated.

Then you have the other extreme.  There are the dumbasses, the armchair evolutionists that have probably never taken a biology class their whole entire lives, that say that evolution does not necessarily mean better, that evolution does not indicate any direction, that it does not mean improvement of any kind.

Bullshyte.  Of course it does, dummy.  That is the definition of evolution:  advancement, improvement.  Otherwise, why would we say that humans are more evolved than gorillas and other apes?  Why would we say that humans (multi-celled eukaryotes) are more evolved than single-celled eukaryotes?  And that single-celled eukaryotes (complex single-celled organisms such as protists) are more evolved than prokaryotes (bacteria, which are comparatively simple)?  Why would we say that evolutionary advantage gives some species fitness, better chance of survival, over other species?

Why would there be such a concept as an evolutionary advantage in the first place? If evolution were directionless and aimless, then it would just be called "mutations."

Then again, thinking about it a little more, I realize that I should not waste time being offended by their claims that evolution does not exist, or whatever.  In pretty much every sphere of discussion, you always see a few weird fringe, unhinged, screws-loose lunatics that are usually ill-informed.

You see violent crime apologists.  You see gang apologists.  You see rape apologists.  You have people that insist that all street drugs should be legalized.  You have people that insist that marriage is just a relationship that has been co-opted by the government and that they don't need a piece of paper to declare their love.  Or that marriage as an institution should be done away with completely.  You have people that insist that animals, as in non-humans, should be represented in government and in the democratic process.  Yes, I really, honestly have read this, but only on the internets, thank goodness.  So, ah well, just another day on the interwebz.

Getting back to "evolution" and how it is overrated.  Biology means biology -- the physical and natural science that can be observed conclusively and unequivocally.  Gene mutations result in a genotype of an organism different from the genotype that was present in the previous generation.  The genotype will be expressed as the phenotype, which is essentially what the organism looks like, although they do not always match exactly.  Phenotype is the physical growth and appearance of an organism -- protein structure, cell structure, organs, tissues, conditions of all parts (e.g., kidney function, any heart conditions).

Phenotype might not turn out exactly how the genotype had dictated in the current generation.  But with the genotype having changed due to a mutation, the groundwork is there for possible expression of the genotype as phenotype in future generations.  Let me repeat, all of that is evolutionary *biology.*

The people that call themselves evolutionary biologists but are in fact trying to apply biological principles to psychological whimsy, need to stop calling themselves scientists.

It is pure speculation that it is possible to justify abstract, odd, often baffling behaviors by using biological explanations.  There is no biological imperative for personalities, for character flaws, for unwanted behaviors.  Biology does not make anyone consciously *do* anything.  It does not manifest itself as actions taking place through time.

If you want to study biology, then study biology.  Don't study fantasy, legends, and opinions and then try to apply biological principles to them.  Those are fields that are by definition subject to flawed human interpretation.

You are not an evolutionist.  Get over it.

Still Standing... ? Oh, Boy

Um... am I the only one in the country who is still Team Obama?

Seminal and Controversial Part 2

Back when I was in high school___

Looking back on it now, I now realize that this in fact revealed several things about the girls.  They would be ready and willing to accept responsibility for their decisions and their actions.  Because of this, they would most likely be better decision makers, they would weigh the pros and cons, the possible risks of making a major decision such as starting to sleep with someone.  This is not an action they would take lightly or regard casually.

They have a hell of a lot more respect for their bodies than the typical liberal.  They do not see or accept themselves as mere toilets for males' semen to be deposited, semen waste disposal systems.

They already knew about themselves that were they to discover that they were pregnant, they knew they would keep that child, and they would regard it as a child, a human being, and not just a lump of lifeless flesh to be discarded.  This means that they know they would love their child, even if it did come about from a casual encounter.

As for the boys, I realize now that they only parroted out loud the notion that they are pro-abortion due to r-- to make it more palatable for people.  For what sane human being___

But their internal motivations most likely did not concur with this at all.  Far from it.  Their real motivations were that if they accidentally got someone pregnant form casual sex, they could just throw some dollar bills at her the way you would with a stripper or a pros, and bark at her to go take care of it.  What the hell would that mean, though?  They don't want to be saddled with the responsibility of accepting the consequences of their decision, of their actions, order her to "go take care of it."

---------
Both sides, liberals and conservatives, have quite a lot in common in that the overall arching theme is that they are extremely misogynistic.  They do not give a flying sh9t at all about the woman who is carrying the fetus.

Both sides are relentless in insisting that a fetus is completely a separate entity, entirely disengaged from the women who is carrying said fetus.  Both sides do not give a shyte about the feelings, emotions, considerations, thinking, contemplating, mulling over that the woman would have to do who is carrying that fetus.

That’s right.  Make no mistake.  Both sides constantly try to hammer this message into the public’s collective skull.  Extreme cons and extreme libs say that a fetus is one hundred percent a complete separate entity from the mother.  This is even though biologically and medically, this is complete bullshyte.

And extreme libs say the exact same thing.  The only difference in their opinion is the details.  I will go into the details.  Cons think that a fetus is completely disengaged from the mother.  And libs think that a mother is completely disengaged from the fetus.

That's what libs say all the time, isn't it?  A piece of trash, it’s a nonliving clump of dead cells, it’s nothing more than a tumor, it's a dirty disgusting little secret.  Really, liberals?  So a part of a woman’s body is a piece of trash?  Something to throw away and pretend like it never existed?  Something to casually toss out of one's mind?

What if she has bonded emotionally with it?  What if she regards it as her child?

Extreme liberals like to champion themselves as defenders of women's rights.  And they constantly lambast extreme right zealot Christian conservatives as being abusive and oppressive toward women.  The latter part of which is true.  But as for the former -- in reality liberals are every bit as misogynistic and violent as any conservatives that they denounce.

Neither side seems to realize that it is her body, therefore it is her decision.  It is her body, she values it, she cherishes it, she treasures it.  Therefore it is her right and her choice not to feel obligated to go through with this procedure just to appease some selfish unrealistic liberals.

It is just inconceivable to me that neither side is able to reconcile the fetus' existence with the mother.  I mean, DUH.  Nature intended it that way.  The extreme right's ignorance of science is no excuse.  The extreme left's ignorance of human emotion, feeling, and parent-child bonding is no excuse.

Whenever a conservative woman starts screeching, “A child is a gift from God!  It is a blessed and sacred gift!”  And then of course the liberals start knee-jerking, "oh she's a brainwashed weak wummin brainwashed by the evil religious menfolk."

I don’t think it's that simple.  I think what is really going on is that the conservative is not great at articulating her thoughts.  And twofold -- the libs suck at reading between the lines.  What the conservative woman is really saying is,

"How dare you try to tell me that killing my child is supposed to empower me? Who the f- do you think you are?  It's part of MY body, therefore don’t you dare tell me that cutting out dilation and curettage, scraping out a part of MY body is the right thing to do just because YOU say so."

I think that this is what is really going on here.  Instinctively, it just feels wrong.  Gut instinct.  But they are not quite able to elucidate on specifically whhhyyy it feels wrong.  They reach for the nearest explanation within their grasp.  God said so.  Which is fine.  They made a well-founded equivalency between God's law and moral human law of instinct.  It makes sense.

New Food Guide

On an unrelated note, food guidelines issued by the United States Department of Agriculture are very fluid, ever-changing, constantly being updated as new information presents itself on biomedicine and health.

First off, apparently they had some sort of food wheel back in 1946.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20111110-OC-AMW-0012_-_Flickr_-_USDAgov.jpg

Then we had the four food groups, back in the eighties.  This is the first food guide to which I had been introduced way back in the day.
Source:  evidently the only image available anywhere on the internets.
http://robertleehaller.com/foodgroups.htm

Then there was the food pyramid with blocks, in 1992.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif

Then there was the food pyramid with convergent blades.

Then there was the food pyramid with convergent blades with a dude running up the staircase on the side, in 2005.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MyPyramidFood.svg

Now we have harkened upon the next frontier.:
The food yin yang.  This symbolizes the delicate harmony and balance of everything.  A tangible equilibrium.

Look, we already have some demonstrative diagrams.
Sources:  internet.

Note:  This was a parody post.  The USDA has not actually released any "food yin yang" dietary guidelines.  Do not take this as medical or nutritional advice.

I Am Now an Occupier

Like most of you, I have been vaguely annoyed by the Occupiers in Zucotti Park and elsewhere.

I casually waved it all off with a flick of my wrist.  I thought, oh geez, more boring-assed middle class white people whining and crying about how their useless liberal arts degrees that they crapped out by drinking/partying/beer-ponging their way through a college experience that was paid for by student loans and mommy and daddy, have not garnered them the following:  their ohmigosh so totally well-deserved millions, a book deal, or an independent movie contract.  For goodness' sake, it's their own damn fault for not being better planners and choosing a training & career path that would actually get them jobs.

I am aware that being affiliated with Occupy Wall Street labels one as being "liberal." I am probably as conservative as they come. I like to think I am an intelligent conservative who became that way after checking all the facts, figures, evidence. I also considered abstract concepts of morality and philosophy. It is not a blind emotional reaction to "society." I like to think I am truly a compassionate conservative, although that phrase has been bastardized by the evil corporate Republican behemoths.  What does any of this have to do with OWS?  I'm getting there.

For a few years now, I had been leaning somewhat fiscally conservative.  And I still am socially conservative for the most part.  Yes, even feminists can be social conservatives.

When I say fiscally conservative, I do not mean that megacorporations should be allowed to skim and fleece the working public.  I simply mean that people should take responsibility for their financial decisions.  I have zero sympathy for people that rack up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card bills for things like jewelry and clothes (f), or cars and tech gadgets (m), and then turn around and whine that they have no money.

I mean that people should not beer pong and party and smoke-pot their way through some BS liberal arts degree, and then expect to be able to get a $60,000-a year job straight out of college.  It seemed that a lot of occupiers fell into this category of poor planning, lack of forethought, etc. I visited that website that had a bunch of photos of people holding up pieces of paper on which they detailed their problems.  (I'm not referring to the demonstraters with the big clever pithy signs.)

In general, people that complain that they don't get enough money are often irresponsible liberals.  So what if all their time was spent playing video games and getting drunk?  Dammit, they're entitled to a high-paying job for which they have no marketable skills.  So what if they got knocked up while unemployed, unmarried, and with no idea how to take care of themselves?  Welfare, i.e. other people's tax dollars, will take care of the problem for you. What does any of this have to do with OWS?  I'm getting there.

I have also known for a while that I am educationally liberal -- teach evolution, teach sex education with birth control, more funding for public education, more funding for college scholarships. Yet, for a long while I have remained fiscally conservative and everything that came with it-- capitalism, pro-ruthless cutthroat competition in terms of money.

But then something happened.  I can no longer ignore the cries of the dying, starving, devastated, stretched to tearing and breaking middle class.  There are teachers and nurses and auto repair small business owners who are protesting.  And they have a valid point.  I am now a fiscal somewhat-liberal.  By that I do not mean welfare cheques for everybody.  I mean give honest, hardworking Americans their goddamn money.  I mean pay the poor goddamn frontline floor workers what they are owed.  Pay them what their jobs are f'n worth.

Stop skimming off from their wages, stop shafting their earned money away from them and giving it to stockholders.  Stop shunting money to international overseas banks to avoid paying employees.  Stop giving it bullshyte equivocal names like "capital gains," "tax shelters," "the Cayman Islands," or the ilk.  Stop setting up fake dummy corporations so that you can travel under Uncle Sam's radar.  Stop stealing money from employees.  Stop letting CEOs get away with robbing employees and taking all the money for themselves.

------
On an unrelated note, is Tina Fey like really va-va-voomy this season?  She has been quite parallel-lined for as long as I can remember.  But now this season, she is all voluptuous.  Not complaining, it looks to be all natural, babe.  Did she have a baby or something?
------

Links:
The Seven Biggest Economic Lies
October 11, 2011 By Robert Reich
http://laprogressive.com/economic-equality/biggest-economic-lies/

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil | Mother Jones
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

The Myth of U.S. Democracy and the Reality of U.S. Corporatocracy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html

Congressional Budget Office - Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

How Does Teacher Pay Compare? Methodological Challenges and Answers
http://www.epi.org/publication/books_teacher_pay/

I Have a Whole New Perspective on Something Seminal and Controversial

My mega mega flip-flop deserves an explanation.  I have completely changed 180 degrees on this.  I am now of the absolute diametric opposite mind that held my approval for the first thirty-one years of my life.

Just as it is impossible to consider the fetus and have complete disregard for the mother's well-being in pro-life viewpoints, so too is it equivalently impossible to pretend the mother has nothing to do with the fetus in pro-choice stances.

...That supposedly all men are absolutely unabashedly pro-life and pro-fetus and hate women's bodies and they absolutely love fetuses at all costs and that they absolutely love love love babies at all costs.

Ha ha.  Yeah fekkin right.

...And supposedly all women are pro-choice because they are all independent capable women in charge of her own life and they love sex and the city because it is a show about strong independent women who are capable of making their own decisions and are in charge of their own life.  And that any woman who is pro-life absolutely must be brainwashed and subjugated by the menfolk and regards herself as a submissive second-class piece of property for the Christian right-wing religious zealots.  Again, yeah fekkin right.

I used to champion this abortion curiosity, I held this idea up on the prodigal altar, it was my sacred inalienable right.  It was my sacred and precious life-affirming decree that honored my ability to live in peace, with complete freedom, dignity, and the right to my own bodily autonomy.

I have now changed my stance absolutely on this, from a moral, philosophical, and spiritual standpoint.

Up to and including about a month ago, I was one hundred percent in favor of abortion, philosophically, morally, existentially, ecumenically, epistemiologically.  I saw little difference between an abortion, and as one blog commentator put it, "setting a mousetrap, then taking an antibiotic medicine."

I know someone is going to call my attention to the fact that violation of women, r--, incest are still rampant.  There is r-- abuse of children who have gotten their menses and are therefore biologically capable of producing offspring.  Thus is the fact that they are being victimized twice -- once by the sick asshole that assaulted them, and once by being punished even further through a biological operation that they have no control over.

To you lot of debt debaters, I say, thank you for illustrating my point.

The sad thing is, I agree with you.  I am not disputing you on those statistics.  Those are all facts.  The CDC has documented that, local law enforcement, state law enforcement, and federal law enforcement have all documented that.  Practically, I know from a legal standpoint it must still be allowed.  Legally it still needs to be completely accessible, 100 per cent.  Philosophical about-face or not, the world is still a sick, misogynistic place in which some males think it is perfectly logical and justified to violate women.

That is exactly why it is so sickening.  What kind of sick, nauseating, depressing, disgusting, vile society do we live in?  What kind of violent, misogynistic, nasty world is this, that a woman is forced to kill her child -- and this is considered to be a *solution*?

It is one that is filled with hatred and seething vitriol towards women.

What kind of society do we live in wherein a culture is perpetuated, nay, encouraged to treat women like less than the separate assemblage of each of the individual body parts?

What kind of sick, sad society do we live in wherein something as sick as puncturing the forming skull of a human being is considered and actively proponated as a *solution*?

What kind of sick, sad society do we live in, that it needs to be safe and legal to offset the victim of a violent crime?  That it needs to be a readily available response so as not to add injury to injury?

Abortion is symptomatic of a society that does not give a 3hi+ about women.

I'm not necessarily worried about the fetus's rights.  The fetus is not its own entity; the fetus is part of a woman's body.  And this is precisely why abortion is violating a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  Sucking out the fetus is committing an act of violence against the woman who is housing said fetus.  I am concerned with the woman's rights.

Performing an abortion is committing an act of violence against that woman's organs.  It’s like punching someone in the kidney to get rid of kidney disease.  It’s like cutting out a lobe of someone's lung to get rid of lung cancer.  The lung cancer thing is barbaric, but unfortunately it is the only thing that can be done for now.  We have no other alternatives currently.  Like I said, abortion is not a solution; it is a symptom of a society that has no other way to help that woman, and which also evidently does not have easily accessed birth control.  (I do not mean that there needs to be "free" birth control; only that birth control should not be so regulated as to be essentially blocked.)

I am talking about a consensual pregnancy, with a healthy mother and a healthy baby.

I'm not really sure quite how I stumbled upon this.  I was looking for atheist philosophy...  Oh, I know.  I was counter-pointing the insidious claim that just because people do not believe in a deity, that this somehow means they now have no morals.  Astonishingly, this claim is mostly being made by the very people that do not believe in a deity.

And then some desperate grasping for straws, some desperate reaching "atheists," in reality just badass-wannabes (some dumbass overgrown peter pan still stuck in teenager mode never having evolved past that trying to rebel and shock and awe against authority) were trying to say that, no there is no morality, morality does not really exist blah blah, morality is a fabricated made-up construct to force people into not being in charge of their own life, or something like that.

And then in an effort to counter-point this I began looking for vastly contradictory emblems of belief.  Honestly this was mostly out of irritation and impatience with rebel-wannabe atheists still-in-the-mindset-of-a-stupid-teenager.  Typical atheist theory states that supposedly the only objection to abortion would be religious ones.  If there is no religion nor deity, there is no case for being pro-life.  (Their argument, not mine.)

Well, just to put these rather predictable, profound-as-a-melted-ice-cube atheists in their place, by god I was going to find atheist arguments that were in favor of pro-life stance.  (I doubt they pondered atheism more critically before settling on it, seeing as how they automatically parroted all stereotypical liberal views.)  I tend to be contrary when I'm irritated.

The Liberal Case Against Abortion, By Vasu Murti, Carol Crossed
[Side note:  I think a better choice of semantics for the book title would have been "feminist" rather than "liberal."  Lord knows liberals are misogynistic underhanded sneaky aholes.]

The earliest feminists in this country, the ones in the late 1800s who genuinely were working towards women's human and family rights, educational rights, and employment rights, were surprisingly against abortion.

They were overwhelmingly AGAINST abortion because they rightfully saw through all the haze and dust and fleas and lies.  They were able to cut through all the rationalizing politically correct BS and were able to see abortion for what it truly is.

It has demeaned and objectified women in the absolute most disgusting sense of the word.  This has reduced women, into nothing more than a vehicle for sperm disposal.  Abortion is an abhorrent act that is in fact the sickest act of violence against women.

The society-wide acceptance and normalization of abortion has done inconceivable harm to women.  And of course it has done harm to children.

Liberals claim that conservatives are trying to shame a woman into keeping the fetus.

But no; now I feel that I see a little more clearly.  Liberals are trying to shame a woman into getting rid of the fetus.  It is a dirty little secret, a filthy little piece of trash that she should just "take care of" by having an abortion.  They are trying to psychologically bully a woman into pretending that she has no feelings toward her child.  Extremists no matter what the stripe, will go ballistic and rabid and foaming frothing at the mouth when confronted with logic, be they liberal or conservative.

Liberals are forcing a woman into not having any emotional connection to her fetus.  They force women into thinking that a new life growing in her body is simply an inanimate object, a throwaway, disgusting piece of trash.  Which she should be ashamed of housing.  A non-living object, no different from a shoe or a toothpick.

----
I had seen a few little whispered snippets of this prior to now, scattered here and there, but not many.  Just a few hushed hurried whispers of this from some republicans who, astoundingly, were not talking about being anti-abortion in regards to the fetus.  They were talking about being anti-abortion in favor of the woman who is getting an abortion.  They were not discussing the fetus taking priority over the woman.  They were genuinely concerned with the well-being of the woman who found herself in such a desperate, bleak situation that she saw this as her only recourse.

If that is the case, then the woman does not honestly, truly have a "choice."  She is in fact being forced into having an abortion.

I noticed it, I put a tabulation on it, then I moved on.  But not before drawing up a list of mental arguments about why this does not solve much.  I was receptive to their opinion and I saw the logic in it.

They saw the [[[combined]]] effect that society imposed on a woman to put her in such a situation that she saw abortion as a logical solution.  So in a way, these republicans convincingly made a pro-woman case against abortion.

And I do remember that even Ms. magazine, pain in the azz though it was to read, was somewhat prescient on this.  Back about twelve years ago, they had a feature article documenting how abortions are forced on local women in vacation hotspots around the world.  And I remember thinking, 'wait a minute, "forced" abortions?  If abortions are good, if abortion is my right as a woman, then why is it ever bad?  Shouldn’t a woman be jumping for joy if she is given a chance not to have to carry a fetus to term?'

I also do remember wondering way back in the day, about particular disconnects that existed.  One school of feminist thought used to love the old pagan nature-y tribal matriarchy-based belief systems.  They were all pro-woman up in this biz.  We are told that those olden, pre- abrahaimic/monotheistic thought systems celebrated women's fertility.  Women's monthly menstruation cycles were referred to as life blood, wise blood, all that good stuff.  The female menarche, the onset of puberty bringing about the ability to carry life within their bodies, was a joyous occasion in a girl's life.  Women were hailed and revered as the bearers of life.  Women gave the greatest possible gift a human being can give another human being:  they gave life.  For this, women were cherished and shown utmost respect.

So if all that is true, then how can this possibly be reconciled with abortion, in which the life blood is sucked out of a woman?  Straight answer, it cannot.

Pro-Woman, Pro-Life.

A More Evolved Method of Evolution

It was probably true -- cavemen might have been violent, savage r-ists.  They were brutal pillagers and looters, they regarded women as property objects.  If one bigger, stronger caveman successfully killed a weaker one, he could take that one's food and dwellings, as well as that one's female baby factory.  That is precisely why r-- is *not* considered evolution.  Physical urges do not make anyone more evolved.  And they sure as hell do not indicate fitness over someone who is not prone to as many physical impulses.  It is baffling that there are still people out there, including editorial writers, that are under the impression that r-- is due to evolution.

That's funny, I thought true evolution was determined by the level of humanity that is prevalent in a society.

True evolution is indicated by actions that show compassion, empathy, equality for all humans, and good judgment.  True evolution is the triumph of logic and reasoning, nonviolent conflict resolution, and morality.  This is sort of a continuation of my Cooperative Gene essay.

The following is a list of much more useful and accurate factors for evaluating a society's advancement.  You will notice that all of it is a matter of behavior and conscious choices.

No biological markers to speak of, such as heritable medical diseases, are present in this list.  This is for obvious reasons.  Heritable medical conditions, for example heart disease or diabetes, are determined genetically and have very little to do with the degree of civilization that can be attained by a person or by a society.  To think that medical condition has anything to do with how a person is as a human being is eugenics, which is immoral, unethical, vile, abhorrent.  Attempting to create a master race by sheer accident of biology, civilization is not.  Beginning the list.

*Treatment of women in the society.  I have said this many times before and I will continue to say this many times again.  This should always be considered first and foremost.  The way a society regards women, that is, fifty percent of the population, is the greatest and most precise indicator of the extent of civilization of a society.

Does a nation have laws that recognize violence against women for the crimes that these acts are?  Does the nation enforce these laws?  Are all educational and career opportunities open to women?  What is the public's general sentiment towards women?  What are individuals' personal sentiment towards women?  How do men behave towards women?  How do women conduct themselves?  How do women behave towards other women?

*Literacy rates.  *Or rather, education being prioritized.  Even if a culture does not have a written language, they still must value passing down oral traditions, historical legends.

*Standard of living.  Cleanliness, hygiene.  Do people know about personal hygiene and the fact that attending to this can prevent a number of diseases?

*Treatment of widows and orphans, as well as homeless men.  If widows and orphans are simply thrown to the streets, leaving them to the mercy of abusive violent opportunists that would only exploit and take advantage of them, rather than the society as a whole showing mercy to them, this is proof that the society is not evolved.

*Any and all medical advancements that lead to an improved quality of life -- with the exceptions of those that treat the most complex illnesses.  Medical advancements indicate evolution to a certain degree.  Vaccinations.  Medications, antibiotics, even home-grown herbal remedies can count if they work.  Treatments for simple things like bug bites, cuts and scrapes, mild illnesses.  More importantly, to what extent does a society know about the preventability of a certain illness.?  If they do know, then to what extent are they practicing said preventability?  (To what extent are they actively implementing these preventative strategies?)  Treatment for conditions like heart disease, cholesterol, diabetes are not quite as complex, so these are counted.

I am not including more complex diseases that are not well-understood such as cancer and Alzheimer's.  Because those are not necessarily preventable, and as I said they are much more complicated to contract than simply sitting in stagnant water and catching mosquitoes.  Also, complicated illnesses do not exist in every culture.  Again, this goes back to hygiene and cleanliness, which can prevent a lot of diseases.

*Birth control, which prevents a pregnancy from occurring in the first place.  As opposed to abortion and infanticide.  That's right, I am asserting that abortion is a primitive, savage method of controlling population numbers.  I strongly feel that abortion is violence against women.

*Rate of infant survival, whether death is due to illness, poverty, or infanticide.

*Delaying having children until one is psychologically mature enough to raise children.

*The extent to which a society is guided by logic and reasoning as well as emotional connections, over physical dictates.

*Treatment of minority races within the larger society.

*Limit childbearing to a small number rather than shooting for the absolute maximum number one can churn out.  Place value on quality over quantity.  The reasoning behind this is that smart parents would have only a few children and invest all their time and energy into those few.  They will put in a lot of investment in emotional and educational development, resulting in maximum fitness per child.

By contrast, if an individual has as many offspring as possible with as many different people as possible, then they are doing so as a probability game, in hopes that one of the numerous children will turn out safe and will survive to pass on the parent's genes.  This would result in maximum possible fitness of physical genes as opposed to emotional development and maturity for a given individual child.

This is usually a sign of low degree of evolution.  This is how animals in the wild that are often prey do it, such as rabbits, turtles, and fish.  Hell, even predators such as sharks, eagles, and bears do it.  Kinda like that Cole Porter song, but with a really macabre take on it.

Evolved humans are smart enough to realize it cannot be relegated to mere biological urge.  Parents must actively grow their children in terms of social breeding.

*This does mean the extent that the society encourages sustained, long-term, committed couples raising their children together in a two-parent home. (Preferably married even though that is oh so un-PC nowadays.)

*A culture -- art, music, literature, theater, creativity.  Stuff that is explicitly there to grow a soul and is not based on any physical urges or on basal survival.  And not necessarily based on logic either.  Imagination.  The ability to think, dream, create, be lost in thought, daydream.  Also it needs to be stated the people must be fully aware that this stuff is imagination and is not real.  The extent to which a person is governed by more abstract thought rather than basal instincts.

*A criminal justice system.  Ethical laws against violent crime.  (By "ethical" I do not mean going easy on criminals.  I believe in strict punishments.)  Enforcing the law.  Prosecution of criminals.  Not letting people get away with murder.  People have to be held accountable for their actions, and pay the legal consequences.


*I am only including some technology as an isolated factor for evolution.  Only technology as far as it contributes to quality of life.  As in standard of living, everyday maintenance of good health, medical contributions again, life expectancy.  Also work productivity, efficiency.  The reasoning for this is straightforward:  Technological advances alone do not necessarily indicate a more evolved society.

In a lot of cases technology just creates more efficient ways to deploy primitivity.  War, slavery, child pornography, forced prostitution (i.e., rape), child soldiers -- technology can and has aided all of that.  Ergo, technology in and of itself does not prove evolutionary superiority.  Japanese are arguably the most technologically advanced in the world, yet they still treat women as sex objects, property, and crap like that.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/02/why-women-only-transit-options-have-caught/1171/

Islamic terrorist groups use cell phones to communicate within the group and with other extremist groups.  They have access to computers, internet, and streaming video.  They have access to complex weapons and machinery.  Polygamist compounds with their incest and pedophilia in the United States have members that drive SUVs, use cell phones, and have fully functional electricity.  Raw technology does not automatically equate to being an evolved species.

Now, technology up to a certain point does indicate evolutionary superiority.  You can think of technology as a continual spectrum, starting at using sticks to pick up bugs, and going on until whatever we have somewhere on the planet in the given present day.  But there is an optimal zone.  After a certain cutoff point, no more technology produced will make a society any more evolved.

Medical advancements that increase quality of life are great.  Refrigerators and freezers.  Communication devices are great.  Cars and airplanes are great.  Clocks, plastics, heaters and air conditioners, electricity, increases in food productivity, cleaning solutions.  I'm not being facetious, I really do like all those things.  Plus, I'm hardly what you would call an environmentalist.

But does having a computer for every person in the house mean they are more civilized?  Does having the ability to follow celebrities on twitter mean a society is more civilized?  Does having 1,500 satellite channels on a 72-inch TV mean a person is more civilized?  Does being chained to the internets all the time mean someone is more evolved?  What about frozen premade meals loaded with preservatives?  That is definitely technology.  And of course there are those Japanese people who apparently have too much time on their hands and more money than they know what to do with, who create mechanized dolls that look and act like real people.  Then there's that gigantic indoor ski mountain that has been built in the arid, baking desert of UAE.

Just because a culture embraces raw technological advancement, this is not proof of a civilized society.  There are video games available all over the planet that have no higher purpose than to coddle the ape hindbrain vestigium of particular humans.  These video games are technically categorized as technology, certainly.  They have programmers that make the games, they use ever higher screen resolution and pixelation to get better graphics.  They use the internet to advertise their wares and offer streaming video of screenshots of the games.  But -- look at the driving factor of the so-called humans that developed those video games.  Were they motivated by altruistic reasons of making the world a better place?  No.  They just wanted to feed off the degenerate pathetic nature of the type of people that patronize this crap.  They wanted to make unevolved criminal types feel that their violent urges are perfect okay to indulge, most likely because the video game makers themselves wanted to feed their ape brains.

Now, although you could not tell from that rant, I do like technology.  I'm not going to sit here and say we should get rid of computers.  I'm on my computer all the freaking time, I have a cell phone, I've had all my vaccinations.

Having technology to attain evolution is analogous to having money to attain happiness.  I concretely, fervently believe that a certain amount of money will bring happiness.  Or rather, it will bring peace of mind.  No amount of argument from anyone will change my mind on this.  This is because it is simple logic.  A person is much more likely to be happy if they can afford a safe, clean place to live, healthy food to eat, and clothing for whatever weather is there.  A person who can afford all that is going to be much happier than someone who lives in poverty.  Money is needed for survival, like it or not.  But after a certain point, obtaining stuff for the sake of obtaining stuff will not make anyone happier.

That is analogous to technology being used as a barter to being evolved.  A certain amount of technology, such as medical advancements and standard of living, do indicate the degree of civilization of a society.  But after a certain point, more technology will not make anyone more civilized or happy.

Regarding my list, it is obvious that no society on the planet is quite all the way there yet.  But economists, sociologists, demographers, psychologists the world over, The US Department of Health and Human Services, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all agree with me that these tenets are the guideposts of a truly civilized, evolved society in which the population is healthy and better off.

A Continuation of Crackpot Evolutionary Psychology Theories

Cockamamie Theories -- A Sociological Study

Hey, I can do that too.  Why should I not get published in one of those laughable evolutionary psychology journals?  I can come up with a crackpot theory with the best of them.  I can reference anecdotal tidbits and call this "evidence."  I can conduct selective research in searching for scientific support.  I can pull from history whatever agrees with my preconceived opinions.  Read very carefully, because in some places, mere select *words* from a particular whole sentence are biased.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why have so many inventions, innovations, technology, applications of the laws of the natural world been fueled, been driven, been pursued with such gusto, such fanatical devotion?

•To explain the birth of the universe.
•To explain the origins of humankind.  Every culture and civilization in the history of our species has a creation myth.
•The seeking, the drive, the thirst for knowledge.  This has fueled the quest to seek, to unlock the secrets of the universe, perhaps in vain hopes of unearthing some support that the universe is inherently male.
•To invent and innovate things.  The need to create, to be bestowed with the honor of “Creator.”
•And now, the god particle.  Large supercolliders have been built, essentially for the purpose of creating something out of nothing.
•The search for life on other planets in our solar system or in the Milky Way
•The search for life in the Local Group or anywhere in the universe
•More recently, the search for other universes and yes, the search for possible life in other universes

For one simple reason:  men cannot create life from their bodies.

So, spinning along this trend that has been the dominant controlling factor lording over males' psyches since the inception of hominid species.  They are searching, painstakingly, for some sign that males are the origin of the universe or at least creators in some vein.

Humorists, aphorists, and pundits alike have long commented on the supposed phenomenon of "penis envy."  Then Viagra came along and exposed penis envy for what it really is.  Oh, it exists, all right.  But penis envy is not a feeling women harbor towards men.  Quite the opposite is true -- penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.

So I suppose viagra, levitra, and cialis are marketed to make women's penises stiff for longer periods of time, and indeed, at all?  And I guess all those spam emails that people get, which thankfully are a little less prevalent and irritating now than back when the internet was still called the "information superhighway," that want the recipients to enlarge their penis -- these are aimed at enlarging women's penises?  And I guess whenever men admit to feeling inadequate when compared to, say horses, or to other men that have bigger penises, I guess the insecure men are saying that they feel jealous of the horse's *mind.*

However, if you mean a metaphorical penis, then there might be something to that.  Power, authority, power in politics, formal education, business, running an economy.  Running a government.  Having education.  Having higher education, studying in universities, monasteries.  Men have historically prevented women from entering these and all other fields.  If that is the subject, then sure, women have metaphorical penis envy.  However, actual penis envy is something that men feel towards other men.

Now, perhaps we need to acknowledge the existence of a different social, personal, philosophical sleeper trend that has plagued males since the dawn of time.  This has afflicted males the universe over ever since the very first protobiont worked its way out of the primordial ooze.  This is an insecurity phenomenon that men feel towards women.

All male humans are afflicted with the psychosocial condition named "Uterus Envy."  They can never create a life from their bodies.  They know that women have this power, this extraordinary gift, and that they do not.

Women have of course, always known and appreciated the power of their life-creating bodies.  Many early civilizations around the world had theistic beliefs and customs that were female-centric.

On some subconscious level, men have always known this to be ultimate truth.  This is why all throughout the course of human history, males have done their damnedest to co-opt and bastardize this right that was God-given to women.  This is all betrays their extreme jealousy and insecurity.

They have resorted to even going so far as to fashion a creation myth in which a man gives birth to a woman from one of his ribs.  Then, as if that weren't illogical enough, some males made the declaration that women were made to endure pregnancy and childbirth as a "punishment."  This punishment is supposedly meted out due to some sort of original sin.

This disturbing psychosocial biochemical characteristic is manifested in the ways that violence, legal gymnastics, pseudo-philosophy, skewed, twisted, warped mental acrobatics are used as to why a woman's body is not her own.

Males have forcibly denied females their reproductive rights, including the right not to have a child if one does not want to.  They have also denied, very importantly, the right *to* carry a fetus to term if a woman does want to.

Males have co-opted and bastardized women's reproductive rights since the beginning of time.  They cling to their ideals of superiority out of desperation and panic.

This actually explains why men are driven to invent things, to innovate.  It all speaks of a desperate, frantic, frenzied need to create _something_.  It is a need to be on equal footing with women, who create life on a regular basis.  They are constantly attempting to prove to the world, to other men, to women, and to themselves that they are capable of creation.

Most people have heard the comical offerings that a man that buys a very large car or sponsors the production of very tall buildings is compensating for something.  But perhaps we have been mistaken as to what that "something" is.

This also would explain why scientists, supposedly learned, rational, logical, thinking men, have been so loathe to allow women into scientific and thinking circles all throughout human history.  They have delved so far as to concoct various theories, conjecture, convoluted, cognitive labyrinthine schemes as to why women should not be allowed to study the sciences.  They cling to these precepts as supposed logic supporting their opinions for why women would not make good scientists.  This is much like how when someone is stranded out in the desert or lost in a tropical natural jungle, he would have to rig some digs out of a few found objects, tarp, rope, twine.

This betrays an unease, a fear, a dread that women will yet again surpass men in their collective abilities as a gender.  Men are shaken by the fact that, one, women can already create life from their bodies, and, two, if women are able to enter engineering and technology fields and are allowed to practice, think, create, and innovate at the same rate as men, then this would prove that women have the capability to create in other tenets of the universe, thus doubly demonstrating their superiority over men.  Women are able to create life, and are also able to create things that make life a little bit easier to live.

This fear and unease manifests itself in baffling contradictions:  the Catholic Church has in the past proclaimed that anything having to do with the female reproductive system, including fertility and ovulation, is of paganism, the devil's work, filthy, vile, et cetera et cetera.  Yet at the same time the Church claims that a fetus is precious, innocent, deserving of life, and that aborting said fetus is murder.

Holding a woman hostage to her uterus.  Holding a woman prisoner to her own uterus by bastardizing the power of life and creation that her body holds.  They say that a woman's menstrual period makes her "unclean."  A woman that is menstruating is considered a pariah, is treated like a leper.

But guess what, folks, that is where babies come from.  A healthy, menstruating uterus.  How are they not able to reconcile a fetus's existence with how that fetus came to exist in the first place?

Women in various tribal societies who are menstruating are shunned from the tribe for the duration of their menses.  They are forced to live in filthy secluded huts because they have been announced “unclean,” and therefore are not deserving of being included and acknowledged in the greater community like the fully-functioning normal human being that she is.

Males have gone so far as to maintaining the false assertion that elderly men well past the "prime years" can still produce healthy, viable spermatozoa capable of joining ova to produce a viable, healthy zygote.  This was spurred on by a few stories of old celebrity goats that supposedly fathered children well into their triple-digit annums.  However, this was later medically proven to be false.

----
If faced with this ___ males would have to concede with a truth of this universe:  That the power of reproduction and creation are in the hands of females, and it always has been.  The ultimate decision to create life belongs to females.  This truth might make males uneasy, but that does not make it any less a truth.

But there are benefits to this perpetual, incessant inadequacy that males feel.  If nothing else, this jealousy and insecurity drove civilization, technology, and progress forward.  So that they may truthfully moniker themselves creators of at least something.  Taking great pains, blood tears and sweat, to be able to manipulate the natural world in some way so that they may pride themselves with the title of "creator."

"Necessity is the mother of all invention."  But what exactly is this necessity?  Is it for the lone physical object that was invented?  Or is it for the inventor to prove something?

----
It is also ludicrous that anyone, male or female, would insist that a fetus's right to life be divorced wholly from a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy.  This is another baffling, nonsensical anomaly that has no place in rational and moral discourse.  The claim that many make that a fetus's right to life is immaterial of a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy is ludicrous.

*It is usually divided into two extreme theaters, each stripping a woman of her humanity and choice in its own sick way.  One, the "conservative" form of misogyny is taking the fact that women are the bearer of life, and cruelly using this against a woman in any way possible.  That is turning a woman into a baby factory, a prisoner of her own uterus.  Forcing a woman's body to be used as a weapon against her.

*The other extreme cancer is possibly worse.  The "liberal" form of misogyny, which denies that women have any reproductive or even productive capabilities at all.  This manifestation, by taking away a woman's ability to become pregnant and bring forth a child.  This has veritably stripped women of any value to the human race at all.

Very important -- do not make the mistake of thinking that anyone that is okay with abortion is automatically on par with women's rights.

The fact is that forced abortions have also been used to control women's bodies.  Oh, how I wish I were making this up.  In sexual slavery practiced around the world in various countries, women are kidnapped from their homes, sold, and forced into prostitution.  In other words, they are forced into being ra--- on a regular basis.  They are also forced to go through abortions so that the brothel does not have to deal with the atrocities it is committing against human rights.

In this case, abortion is used as an aid, as a tool *against* acknowledging a woman as a conscious, whole, complete member of the homo sapiens species.

This so-called “liberalism” incarnates into some inexplicable ideologies.   Women are casually regarded as little more than empty hollow mannequins.  Abortion, here, is just another type of violence against women.

That's right; do not be fooled.  Just because abortion is "allowed" in these locations, it does not mean that the women are living in some sort of magical utopia wherein they are valued as equals to men and esteemed as whole human beings.  Here, abortion is also used as a weapon against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  It is not the only evil committed against women, I'm not trying to make that claim, but it is one of the many evils used to abuse and subjugate women.

This is possibly even worse than the monotheistic patriarchal religions that force women to not be able to consider abortion even in the case of safety and health.  At least those religions acknowledge the fact that women's bodies bring life into the world.  However, I truly think that these forced abortions are worse.  This is because in these horrific crimes, a woman as a human being is reduced to less than the sum of her body parts.

She is certainly not acknowledged as a whole human being.  That much is clear from the fact that she is kidnapped, sold into slavery, and systematically r--ed by the society, by the economy, by the local government that forces this to happen.  Then, just to knock her down a few pegs more, she is also not even considered a bearer of human beings.  A woman here is regarded as little more than a blow-up doll.
---

___is almost worse because it trivializes the ___ that women____.  "come on baby, it's not a crime, it's just a sin!"  Suddenly, saying "No" to a male became tantamount to denying him “rights.”  It became politically incorrect to say "No" to any male.  Reducing a woman to a soulless shell, a hollow meat carcass that does not have any redeeming, life-affirming qualities.

==
The most desperate ploy thrown out in the ether recently is the assertion that r-- is justified by evolution.  Here again, we have males grasping for straws, trying somehow to find some way to justify their abject disregard for women's bodies.  This just smacks of yet more desperation.

==
Modern-day treatment of pregnant women
Yet you vilify the woman who gets pregnant.

If the fetus is so damn godly and wonderful, then why the hell isn't the woman housing that fetus treated with parallel dignity and respect?  It only follows to logic that the pregnant mother should be lavished with grace, praise, love, reverence.  The pregnant mother should be exalted for her ability to bring forth life into this world.

"Well, there are maybe a handful of social programs that might be able to aid a woman who needs help..."
No, you have turned her into a beggar, a streetwalker.  At the mercy of violent criminals, exploiters, anyone else that would prey on the physically weak.

---
Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Mary Shelley to you) foresaw this phenomenon nearly two hundred years ago when she authored the story of Dr. Frankenstein.  She had sensed the unease that permeates males' subconscious psyches.  Males want to be able to create life on their own, without the intervention of any woman.  But the only way they can do it is through gruesome unnatural means.

This is reflected in efforts for human cloning.  These research efforts were begun by males, not by females.

There was another research project in Japan a few years back wherein a group of biologists tried to grow a mammal fetus to term in an incubator of sorts, which was supposed to supply all the nutritional requirements, cushioning of the body, O2, et cetera.  All of the things that a placenta would provide in the case of a normal mammalian pregnancy.

Do not make the mistake of considering this casually and concluding that this is a nod to feminism.  Quite the opposite.  I truly think that the researchers working on this were spurred on by the fact that females hold the power of creation in their bodies.  Males, when they embarked upon this puzzling experiment, were trying desperately to take the power of growing a life away from females.  This way, males would not be so reliant on females for reproduction.

---
The notion that evolution dictates that females want males to stick around and help raise the offspring.  And females prefer to be monogamous.  As much as gullible liberal females have tried to refudiate (hehe) this claim, there is probably quite a bit of truth to this.  And I do not think this is a bad thing.

Women have always been more evolved than men.  Females have a long history of having to be the ones to drive and usher the rest of humanity, including males, out of the Stone Age.  The responsibility of evolution has always been one that women have shouldered proudly.

This is true on the micro scale of a single human life. 
•Baby girls learn to talk earlier than baby boys.
•Earlier puberty.  Earlier emotional maturity and responsible behavior patterns.
•Female brain has thicker corpus callosum, which links the right and left hemispheres of the brain.  Buzzing snapping, electrifying back and forth between the hemispheres.  Provides stronger, more sturdy connection  (mapping of brain, putting together missing pieces of a puzzle such as solving a mystery.  Seeing links in concepts that appear superficially unrelated, but upon closer inspection turn out to be connected.)

This is also true on a hyper-iteration macro scale.  A leap forward in biological progress has always depended on a greatly increased investment from the female of the species.
•Early mitochondria provided the gateway for primitive unicellular organisms to morph into more complex unicellular organisms.
--Metabolism of nutrient sources, then being converted into energy sources for the cell.  The ATP production is much more complex than substrate-level which occurred at the cell membrane of primitive unicellulars (bacteria).

•The skeleton Lucy.  Australopithecus afarensis.  She is the missing link that was discovered to have lived so long ago, that connected early primate species to our distant hominid ancestors.

*Females being the ones responsible for well-being and protection of the young.  Laying eggs.
--Leaving them there in lower species.  Turtles, spiders.
--Sitting on them and hatching them.  Birds.  These are considered slightly higher than reptiles since they are warm-blooded.

*The transition from laying eggs and subsequently affecting external gestation.
Internal gestation for offspring in mammals.  Coupled with the mother feeding her young milk from her mammary glands.  This continues to nourish the offspring with much-needed carbohydrates, proteins, even some humoral (molecular) immunity.  This also strengthens the emotional bond between mother and child.
    (poss this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

With every great leap in evolutionary progress, comes an accompanied far greater investment from the female parent.  It is the female that always makes the greatest contribution to the nourishment of the offspring.  Evolution is tilted far more in favor of the contributions of the female.  In gestational requirements, nutritional supply, oxygen, blood supply, and with mammals, food supply from the mother’s body in the early year of the offspring's life is required *after* it has already been born.  This places enormous demand on the female parent.  But that is okay because the payoff is evolution.

*Women on average, are less violent, less sexually promiscuous, and more prone to forming emotional bonds with their offspring.  These are all hallmarks of more evolved species.  Compare the human species to gorillas, baboons, dogs, lions, reptiles, whales, dolphins.  It is established as fact in the scientific community that humans are more evolved than all of those other animal species.

Humans as a whole are superior to those other species in terms of intelligence, emotional bonds forming with pair-bonding, less aggression, less inclination to violence, higher morality, more emotional attachment to offspring, less likely to give in to impulsive behavior, and greater cooperation with other members of the species -- while also being physically weaker.  This comparison of humans-to-other-animalia is mirrored in the comparison female-humans-to-male-humans.

And male evolutionists keep encountering and getting bombarded by this at every turn.  It’s like shuffling a deck of cards, and no matter what happens, the queen always come out on top.  They have no choice but to concede that females drive evolution.  So how do male evolutionary scientists cope?  They must find some way to rationalize male brutality, justify it in their minds.  They must find some way to make sense of it, insist that it did contribute to evolution.  Even though what it really did was wreak terror on humanity.

This is why they try to make excuses.  The d--- getting hard excuse.  Trying to pretend they have any say in the matter.  For example, they ask in vain, what do women want?  However, what they are really asking is, how do I bag a hot chick.  They already know what women want.  With all the nonstop incessant chattering that women do all the time, I mean seriously, we will not stop, the entire freaking population of the developed world knows what women want.

The "teh poor menz" arguments predictably follow along thusly:  well whut abut teh poor menz why cant dey choos wimmen dey want????

That's a bullshyte argument, because you already have what you want.  Human women have already been selected for through a few million years of evolution.  The mammalian species have already selectively bred for females that have a significantly increased investment in producing offspring.  Nature did all the picking for you, so you men don't have to worry your pretty little heads off about it.

So what do teh poor menz get out of the deal?  They get mates who gestate the offspring for nine months, producing an infant that has an enormous brain with enormous brain-to-body mass ratio, proceed to breastfeed after that, and then stick around and raise the child throughout their formative years.  Psychologically, socially, and through physical and sexual maturity.

And mates who normally produce only one infant at a time, thereby allowing all nutritional and oxygen supply to go to that one infant.  At most twins and much more rarely triplets.  Beyond that, none without the help of fertility drugs.  But on the whole, human females do not produce litters.  In terms of evolutionary progress, this is a good thing.  Add the fact that human women internally gestate, and the fact that they generally do not leave or die after hatching the infant, a la turtles or spiders.

So quit complaining.  You already got the best that you can hope for.

So why do males still act as if their queries are unanswered?  It is because they are trying to maintain the pretense that they have a realistic shot with those hot chicks, as if those hot chicks are not going to magnetically gravitate to alpha males exclusively and automatically.  The poor male dears.  They try so hard to maintain the illusion that they are in control of the mating situation in some way. 

Again, this all comes down to uterus envy.  They try to pretend that they are in some way, any way at all, in control of reproduction.  They entertain the illusion that they possess a smidgen of any input whatsoever, a voice in the continuation of the species.