Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception » Science

Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!

admin — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:07:33 +0000

Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail. Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!

Compare: Germany plans mandatory female quotas in top management

some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.

One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.
Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister

Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.

Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features: There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.

Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures

Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line. Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ] Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. [...] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.

And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.

Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.

Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards

Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

Workaholics are mostly men.

Likewise, I mentioned the salary difference, but it may have less to do with ability than motivation. High salaries come from working super-long hours. Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.) One study counted that over 80% of the people who work 50-hour weeks are men.
That means that if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, we may need to legislate the principle of equal pay for less work.

Men are more extreme. In almost all qualities, men are over-represented at the top. And feminists don’t notice: men are over-represented at the bottom. How come feminists are not asking for 50% quotas in jail inmates, 50% female quotas on death row? 50% women quotas in workplace deaths and in war deaths!?

To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs, and only few penises.

To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs it can get, but a few penises can do the job. There is usually a penile surplus. If a group loses half its men, the next generation can still be full-sized. But if it loses half its women, the size of the next generation will be severely curtailed. Hence most cultures keep their women out of harm’s way while using men for risky jobs.

No equal rights and gender neutral quotas for life-boat seats on the Titanic!

On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%)

Women want equal rights, but less work, less risk, and special privileges. And modern man got fooled. He overlooked the dark side of the disadvantaged male.

Men take risks, women play safe

why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? [...]
For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

All quotes from the excellent paper by eminent Psychologist Roy F. Baumeister: Is There Anything Good About Men?

“Do Men Work More Hours Than Women?” and related posts (villainouscompany.com)

Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance

Devils Advocate — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:21:30 +0000

The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.

The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis

Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).

More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, …… Any more naming suggestions?

Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills

In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

So the historical stone age balance of power is:

men have economical and physical superiority,
women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.

Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power

Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.

increased

Anecdotal and other Evidence

It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.

I will explain the

reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.

I was inspired by the

antifeminist blog’s feminist-trade-union-hypothesis.

Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.

I was wondering:

Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories

how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?
And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?
there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)

Distortion and re-definition of language

When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language shows how language got re-defined for purely manipulative purposes.

Rape: in the past, rape was violent, non consensual sexual penetrative abuse. Nowadays consensual sex with a 17 year old was first called “statutory” rape, and a few years later, the word statutory got omitted. So a man having consensual sex with a 17 year old adolescent now became child rapist. Fondling a minor also became defined as rape, so indecently touching a minor also became rape.
Child: In the past a child was under 12 or under 14 years old, now 17 year-olds are children. In Europe, for the purpose of child porn, photos of 25 year olds with pony tails and young appearance are child porn.
These definitions are clearly for manipulating purposes. It is easier to incite the public to severely punish a “child rapist” then for “fondling an adolescent” or “consensual sex with an adolescent”. Not only do they re-define perfectly defined terminology (indecent touching of an adolescent), they also banalize real rape: “No, I did not agree to have sex with my boyfriend. I REALLY got raped by a stranger who dragged me in the woods at knife point”.
Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked shows more example of feminine logic that amazingly gets even academic recognition, in spite of being devoid of any logic and inconsistent with our logical and legal system in all other fields of life

Such comments got me officially kicked out: Change.org sucks: “womens rights” feminists censor & silence dissent.

Warped due process and warped language confuse press and public

An example: an Italian court acquitted a man of rape charges because the woman’s jeans was so tight that she could not be raped unless she helped to take it off. How shocking. But, do you think he would be acquitted were there 3 witnesses or surveillance camera proof of the rape? of course not! He was tried on unproven accusations of one singe women. Had he committed another crime like robbery, bullying, he would not even be in court on a simple accusation with absolutely no other evidence. So one proof to the contrary correctly got the falsely accused off the hook.

Feminists managed to pervert due process of law. Men are guilty until proven innocent and get arrested on hearsay, on unproven accusations of one single person complaining of rape or child abuse. Would we apply such methods to real problems like neighborhood and school bullying, mafia intimidation, a lot of real world problems could be solved. Normally, everyone knows who the school bullies are, just clear proof is missing. If one single accuser, with no proof, could get a school bully arrested, lots of problems could be solved. Well, as collateral damage, a few would be arrested unjustly, but that happens with child porn and child abuse cases too. Even females as collateral damage get accepted, in pursuit of the higher goal of final domination * 25 hottest sex offenders any boy wishes to become a rape victim of

Childrens obesity, diabetes, early death due to bad nutrition is no concern for feminists

Feminists seem so concerned about children. I identified a real threat to our children: Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food . Here the danger is real. Millions and millions of children get condemned to a life of diabetes, early death, due to obesity. Where are feminists protesting the violation of children.

17 year olds incapable to consent to sex?
But 5 year olds are capable to consent to fattening junk food?

Reminist logic is always selective, ad hoc. Convincing until you start questioning more deeply.

Can children agree to eating fattening McDonald’s meals, soda, and disease causing sugar cereals? No, they do not have to maturity to decide that. So, in analogy to the “rape” word for 17 year olds that allegedly cannot agree to sex (except to sex with peers of same age, strangely), what do you call feeding a person dangerous substances without consent?

Poisoning! We are poisoning our children and the guilty parties are advertisers, McDonald’s, and the parents. In analogy to a little known term: Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value I coined the term “Child Food-Porn” (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy.

How come feminists are so concerned about a 17 year old getting fondled? But no concern about a 4 year old getting raised towards a life of obesity and diabetes? Maybe feminists are not really concerned with children. The antifeminist explanation is the only one that makes sense.

Feminists enlist Interpol to track down depictions of nude adolesents
FEMINISTS Not worried about videos of kids getting spanked, killed, maimed clubbed to death

Finally I wondered Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV. It is perfectly ok for prime time TV to show how a 16 year old gets killed by a youth gang mob with hits of planks to his head. If the same kid made love to his girl friend or were simply naked, this would be a huge crime. Amazingly, the entire might of interpol would go after every single person in the world that inadvertently would have downloaded such a photo.

The power of feminists is startling.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations. I am in awe!

Feminists agenda brought sweeping changes in law & customs

Most feminist goals actually look very justified. But justified goals are the means to reach further reaching exaggerated goals and end up being true witch hunts instilling terror in the populace. The AntiFeminist blog is full of examples:

It started with heavy sanctions against bigamy. Mormon family where all adult spouses agree to the polgynous systems get persecuted and jailed.
age of consent gets elevated world wide, creating victims of legal witch hunts
possession of pictures of nudity or sex involving any alleged minors get totally disproportional punishments Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed; Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
No mercy, no pity for collateral damage. Like registered sex offenders who remain on the US sex offender list for having had a love affair with their actual spouse while s/he was under 18. Or Sexting: Teens face child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos
prostitution gets repressed under the guise of eliminating child slavery (a noble cause but used to foster further political goals). Warped but generally accepted feminist logic goes on successful crusades (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked). And it seems the entire world, including male law makers accept such drivel as a luxury prostitutes needs to be saved from their chosen profession while nobody thinks cleaning toilets is demeaning.
More examples about abusive distortion of language (“rape”, “child”) to foster feminist goals follows later in this article
deadbeat dads get pursued for child support with amazing zeal and efficiency, occasionally forcing men to pay for cuckold offspring because they are not allowed to present legal proof of non-fatherhood.
on issues of interest to feminist, due legal process gets inverted. Any vengeful unproven allegation of child abuse or rape gets a man in jail or kicked out of his own house, removed from his children: “guilty until proven innocent”.
feminists seem excessively concerned with the well being of children and their depictions, while in reality unconcerned about non-sexual violence against children (Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed; Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.), or the world health epidemic of child overeating (“Child Food-Porn” (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy ; Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value ; Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food )

the noble goal of making deadbeat dads pay for their offspring got extended
- so fathers have to pay a large part of their income while having absolutely no say over how it is applied. A father normally can not say: “I pay xx University” but refuse to pay for a fancy car, fashionable clothes or a second rate University. He has to pay and nothing to say.

I also have seen examples of fathers whose paycheck decreased dramatically and owed more child and spouse support then they were earning. Also it is amazing with which vigor the justice system in most countries enforces child support claims.

In Germany, a law got defeated (thank god) that would give jail terms to fathers who did DNA testing to prove that a child was not his.

This is noble, but it is getting excessive.

All this deserves analysis by academics, in the light of recent evolutionary psychology research, and new research to test the hypotheses here.

Of course, the results speak for themselves. Self interested feminism is winning hands down. We only need to see if the explanation here is correct of if there are other explanations.

I hope, when men wake up, and well intentioned women see the effects of the drakonian feminist inspired witch hunt laws, maybe we can revert to reasonable laws we had 50-100 years ago.

Reading List:

Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate

Devils Advocate — Sat, 01 May 2010 05:26:33 +0000

One of the most prestigious peer reviewed research journals of the American Psychological Association published a meta-research (an overview of lots of other research papers) with disturbing findings. Result: the US Senate and US congress condemned the Research. After all, the preconceived notions behind our criminalization of Teenage Sexuality must not be disturbed.

Disclaimer: The issue here is repression of research and denial of the truth. One still may defend the laws as they are, but should not repress free research that could challenge one’s personal political opinions.

http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/2002/decjan/silenced.html

Another clash between highly charged political rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerned Associate Professor of Psychology Scott Lilienfeld. It began with a 1998 paper in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). Temple University’s Bruce Rind and two colleagues had conducted a review of quantitative literature, finding a weak link between childhood sexual abuse and later psychopathology. Radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger blasted the article as an effort to normalize pedophilia. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning it, and finally, the chief executive of the APA wrote that the findings “should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.”

Lilienfeld submitted an article to another APA-sponsored journal, American Psychologist, criticizing the apa’s capitulation to political pressure. The protests and their impact, he argued, detract from scientists’ ability to report their findings without undue interference, undermining all research on controversial topics.

Lilienfeld’s article, titled “When Worlds Collide,” was reviewed and accepted for publication following revisions to “tone it down.” It was slated to appear in the June 2001 issue. On May 10, however, Lilienfeld received a letter from the journal’s editor. “My article had now been unaccepted for publication,” Lilienfeld says. “He asked me to write an entirely new article removing all material dealing with the Rind et al. article and its aftermath, which amounts to about 60 percent of my article.”

Facing strong protests from the psychology community and some negative press, American Psychologist agreed to publish the article in a special section, along with several commentaries, in the December 2001 issue, at the earliest. “The APA never acknowledged that something was seriously amiss, even though it was clear that this action was politically motivated,” Lilienfeld says.

See also the excellent article by Wikipedia on Bruce Rind controversy

Self Deception: "False beliefs are helpful" paradox

Devils Advocate — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:14:56 +0000

Life is complicated. There actually are paradoxes that are very hard to solve.

Example: I am convinced religion is wrong. There is no God. But, on the other hand there is lots of research proving “miracles” of religion like

Imagine a poor, uneducated, violent neighborhood. If any church can gain foothold there, crime decreases, the entire community starts improving and working better. It is good, it is an improvement. So even if the church teaches wrong things, even if the church is run by a fraudster who just wants to siphon away part 10% of the faithful’s income (Tenth, Tithe), the church can have a positive effect. It is false, but it does good.
James Randi (“Flim Flam”) is a great guy who relentlessly preaches against false beliefs, astrology, wonder healers, dowsing rods etc.

Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions by James Randi $22.98 0879751983 James Randi has a US$ 1 Million bet that anyone can win who can show any paranormal effect to him. He never had to pay. For example, James Randi debunked a US$ 1000 dowsing rod that was sold to US police departments. These dowsing rods could identify criminals! But James Randi himself admits that the dowsing rods worked. They helped police identify criminals they otherwise would not have identified.

People who are very religious, people who have supersticious beliefs about their breast cancer recover better then average from breast cancer (research by Professor Shelley Taylor). So if you take their beliefs away, you are reducing their chances of recovery. Positive Illusions by Shelley E Taylor $16.95 0465060528

Health Psychology by Shelley E. Taylor $64.50 0071283609

Placebo effect in Medicine: if you believe in healing power, you have a good chance of getting healed. And the more invasive the method is the better it works. A huge european study on acupuncture found that sticking needles into someone has a stronger placebo effect then pills. So let us assume that acupuncture and homeopathy are quackery ( I don’t want to discuss the merit of this here and now). But it has effects when done by a professional doctor who is strongly enough self deceived that he honestly believes in it.

So maybe the truth does harm. Very disturbing idea! Maybe I should start praising the virtues of human stupidity, self deception and unconsciousness.

Pedophilia witch hunt discussed by academia and press

Devils Advocate — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:51:41 +0000

First a story about a toddler that had to die because a man was afraid to help, due to the pedophilia hysteria.
An extreme defense of pedophilia
Then Professor Harris Mirkin’s thesis that criminalization of “pedophilia” is like gay criminalization and psychiatrization of homosexuality 50 years ago and that childrens’ right to sexuality should eventually win.
Judith Levine’s book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex
Alfred Kinsey a pedophile? He observed orgasms of children and adolescents during his University Research.
More unbiased academic discussions about pedophilia
And of course there is our prior article about persecution of academic research in the case of the Rind Study

There was one small detail that jumped out at me in the tragic story of Abigail Rae, the two-year-old who wandered off from her village playgroup and ended up dying in a garden pond. Tucked away at the end of yesterday’s inquest report was a line about how Clive Peachey, a bricklayer, drove past a child on her own, whom he later concluded had been Abby.

She was not walking straight, she was tottering, said Mr Peachey. “I kept thinking should I go back? One of the reasons I did not go back is because I thought someone would see me and think I was trying to abduct her.”

The hysteria over paedophilia hangs like some dark cloud over almost every interaction nowadays between a man and a child that isn’t his.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3352895/Day-of-the-dad-paedophilia-hysteria-leaves-men-afraid-to-help.html

Professor Mirkin got himself into deep trouble defending that consensual sex with an adolescent is not the same as raping the same adolescent. Similar to a Dutch law, Professor Mirkin contends that the age of consent should be 12 years, as long as the adolescent’s consent can be proven.

Click on MORE to read the rest of the story.

Death threats over paedophilia article

Professor Mirkin’s mistake, if that is what it was, was to break the last big taboo in American mores and suggest paedophilia should not be regarded as a monolithic phenomenon but rather as a social and political construct subject to the changing attitudes of different eras.

Raping a child, he argued, should not be put in the same category as sex between a consenting teenager and an adult; art works that refer to the sexuality of children should not be dismissed out of hand as pornography – just think of Donatello’s David.

His article, which appeared in the Journal of Homosexuality, went entirely unnoticed until a group called Concerned Women For America discovered it on the internet.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/death-threats-over-paedophilia-article-653107.html

Here is the entire article, by permission of the Independent

The following NewYorker article recognizes Professor Mirkin’s right to publish academic discourse, even when disturbing. But they know that Mirkin’s ideas are “silly”

The professor is Harris Mirkin, who teaches in the political-science department at the University of Missouri’s Kansas City campus. The article at issue is “The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia,” published in the Journal of Homosexuality, in 1999.[…]
Professor Mirkin published a silly article. It purports to show that the current situation of pedophiles is analogous to the situation of homosexuals before the gay-rights movement and of women before the women’s movement. Pedophilia, he argues, is regarded by almost everyone who is not a pedophile as unnatural, depraved, criminal; but many heterosexuals once thought that homosexuality was a disease and an offense against God and nature, and many men once thought that sexually active women were monsters. In each of the earlier cases, the dominant group maintained that there was a “natural” type of sexual behavior. And, in each case, once it was demonstrated that what people believe to be “natural” is just a “social construction,” devised by the dominant group to preserve its own status, then the “deviant” group was on its way to acceptance. Mirkin suggested that pedophiles might be at this stage. When people realize that in earlier times sex between men and boys was thought to be unexceptionable, they will see that the present taboo is a convention, and not based on anything real. “Like homosexuality,” Mirkin writes, “the concept of child molestation is a culture- and class-specific modern creation.” No doubt, as a student of contingency, he appreciates the irony that his views have become widely known not because pedophiles are gaining acceptance (as he seemed to predict) but because of the scandal in the Catholic Church.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/05/13/020513ta_talk_menand

A few examples of open-minded Scientific Literature:

Sexuality & Culture

CUMULATIVE CONTENTS, VOL. 1–9

VOLUME 1 (1997)

THEMATIC ISSUE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL CONSENT

Editorials Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Annual
Barry M. Dank

Sexual Harassment, Sexual Consent, and Beyond
Roberto Refinetti

Theoretical Articles Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Critique of Current Research and Policy
Christine L. Williams

Sexual Harassment Policies as All-Purpose Tools to Settle Conflicts
Heinz-Joachim Klatt

“Academia’s Dirty Little Secret”: Deconstructing the Sexual Harassment Hysteria
Klaus de Albuquerque

Forbidden Love: Student-Professor Romances
Barry M. Dank and Joseph S. Fulda

On Prohibiting Relationships between Professors and Students
Peg Tittle

Empirical Articles Gender-Specific Differences in Evolved Mating “Strategies”: The Evolutionary Basis of Sexual Conflict
Peggy La Cerra

College Students’ Perceptions of the Relationship between Sex and Drinking
Gwendell W. Gravitt, Jr. and Mary M. Krueger

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/86q8a7k0×52gpj11/

Feminist writer Judith Levine’s book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (University of Minnesota Press, $25.95), has been condemned by those who say she excuses sexual abuse of children–a charge she strongly denies. Levine says she was misunderstood after a news article in March quoted her as saying that a boy’s sexual experience with a priest “conceivably” could be positive.

“Do I advocate priests having sex with their child parishioners? No, absolutely no,” she says. However, she adds, “The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young–even quite young–people can have a positive [sexual] experience with an adult.”

Featuring a foreword by Clinton administration surgeon-general Joycelyn Elders, Levine’s book endorses a Dutch law passed in 1990 that effectively lowers the age of consent to 12. “America’s drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing,” she writes. “Instead, often it is harming them.”

The book has sparked a political backlash against her publisher, the University of Minnesota Press. The speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives condemned the book and called for the university to halt its publication. Instead, the university press recently ordered a second printing of 10,000 copies after media attention helped drive Levine’s book as high as No. 26 on the Amazon.com best-seller list.

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_18_18/ai_86868910/#comments

Judith Levine expected her book on child sexuality to stir some controversy, but she never dreamed she would be called an evil accomplice to child molesters.

Though not yet released, Levine’s book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, has already attracted angry letters, phone calls and e-mails directed at her and her publisher, University of Minnesota Press.

The book argues that efforts to protect children from sex can do more harm than good, especially when parents and educators are afraid to recognize children as sexual beings.

Sex is a part of growing up for children and teenagers, Levine argues, and not all sexual encounters with adults are necessarily traumatic for minors. This has prompted critics to accuse Levine of endorsing child molestation and sexual abuse.

“My book is not about intergenerational sex,” Levine said. “I am not endorsing sex abuse of children. Quite the contrary. It was my hope that the book would allow parents and other adults to talk realistically about issues of kids and sexuality. Instead, there is an effort to suppress the book and stop that conversation.” […]

Levine endorses the Netherlands’ approach to age-of-consent laws. In 1990, the Dutch parliament made sex between adults and children ages 12 to 16 legal as long as there was mutual consent. The child or the child’s parents can bring charges if they believe the minor was coerced into sex.

Levine believes the Dutch law is a “good model” for the United States because it recognizes children as sexual beings who can determine their future while not ignoring the fact that they are weaker than adults and still need legal protection. U.S. consent laws, she says, mistakenly put all minors under one category without recognizing their ability to pursue relationships.

“Legally designating a class of people categorically unable to consent to sexual relations is not the best way to protect children, particularly when ‘children’ include everyone from birth to eighteen,” Levine writes. “Criminal law, which must draw unambiguous lines, is not the proper place to adjudicate family conflicts over youngsters’ sexuality. If such laws are to exist, however, they must do what [social psychologist Lynn M.] Phillips suggests about sexual and romantic education: balance the subjective experience and the rights of young people against the responsibility and prerogative of adults to look after their best interests, to ‘know better.’”

Source: http://pedophileophobia.com/hysteria.htm
See also http://www.ageofconsent.com/netherlands.htm

John Holt (1923 – 1985), an American teacher who authored Escape from Childhood – The Needs and Rights of Children, stated that “all people, including young people, should have the right to control their own private sex lives and acts”.[citation needed] He considers that “it is not the proper business of the state or government to pry into such matters”. Holt refutes the concept of child innocence and opposes laws on age of consent as unfair and morally wrong.

Judith Levine, an American journalist and author of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, is against the legal regulation of children’s involvement in sexual activities. Levine suggests that, if such laws are to exist, an appropriate model would be the legal framework that existed in the Netherlands during the 1990s, now abolished, which required a complaint from a parent or other authority to pursue a prosecution where 12-15 year olds were involved.

British journalist Miranda Sawyer maintains that the age of consent should be lowered to 12 in the United Kingdom, arguing that the criminalization of all sexual activity for ages under 16 is “laughably unrealistic”.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform

Is child molestation a sickness or a crime?

Thomas Szasz from the August/September 2002 issue

Medical Penal Establishment

Today virtually any unwanted behavior, from shopaholism and kleptomania to sexaholism and pedophilia, may be defined as a disease whose diagnosis and treatment belong in the province of the medical system. Disease-making thus has become similar to lawmaking. Politicians, responsive to tradition and popular opinion, can define any act, from teaching slaves to read to the cold-blooded murder of a bank guard, as a crime whose control belongs in the province of the criminal justice system.

Applied to behavior, especially sexual behavior, the disease label combines a description with a covert value judgment. Masturbation, homosexuality, and the use of nongenital body parts (especially the mouth and anus) for sexual gratification have, at one time or place, all been considered sins, crimes, diseases, normal behaviors, and even therapeutic measures. For many years psychiatrists imprisoned homosexuals and tried to “cure” them; now they self-righteously proclaim that homosexuality is normal and diagnose people who oppose that view as “homophobic.” Psychiatrists diagnose the person who eats too much as suffering from “bulimia” and the person who eats too little as suffering from “anorexia nervosa.” Similarly, the person who has too much sex suffers from “sex addiction,” while the person who shows too little interest in sex suffers from “sexual aversion disorder.” Yet psychiatrists do not consider celibacy a form of mental illness; celibate persons are not said to suffer from “anerotica nervosa.”

Why not? Because psychiatrists, politicians, and the media respect the Roman Catholic Church’s definition of celibacy as a virtue, a “gift from God,” even though celibacy is at least as “abnormal” as homosexuality, which the church continues to define as a grievous sin — an “intrinsic evil,” in the words of Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua. Regardless of how unnatural or socially destructive a pattern of sexual behavior might be, if the church declares it to be virtuous — as with celibacy or abstinence from nonprocreative sexual acts — psychiatrists do not classify it as a disease. Thus a religion’s moral teachings shape what is ostensibly a scientific judgment.

Sources:

http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/sins-of-the-fathers http://www.staff.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/chldabuse01bk.htm

Kinsey’s interest in boys

Reisman contends that Alfred Kinsey was the father not only of the revolution that spawned the current permissive sexual climate, but also of the movement gaining ground among some scholars to legitimize sex between adults and children.

In her book “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences,” Reisman presents evidence that Kinsey was a pedophile. She points out that “anywhere from 317 boy infants and children to 2,035 total children” were subjected to sex experiments for the Kinsey data in Chapter 5 of the Male and Female volumes of his reports.”

In 1948, Kinsey published “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and in 1953 “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.”

Reisman wrote that “the truly amazing fact is that at the time the activities required to perform the ‘research’ on children to obtain data on their ’sexuality’ would have involved actions that were clearly criminal in all 50 states of the USA and that these criminal activities were being committed under the protection and with knowledge of the Indiana University. ”

Reisman noted that in an essay, Albert Jonson and J. Mann reported that Kinsey “included observational reports on the speed of reaching orgasm in 1,888 boys, aged 5 months to adolescence who were timed with a stopwatch” and “147 preadolescent” girls. Jonson and Mann cite their “personal communication” with Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey’s co-author, who validated the 1,888 boys in the Kinsey Reports, Reisman wrote.

Reisman’s work on Kinsey gained attention in the UK in 1998 when Yorkshire television aired a documentary by Tim Tate called “Kinsey’s Paedophiles.” Tate said, based on extensive research, that the data was used by Kinsey to suggest that children can enjoy their abuse. The program has never been aired in the U.S.

Howard Ruppel, chancellor and academic dean of the graduate school that arose from the Kinsey Institute, the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, told WorldNetDaily he has no comment regarding allegations that Kinsey was a pedophile

Source: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27104.

Conservative and Religious Hypocrites are biggest Porn Consumers in USA

admin — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:43:49 +0000

Peer reviewed scientific journals report:

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election. Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama. [...]

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,” bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behaviour.”

sources: New Scientist Journal of Economical Perspectives

Results are from a study of “anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment “. Seem to confirm that people with self-repressive values and religion are hipocritical. The topic fits with human stupidity: if we assume that conservative and religious people do not lie on purpose, it shows self deception. They really believe in what they say but they act differently.

Similar results can be found in adolescent pregnancy and in sexually transmitted diseases. Studies there showed that teens with abstinence vows had less sex, but due to their unpreparedness and lack of education had just as much STD and adolescent pregnancy as their much more sexually active peers. Sarah Palin’s daughter would be a prime example.

Richard Dawkins debunks Creationism. “The purpose of purpose”

admin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:52:48 +0000

“Intelligent design” or “scientific” creationism are buzzwords created by religious fundamentalists, with the agenda to put content of 2000 year old religious books into our children’s school science curriculum.

Dawkins just takes apart all the religous arguments, shreds them into pieces. Watch the video “the purpose of purpose”.

I have seen discussions, where poor scientist just could not lower themselves to argue on the same level of demagogic obfuscation as the religious dogmatists, and thus looked bad. See the following example of a scientist that was too shy to counterattack.

Evolutionary theory has yet unexplained gaps. Therefore we need to be open-minded and to offer out children alternative theories, like “intelligent design”.

Biological knowledge of embryonal development has unexplained gaps. Therefore we need to be open-minded and to offer out children alternative theories, like “stork theory of child delivery”.

The geology of the earth is still not fully explained. Therefore we need to be open-minded and to offer out children alternative theories, like “flat earth theory” and “hollow earth theory”.

Same about alchemy in chemistry classes, astrology in astronomy classes, and witchcraft in medical first aid courses.

If Dawkins is too fiery for you, follows a very cool scientific analysis of scientific creationism

The following video explains:
Theory is not “guesses or hunches”, as in lay people language. Theory to a scientist means explanation, logical constructs of tested hypotheses, facts, laws.

Links to other 23 videos in this series:

Peter Singer – The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews – Richard Dawkins (Video)

Against Irrational Unconscious — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:18:16 +0000

pretty shocking topics: from animal rights not to be eaten and slaughtered to “abortion” rights until after birth, mercy killings of babies that get born severely damages.
Singer thinks topics to the end. His main philosopy is minimizing suffering, creating the maximum of happiness. So there is a consistency in his thoughts that one should not kill poor cows, but severely crippled infants should be killed out of mercy.

(Deutsch) URMENSCH-DENKEN: Das verfluchte Erbe der Steinzeit

admin — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:26:48 +0000

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception » Science

Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!

Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures

Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.

Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

Workaholics are mostly men.

To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs, and only few penises.

No equal rights and gender neutral quotas for life-boat seats on the Titanic!

Men take risks, women play safe

Related articles

Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance

The power of feminists is awe inspiring. Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis

Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).

So the historical stone age balance of power is:

Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power

Anecdotal and other Evidence

reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.

antifeminist blog’s feminist-trade-union-hypothesis.

Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories

Distortion and re-definition of language

Warped due process and warped language confuse press and public

Childrens obesity, diabetes, early death due to bad nutrition is no concern for feminists

17 year olds incapable to consent to sex? But 5 year olds are capable to consent to fattening junk food?

Feminists enlist Interpol to track down depictions of nude adolesents FEMINISTS Not worried about videos of kids getting spanked, killed, maimed clubbed to death

The power of feminists is startling. Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations. I am in awe!

Feminists agenda brought sweeping changes in law & customs

Reading List:

Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate

Self Deception: "False beliefs are helpful" paradox

Pedophilia witch hunt discussed by academia and press

Death threats over paedophilia article

Sexuality & Culture

CUMULATIVE CONTENTS, VOL. 1–9

VOLUME 1 (1997)

THEMATIC ISSUE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL CONSENT

Judith Levine expected her book on child sexuality to stir some controversy, but she never dreamed she would be called an evil accomplice to child molesters.

Is child molestation a sickness or a crime?

Medical Penal Establishment

Conservative and Religious Hypocrites are biggest Porn Consumers in USA

Richard Dawkins debunks Creationism. “The purpose of purpose”

Links to other 23 videos in this series:

Peter Singer – The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews – Richard Dawkins (Video)

(Deutsch) URMENSCH-DENKEN: Das verfluchte Erbe der Steinzeit

The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

17 year olds incapable to consent to sex?
But 5 year olds are capable to consent to fattening junk food?

Feminists enlist Interpol to track down depictions of nude adolesents
FEMINISTS Not worried about videos of kids getting spanked, killed, maimed clubbed to death

The power of feminists is startling.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations. I am in awe!