Why women should not be policemen or vote for the politicians who control police and soldiers.

I thought I was done being a male chauvinist for the day. Then I go back to my personal LJ, and a man posted about female genital mutilation, saying that it won’t stop until soldiers from Anglophone countries force people in Third World countries to stop cutting off their daughters’ clitorides and labia. Let me put in that this man actually leans to the left and is hardly a hawkish “let’s kill all them Mohammedan terrorists” sort.

Two women promptly started telling him that “violence never works” and that “education and gentle pressure” will always be more effective at stopping atrocities. And this is the ultimate crime against women, and here alleged feminists are saying, “Don’t use force to stop this!”

Not that I’m really surprised. Western feminists, who are so ready to file lawsuits and have hysterics when a professor mentions scientific data acknowledging biological differences between the sexes, are serenely indifferent to the horrible things being done to their sisters in non-Western-civilization countries.

I suppose that if these women were police officers, and they were dispatched in response to my 911 call if I were being raped, they would stand there watching some man rape me, telling him how much they empathize with his psychological challenges and gently remarking that rape isn’t really an enlightened way to behave.

That actually is entirely possible. When I was an inmate of the schools, that is pretty much what my teachers did when my male classmates beat up and groped me, which they did routinely. (Back then it wasn’t yet fashionable to drug little boys into meekness, so instead a teacher had to stand by and watch and giggle girlishly when any of the rampaging boys glanced her way, as female teachers literally do not have the balls to make undrugged boys behave.) They usually just ignored it, sitting or standing a few feet away, watching the whole thing. If I bothered to complain about having been punched repeatedly by three or four boys, I was punished for bothering the teacher about it. If the brainless sluts we employ as “teachers” had the mental capacity for planning ahead, I would speculate that they were encouraging this sort of behavior in order to ensure the next generation of feminists, because it’s difficult for a girl to emerge from co-education, presided over by women of bad character, without a great deal of hostility towards the male of the species.

This is a tangent, but I’ve been meaning to relate this incident: the last time I was assaulted by a boy in school, I was 14, he I believe a year younger. My (female) math teacher walked right by, saw what was going on, and kept on walking without saying a word. Three other boys, friends of his, pulled my attacker off me. He was then suspended for a few days, for an assault for which an adult would have received several months at the very least, even in our corrupt feminist era. My parents, of course, were not even slightly concerned at this assault which could easily have put me in the hospital if not for those three boys who rescued me. They forgot all about it within a month.

A couple of months later, the boy came to me and apologized. His friends, he related, had explained to him that “hitting girls” wasn’t the thing. I was thinking about this incident recently, and it occurred to me that this was the age at which, despite the efforts of feminists, boys are inevitably under more male authority. This is when sports become more serious, which means male coaches; it’s when part-time jobs draw near; it’s when they’re big enough and knowledgeable enough to start taking more part in men’s activities with grown men – for instance, messing with cars; and finally, they and their friends are themselves becoming men. They can think more for themselves instead of just listening to the babbling of the dizzy dame in front of the chalkboard. A few years earlier, girls were alien creatures who were easy to beat up, now they’re suddenly potential sexual partners, and hitting them isn’t always the best way to start. (There are exceptions.)

I can still remember the surprise in that boy’s voice as he told me what his friends had said to him. No doubt this was the very first time anyone had told him that using his natural physical superiority to batter the weak was wrong; his mother and teachers had no doubt giggled and told him how cute he was when he hit girls. Likely his father wasn’t even around; certainly there were few other men in his life to teach him civilized behavior. Mothers aren’t going to teach their sons to behave; mothers know, subconsciously, that their sons represent their best chance to pass on their genes, not to mention that when their husbands die of old age they’ll need their sons to look after them (cave people didn’t have Social Security or savings accounts), so they’re going to encourage their sons to have lots of fun and dominate others any way they can. Not to mention, affection towards some other female could be a threat to the mother-son relationship, so it’s best for his mother that he regards females his own age as objects to be used and slapped around. Female teachers aren’t going to either. For one thing, they are currently taken from the absolute dregs of society, women with no brains or morals. For another, they have millions of years of evolution urging them to “tend and befriend” any rampaging male. Allowing women to teach boys is the purest insanity.

Back to female genital mutilation: this is what feminists are. When civilized men do completely harmless things, like flirting or having sex with a consenting co-ed, this is designated as “violence” and they… demand that more civilized men lock them up. When genuinely dangerous men do genuinely violent things, feminists tend and befriend them, careful not to antagonize them. If Muslims begin to invade with machine guns, the feminists who today are shrieking about “date rape” will meekly spread their legs for the invaders as women have always done. This is why women cannot be allowed to wield power in any society that wishes to survive.

In the 80’s, there was a comic book miniseries called Sisterhood of Steel. It was about an all-female Amazon society. It had existed for several generations, but its origin was related: many years ago, they were invaded and all of the men killed. As has been the custom since the first mammal ancestor poked his head out of his hole and saw that there were no more dinosaurs, they spared the women for the two main purposes women serve: cooking and sex. These particular women, however, took advantage of the first of these two tasks. Ordered to cook a feast for their conquerors, they filled it with poison, which killed them all. Left with no men, they formed an Amazon society.

Well, the first part of that story, the men being killed and the invaders claiming the territory and the females, has happened unnumerable times in human history. There is not even one instance where they acted as the “Sisterhood of Steel” did. A few may have protested; they were quickly put to death and did not pass on their defiant genes. The majority of the women, and all the ones who became ancestresses, meekly brought supper and then got on their backs. The mother of Genghis Khan himself was stolen by Genghis’s father from her first husband; she wept for the duration of the horseback ride over her dead husband, and then put him completely out of her mind.

I wish it weren’t this way. I wish there were a way for us to circumvent our genes. I wish that we didn’t have to follow such strict rules just to keep civilization functioning well enough to have a steady food supply and works of art. The evidence, however, is overwhelming: the path to civilization, like the path to righteousness, is straight and narrow.

Advertisements

103 Responses to “Why women should not be policemen or vote for the politicians who control police and soldiers.”

  1. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Examples such as above are simply smoke-screens for the real issue, which is “violence and the causes of violence”. When issues of daily violence are reduced to the phantasm of gender, we miss the whole point in the understanding, preventing and addressing of the issue. The older days of women having difficulties being assertive in a classroom were the result of the society and the culture within their upbringing, not a fault of the women themselves, or of being a woman. These days, even men cannot be assertive in a classroom, and now, in the U.S. we have legal proposals to allow teachers to carry GUNS in classrooms. I am astounded, personally, at the absurd approaches Americans consider in the face of common sense and methods proven to be effective. Until humanity decides to look at itself objectively, to look beyond gender and beyond stereotypes, there will never be male, or female equality. There will never be HUMAN equality.

  2. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Examples such as above are simply smoke-screens for the real issue, which is “violence and the causes of violence”. When issues of daily violence are reduced to the phantasm of gender, we miss the whole point in the understanding, preventing and addressing of the issue. The older days of women having difficulties being assertive in a classroom were the result of the society and the culture within their upbringing, not a fault of the women themselves, or of being a woman. These days, even men cannot be assertive in a classroom, and now, in the U.S. we have legal proposals to allow teachers to carry GUNS in classrooms. I am astounded, personally, at the absurd approaches Americans consider in the face of common sense and methods proven to be effective. Until humanity decides to look at itself objectively, to look beyond gender and beyond stereotypes, there will never be male, or female equality. There will never be HUMAN equality.

  3. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Examples such as above are simply smoke-screens for the real issue, which is “violence and the causes of violence”. When issues of daily violence are reduced to the phantasm of gender, we miss the whole point in the understanding, preventing and addressing of the issue. The older days of women having difficulties being assertive in a classroom were the result of the society and the culture within their upbringing, not a fault of the women themselves, or of being a woman. These days, even men cannot be assertive in a classroom, and now, in the U.S. we have legal proposals to allow teachers to carry GUNS in classrooms. I am astounded, personally, at the absurd approaches Americans consider in the face of common sense and methods proven to be effective. Until humanity decides to look at itself objectively, to look beyond gender and beyond stereotypes, there will never be male, or female equality. There will never be HUMAN equality.

  4. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus, you are wrong about everything. The inability of women to be assertive in a classroom has nothing whatever to do with “society” or “culture”, it is inherent and immutable within women themselves. If humanity looks at itself objectively, the inevitable result will be that we will see that men and women are inherently very different and that women are, with rare exceptions, incapable of wielding authority. There will never be human equality under any circumstances, no matter what we do, because it is biologically impossible.

  5. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus, you are wrong about everything. The inability of women to be assertive in a classroom has nothing whatever to do with “society” or “culture”, it is inherent and immutable within women themselves. If humanity looks at itself objectively, the inevitable result will be that we will see that men and women are inherently very different and that women are, with rare exceptions, incapable of wielding authority. There will never be human equality under any circumstances, no matter what we do, because it is biologically impossible.

  6. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus, you are wrong about everything. The inability of women to be assertive in a classroom has nothing whatever to do with “society” or “culture”, it is inherent and immutable within women themselves. If humanity looks at itself objectively, the inevitable result will be that we will see that men and women are inherently very different and that women are, with rare exceptions, incapable of wielding authority. There will never be human equality under any circumstances, no matter what we do, because it is biologically impossible.

  7. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Since this is a site dedicated to hating women (by definition of misogynist) there is little point in me trying to sway your view. It is true, as shown by many male sociologists and scientists (as well as female) that society and culture helps to make us what we are in terms of our beliefs and behaviors. Similar to your experiences, men in my life were unassertive, weak, unable to stand up against boys who assaulted me, who pushed me around in class, who abused me while they watched it happen… The ability to be assertive, like the ability to lead, is a learned art and very rarely a natural one, regardless of gender.

    Men and women are certainly different, biologically, in many ways. But the physical structure is not who we are inherently, and it is ludicrous to let our bodies completely define ourselves.

    That being said, in this life there are some interesting swings I’ve seen occur in the U.S. Personally, I have not been a champion of ‘feminism’. As someone who has served over 20 years in the military, I have seen feminism break down solid military roles in the name of “fairness” and “equality”. For example, I believe if a woman desires to be a mechanic, an electrician, be a Navy Diver, a Ranger, a Seal, or work in infantry, the qualifications for her must be just as strict, just a stringent as the requirements for a man. Many men do not get through these programs, so why should a woman have it any easier? Yet, in some cases, if a woman doesn’t make it through a strict and physically challenging program, she cries ‘discrimination!’ and powers that be in our government seem to give in to that approach. This weakens the military structure in my opinion. It is one thing if it is truly discrimination, it entirely another thing if a woman is allowed to perform a job that she is not qualified to perform simply because of a quota, or fear of a complaint, etc. This type of action makes the woman (or even an unqualified man) a danger to the unit, to the mission, to the military and to the country.

    The “Feminists” within the US have hurt the position of women in America in many ways. Developments of opposing extremist blogs such as this one, dedicated to hating women, are testimony to that fact. I work diligently towards the time when the differences, and skills of men and women are recognized appropriately. When the roles are divided to allow men to operate under their gifts and strengths and women under theirs. The truth is, however, as long as hatred and anger occur on either side, there can be no middle ground, no understanding and no reasoning. Objectivity CAN occur when those with intellect and reason can look at the skills that each gender possesses, and weigh those skills based on the truth of what is within the individual’s innate abilities, and not what the individual wants. This is “looking beyond gender”, “beyond stereotypes”.

    What is meant by “equality”? When talking about job roles, for me it means the ability to choose to do what one is meant to do, working where the skills and abilities exist…where there is no pretense and no leniency toward the mandated requirements. Men and women both share capacity for extreme intelligence and abilities in science, art, music and medicine. When it comes to brute strength, such as construction, hand to hand combat, and very physically demanding, upper body strength jobs, very few women I know could fill that role. But I’ve known men who are better child/household caregivers than some women, I’ve known women who should never be left at home with children.

    I do commend your ability in allowing for ‘exceptions’ towards some women being able to wield authority. Your statement shows that you are willing to make concessions that there are some exceptions within the gender groups. I can definitely say I have seen my share of men who cannot lead, and who are unable to grasp the concept of authority other than bowing to it.

  8. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Since this is a site dedicated to hating women (by definition of misogynist) there is little point in me trying to sway your view. It is true, as shown by many male sociologists and scientists (as well as female) that society and culture helps to make us what we are in terms of our beliefs and behaviors. Similar to your experiences, men in my life were unassertive, weak, unable to stand up against boys who assaulted me, who pushed me around in class, who abused me while they watched it happen… The ability to be assertive, like the ability to lead, is a learned art and very rarely a natural one, regardless of gender.

    Men and women are certainly different, biologically, in many ways. But the physical structure is not who we are inherently, and it is ludicrous to let our bodies completely define ourselves.

    That being said, in this life there are some interesting swings I’ve seen occur in the U.S. Personally, I have not been a champion of ‘feminism’. As someone who has served over 20 years in the military, I have seen feminism break down solid military roles in the name of “fairness” and “equality”. For example, I believe if a woman desires to be a mechanic, an electrician, be a Navy Diver, a Ranger, a Seal, or work in infantry, the qualifications for her must be just as strict, just a stringent as the requirements for a man. Many men do not get through these programs, so why should a woman have it any easier? Yet, in some cases, if a woman doesn’t make it through a strict and physically challenging program, she cries ‘discrimination!’ and powers that be in our government seem to give in to that approach. This weakens the military structure in my opinion. It is one thing if it is truly discrimination, it entirely another thing if a woman is allowed to perform a job that she is not qualified to perform simply because of a quota, or fear of a complaint, etc. This type of action makes the woman (or even an unqualified man) a danger to the unit, to the mission, to the military and to the country.

    The “Feminists” within the US have hurt the position of women in America in many ways. Developments of opposing extremist blogs such as this one, dedicated to hating women, are testimony to that fact. I work diligently towards the time when the differences, and skills of men and women are recognized appropriately. When the roles are divided to allow men to operate under their gifts and strengths and women under theirs. The truth is, however, as long as hatred and anger occur on either side, there can be no middle ground, no understanding and no reasoning. Objectivity CAN occur when those with intellect and reason can look at the skills that each gender possesses, and weigh those skills based on the truth of what is within the individual’s innate abilities, and not what the individual wants. This is “looking beyond gender”, “beyond stereotypes”.

    What is meant by “equality”? When talking about job roles, for me it means the ability to choose to do what one is meant to do, working where the skills and abilities exist…where there is no pretense and no leniency toward the mandated requirements. Men and women both share capacity for extreme intelligence and abilities in science, art, music and medicine. When it comes to brute strength, such as construction, hand to hand combat, and very physically demanding, upper body strength jobs, very few women I know could fill that role. But I’ve known men who are better child/household caregivers than some women, I’ve known women who should never be left at home with children.

    I do commend your ability in allowing for ‘exceptions’ towards some women being able to wield authority. Your statement shows that you are willing to make concessions that there are some exceptions within the gender groups. I can definitely say I have seen my share of men who cannot lead, and who are unable to grasp the concept of authority other than bowing to it.

  9. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Since this is a site dedicated to hating women (by definition of misogynist) there is little point in me trying to sway your view. It is true, as shown by many male sociologists and scientists (as well as female) that society and culture helps to make us what we are in terms of our beliefs and behaviors. Similar to your experiences, men in my life were unassertive, weak, unable to stand up against boys who assaulted me, who pushed me around in class, who abused me while they watched it happen… The ability to be assertive, like the ability to lead, is a learned art and very rarely a natural one, regardless of gender.

    Men and women are certainly different, biologically, in many ways. But the physical structure is not who we are inherently, and it is ludicrous to let our bodies completely define ourselves.

    That being said, in this life there are some interesting swings I’ve seen occur in the U.S. Personally, I have not been a champion of ‘feminism’. As someone who has served over 20 years in the military, I have seen feminism break down solid military roles in the name of “fairness” and “equality”. For example, I believe if a woman desires to be a mechanic, an electrician, be a Navy Diver, a Ranger, a Seal, or work in infantry, the qualifications for her must be just as strict, just a stringent as the requirements for a man. Many men do not get through these programs, so why should a woman have it any easier? Yet, in some cases, if a woman doesn’t make it through a strict and physically challenging program, she cries ‘discrimination!’ and powers that be in our government seem to give in to that approach. This weakens the military structure in my opinion. It is one thing if it is truly discrimination, it entirely another thing if a woman is allowed to perform a job that she is not qualified to perform simply because of a quota, or fear of a complaint, etc. This type of action makes the woman (or even an unqualified man) a danger to the unit, to the mission, to the military and to the country.

    The “Feminists” within the US have hurt the position of women in America in many ways. Developments of opposing extremist blogs such as this one, dedicated to hating women, are testimony to that fact. I work diligently towards the time when the differences, and skills of men and women are recognized appropriately. When the roles are divided to allow men to operate under their gifts and strengths and women under theirs. The truth is, however, as long as hatred and anger occur on either side, there can be no middle ground, no understanding and no reasoning. Objectivity CAN occur when those with intellect and reason can look at the skills that each gender possesses, and weigh those skills based on the truth of what is within the individual’s innate abilities, and not what the individual wants. This is “looking beyond gender”, “beyond stereotypes”.

    What is meant by “equality”? When talking about job roles, for me it means the ability to choose to do what one is meant to do, working where the skills and abilities exist…where there is no pretense and no leniency toward the mandated requirements. Men and women both share capacity for extreme intelligence and abilities in science, art, music and medicine. When it comes to brute strength, such as construction, hand to hand combat, and very physically demanding, upper body strength jobs, very few women I know could fill that role. But I’ve known men who are better child/household caregivers than some women, I’ve known women who should never be left at home with children.

    I do commend your ability in allowing for ‘exceptions’ towards some women being able to wield authority. Your statement shows that you are willing to make concessions that there are some exceptions within the gender groups. I can definitely say I have seen my share of men who cannot lead, and who are unable to grasp the concept of authority other than bowing to it.

  10. Artfldgr Says:

    Querus,
    interesting absorption of leftism. the case for culture and nature nurture arguments are bsaically false trash. while culture can change some things, they do not change our natures. we can normalize a lot of things, but normalizatoin throuhg desensitization is not the same as what culture is. despite what leftists say.

    the newer findings, based on biology, and sciences that are not defunct (sociology is pretty defunct given meades lies, and more stff), like evolutionary psychology, genetics, and lots of other things.

    you can read the work of susan pinker who was and is a feminist but has to report in a convoluted way, her findings.

    you are defined by your genes more than you would ever want to know. you can adapt, and can do so to some bad situations, but thats not the same as growing up in ideal natural situations.

    there are differences in the sexes in every way. some of them mean more, and some of them mean more in certain jobs.

    Men and women both share capacity for extreme intelligence and abilities in science, art, music and medicine.

    this isnt true at all. the curve for women is more homogeneous. while the curve for men is more spread out…

    the numbers for women just arent there at the ends. this doesnt mean there arent any, it does mean that the numbers are very different at those levels..

    so while there are many crack researchers and such that are scientists and mathemeticians, there are damn few emmy noethers for dozens of einstiens, bohrs, pauli, etc.

    and how come you never hear of emmy? now there is a woman that feminists should celebrate, but you dont hear of her. no. you hear of them trying to make einsteins wife the thinker, but ignore the woman that einstein credited in her obit.

    i can give you lots of information and links that would show that things are not as they seem.

    Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. —MacKinnon (1989)

    better look up who that constitutional lawyer is and what she has done… making the private public, and helping said revolution from the left.

    just remember one thing, it was hyperchivalrous men like you who put bad women up because you defended ALL women, not just the good ones.

    they knew you would come to their aid though. which is why you actually think that the woman at this site really hates women the way you think imply she does.

    Feminism was one of the many methods that little known Communist Antonio Gramsci proposed destroying the West with. He surmised that Capitalism was too strong and people too entrenched in their beliefs to ever fully embrace the class warfare of Marxism. Part of his Communist theory included inducing women into the workplace instead of family, promoting abortion, female independence from social norms, easy divorce, etc.

    All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke

    we would have been luckier if they did nothing.

  11. Artfldgr Says:

    Querus,
    interesting absorption of leftism. the case for culture and nature nurture arguments are bsaically false trash. while culture can change some things, they do not change our natures. we can normalize a lot of things, but normalizatoin throuhg desensitization is not the same as what culture is. despite what leftists say.

    the newer findings, based on biology, and sciences that are not defunct (sociology is pretty defunct given meades lies, and more stff), like evolutionary psychology, genetics, and lots of other things.

    you can read the work of susan pinker who was and is a feminist but has to report in a convoluted way, her findings.

    you are defined by your genes more than you would ever want to know. you can adapt, and can do so to some bad situations, but thats not the same as growing up in ideal natural situations.

    there are differences in the sexes in every way. some of them mean more, and some of them mean more in certain jobs.

    Men and women both share capacity for extreme intelligence and abilities in science, art, music and medicine.

    this isnt true at all. the curve for women is more homogeneous. while the curve for men is more spread out…

    the numbers for women just arent there at the ends. this doesnt mean there arent any, it does mean that the numbers are very different at those levels..

    so while there are many crack researchers and such that are scientists and mathemeticians, there are damn few emmy noethers for dozens of einstiens, bohrs, pauli, etc.

    and how come you never hear of emmy? now there is a woman that feminists should celebrate, but you dont hear of her. no. you hear of them trying to make einsteins wife the thinker, but ignore the woman that einstein credited in her obit.

    i can give you lots of information and links that would show that things are not as they seem.

    Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. —MacKinnon (1989)

    better look up who that constitutional lawyer is and what she has done… making the private public, and helping said revolution from the left.

    just remember one thing, it was hyperchivalrous men like you who put bad women up because you defended ALL women, not just the good ones.

    they knew you would come to their aid though. which is why you actually think that the woman at this site really hates women the way you think imply she does.

    Feminism was one of the many methods that little known Communist Antonio Gramsci proposed destroying the West with. He surmised that Capitalism was too strong and people too entrenched in their beliefs to ever fully embrace the class warfare of Marxism. Part of his Communist theory included inducing women into the workplace instead of family, promoting abortion, female independence from social norms, easy divorce, etc.

    All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke

    we would have been luckier if they did nothing.

  12. Artfldgr Says:

    Querus,
    interesting absorption of leftism. the case for culture and nature nurture arguments are bsaically false trash. while culture can change some things, they do not change our natures. we can normalize a lot of things, but normalizatoin throuhg desensitization is not the same as what culture is. despite what leftists say.

    the newer findings, based on biology, and sciences that are not defunct (sociology is pretty defunct given meades lies, and more stff), like evolutionary psychology, genetics, and lots of other things.

    you can read the work of susan pinker who was and is a feminist but has to report in a convoluted way, her findings.

    you are defined by your genes more than you would ever want to know. you can adapt, and can do so to some bad situations, but thats not the same as growing up in ideal natural situations.

    there are differences in the sexes in every way. some of them mean more, and some of them mean more in certain jobs.

    Men and women both share capacity for extreme intelligence and abilities in science, art, music and medicine.

    this isnt true at all. the curve for women is more homogeneous. while the curve for men is more spread out…

    the numbers for women just arent there at the ends. this doesnt mean there arent any, it does mean that the numbers are very different at those levels..

    so while there are many crack researchers and such that are scientists and mathemeticians, there are damn few emmy noethers for dozens of einstiens, bohrs, pauli, etc.

    and how come you never hear of emmy? now there is a woman that feminists should celebrate, but you dont hear of her. no. you hear of them trying to make einsteins wife the thinker, but ignore the woman that einstein credited in her obit.

    i can give you lots of information and links that would show that things are not as they seem.

    Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. —MacKinnon (1989)

    better look up who that constitutional lawyer is and what she has done… making the private public, and helping said revolution from the left.

    just remember one thing, it was hyperchivalrous men like you who put bad women up because you defended ALL women, not just the good ones.

    they knew you would come to their aid though. which is why you actually think that the woman at this site really hates women the way you think imply she does.

    Feminism was one of the many methods that little known Communist Antonio Gramsci proposed destroying the West with. He surmised that Capitalism was too strong and people too entrenched in their beliefs to ever fully embrace the class warfare of Marxism. Part of his Communist theory included inducing women into the workplace instead of family, promoting abortion, female independence from social norms, easy divorce, etc.

    All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke

    we would have been luckier if they did nothing.

  13. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Interesting you assume I’m a man.

    The scientific research is against your arguments I’m afraid. Your assumptions of male/female intelligence are skewed and illogical.

    Sociology and cultural anthropology are different in their approaches. It may be interesting for you to read about the differences, and then look at the studies that have been done.

    Reading you may find interesting:

    *Male roles, masculinities and violence: A culture of peace perspective. UNESCO Publishing. 2000

    *Sexual Meanings: The cultural construction of Gender and Sexuality (edited by Sherry Ortner and Harriet Whitehead…but several essays by men)

    *Female Soldiers-Combatants or Non-Combatants? Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (1982)…It’s now more historical than contemporary..but some interesting research/essays.

    These are older works, but they demonstrate some interesting progression in gender issues in America today.

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

  14. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Interesting you assume I’m a man.

    The scientific research is against your arguments I’m afraid. Your assumptions of male/female intelligence are skewed and illogical.

    Sociology and cultural anthropology are different in their approaches. It may be interesting for you to read about the differences, and then look at the studies that have been done.

    Reading you may find interesting:

    *Male roles, masculinities and violence: A culture of peace perspective. UNESCO Publishing. 2000

    *Sexual Meanings: The cultural construction of Gender and Sexuality (edited by Sherry Ortner and Harriet Whitehead…but several essays by men)

    *Female Soldiers-Combatants or Non-Combatants? Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (1982)…It’s now more historical than contemporary..but some interesting research/essays.

    These are older works, but they demonstrate some interesting progression in gender issues in America today.

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

  15. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Interesting you assume I’m a man.

    The scientific research is against your arguments I’m afraid. Your assumptions of male/female intelligence are skewed and illogical.

    Sociology and cultural anthropology are different in their approaches. It may be interesting for you to read about the differences, and then look at the studies that have been done.

    Reading you may find interesting:

    *Male roles, masculinities and violence: A culture of peace perspective. UNESCO Publishing. 2000

    *Sexual Meanings: The cultural construction of Gender and Sexuality (edited by Sherry Ortner and Harriet Whitehead…but several essays by men)

    *Female Soldiers-Combatants or Non-Combatants? Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (1982)…It’s now more historical than contemporary..but some interesting research/essays.

    These are older works, but they demonstrate some interesting progression in gender issues in America today.

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

  16. Artfldgr Says:

    Querus, i work in a research hospital in a research library and i wont tell you more of what i do in the sciences…

    i read the studies. in fact, i read studies the way other people read for entertainment.

    i am also VERY well versed in many other things too. so i know when and whence things come. care to recite some history of unesco to me?

    there is so much evidence that is contrary to the feminist point its ridiculous to argue.

    and telling me i dont know sociology and anthropology is just wrong. they declared the answers 40 years before the medical arena even had the information to form such.

    both are very soft disciplines. in fact sociology has lost much of its promise thanks to feminists like margret meade who had an agenda greater than truth, and so lied. lied so that her work could be used to justify social changes.

    now the work that is discredited is running through so many papers, that its dead. not dead for politics, but dead for real science.

    i can pick apart the research you put up. i can show that it doesnt give complete vies of information

    like the fact that women are more violent towards their partners than men are.

    but your studies wouldnt have that. (just as i have a nursing book here that omits all violence except paternal from existing).

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

    This bibliography examines 209 scholarly investigations: 161 empirical studies and 48 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 201,500.

    care to read them?

    also… i never said you were a male or a female… (unlike feminists and stalinists i dont revision history for political correctness in terminology)

    personally i dont care either way. you dont know my sex either, or gender.

    i actually only care about facts.. its my thing. most of the time i pipe up is when people have their facts wrong. and the reason i am tolerated is that i back them up with links, and such.

    do you want similar links as to intelligence distributions among different groups? its what got watson in trouble..

    the nature nurture thing doesnt explain how one can take one of the more than 200 substances in phikal,and have programmed emotional responses and changed world views. does it.

    did you go read susan pinkers work? she is an endocrinologist..

    there is a lot of great work and studies to read. the fact that i work in a research hospital means that i have access to most of the worlds publishes papers.

    this means that when i read stuff, like feminist stuff, i can go read the actual study… many times i have caught them making claims that were not in the study… or quotes that werent in the report (then again, how many people would read the 300 page state report with diagrams?)

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

    i know the difference between real studies and sham studies. i know the difference between a peer reviewed journal and a journal of peers… i also know the difference between a front organizaiton and an agenda and ulterior motives.

    unesco is so biased its not funny… then again, who do they work for? oh yeah… the organization that was created by alger hiss. remember him? a big time communist spy… oh.. and how come unesco pushes the same trash and such that aligns with russias laws and gramscian stuff? just coincidence, right?

    what i find interesting is youyr choice of papers. it shows that you posted here as a shill. you are not a typical american woman, your someone who has attended womens studies. duh.

    it is ludicrous to let our bodies completely define ourselves.

    it is? its ludicrous to think that your more than your physical self. no? you will never be more than you are, never more alive, never more than now.

    you are completely defined by your body.. or dont you think your mind is a product of body? oh yeah… forgot to tell ya… i am a philosphers worst nightmare.

    your body is defined by your genes. 60 trillion cells and each one has a specific address to end up at. think about that. two adult twins are so exact their fingerprints match.

    one of the landmark points in feminism as to proof that the genders are programed was reference to the work of a doctor money. remember him?

    well money insisted that this poor boy who had his penis burned off, and was one of twins was the classic case. david reims i think was his name. they changed his genitals to that of a girl, and then lied to him.

    money wrote lots of papers, you can read them in the sociology books… and the feminist papers.. as you can also read scolarly work that references meade too..

    oh… and lots of stuff from kinsey too… he was basically what they call a sexual psychopath with an agenda. he is the scientific justification for lots of how our culture lives and the sexualization of children. then again, if you put children in the hands of pedophiles would you come to a different conclusion?

    bad scientists and those who entered research with a political agenda have been poisoning the well for half a century and more.

    better check out the origins of things.

    when a branch of science gets to mired in false information, the real researchers abandon it.

    meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.

    care to read what ex kgb say about the UN?

    hey, here is a great example of feminist stupidity.

    “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

    and not even a decade before she said it…

    Red Army troops raped even Russian women as they freed them from camps
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/24/wbeev24.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/24/ixworld.html

    yeah… what they promised… and thats what they are making here…

    care to read the stuff that they dont want you to read? care to read about margret sanger the eugenicist? care to read about feminisms communist anarchist terrorist roots (rote zora)?

    you want to talk, if i have time, i can talk. but you wont like the conversation unless you like the truth.

    “Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and
    I am sure…we both value too much the freedom of opinion
    sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even
    where in opposition to ourselves.”

    that was jefferson.

  17. Artfldgr Says:

    Querus, i work in a research hospital in a research library and i wont tell you more of what i do in the sciences…

    i read the studies. in fact, i read studies the way other people read for entertainment.

    i am also VERY well versed in many other things too. so i know when and whence things come. care to recite some history of unesco to me?

    there is so much evidence that is contrary to the feminist point its ridiculous to argue.

    and telling me i dont know sociology and anthropology is just wrong. they declared the answers 40 years before the medical arena even had the information to form such.

    both are very soft disciplines. in fact sociology has lost much of its promise thanks to feminists like margret meade who had an agenda greater than truth, and so lied. lied so that her work could be used to justify social changes.

    now the work that is discredited is running through so many papers, that its dead. not dead for politics, but dead for real science.

    i can pick apart the research you put up. i can show that it doesnt give complete vies of information

    like the fact that women are more violent towards their partners than men are.

    but your studies wouldnt have that. (just as i have a nursing book here that omits all violence except paternal from existing).

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

    This bibliography examines 209 scholarly investigations: 161 empirical studies and 48 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 201,500.

    care to read them?

    also… i never said you were a male or a female… (unlike feminists and stalinists i dont revision history for political correctness in terminology)

    personally i dont care either way. you dont know my sex either, or gender.

    i actually only care about facts.. its my thing. most of the time i pipe up is when people have their facts wrong. and the reason i am tolerated is that i back them up with links, and such.

    do you want similar links as to intelligence distributions among different groups? its what got watson in trouble..

    the nature nurture thing doesnt explain how one can take one of the more than 200 substances in phikal,and have programmed emotional responses and changed world views. does it.

    did you go read susan pinkers work? she is an endocrinologist..

    there is a lot of great work and studies to read. the fact that i work in a research hospital means that i have access to most of the worlds publishes papers.

    this means that when i read stuff, like feminist stuff, i can go read the actual study… many times i have caught them making claims that were not in the study… or quotes that werent in the report (then again, how many people would read the 300 page state report with diagrams?)

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

    i know the difference between real studies and sham studies. i know the difference between a peer reviewed journal and a journal of peers… i also know the difference between a front organizaiton and an agenda and ulterior motives.

    unesco is so biased its not funny… then again, who do they work for? oh yeah… the organization that was created by alger hiss. remember him? a big time communist spy… oh.. and how come unesco pushes the same trash and such that aligns with russias laws and gramscian stuff? just coincidence, right?

    what i find interesting is youyr choice of papers. it shows that you posted here as a shill. you are not a typical american woman, your someone who has attended womens studies. duh.

    it is ludicrous to let our bodies completely define ourselves.

    it is? its ludicrous to think that your more than your physical self. no? you will never be more than you are, never more alive, never more than now.

    you are completely defined by your body.. or dont you think your mind is a product of body? oh yeah… forgot to tell ya… i am a philosphers worst nightmare.

    your body is defined by your genes. 60 trillion cells and each one has a specific address to end up at. think about that. two adult twins are so exact their fingerprints match.

    one of the landmark points in feminism as to proof that the genders are programed was reference to the work of a doctor money. remember him?

    well money insisted that this poor boy who had his penis burned off, and was one of twins was the classic case. david reims i think was his name. they changed his genitals to that of a girl, and then lied to him.

    money wrote lots of papers, you can read them in the sociology books… and the feminist papers.. as you can also read scolarly work that references meade too..

    oh… and lots of stuff from kinsey too… he was basically what they call a sexual psychopath with an agenda. he is the scientific justification for lots of how our culture lives and the sexualization of children. then again, if you put children in the hands of pedophiles would you come to a different conclusion?

    bad scientists and those who entered research with a political agenda have been poisoning the well for half a century and more.

    better check out the origins of things.

    when a branch of science gets to mired in false information, the real researchers abandon it.

    meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.

    care to read what ex kgb say about the UN?

    hey, here is a great example of feminist stupidity.

    “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

    and not even a decade before she said it…

    Red Army troops raped even Russian women as they freed them from camps
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/24/wbeev24.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/24/ixworld.html

    yeah… what they promised… and thats what they are making here…

    care to read the stuff that they dont want you to read? care to read about margret sanger the eugenicist? care to read about feminisms communist anarchist terrorist roots (rote zora)?

    you want to talk, if i have time, i can talk. but you wont like the conversation unless you like the truth.

    “Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and
    I am sure…we both value too much the freedom of opinion
    sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even
    where in opposition to ourselves.”

    that was jefferson.

  18. Artfldgr Says:

    Querus, i work in a research hospital in a research library and i wont tell you more of what i do in the sciences…

    i read the studies. in fact, i read studies the way other people read for entertainment.

    i am also VERY well versed in many other things too. so i know when and whence things come. care to recite some history of unesco to me?

    there is so much evidence that is contrary to the feminist point its ridiculous to argue.

    and telling me i dont know sociology and anthropology is just wrong. they declared the answers 40 years before the medical arena even had the information to form such.

    both are very soft disciplines. in fact sociology has lost much of its promise thanks to feminists like margret meade who had an agenda greater than truth, and so lied. lied so that her work could be used to justify social changes.

    now the work that is discredited is running through so many papers, that its dead. not dead for politics, but dead for real science.

    i can pick apart the research you put up. i can show that it doesnt give complete vies of information

    like the fact that women are more violent towards their partners than men are.

    but your studies wouldnt have that. (just as i have a nursing book here that omits all violence except paternal from existing).

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

    This bibliography examines 209 scholarly investigations: 161 empirical studies and 48 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 201,500.

    care to read them?

    also… i never said you were a male or a female… (unlike feminists and stalinists i dont revision history for political correctness in terminology)

    personally i dont care either way. you dont know my sex either, or gender.

    i actually only care about facts.. its my thing. most of the time i pipe up is when people have their facts wrong. and the reason i am tolerated is that i back them up with links, and such.

    do you want similar links as to intelligence distributions among different groups? its what got watson in trouble..

    the nature nurture thing doesnt explain how one can take one of the more than 200 substances in phikal,and have programmed emotional responses and changed world views. does it.

    did you go read susan pinkers work? she is an endocrinologist..

    there is a lot of great work and studies to read. the fact that i work in a research hospital means that i have access to most of the worlds publishes papers.

    this means that when i read stuff, like feminist stuff, i can go read the actual study… many times i have caught them making claims that were not in the study… or quotes that werent in the report (then again, how many people would read the 300 page state report with diagrams?)

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

    i know the difference between real studies and sham studies. i know the difference between a peer reviewed journal and a journal of peers… i also know the difference between a front organizaiton and an agenda and ulterior motives.

    unesco is so biased its not funny… then again, who do they work for? oh yeah… the organization that was created by alger hiss. remember him? a big time communist spy… oh.. and how come unesco pushes the same trash and such that aligns with russias laws and gramscian stuff? just coincidence, right?

    what i find interesting is youyr choice of papers. it shows that you posted here as a shill. you are not a typical american woman, your someone who has attended womens studies. duh.

    it is ludicrous to let our bodies completely define ourselves.

    it is? its ludicrous to think that your more than your physical self. no? you will never be more than you are, never more alive, never more than now.

    you are completely defined by your body.. or dont you think your mind is a product of body? oh yeah… forgot to tell ya… i am a philosphers worst nightmare.

    your body is defined by your genes. 60 trillion cells and each one has a specific address to end up at. think about that. two adult twins are so exact their fingerprints match.

    one of the landmark points in feminism as to proof that the genders are programed was reference to the work of a doctor money. remember him?

    well money insisted that this poor boy who had his penis burned off, and was one of twins was the classic case. david reims i think was his name. they changed his genitals to that of a girl, and then lied to him.

    money wrote lots of papers, you can read them in the sociology books… and the feminist papers.. as you can also read scolarly work that references meade too..

    oh… and lots of stuff from kinsey too… he was basically what they call a sexual psychopath with an agenda. he is the scientific justification for lots of how our culture lives and the sexualization of children. then again, if you put children in the hands of pedophiles would you come to a different conclusion?

    bad scientists and those who entered research with a political agenda have been poisoning the well for half a century and more.

    better check out the origins of things.

    when a branch of science gets to mired in false information, the real researchers abandon it.

    meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.

    care to read what ex kgb say about the UN?

    hey, here is a great example of feminist stupidity.

    “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

    and not even a decade before she said it…

    Red Army troops raped even Russian women as they freed them from camps
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/24/wbeev24.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/24/ixworld.html

    yeah… what they promised… and thats what they are making here…

    care to read the stuff that they dont want you to read? care to read about margret sanger the eugenicist? care to read about feminisms communist anarchist terrorist roots (rote zora)?

    you want to talk, if i have time, i can talk. but you wont like the conversation unless you like the truth.

    “Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and
    I am sure…we both value too much the freedom of opinion
    sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even
    where in opposition to ourselves.”

    that was jefferson.

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    i think if your going to talk about women in the military… lets get to brass tacks.

    i just read your suggested study on questia. a long drawn out history… that isnt about the point at all.

    the paper goes over germany, russia, etc…

    however… these are irrelevent to the discussion as the women in the western military (US, UK, etc), dont have the same grueling level to reach to, nor the same brutal outcome if they failed.

    the damn paper even brings up vietnamese women combatants.

    heck i can show you the newspaper to show that women can kill. duh.

    but what happened to a vietcong woman that didnt make the cut? did she get to hold a red card up and take a break and lay down? or did they shoot her?

    same with the russians and the germans. however the germans preferred to turn their women into baby factories for lebensborn.

    the book is a cherry picked sham.
    310 pages… and a womans study book…

    how about looking at real women in the military today.

    how about how they use pregancy to get themselves discharged when they get near combat?

    since you gave a book here is a book
    Women in Combat: Civic Duty Or Military Liability?
    http://books.google.com/books?id=WClLLY7RoGIC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=pregnancy+rates+navy+gulf+war+ship&source=web&ots=pwd34oRu4r&sig=JkJGV1IvU4oI59sKuVMq-TWMWq4&hl=en

    while jamie far couldnt dress up like a woman to get out of service, a woman could go to bed with some male on the ship, get pregmnant and then get off ship and out of combat zone.

    from a rate of 1-3 per 100 in peacetime, to 18% when fighting comes about. not only that but they are lifted out, and there are no replacements.

    so communist feminism has managed to put women into combat who are not willing to fight, but only want the perks.

    does your studies show that stuff?

    or does it talk about how russia and germany used women as snipers… (the book leaves out the maquis who also used women. havent you ever seen the longest day? )

    the problems are not with women fighing, the problem is with women who think they are entitled that think they are intitled to the perks that come with offering up your life in service for your country, but are not willing to play the lottery to see if they stay alive.

    whats even worse is the kill numbers between the women you are bringing up and the women that i am bringing up. the women your refering to are women BEFORE FEMINISM and so they are strong, capable, and not chickens.

    the women i am talking about are AFTER FEMNISM, and they are incapable, delusional, entitled, chickens.

    or what else would you call a large group of recruits that have unplanned pregnancies as deployment nears, get rotated out, and then discharged.. to which they abort, and then collect their benifits from their honorable discharges…

    the women cant carry the load. they cant move the material. they are at a super disadvantage in the field.

    the militaries that the womens study book favored were both totalitarian states, and both socialists, and both were all out all or nothing war (they started).
    same for the vietnamese women, on their side, it was all or nothing.

    under these terms a woman will fight. under any other terms, most will not fight.

    you forget that the abu graib incident was women… and they were under a woman commander.

    no male can reign them in in the military. with a wave of harrasment charges, his career is over. so the women get crap training, they take advantage of the system, demoralize the men by getting promotions even though they cant complete the work.

    remember tha female pilot that crashed her plane. seems the poor dear failed her flights over and over… and normally, if she was male, she would be out. but alas, she was female… now she is part of the deck of the ship, and most of her is crab food.

    it dont matter… if and when real crap hits the fan… the women who have played these games will do what women have always done that played these games. whatched their men get slaughtered, then become mates of the invaders.

    oh… and the invaders would most likely be the same ones that were so nice to their own women and german women…

    in case you dont know it… the history taiught in womens studies is mostly crap.. its stalinist and leftist… that means they rewrote it with an agenda…

  20. Artfldgr Says:

    i think if your going to talk about women in the military… lets get to brass tacks.

    i just read your suggested study on questia. a long drawn out history… that isnt about the point at all.

    the paper goes over germany, russia, etc…

    however… these are irrelevent to the discussion as the women in the western military (US, UK, etc), dont have the same grueling level to reach to, nor the same brutal outcome if they failed.

    the damn paper even brings up vietnamese women combatants.

    heck i can show you the newspaper to show that women can kill. duh.

    but what happened to a vietcong woman that didnt make the cut? did she get to hold a red card up and take a break and lay down? or did they shoot her?

    same with the russians and the germans. however the germans preferred to turn their women into baby factories for lebensborn.

    the book is a cherry picked sham.
    310 pages… and a womans study book…

    how about looking at real women in the military today.

    how about how they use pregancy to get themselves discharged when they get near combat?

    since you gave a book here is a book
    Women in Combat: Civic Duty Or Military Liability?
    http://books.google.com/books?id=WClLLY7RoGIC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=pregnancy+rates+navy+gulf+war+ship&source=web&ots=pwd34oRu4r&sig=JkJGV1IvU4oI59sKuVMq-TWMWq4&hl=en

    while jamie far couldnt dress up like a woman to get out of service, a woman could go to bed with some male on the ship, get pregmnant and then get off ship and out of combat zone.

    from a rate of 1-3 per 100 in peacetime, to 18% when fighting comes about. not only that but they are lifted out, and there are no replacements.

    so communist feminism has managed to put women into combat who are not willing to fight, but only want the perks.

    does your studies show that stuff?

    or does it talk about how russia and germany used women as snipers… (the book leaves out the maquis who also used women. havent you ever seen the longest day? )

    the problems are not with women fighing, the problem is with women who think they are entitled that think they are intitled to the perks that come with offering up your life in service for your country, but are not willing to play the lottery to see if they stay alive.

    whats even worse is the kill numbers between the women you are bringing up and the women that i am bringing up. the women your refering to are women BEFORE FEMINISM and so they are strong, capable, and not chickens.

    the women i am talking about are AFTER FEMNISM, and they are incapable, delusional, entitled, chickens.

    or what else would you call a large group of recruits that have unplanned pregnancies as deployment nears, get rotated out, and then discharged.. to which they abort, and then collect their benifits from their honorable discharges…

    the women cant carry the load. they cant move the material. they are at a super disadvantage in the field.

    the militaries that the womens study book favored were both totalitarian states, and both socialists, and both were all out all or nothing war (they started).
    same for the vietnamese women, on their side, it was all or nothing.

    under these terms a woman will fight. under any other terms, most will not fight.

    you forget that the abu graib incident was women… and they were under a woman commander.

    no male can reign them in in the military. with a wave of harrasment charges, his career is over. so the women get crap training, they take advantage of the system, demoralize the men by getting promotions even though they cant complete the work.

    remember tha female pilot that crashed her plane. seems the poor dear failed her flights over and over… and normally, if she was male, she would be out. but alas, she was female… now she is part of the deck of the ship, and most of her is crab food.

    it dont matter… if and when real crap hits the fan… the women who have played these games will do what women have always done that played these games. whatched their men get slaughtered, then become mates of the invaders.

    oh… and the invaders would most likely be the same ones that were so nice to their own women and german women…

    in case you dont know it… the history taiught in womens studies is mostly crap.. its stalinist and leftist… that means they rewrote it with an agenda…

  21. Artfldgr Says:

    i think if your going to talk about women in the military… lets get to brass tacks.

    i just read your suggested study on questia. a long drawn out history… that isnt about the point at all.

    the paper goes over germany, russia, etc…

    however… these are irrelevent to the discussion as the women in the western military (US, UK, etc), dont have the same grueling level to reach to, nor the same brutal outcome if they failed.

    the damn paper even brings up vietnamese women combatants.

    heck i can show you the newspaper to show that women can kill. duh.

    but what happened to a vietcong woman that didnt make the cut? did she get to hold a red card up and take a break and lay down? or did they shoot her?

    same with the russians and the germans. however the germans preferred to turn their women into baby factories for lebensborn.

    the book is a cherry picked sham.
    310 pages… and a womans study book…

    how about looking at real women in the military today.

    how about how they use pregancy to get themselves discharged when they get near combat?

    since you gave a book here is a book
    Women in Combat: Civic Duty Or Military Liability?
    http://books.google.com/books?id=WClLLY7RoGIC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=pregnancy+rates+navy+gulf+war+ship&source=web&ots=pwd34oRu4r&sig=JkJGV1IvU4oI59sKuVMq-TWMWq4&hl=en

    while jamie far couldnt dress up like a woman to get out of service, a woman could go to bed with some male on the ship, get pregmnant and then get off ship and out of combat zone.

    from a rate of 1-3 per 100 in peacetime, to 18% when fighting comes about. not only that but they are lifted out, and there are no replacements.

    so communist feminism has managed to put women into combat who are not willing to fight, but only want the perks.

    does your studies show that stuff?

    or does it talk about how russia and germany used women as snipers… (the book leaves out the maquis who also used women. havent you ever seen the longest day? )

    the problems are not with women fighing, the problem is with women who think they are entitled that think they are intitled to the perks that come with offering up your life in service for your country, but are not willing to play the lottery to see if they stay alive.

    whats even worse is the kill numbers between the women you are bringing up and the women that i am bringing up. the women your refering to are women BEFORE FEMINISM and so they are strong, capable, and not chickens.

    the women i am talking about are AFTER FEMNISM, and they are incapable, delusional, entitled, chickens.

    or what else would you call a large group of recruits that have unplanned pregnancies as deployment nears, get rotated out, and then discharged.. to which they abort, and then collect their benifits from their honorable discharges…

    the women cant carry the load. they cant move the material. they are at a super disadvantage in the field.

    the militaries that the womens study book favored were both totalitarian states, and both socialists, and both were all out all or nothing war (they started).
    same for the vietnamese women, on their side, it was all or nothing.

    under these terms a woman will fight. under any other terms, most will not fight.

    you forget that the abu graib incident was women… and they were under a woman commander.

    no male can reign them in in the military. with a wave of harrasment charges, his career is over. so the women get crap training, they take advantage of the system, demoralize the men by getting promotions even though they cant complete the work.

    remember tha female pilot that crashed her plane. seems the poor dear failed her flights over and over… and normally, if she was male, she would be out. but alas, she was female… now she is part of the deck of the ship, and most of her is crab food.

    it dont matter… if and when real crap hits the fan… the women who have played these games will do what women have always done that played these games. whatched their men get slaughtered, then become mates of the invaders.

    oh… and the invaders would most likely be the same ones that were so nice to their own women and german women…

    in case you dont know it… the history taiught in womens studies is mostly crap.. its stalinist and leftist… that means they rewrote it with an agenda…

  22. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    All the sources you mention are purely speculative. They all boil down to the idea that, with enough social engineering, people might change into something completely different from what people have been for all of human history. Naturally, there is not a shred of proof of this, but we are supposed to abandon all tradition, everything which has kept us civilized for centuries, because a handful of Marxist eggheads fantasize that the results will be wonderful. Never mind that all of the experiments in that direction thus far have been unqualified disasters.

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

    100% of credible scientific research shows beyond any doubt that men and women are inherently different and that this is not alterable. Even when the scientists have a feminist agenda and want to ignore the evidence, as with Dr. Louise Brizendine who wrote The Female Brain, the facts stubbornly refuse to conform to politically correct fantasy.

    I can’t entirely blame you for trying to deny this. It’s unpleasant, and I fervently wish that it weren’t so. But facts have to be faced; they can’t be wished away.

    Art, certainly Margaret Mead’s bad scholarship has done lasting damage, and her silly fantasies are still showing up in novels like Lythande and The Valley of Horses and no doubt many more. However, to give her some credit, I don’t think she was deliberately lying. This article relates how she was guilty more of sloppy scholarship and believing jokes told by a couple of teenage girls than of deliberate deception. Her claims about Samoa, of course, are still completely wrong.

  23. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    All the sources you mention are purely speculative. They all boil down to the idea that, with enough social engineering, people might change into something completely different from what people have been for all of human history. Naturally, there is not a shred of proof of this, but we are supposed to abandon all tradition, everything which has kept us civilized for centuries, because a handful of Marxist eggheads fantasize that the results will be wonderful. Never mind that all of the experiments in that direction thus far have been unqualified disasters.

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

    100% of credible scientific research shows beyond any doubt that men and women are inherently different and that this is not alterable. Even when the scientists have a feminist agenda and want to ignore the evidence, as with Dr. Louise Brizendine who wrote The Female Brain, the facts stubbornly refuse to conform to politically correct fantasy.

    I can’t entirely blame you for trying to deny this. It’s unpleasant, and I fervently wish that it weren’t so. But facts have to be faced; they can’t be wished away.

    Art, certainly Margaret Mead’s bad scholarship has done lasting damage, and her silly fantasies are still showing up in novels like Lythande and The Valley of Horses and no doubt many more. However, to give her some credit, I don’t think she was deliberately lying. This article relates how she was guilty more of sloppy scholarship and believing jokes told by a couple of teenage girls than of deliberate deception. Her claims about Samoa, of course, are still completely wrong.

  24. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    All the sources you mention are purely speculative. They all boil down to the idea that, with enough social engineering, people might change into something completely different from what people have been for all of human history. Naturally, there is not a shred of proof of this, but we are supposed to abandon all tradition, everything which has kept us civilized for centuries, because a handful of Marxist eggheads fantasize that the results will be wonderful. Never mind that all of the experiments in that direction thus far have been unqualified disasters.

    I think to discount credible research, and cavalierly call it “false trash” only shows an inability for you to objectively reason and consider the value of scientific study, which is a shame.

    100% of credible scientific research shows beyond any doubt that men and women are inherently different and that this is not alterable. Even when the scientists have a feminist agenda and want to ignore the evidence, as with Dr. Louise Brizendine who wrote The Female Brain, the facts stubbornly refuse to conform to politically correct fantasy.

    I can’t entirely blame you for trying to deny this. It’s unpleasant, and I fervently wish that it weren’t so. But facts have to be faced; they can’t be wished away.

    Art, certainly Margaret Mead’s bad scholarship has done lasting damage, and her silly fantasies are still showing up in novels like Lythande and The Valley of Horses and no doubt many more. However, to give her some credit, I don’t think she was deliberately lying. This article relates how she was guilty more of sloppy scholarship and believing jokes told by a couple of teenage girls than of deliberate deception. Her claims about Samoa, of course, are still completely wrong.

  25. Artfldgr Says:

    I guess we are going to have to differ on intent with meade.

    trutfully it would not be a thing i could argue from a point of fact.

    though here is some of my reasoning on it.

    however, her games dovetail too much with the desired results that fit where the new left wanted to go.

    franz boas was her teacher… he was a communist spy…

    The United States House of Representatives cited Boas’ involvement with 44 Communist-front organizations. Coinciding with the rise of Nazism in Germany

    it was boas that created the claim that there was no differences between the races.

    note that this was the same time as the negro project of sanger. and big time socialism..

    read about his disciples.

    Gene Weltfish
    Isador Chein
    Melville Herskovits
    Otto Klineberg
    Ashley Montagu
    Ruth Benedict
    and Margaret Mead

    notice how everyone knew each other, and people were created as giants, even though the work was a sham.

    the article you point out has lots of juice in it… 🙂

    but Derek Freeman is who you want to consult on her, he is who showed she falsefied data.

    http://www.stpt.usf.edu/~jsokolov/314mead1.htm

    his book has lots of stuff where she knew things were going on.

    each one of those people tagged were elevated.. each went from boas out to head other antrhopology departments. it was boas that reformed antropology, even though he had little education in it.

    he came from nowhere, dominated a field he was not expert in, reformed it, was head of 44 fronts, each of his hand picked people went out and similarly did things.

    here you can read about weltfish
    http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/weltfish.html
    Weltfish became more involved in the women’s movement after she divorced in 1940. This may not have been the only reason for her involvement, for she had firmly believed in human equality ever since she studied with Boas at Barnard. In 1945, she was elected vice president of the Women’s International Democratic Federation, an organization that lobbied for women rights all around the world, for “the improvement of health and welfare of the world’s children and for world peace” (Pathe, 1988, p. 376). She later became president of its American affiliate, the Congress of American Women (Shipp, 1980). “Both organizations criticized Harry S. Truman and policies they feared were leading the country toward another war.”
    In 1946, the Congress of American Women was listed on the roster of subversive organizations. In 1949, the House Committee on Un-American Activities stated that the group was made up of “primarily a hard core of Communist Party members and a circle of close sympathizers”. Her publicly declared connection to Communism made many of the Columbia University trustees nervous (McCaughey, 2002).

    In June 1952, Dr. Weltfish charged the United States with using chemical weapons in the Korean War. This was the same position as the Soviet Union, thus inferring that she was a Communist. About three months later, she was called to testify before McCarthy’s Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. She was questioned about her involvement in the two women’s organizations and about “The Races of Mankind”, which was now declared subversive material (Pathe, 1988). Weltfish was also asked about her political beliefs. When asked directly if she was a communist, Dr. Weltfish refused to answer, citing the Fifth Amendment (Shipp, 1980). She also stated that “she thought of herself as a good American and acted on issues as her conscience and knowledge dictated” (Pathe, 1988, p. 377).

    care to research Isador Chein and what he did to create the drug culture and the drug war?

    he changed our view of drug addicts from being self responsible, to that of environment and social condition.

    you can read about a lot of them.. most of them communists.. new left.. most of them connected to teachings and positions of the franfurt school.. and remarkably their work was the scientific basis for the people beliving such things as no genetic differences between races, tabula rasa, child sexuality, polymorphos perversoin.

    personally… meade was so deep into it, with all her contemporaries claiming the fifth.

    i believe she knew exactly waht she was doing.

    however, we will never know… because she iddnt write a page in her diary that said.. i did it purposefully… but given that her whole career was false, based on this work that franz sent her to do, how he also got to reform and such…

    how could she not know?

  26. Artfldgr Says:

    I guess we are going to have to differ on intent with meade.

    trutfully it would not be a thing i could argue from a point of fact.

    though here is some of my reasoning on it.

    however, her games dovetail too much with the desired results that fit where the new left wanted to go.

    franz boas was her teacher… he was a communist spy…

    The United States House of Representatives cited Boas’ involvement with 44 Communist-front organizations. Coinciding with the rise of Nazism in Germany

    it was boas that created the claim that there was no differences between the races.

    note that this was the same time as the negro project of sanger. and big time socialism..

    read about his disciples.

    Gene Weltfish
    Isador Chein
    Melville Herskovits
    Otto Klineberg
    Ashley Montagu
    Ruth Benedict
    and Margaret Mead

    notice how everyone knew each other, and people were created as giants, even though the work was a sham.

    the article you point out has lots of juice in it… 🙂

    but Derek Freeman is who you want to consult on her, he is who showed she falsefied data.

    http://www.stpt.usf.edu/~jsokolov/314mead1.htm

    his book has lots of stuff where she knew things were going on.

    each one of those people tagged were elevated.. each went from boas out to head other antrhopology departments. it was boas that reformed antropology, even though he had little education in it.

    he came from nowhere, dominated a field he was not expert in, reformed it, was head of 44 fronts, each of his hand picked people went out and similarly did things.

    here you can read about weltfish
    http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/weltfish.html
    Weltfish became more involved in the women’s movement after she divorced in 1940. This may not have been the only reason for her involvement, for she had firmly believed in human equality ever since she studied with Boas at Barnard. In 1945, she was elected vice president of the Women’s International Democratic Federation, an organization that lobbied for women rights all around the world, for “the improvement of health and welfare of the world’s children and for world peace” (Pathe, 1988, p. 376). She later became president of its American affiliate, the Congress of American Women (Shipp, 1980). “Both organizations criticized Harry S. Truman and policies they feared were leading the country toward another war.”
    In 1946, the Congress of American Women was listed on the roster of subversive organizations. In 1949, the House Committee on Un-American Activities stated that the group was made up of “primarily a hard core of Communist Party members and a circle of close sympathizers”. Her publicly declared connection to Communism made many of the Columbia University trustees nervous (McCaughey, 2002).

    In June 1952, Dr. Weltfish charged the United States with using chemical weapons in the Korean War. This was the same position as the Soviet Union, thus inferring that she was a Communist. About three months later, she was called to testify before McCarthy’s Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. She was questioned about her involvement in the two women’s organizations and about “The Races of Mankind”, which was now declared subversive material (Pathe, 1988). Weltfish was also asked about her political beliefs. When asked directly if she was a communist, Dr. Weltfish refused to answer, citing the Fifth Amendment (Shipp, 1980). She also stated that “she thought of herself as a good American and acted on issues as her conscience and knowledge dictated” (Pathe, 1988, p. 377).

    care to research Isador Chein and what he did to create the drug culture and the drug war?

    he changed our view of drug addicts from being self responsible, to that of environment and social condition.

    you can read about a lot of them.. most of them communists.. new left.. most of them connected to teachings and positions of the franfurt school.. and remarkably their work was the scientific basis for the people beliving such things as no genetic differences between races, tabula rasa, child sexuality, polymorphos perversoin.

    personally… meade was so deep into it, with all her contemporaries claiming the fifth.

    i believe she knew exactly waht she was doing.

    however, we will never know… because she iddnt write a page in her diary that said.. i did it purposefully… but given that her whole career was false, based on this work that franz sent her to do, how he also got to reform and such…

    how could she not know?

  27. Artfldgr Says:

    I guess we are going to have to differ on intent with meade.

    trutfully it would not be a thing i could argue from a point of fact.

    though here is some of my reasoning on it.

    however, her games dovetail too much with the desired results that fit where the new left wanted to go.

    franz boas was her teacher… he was a communist spy…

    The United States House of Representatives cited Boas’ involvement with 44 Communist-front organizations. Coinciding with the rise of Nazism in Germany

    it was boas that created the claim that there was no differences between the races.

    note that this was the same time as the negro project of sanger. and big time socialism..

    read about his disciples.

    Gene Weltfish
    Isador Chein
    Melville Herskovits
    Otto Klineberg
    Ashley Montagu
    Ruth Benedict
    and Margaret Mead

    notice how everyone knew each other, and people were created as giants, even though the work was a sham.

    the article you point out has lots of juice in it… 🙂

    but Derek Freeman is who you want to consult on her, he is who showed she falsefied data.

    http://www.stpt.usf.edu/~jsokolov/314mead1.htm

    his book has lots of stuff where she knew things were going on.

    each one of those people tagged were elevated.. each went from boas out to head other antrhopology departments. it was boas that reformed antropology, even though he had little education in it.

    he came from nowhere, dominated a field he was not expert in, reformed it, was head of 44 fronts, each of his hand picked people went out and similarly did things.

    here you can read about weltfish
    http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/weltfish.html
    Weltfish became more involved in the women’s movement after she divorced in 1940. This may not have been the only reason for her involvement, for she had firmly believed in human equality ever since she studied with Boas at Barnard. In 1945, she was elected vice president of the Women’s International Democratic Federation, an organization that lobbied for women rights all around the world, for “the improvement of health and welfare of the world’s children and for world peace” (Pathe, 1988, p. 376). She later became president of its American affiliate, the Congress of American Women (Shipp, 1980). “Both organizations criticized Harry S. Truman and policies they feared were leading the country toward another war.”
    In 1946, the Congress of American Women was listed on the roster of subversive organizations. In 1949, the House Committee on Un-American Activities stated that the group was made up of “primarily a hard core of Communist Party members and a circle of close sympathizers”. Her publicly declared connection to Communism made many of the Columbia University trustees nervous (McCaughey, 2002).

    In June 1952, Dr. Weltfish charged the United States with using chemical weapons in the Korean War. This was the same position as the Soviet Union, thus inferring that she was a Communist. About three months later, she was called to testify before McCarthy’s Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. She was questioned about her involvement in the two women’s organizations and about “The Races of Mankind”, which was now declared subversive material (Pathe, 1988). Weltfish was also asked about her political beliefs. When asked directly if she was a communist, Dr. Weltfish refused to answer, citing the Fifth Amendment (Shipp, 1980). She also stated that “she thought of herself as a good American and acted on issues as her conscience and knowledge dictated” (Pathe, 1988, p. 377).

    care to research Isador Chein and what he did to create the drug culture and the drug war?

    he changed our view of drug addicts from being self responsible, to that of environment and social condition.

    you can read about a lot of them.. most of them communists.. new left.. most of them connected to teachings and positions of the franfurt school.. and remarkably their work was the scientific basis for the people beliving such things as no genetic differences between races, tabula rasa, child sexuality, polymorphos perversoin.

    personally… meade was so deep into it, with all her contemporaries claiming the fifth.

    i believe she knew exactly waht she was doing.

    however, we will never know… because she iddnt write a page in her diary that said.. i did it purposefully… but given that her whole career was false, based on this work that franz sent her to do, how he also got to reform and such…

    how could she not know?

  28. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I can’t argue with anything else you say, Art. And I am all too familiar with most of those people you cite. (You should read The Road To Malpsychia by Joyce Milton; it’s a brilliant work about the history of psychiatry/psychology/therapy.) You might well be right about Mead as well; I was basing my assumption that she was deceived and sloppy rather than mendacious on that one essay I linked, but you seem to have more data on your side!

  29. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I can’t argue with anything else you say, Art. And I am all too familiar with most of those people you cite. (You should read The Road To Malpsychia by Joyce Milton; it’s a brilliant work about the history of psychiatry/psychology/therapy.) You might well be right about Mead as well; I was basing my assumption that she was deceived and sloppy rather than mendacious on that one essay I linked, but you seem to have more data on your side!

  30. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I can’t argue with anything else you say, Art. And I am all too familiar with most of those people you cite. (You should read The Road To Malpsychia by Joyce Milton; it’s a brilliant work about the history of psychiatry/psychology/therapy.) You might well be right about Mead as well; I was basing my assumption that she was deceived and sloppy rather than mendacious on that one essay I linked, but you seem to have more data on your side!

  31. Artfldgr Says:

    never heard of her… might be on my book list. right now i am reading liberal fascism, and about a half dozen others mostly having to do with physics and science.

    i find a lot of this history fascinating, but when you get into the works of these people you also get stuck balancing on a razor blade with potential supremicists on one side, and tin hatters on the other. (both draw bad conclusions from the information)

    meade had too much invested to let go and own up. in a way, she probably died thinking she pulled it off.

    its a shame… though if you think about it, it shows that even the people deep in the know didnt believe in the end result that everyone was promised. they never even tried to make it work. meades and others work had to fit this agenda that would help move the mass, but never was anything based on any validity.

    what would the past 40 years have been like if so much of the past 70 years wasnt founded on manipulative lies used to justify social policy and indicated political direction?

    whats more interesting is how the information is now available, something not quite planned i bet, but yet is not necessarily making the changes you might think.

    thanks for the book tip…
    good reads are always hard to find today.

  32. Artfldgr Says:

    never heard of her… might be on my book list. right now i am reading liberal fascism, and about a half dozen others mostly having to do with physics and science.

    i find a lot of this history fascinating, but when you get into the works of these people you also get stuck balancing on a razor blade with potential supremicists on one side, and tin hatters on the other. (both draw bad conclusions from the information)

    meade had too much invested to let go and own up. in a way, she probably died thinking she pulled it off.

    its a shame… though if you think about it, it shows that even the people deep in the know didnt believe in the end result that everyone was promised. they never even tried to make it work. meades and others work had to fit this agenda that would help move the mass, but never was anything based on any validity.

    what would the past 40 years have been like if so much of the past 70 years wasnt founded on manipulative lies used to justify social policy and indicated political direction?

    whats more interesting is how the information is now available, something not quite planned i bet, but yet is not necessarily making the changes you might think.

    thanks for the book tip…
    good reads are always hard to find today.

  33. Artfldgr Says:

    never heard of her… might be on my book list. right now i am reading liberal fascism, and about a half dozen others mostly having to do with physics and science.

    i find a lot of this history fascinating, but when you get into the works of these people you also get stuck balancing on a razor blade with potential supremicists on one side, and tin hatters on the other. (both draw bad conclusions from the information)

    meade had too much invested to let go and own up. in a way, she probably died thinking she pulled it off.

    its a shame… though if you think about it, it shows that even the people deep in the know didnt believe in the end result that everyone was promised. they never even tried to make it work. meades and others work had to fit this agenda that would help move the mass, but never was anything based on any validity.

    what would the past 40 years have been like if so much of the past 70 years wasnt founded on manipulative lies used to justify social policy and indicated political direction?

    whats more interesting is how the information is now available, something not quite planned i bet, but yet is not necessarily making the changes you might think.

    thanks for the book tip…
    good reads are always hard to find today.

  34. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    though if you think about it, it shows that even the people deep in the know didnt believe in the end result that everyone was promised.

    That’s what really amazes me. Some of the seminal leftists, like Lenin, just wanted to kill a lot of people, and Marxism and its various offshoots is useful for mass murder.

    But what about people like Mead and some of the others? They seem to have been genuine idealists, and yet they had to know firsthand that they were lying, so why on earth did they? Did they really think that the social engineering they proposed would get different results in the future than they had in the past, so it was okay to lie about it?

    Well, there’s no use speculating, we don’t really know why they did any of it.

    I read Liberal Fascists as soon as it was published. Damn good work. I found out about it when a normally nonpolitical blog I followed then posted about it, frothing at the mouth about how heinous it was. I promptly ordered it, and stopped following that blog!

  35. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    though if you think about it, it shows that even the people deep in the know didnt believe in the end result that everyone was promised.

    That’s what really amazes me. Some of the seminal leftists, like Lenin, just wanted to kill a lot of people, and Marxism and its various offshoots is useful for mass murder.

    But what about people like Mead and some of the others? They seem to have been genuine idealists, and yet they had to know firsthand that they were lying, so why on earth did they? Did they really think that the social engineering they proposed would get different results in the future than they had in the past, so it was okay to lie about it?

    Well, there’s no use speculating, we don’t really know why they did any of it.

    I read Liberal Fascists as soon as it was published. Damn good work. I found out about it when a normally nonpolitical blog I followed then posted about it, frothing at the mouth about how heinous it was. I promptly ordered it, and stopped following that blog!

  36. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    though if you think about it, it shows that even the people deep in the know didnt believe in the end result that everyone was promised.

    That’s what really amazes me. Some of the seminal leftists, like Lenin, just wanted to kill a lot of people, and Marxism and its various offshoots is useful for mass murder.

    But what about people like Mead and some of the others? They seem to have been genuine idealists, and yet they had to know firsthand that they were lying, so why on earth did they? Did they really think that the social engineering they proposed would get different results in the future than they had in the past, so it was okay to lie about it?

    Well, there’s no use speculating, we don’t really know why they did any of it.

    I read Liberal Fascists as soon as it was published. Damn good work. I found out about it when a normally nonpolitical blog I followed then posted about it, frothing at the mouth about how heinous it was. I promptly ordered it, and stopped following that blog!

  37. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Actually, in your prior statements, you did call me a man…

    “…just remember one thing, it was hyperchivalrous men like you who put bad women up because you defended ALL women, not just the good ones.”

    Then you decided to call me a woman in your next posting. I admit to either one. 🙂

    I’ve enjoyed some of your comments, which were informative. Others were entertaining. Your presentation of information is a bit scattered, and your thought processes seem erratic judging by your choice of language.

    I found it interesting that you championed Emmy earlier, but neglected to mention Albert Einstein’s history of domestic violence/spouse abuse. Most people like to avoid this issue as well, because they revere Albert and could never conceive of him being abusive.

    I agree with some of your statements concerning the military, and women. As I said, I have serve d my country for over 20 years. I will say, you must be careful not to believe so much of what you read regarding women in the military without full understanding of the facts. Journalism, while a noble art, is notorious for getting the story wrong.

    As a service-member, I’ve risked my life for my countrymen/countrywomen and dedicated my life to the United States of America. I’ve performed hours of electrical work on airplanes, washed airplanes in the freezing cold, flown through hazardous airspace, loaded cargo, repaired generators, and safety wired mechanical parts till my fingers bled,… so you, and others, can have the freedom to write what you like on this page. I’ve seen a variety of women in the military in my time. There have been valuable and capable female leaders, soldiers, marines and sailors… and some that should have been kicked out of the military before they ever landed in boots. But I can say this of some men as well.

    Some of what you say about a few women in the military is true…but to generalize so easily about “all” is a fallacy. The same things can be said of men. I’ve seen men complain in medical about the smallest things in order to avoid being shipped to the sandbox. I’ve seen men manipulate situations in order to avoid being put on the ship, and manipulate sexual issues in order to get to the top. I’ve seen the results of men who abused their spouses, and their children, and each other. Violence comes in all genders, and neither one of the sexes holds a monopoly on “manipulation” of situations…they just approach it differently.

    My current background in the military is in the medical field. I’m also pursing another degree in Public Health, focusing on Violence Studies, War and Conflict and Disaster Management. Part of my research and expertise is on gender issues, but I also have far more experience and background in Forensic Sciences, Criminal Justice, and Sex Crimes.

    Personally, I’ve never studied “Women’s Studies”. Medical Anthropology happens to be one of my many interests, however, I only listed the books I did before as a simple selection of historical essays/readings, not as an aggressive submission of proof of anything. I find your conversational approach intriguing, because you certainly have a wide range of trivia at your fingertips, but unfortunately you come across with what reads as emotional anger and arrogance. This takes away from the presentation of your arguments.

    I will certainly look in to the writings of Susan Pinker during my research and studies. Having experience in research in cultural anthropology, as well as quantitative scientific studies, , I’ll have to disagree that anthropology is a “soft” science. Your statement simply falls back on the worn cliche’ standard of “good ol boyz” description. I find it amazing when people become so fixed in their philosophical positions, that they fail to consider the alternatives.

    Much of what we knew “scientifically” as little as 50 years ago has been disproven, (such as the belief of miasma). Much of what we “know” today, will be obsolete tomorrow. This is a simple truth.

    Some of my latest readings also include the following:
    * Anthropology and the United States Military
    *Diasporas in Conflict: Peace Makers or Peace Wreckers?
    *Global Governance and the New Wars
    *A Different Kind of Man: Changing Male Roles in Today’s World
    *Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War
    *The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas
    *Those who Play with Fire: Gender, Fertility and Transformation in East/Southern Africa
    *Global Governance and the New Wars

    and many scientific papers on forensic science innovations/war and conflict/abuses of men by men in war, male sexual torture by males, and other violence issues….

    I wish I had more time to pursue this thread online, but unfortunately I’ve got research and studies to continue. I’ll agree with you that women can be violent, and there are definitely medical and nursing papers that state this. I suppose you haven’t read anything in Forensic medicine or Forensic Nursing lately…but the evidence is certainly there. The evidence is there that men can be just as violent as well. To say one is more violent than the other, again, smoke screens the real issues as to what causes violence, and tries to place the blame on gender. Violence is not related to gender. Gender is convenientl used as an excuse for violence.

    Twenty years of martial arts, meditation, and some heavy duty experiences in my life, in addition to other studies in “hard” sciences, have taught me that we ARE more than the sum of our physical parts. The physical body can influence us, but it doesn’t govern us 100%, and we can control even the most basic biological influences to a large degree. Biologically, men and women are different, and they often have different skills, approaches, thought patterns, and behaviors…but not every woman or man is the same, and the biological influences vary in multitudes of degrees.

    Anyhow, good luck in your adventures, and thank you for the reading suggestions. Hope you get out of the library and venture into the real world soon.

  38. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Actually, in your prior statements, you did call me a man…

    “…just remember one thing, it was hyperchivalrous men like you who put bad women up because you defended ALL women, not just the good ones.”

    Then you decided to call me a woman in your next posting. I admit to either one. 🙂

    I’ve enjoyed some of your comments, which were informative. Others were entertaining. Your presentation of information is a bit scattered, and your thought processes seem erratic judging by your choice of language.

    I found it interesting that you championed Emmy earlier, but neglected to mention Albert Einstein’s history of domestic violence/spouse abuse. Most people like to avoid this issue as well, because they revere Albert and could never conceive of him being abusive.

    I agree with some of your statements concerning the military, and women. As I said, I have serve d my country for over 20 years. I will say, you must be careful not to believe so much of what you read regarding women in the military without full understanding of the facts. Journalism, while a noble art, is notorious for getting the story wrong.

    As a service-member, I’ve risked my life for my countrymen/countrywomen and dedicated my life to the United States of America. I’ve performed hours of electrical work on airplanes, washed airplanes in the freezing cold, flown through hazardous airspace, loaded cargo, repaired generators, and safety wired mechanical parts till my fingers bled,… so you, and others, can have the freedom to write what you like on this page. I’ve seen a variety of women in the military in my time. There have been valuable and capable female leaders, soldiers, marines and sailors… and some that should have been kicked out of the military before they ever landed in boots. But I can say this of some men as well.

    Some of what you say about a few women in the military is true…but to generalize so easily about “all” is a fallacy. The same things can be said of men. I’ve seen men complain in medical about the smallest things in order to avoid being shipped to the sandbox. I’ve seen men manipulate situations in order to avoid being put on the ship, and manipulate sexual issues in order to get to the top. I’ve seen the results of men who abused their spouses, and their children, and each other. Violence comes in all genders, and neither one of the sexes holds a monopoly on “manipulation” of situations…they just approach it differently.

    My current background in the military is in the medical field. I’m also pursing another degree in Public Health, focusing on Violence Studies, War and Conflict and Disaster Management. Part of my research and expertise is on gender issues, but I also have far more experience and background in Forensic Sciences, Criminal Justice, and Sex Crimes.

    Personally, I’ve never studied “Women’s Studies”. Medical Anthropology happens to be one of my many interests, however, I only listed the books I did before as a simple selection of historical essays/readings, not as an aggressive submission of proof of anything. I find your conversational approach intriguing, because you certainly have a wide range of trivia at your fingertips, but unfortunately you come across with what reads as emotional anger and arrogance. This takes away from the presentation of your arguments.

    I will certainly look in to the writings of Susan Pinker during my research and studies. Having experience in research in cultural anthropology, as well as quantitative scientific studies, , I’ll have to disagree that anthropology is a “soft” science. Your statement simply falls back on the worn cliche’ standard of “good ol boyz” description. I find it amazing when people become so fixed in their philosophical positions, that they fail to consider the alternatives.

    Much of what we knew “scientifically” as little as 50 years ago has been disproven, (such as the belief of miasma). Much of what we “know” today, will be obsolete tomorrow. This is a simple truth.

    Some of my latest readings also include the following:
    * Anthropology and the United States Military
    *Diasporas in Conflict: Peace Makers or Peace Wreckers?
    *Global Governance and the New Wars
    *A Different Kind of Man: Changing Male Roles in Today’s World
    *Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War
    *The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas
    *Those who Play with Fire: Gender, Fertility and Transformation in East/Southern Africa
    *Global Governance and the New Wars

    and many scientific papers on forensic science innovations/war and conflict/abuses of men by men in war, male sexual torture by males, and other violence issues….

    I wish I had more time to pursue this thread online, but unfortunately I’ve got research and studies to continue. I’ll agree with you that women can be violent, and there are definitely medical and nursing papers that state this. I suppose you haven’t read anything in Forensic medicine or Forensic Nursing lately…but the evidence is certainly there. The evidence is there that men can be just as violent as well. To say one is more violent than the other, again, smoke screens the real issues as to what causes violence, and tries to place the blame on gender. Violence is not related to gender. Gender is convenientl used as an excuse for violence.

    Twenty years of martial arts, meditation, and some heavy duty experiences in my life, in addition to other studies in “hard” sciences, have taught me that we ARE more than the sum of our physical parts. The physical body can influence us, but it doesn’t govern us 100%, and we can control even the most basic biological influences to a large degree. Biologically, men and women are different, and they often have different skills, approaches, thought patterns, and behaviors…but not every woman or man is the same, and the biological influences vary in multitudes of degrees.

    Anyhow, good luck in your adventures, and thank you for the reading suggestions. Hope you get out of the library and venture into the real world soon.

  39. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Actually, in your prior statements, you did call me a man…

    “…just remember one thing, it was hyperchivalrous men like you who put bad women up because you defended ALL women, not just the good ones.”

    Then you decided to call me a woman in your next posting. I admit to either one. 🙂

    I’ve enjoyed some of your comments, which were informative. Others were entertaining. Your presentation of information is a bit scattered, and your thought processes seem erratic judging by your choice of language.

    I found it interesting that you championed Emmy earlier, but neglected to mention Albert Einstein’s history of domestic violence/spouse abuse. Most people like to avoid this issue as well, because they revere Albert and could never conceive of him being abusive.

    I agree with some of your statements concerning the military, and women. As I said, I have serve d my country for over 20 years. I will say, you must be careful not to believe so much of what you read regarding women in the military without full understanding of the facts. Journalism, while a noble art, is notorious for getting the story wrong.

    As a service-member, I’ve risked my life for my countrymen/countrywomen and dedicated my life to the United States of America. I’ve performed hours of electrical work on airplanes, washed airplanes in the freezing cold, flown through hazardous airspace, loaded cargo, repaired generators, and safety wired mechanical parts till my fingers bled,… so you, and others, can have the freedom to write what you like on this page. I’ve seen a variety of women in the military in my time. There have been valuable and capable female leaders, soldiers, marines and sailors… and some that should have been kicked out of the military before they ever landed in boots. But I can say this of some men as well.

    Some of what you say about a few women in the military is true…but to generalize so easily about “all” is a fallacy. The same things can be said of men. I’ve seen men complain in medical about the smallest things in order to avoid being shipped to the sandbox. I’ve seen men manipulate situations in order to avoid being put on the ship, and manipulate sexual issues in order to get to the top. I’ve seen the results of men who abused their spouses, and their children, and each other. Violence comes in all genders, and neither one of the sexes holds a monopoly on “manipulation” of situations…they just approach it differently.

    My current background in the military is in the medical field. I’m also pursing another degree in Public Health, focusing on Violence Studies, War and Conflict and Disaster Management. Part of my research and expertise is on gender issues, but I also have far more experience and background in Forensic Sciences, Criminal Justice, and Sex Crimes.

    Personally, I’ve never studied “Women’s Studies”. Medical Anthropology happens to be one of my many interests, however, I only listed the books I did before as a simple selection of historical essays/readings, not as an aggressive submission of proof of anything. I find your conversational approach intriguing, because you certainly have a wide range of trivia at your fingertips, but unfortunately you come across with what reads as emotional anger and arrogance. This takes away from the presentation of your arguments.

    I will certainly look in to the writings of Susan Pinker during my research and studies. Having experience in research in cultural anthropology, as well as quantitative scientific studies, , I’ll have to disagree that anthropology is a “soft” science. Your statement simply falls back on the worn cliche’ standard of “good ol boyz” description. I find it amazing when people become so fixed in their philosophical positions, that they fail to consider the alternatives.

    Much of what we knew “scientifically” as little as 50 years ago has been disproven, (such as the belief of miasma). Much of what we “know” today, will be obsolete tomorrow. This is a simple truth.

    Some of my latest readings also include the following:
    * Anthropology and the United States Military
    *Diasporas in Conflict: Peace Makers or Peace Wreckers?
    *Global Governance and the New Wars
    *A Different Kind of Man: Changing Male Roles in Today’s World
    *Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War
    *The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas
    *Those who Play with Fire: Gender, Fertility and Transformation in East/Southern Africa
    *Global Governance and the New Wars

    and many scientific papers on forensic science innovations/war and conflict/abuses of men by men in war, male sexual torture by males, and other violence issues….

    I wish I had more time to pursue this thread online, but unfortunately I’ve got research and studies to continue. I’ll agree with you that women can be violent, and there are definitely medical and nursing papers that state this. I suppose you haven’t read anything in Forensic medicine or Forensic Nursing lately…but the evidence is certainly there. The evidence is there that men can be just as violent as well. To say one is more violent than the other, again, smoke screens the real issues as to what causes violence, and tries to place the blame on gender. Violence is not related to gender. Gender is convenientl used as an excuse for violence.

    Twenty years of martial arts, meditation, and some heavy duty experiences in my life, in addition to other studies in “hard” sciences, have taught me that we ARE more than the sum of our physical parts. The physical body can influence us, but it doesn’t govern us 100%, and we can control even the most basic biological influences to a large degree. Biologically, men and women are different, and they often have different skills, approaches, thought patterns, and behaviors…but not every woman or man is the same, and the biological influences vary in multitudes of degrees.

    Anyhow, good luck in your adventures, and thank you for the reading suggestions. Hope you get out of the library and venture into the real world soon.

  40. Artfldgr Says:

    Hope you get out of the library and venture into the real world soon.

    this was just hurtful disguised as something else. i will post my response in a second, but it was completely written before i got to this.

    i grew up on the streets. i spent my whole live out of the library. my family is poor and after attending bronx science i had no money for college.

    i remember programs where they put us brains with the socipaths so we could uplift them.

    thats where i learned to street fight. thats why in the next post you hear about the poor marine.

    i grew up in the bronx inner city as a very poor white boy in a very black neighborhood. i watched how everything changed, i lived it.

    my family in europe is latvian… i grew up learnign my political undestanding from a gulag survivor. his crime was he was smart.

    my grandmother was a research chemist in europe in the early part of the last century.

    my unclces and such were military men and politicos, though we became artists and scientists when we escaped to the US.

    i currently make near six figures, but i live in a poor neighborhood. which i will have to move soon, since my wife didnt grow up with gangs, street life, and such. more than 800 nationalities are in the small area i live in. so i even know the differences between the many forms of coverings women have as i see them each day.

    my life is VERY unusual, and most of what i know comes from self directed learning because i couldnt afford college and there was no money for me since i am not a minority or a woman.

    after i got work and made great money, my wackaloon took it all and the political system made sure i would never succeed. it was a bunch of well meanign people like you with the same adgenda that they didnt even realize they had.

    the library is where i finally got to after 20 years of working for many companies and concerns. i took a large salary hit a few years back so that i could work ehre, and then have access to all the papers i love to read.

    so i have only been in this library for a few years working.

    its taken me 30 years of fighting to be able to be in this library and not get chased out because i am not the preferred gender or race. (check out sba, they also reverse discriminate under the 8a program, so you cant compete)

    you see… i never gave up. i studied as if i had finals every week. i bought my text books from students who needed cash. i had them donated to me. i bought expensive books of compendium papers. i read from aroudn the world.

    now.. i am old.. i am still trying to get one of my ideas and designs out, but again, i was born the wrong race, and the wrong sex to do that. my family was in northern europe under the thumb of the prussians when all that other crap went on. i am the first generation in the US… so not one person from my family existed here before 100 years ago.

    dont be so flippant..

    your education was not superior to mine because you paid for it. in fact, its quite inferior to mine, in that i have taken the same courses over and over by reading the textbooks when you were happy to finish one and get out.

    and i did the hardest stuff for fun.

    now i can sit in the library for lunch and read

    now top researchers call me up because i can answer questiosn that they cant.

    they are amazed (i can send you the emails where they say so), that i know so much. MOST of them think that i know more thatn they do sicne their knowlege is in narrow categories.

    your knowlege is narrow. you dont even see it since its so large that narrow seems wrong.

    my education consisted of college level work before junior high. how else do you get into a school that has more nobel prize winners than any ivy league college?

    i got in a year early taking the test as a joke in preparation for the next year.

    out of the thousands that took that test, only 400 get in.

    so i have every right to be in this library, even more so than most of the others in it.

    but merit is gone… and i am the wrong race and sex…

    thats not how i see it. but it sure is what they have been telling me for 30 years.

  41. Artfldgr Says:

    Hope you get out of the library and venture into the real world soon.

    this was just hurtful disguised as something else. i will post my response in a second, but it was completely written before i got to this.

    i grew up on the streets. i spent my whole live out of the library. my family is poor and after attending bronx science i had no money for college.

    i remember programs where they put us brains with the socipaths so we could uplift them.

    thats where i learned to street fight. thats why in the next post you hear about the poor marine.

    i grew up in the bronx inner city as a very poor white boy in a very black neighborhood. i watched how everything changed, i lived it.

    my family in europe is latvian… i grew up learnign my political undestanding from a gulag survivor. his crime was he was smart.

    my grandmother was a research chemist in europe in the early part of the last century.

    my unclces and such were military men and politicos, though we became artists and scientists when we escaped to the US.

    i currently make near six figures, but i live in a poor neighborhood. which i will have to move soon, since my wife didnt grow up with gangs, street life, and such. more than 800 nationalities are in the small area i live in. so i even know the differences between the many forms of coverings women have as i see them each day.

    my life is VERY unusual, and most of what i know comes from self directed learning because i couldnt afford college and there was no money for me since i am not a minority or a woman.

    after i got work and made great money, my wackaloon took it all and the political system made sure i would never succeed. it was a bunch of well meanign people like you with the same adgenda that they didnt even realize they had.

    the library is where i finally got to after 20 years of working for many companies and concerns. i took a large salary hit a few years back so that i could work ehre, and then have access to all the papers i love to read.

    so i have only been in this library for a few years working.

    its taken me 30 years of fighting to be able to be in this library and not get chased out because i am not the preferred gender or race. (check out sba, they also reverse discriminate under the 8a program, so you cant compete)

    you see… i never gave up. i studied as if i had finals every week. i bought my text books from students who needed cash. i had them donated to me. i bought expensive books of compendium papers. i read from aroudn the world.

    now.. i am old.. i am still trying to get one of my ideas and designs out, but again, i was born the wrong race, and the wrong sex to do that. my family was in northern europe under the thumb of the prussians when all that other crap went on. i am the first generation in the US… so not one person from my family existed here before 100 years ago.

    dont be so flippant..

    your education was not superior to mine because you paid for it. in fact, its quite inferior to mine, in that i have taken the same courses over and over by reading the textbooks when you were happy to finish one and get out.

    and i did the hardest stuff for fun.

    now i can sit in the library for lunch and read

    now top researchers call me up because i can answer questiosn that they cant.

    they are amazed (i can send you the emails where they say so), that i know so much. MOST of them think that i know more thatn they do sicne their knowlege is in narrow categories.

    your knowlege is narrow. you dont even see it since its so large that narrow seems wrong.

    my education consisted of college level work before junior high. how else do you get into a school that has more nobel prize winners than any ivy league college?

    i got in a year early taking the test as a joke in preparation for the next year.

    out of the thousands that took that test, only 400 get in.

    so i have every right to be in this library, even more so than most of the others in it.

    but merit is gone… and i am the wrong race and sex…

    thats not how i see it. but it sure is what they have been telling me for 30 years.

  42. Artfldgr Says:

    Hope you get out of the library and venture into the real world soon.

    this was just hurtful disguised as something else. i will post my response in a second, but it was completely written before i got to this.

    i grew up on the streets. i spent my whole live out of the library. my family is poor and after attending bronx science i had no money for college.

    i remember programs where they put us brains with the socipaths so we could uplift them.

    thats where i learned to street fight. thats why in the next post you hear about the poor marine.

    i grew up in the bronx inner city as a very poor white boy in a very black neighborhood. i watched how everything changed, i lived it.

    my family in europe is latvian… i grew up learnign my political undestanding from a gulag survivor. his crime was he was smart.

    my grandmother was a research chemist in europe in the early part of the last century.

    my unclces and such were military men and politicos, though we became artists and scientists when we escaped to the US.

    i currently make near six figures, but i live in a poor neighborhood. which i will have to move soon, since my wife didnt grow up with gangs, street life, and such. more than 800 nationalities are in the small area i live in. so i even know the differences between the many forms of coverings women have as i see them each day.

    my life is VERY unusual, and most of what i know comes from self directed learning because i couldnt afford college and there was no money for me since i am not a minority or a woman.

    after i got work and made great money, my wackaloon took it all and the political system made sure i would never succeed. it was a bunch of well meanign people like you with the same adgenda that they didnt even realize they had.

    the library is where i finally got to after 20 years of working for many companies and concerns. i took a large salary hit a few years back so that i could work ehre, and then have access to all the papers i love to read.

    so i have only been in this library for a few years working.

    its taken me 30 years of fighting to be able to be in this library and not get chased out because i am not the preferred gender or race. (check out sba, they also reverse discriminate under the 8a program, so you cant compete)

    you see… i never gave up. i studied as if i had finals every week. i bought my text books from students who needed cash. i had them donated to me. i bought expensive books of compendium papers. i read from aroudn the world.

    now.. i am old.. i am still trying to get one of my ideas and designs out, but again, i was born the wrong race, and the wrong sex to do that. my family was in northern europe under the thumb of the prussians when all that other crap went on. i am the first generation in the US… so not one person from my family existed here before 100 years ago.

    dont be so flippant..

    your education was not superior to mine because you paid for it. in fact, its quite inferior to mine, in that i have taken the same courses over and over by reading the textbooks when you were happy to finish one and get out.

    and i did the hardest stuff for fun.

    now i can sit in the library for lunch and read

    now top researchers call me up because i can answer questiosn that they cant.

    they are amazed (i can send you the emails where they say so), that i know so much. MOST of them think that i know more thatn they do sicne their knowlege is in narrow categories.

    your knowlege is narrow. you dont even see it since its so large that narrow seems wrong.

    my education consisted of college level work before junior high. how else do you get into a school that has more nobel prize winners than any ivy league college?

    i got in a year early taking the test as a joke in preparation for the next year.

    out of the thousands that took that test, only 400 get in.

    so i have every right to be in this library, even more so than most of the others in it.

    but merit is gone… and i am the wrong race and sex…

    thats not how i see it. but it sure is what they have been telling me for 30 years.

  43. Artfldgr Says:

    Thanks for pointing out where I didn’t catch the assertion!!! Good catch!!! And you will always find me happy to find out where I wasn’t consistent. Usually I am consistent, but scattered.

    Your presentation of information is a bit scattered, and your thought processes seem erratic judging by your choice of language.

    I think divergently not convergently, makes for great discussions as one thing can literally lead anywhere, rather than several things converge on one thing. The other is that I am writing in between breaks and such, not as part of some evening relaxation. I type fast, and think fast, and normally people review and check their work. When I am answering I don’t have the time, so I try to just get it out there. if you read first drafts a lot then you will notice that they generally are not like Mozart cantatas either. However scattered as I may be a bit, you’re looking at a first draft, uncorrected, tract. If I was intelligentsia I could pump out papers by the week, and hire an editor to smooth out the bumps (as a friend does for me from time to time).

    The real hard part is that I know so much in so many different categories and have such a small space to write in (given the full histories and other things whole books can be written on singular phrases in these issues). I dominate conversation way too much that way, and while you might not think so, I do hold back a whole lot of stuff. (I also tend to hold back stuff that will lead people to the fruitcakes first, before the history. Otherwise they will go from conclusion to fact and not from fact to conclusion).

    Albert Einstein’s history of domestic violence/spouse abuse.

    I didn’t bring it up as it would make scattered even harder to understand. Faulting me for not creating a whole piece and a perfect explanation wont work, I will address that, as I will address other similar things.

    Care to list out the abuse? The evidence? Care to consider the dynamic of relationships and understand that the dynamic of woman not responsible for all outcomes is a false assertion. A person in a situation, even to the quantum level (Schrödinger), can not separate their actions or inactions from the situation. feminists love to cherry pick, they love to change the definitions, and they love to project what they think they know now into the past. so Christians in the 10th century are faulted for not having the same truth that wasn’t developed till the 14 and 15th centuries and is common knowledge now.

    I have read over a half dozen biographies, and I have also read the political instructions of desensitization and such in which the idea was to conflate and deconstruct and change (Stalinist), the perception of the past. To remove it from its proper context and to misunderstand it to reach a modern political goal.

    Only modern feminists would say that being distant to a harpy was abuse. Just as they tried to claim that she helped with the math. While this has been debunked, the fact that there are a bunch of useful idiots still towing the popular lies is easy to find. In fact, the more you get to the bubble world of women’s studies, which refuses to look at reality as what it is, the more distant the facts and such becomes. Stalinism does that. this is the main reason that most of them cant debate or refuse to, since to do so would then create the situation in which they find out the details of what was kept from them. this is why they prefer the psychological act of ‘jamming’. Some are loud at it, others do it through a more seeming introspective point (like you), but in essence they spend a lot of time wearing the other down, by constantly throwing little things as to omissions, or this poiont or that point. by doing this, they win when the other is tired of writing paragraphs for each sentence they spit.

    Bet you thought I didn’t know… I can tell you even better techniques, but this one is common in the persons that practice it pretend to themselves that they are on the quest for truth and education and such, but in fact their whole set of points is never meant to converge to a solution, but only lead another person arund and around in a circle till they give up.

    That’s not winning a debate… that’s equivalent to winning a chess game by punching out your opponent. In this way feminists are actually much more violent than contemporary men. if you consider violence as being in the attack, not in the methods used. But feminists changed that, and so sneaky attacks and barbs, and games are not seen that way, as they favor women.

    As far as mileva, well… isn’t it interesting that she attended a school in 1886/7, a time when feminists claim women weren’t allowed? Heck they were allowed, they just didn’t get the position through entitlement, they had to actually compete against the men toe to toe and eye to eye. Not like today. which is why we don’t have great women any more AND why we don’t have great men either. All standards were lowered to be ‘fair’, and so society moving into the future has been cheated by what could be in favor of lower productivity so that the ILLUSION of the body not determining the outcome is created. Read Harrison Bergeron and think deeply as that’s what’s going on now, just no so overt.

    The extent of Mileva’s contributions to Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis Papers is controversial. According to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva [6]. Senta Troemel-Ploetz, a German linguist, says that the ideas may have been Albert’s, but Mileva did the mathematics. Neither of these claims are likely.[7][8]

    Notice how that sentence starts out saying it’s controversial, and then shows that it’s a lie. How can that be controversial, it doesn’t exist?

    Go to wiki and you can work out that the reality of abuse and such is false too. look who is doing the work, what they believe, what ideology they support. Remember socialism is end justifies the means, and so all those people who happily support it have accepted that as their mantra.

    The case for Mileva as co-genius mostly depends on letters in which Albert referred to “our” theory and “our” work and on a divorce agreement in which Albert promised her his Nobel Prize money. He gave the money to Mileva but he did not publicly acknowledge any putative scientific involvement by her in his work. Mileva used the award money to support their sons. Based on newly released letters (sealed by Albert’s stepdaughter Margot Einstein until 20 years after her death), Walter Isaacson (Time 168(3):50-55, July 17, 2006) reported that Mileva invested Albert’s Nobel Prize money in three apartment buildings in Zurich.

    Care to look up the dates? Where they were? what political changes and ideology she followed? Etc? nope, for the most part you’re a womens studies parrot. You force others (if they can) to lead you to the real facts, while most you get to have a haughty false superiority over. that’s learning sociopathic contempt for the weak, who are weak because they fail to spend their lives trying to oppose lies and manipulation.

    The contention that the Soviet scientist Abraham Joffe claimed to have seen the original manuscripts of Einstein’s 1905 papers is not borne out by an examination of the passage in question, in which he clearly attributes them to a single author.

    If you study your COMPLETE history, you will find out that much of whats going on has been clouded. By whom? Track back the assertions and you will find a socialist communist playing games with history, or the definitions of words, etc.

    When Einstein’s surviving son was asked about his own mother’s scientific contribution to the Theory of Special Relativity he couldn’t recall any. Albert remained an extremely fruitful scientist for the rest of his life, producing works of importance long after divorcing Mileva. She, on the other hand, never published any significant work and was never mentioned, including by any of hers or Albert’s acquaintances, as having contributed any ideas to Einstein’s work. Mileva never claimed that she took any important part in the scientific work attributed to Albert

    So you think I am going to believe that einstein, a man who wrote a lot as to the dynamics of peace, would be an arbitrary abuser? Not likely. More likely and more to the truth, einstein did what most people do when they are married and a divorce is a bad thing (unlike today, remember not to project back then), he basically went into his work.

    However, feminists describe a man who isnt doing the housework, and is doing such other work, as being abusive. Of course, the wife got part of HIS noble prize money and lived off of it, but of course his working on his stuff to her exclusion was also abuse.

    Take some time and track back the abuse claims, find specifics. Look to who made the claim first. Was it a well known historian attempting to keep the facts straight, or is it a bunch of feminist harpies with a end justifies the means game? you will be surprised if you think your womens studies and others actually taught you. they play half truths, not whole truths. For instance did you know that before the baby boom womens attendance in college was above 40%? One of the favorites I have heard is them claiming, that before 19XX, a woman couldn’t get a degree from Harvard. Yup, that’s true, since Harvard was a mens college and the womens Harvard was called Radcliff, so a woman would get her degree from the ivy league Radcliff. Women only got to Harvard after they gutted things. but that was not to make women enter, that was to poison the men that the institution produced, and change its philosophies from free market capitliasm to fascism and corporatism, along with end justifies the means. so being a Harvard man before that and being a Harvard man after that became two different things, as enron will let you see.

    I agree with some of your statements concerning the military, and women. As I said, I have serve d my country for over 20 years. I will say, you must be careful not to believe so much of what you read regarding women in the military without full understanding of the facts. Journalism, while a noble art, is notorious for getting the story wrong.

    Can we have a quick eye to eye here? We are not discussing the women in the military that can do their load, that intend to serve with honor, that are full military people in every way. Many of them happen to be lesbians, women with more male like cognition (something that is totally impossible in a tabula rasa system, but completely and expected in a genetic system that mixes and matches things!)

    I have no problem with them. I see no reason to even discuss them. in fact, technically my discussion is about how the harpies and the other curmudgeons with an agenda spoil the whole contribution of such women.

    I have full understanding of the facts. I am 4F, I cant fight (deaf handicap), but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know anything. you will find out that because I had an eduction more like the founding fathers gentleman farmers, bundt, Lincoln, etc… that you will find out that I know things in detail. Detail that probably would surprise you… heck I surprised that poor marine in times square during one of their public displays of hand to hand combat training. Poor guy. Though I will say that unlike his contemporaries he will probably not underestimate civilians.

    Until feminism, women in the military had a very positive position in our and the worlds mentality. However ulterior motives changes that, and the way that things were changes were designed to weaken and make us eneffective. After all, the sisterhood is about getting communism to take over, and then celebrate them as heroes (though historically speaking they get slaughtered wholesale as the side they are fighting for realizes that they are traitors, and will turn the minute that they realize the reality of the situation).

    Some of what you say about a few women in the military is true…but to generalize so easily about “all” is a fallacy.

    No it’s not. its reality. It’s a fallacy to attempt to not generalize when it can be done.

    Here is a question, how many women have completed the army obstacle course that the men are required to pass in order to not be drummed out? ZERO.

    Not one woman has ever completed the course.

    So I CAN generalize. I can generalize that given the distribution of muscle fat and make up, that a pound of pound women are not physically capable of the same versatile range as men. period. men suffer a bit at fine motor skills way at the end of the scale, but their range covers that all the way up to moving huge weights.

    Women cant even do the same exercises in the same way. they had to be removed from dual basic because the women were ending up in the hospital. which shows that I do know that there are a heck of a lot of women with the right spirit, but not the right equipment.

    This isn’t a generalization. All one has to do is look at the differences in sports like powerlifting, boxing, and football. That gives one the idea of the tops. Backing it down by half, and the tops of women can’t come close.

    We are made for certain jobs. Period. men are made for conflict on behalf of their women
    Larger lung capacity, thicker bone plates, more powerful muscles pound for pound.

    Boxing being a very good example. boxing, unlike other sports, has fine divisions between opponents. 10 pounds makes an overwhelming difference between two men. there is a reason why guys like me rarely get into fights. We cause real damage. I am just under 6’3” and over 220. I am lean, and so have the same mass as Mike Tyson.

    That leads to the obvious though. That a woman in the military does not have to be the grunt. She can do the things you have mentioned. These are important things to do. the whole logistical miracle that is military deployment (really really wonderful and amazing), is more critical than a single platoon. Though the platoon guys will get medals, and the guys in the rear wont (I consider the girls who do their loads to be ‘guys’, and part of the team).

    I will ask you a serious question that will reveal a lot about men and women and such.

    Have you ever seen most men discriminate a woman when she is carrying her share of the work? I am not talking about the resistance they create at first to insure that your serious enough about being a part of the group and that they can trust you. I am talking about after that.

    Everywhere I have ever worked, this was true. However, when the new guy gets to dump risk on others and doesn’t get less than they do, that’s when trouble starts. When a girl enters a road crew, she gets to wave flags. Its dangerous, but not as dangerous daily as working the work, and the danger can be abridged by being awake, and so forth. so men used to use waving the flags as a break in which they worked. when she enters the group, she takes that since she cant, do and every guy in the team now has increased risk. in essence she is changing the risk dynamic. They realize that in this case more risk doesn’t get them more reward, and endangers their families future. So their grousing isn’t because they don’t want a girl, their grousing is because feminists have redefined the inputs to the equation so that real world considerations that would get them to understand, realize, and not demonize, are not allowed in the dialogue.

    I’ve seen men complain in medical about the smallest things in order to avoid being shipped to the sandbox.

    They are grousing to avoid a level of work that the women don’t do. a medical discharge for them is not the same as an honorable discharge. Is it? the benefits mix is different, isn’t it? and they don’t get a free ticket out, and that grousing effects their military careers too (the pregnant woman that leaves though doesn’t have to worry about that, does she?).

    What you are trying to do is reletevate through words, a man who gets sick because he knows that his chances of dying is higher because of women, than the chances of that woman dying.

    From TODAYS news.
    Record Number of Female Soldiers Fall
    http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2226/context/cover/

    What was that number? 33 women…

    How many men? the article doesn’t mention it. that would ruin the flavor for the women.

    In the Gulf War–the first major conflict where women soldiers served alongside male soldiers–216,000 women were enlisted and 16 were killed.

    Do you realize that that rate makes it safer for you to be in Iraq at war than living normally stateside?

    Its .0007%

    in Afghanistan the numbers get more in line with the work but they are still super tiny.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, only 17,000 female soldiers are enlisted. But their deaths account for 33 of the 1,000 estimated fatalities among servicewomen in U.S. history.

    That’s 0.19 %

    However, think of the diminishment of the men’s contribution such arguments make.
    In the history of the American military, only 1000 women have died.

    How many men? And you can’t say that it’s because women weren’t allowed to fight, they are now, and everyone is grousing over .19%. Women have been in every American war, and even more involved in the earlier ones!

    However if you were going to go up against the Russian military with their system of hazing that kills the men that are unfit, would you want a military that is 10% female?

    Historians estimate that only 20,000 American women have fought in battle since Margaret Corbin hoisted her petticoats and took charge of a canon after her husband fell in the Revolutionary War.

    Lets see… you can look here as to flight kill ratios. (in fact you can figure out from other reports how many men died doing the kind of work that women do now but don’t get killed now for) http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

    Your odds of dying in Normandy were horrible, and because of how things are now, the men will not fight like that again. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm

    Does the uplifting of 1000 women justify the downgrading of several million men?

    Many of these men died in battles in which the number of men killed in one day exceeds by several times the number of all women that have ever served in history.

    The problem is that without a reality based set of ideals, not ideology, women are put into situations that end up killing them for nothing, and end up killing the guys too. this does nothing but serve the enemy.

    I am all for women who want to be in the military, but I am against them doing it toe to toe with the guys, and I am against them equating what they do is any way reflective of the general doing that men do.

    By measuring the complaining and such, women with 1000 dead make much more noise than the 4 or so million men that died. (not the close to 300-400 million men worldwide in all conflicts).

    Violence comes in all genders, and neither one of the sexes holds a monopoly on “manipulation” of situations…they just approach it differently.

    Oh I agree… but one side has a protection and backing of an ideology that erases what they do, and has a much lower bar of conduct. I have seen women hit themselves and then claim the guy did it. that’s a form of situation manipulation that is backed by the monopoly power over life the state has.

    So again, you can’t equate the two. She comes into a hospital with a real accident, not abuse, and her husband may go to jail. He comes in with a steak knife in his shoulder and the nursing manuals and laws do not compel the staff to call the police. Did you know that? ever read the stuff from S.A.F.E.?

    Erin Pizzey, who creted the first womens shelter had this balanced view. I would suggest you read her stuff. she pointed out the full real dynamic and wanted to help. read how her more realistic view was literally pounded out of view by communist feminists. Back when the meetings had people calling each other comrade and there were brutish butch lesbians as brown shirters. She had to flee England because they would kill her.

    She is erased as Stalin erased people. while we have places who celebrate killers and such, her contribution has been erased because of the sisterhood.

    My current background in the military is in the medical field. I’m also pursing another degree in Public Health, focusing on Violence Studies, War and Conflict and Disaster Management. Part of my research and expertise is on gender issues, but I also have far more experience and background in Forensic Sciences, Criminal Justice, and Sex Crimes.

    So your so inculcated that your going to have a problem. the whole field has turned into a sham. I went trhough it. I was part of that sham meat grinder. My ex faked her murder. She disappeared for a while. Of course she only appeared just before they were to indict me. we had dual custody, after she returned from vacationing with family and watching the court system and people trained as you were, she took the kid. She got the fight out of venue, neither her or the kid was in the state that she played games. But since I sent the kid home since the police were making it impossible to take care of him, and the job was being destroyed. Turned out that she hooked up with a person with your exact credentials that they conspired to the outcome.

    If it wasn’t for another woman that I had no romantic relationship with, but our kids played together, and whose husbands life was destroyed by the system (As well as the children), she showed me how they were going to ‘get me’. so she volunteered to pick up my son, that way there was no link. she made sure to have her and her friends call me at home, and talk to me every few hours. That way there was no gap in time for them to insert a story. she made sure that I didn’t enter the apartment where she was abusing the child, that way I wouldn’t get blamed. She made it zero contact, but that didn’t mean that my ex didn’t try to get a bruise to be blamed on me.

    Wait. it goes on. After joint custody, she took off. she has never fulfilled her terms of it. it gets wackier. I paid my support, never got to see my son. I remember the day I finally saved up enough to see him after a few years. The false murder game destroyed a almost 6 figure career when I was in my early 20s. her expert with the same biased training as her, exlained that by doing that, the court would take more from me.

    Well, my son ran around the airport screaming that his father didn’t come visit him. I was the last person off the plane and he never remembered me. we have only played catch once. I am a physicist, my son I now a mathematics scholar. I have not been a part of his life.

    So a few years later, after a couple more puppies, and such, she then takes him, takes her other two children, then goes into a bank to rob it. my son ends up waiting in a jail for half a day before he decides to call my parents to pick him up. she served almost 2 years in federal prison for that.. and he got to live with my parents. Not because we went to court. No… the experts said don’t do that. she will blame you for not enough child support and you will end up being punished for her bank robbery! (this was after a nice supreme court judge who tried to help was side blinded by a false claim of abuse, of which everyone knows all men are abusers and rapists).

    So I ended up continuing to pay her child suppor even though the boy stopped living with her daily. He couldn’t come live with me since she would then fight and I would lose, and have to pay more money and see him even less. so I also had to pay my parents to help them too.

    Several familes were destroyed, and there was a whole cadre of women with your training who lined up, took state money, took what little money I had to see my son, and then proceeded to tar and feather me because I had a penis.

    You see such things tend to knock you right out of your liberal leftist world. How could a guy who has a great job, nice attitude, loves to help people, generous, and so on… end up in jail for a murder that never happened? Losing his career… his biological posterity… and so forth? when he never did a thing.

    So you want to know how I know so much. well you see I had ten years of hell to sit around an apartment when I wasn’t working and saving to read. (carl, are you taking notes? Still want my amazing ability). and combine that with what my family taught me of the germans and the Russians from our Latvian family history.

    I read the nursing books, and your text books. I found out the sham science that backs most of it up. how it is one sided, and how the other side is “jammed”. I learned how political movements work. how they are constructed. How useful idiots are created, and lots of stuff that we forgot because we don’t know it exists. I read the darker side of psychology, how the Frankfurt school promoted sexuality, Freudian ideas (Freud is dead, but from him, to Frankfurt school, to Columbia, to boas, to mead, to Kinsey, etc. a clear ideological trail leading directly back to soviet communism).

    You’re a part of that system because you so easy conflate and reletivate. Your training forces you to come at discussions from a more moderate point, but it’s not a point of equal to equal. Your above it. it’s a sociopathic view that many medical people pick up on as natural because its needed in their work. To be above it and to be able to see the interplay so one can analyze it. What do you think sociopaths do?

    Personally, I’ve never studied “Women’s Studies”. Medical Anthropology happens to be one of my many interests, however, I only listed the books I did before as a simple selection of historical essays/readings, not as an aggressive submission of proof of anything. I find your conversational approach intriguing, because you certainly have a wide range of trivia at your fingertips, but unfortunately you come across with what reads as emotional anger and arrogance. This takes away from the presentation of your arguments.

    Your right. And its not “trivia”. See how your reflex is to insure I am lower than you?

    Can you see it?

    Your contribution is “a simple selection of historical essays/readings”
    My contribution is “trivia”

    Even when you’re trying to be moderate you cant see how your needling the other. you cant see that you very well did select those things for a reason. Or are you going to tell me that after your training, you now believe we do random things with no purpose? No, we do everything for a purpose. Even select books and articles.

    I am glad you find the approach intriguing. I am sorry that it reads like emotional anger, and arrogance… but think of it contextually.

    Have you been taught that to be assertive with facts is just and valid discourse? Or have you been taught that to do so is to assert the individual, and the group ethos is better, and so one must hammer the bent nail, and call it arrogant?

    How I come accorss is unfortunate. I agree… but you have a schema. You have a color and tint to your world. I can see that, and I think (though I cant speak for her) that the blog owner sees it too.

    I know that as a person learning from the system, you have been led down a very specific corridor of information. do you realize that?

    My training is in physics, and so my argument style is from debating at Bronx science. it comes across as anger because the person at the other end of it is forced to either concede or has to contort.

    This is more like legal debate, and what people see as anger, is a skill to box them in and leave them no quarter in their logical point. I never expected to tussle with average people with poor debate skills, stunted histories, stunted education, stunted experience, and so forth. I expected to debate (and do) with giants in their field, who will not be so nice with the debate since everything lies on who is right. (which is why a top geneticist is having a ball discussing complex theories in genomic mathematics and things like that. I am equivalent to a power weight lifter, except it was my mind muscle I built up).

    I am actually very unemotional in my arguing, though often sensational or pushing a bit to make a point stand out in high relief. I seldom have a reasoned person as you on the other end. so as with anything we start off on the foot with the best odds.

    Others have had discussions with me on this kind of thing. everyone is not used to smart discourse, and having their ideas challenged outright. I am incapable of telling someone they are wrong politely (i am incapable of that kind of manipulation – with my tools for debate and my knowledge, such manipulative methods never developed).

    I will certainly look in to the writings of Susan Pinker during my research and studies. Having experience in research in cultural anthropology, as well as quantitative scientific studies, , I’ll have to disagree that anthropology is a “soft” science. Your statement simply falls back on the worn cliche’ standard of “good ol boyz” description. I find it amazing when people become so fixed in their philosophical positions, that they fail to consider the alternatives.

    Who is calling whom stone. What philosophical position do I have? keep discussing with me, you will find out that I don’t have a philosophical position. I understand too many philosophies and systems, so I know most are a crock, and cause a hell of a lot of trouble.

    Want me to show you your bias, and how YOU’RE the one with the philosophical position?

    Your argument style here was not to argue how anthorpologie is not a soft and subjective science, but to conjur up the feminist famed patriarchy.

    That good old boyz thing never existed. It’s a product of Marxism, and its description of fixed classes (that never existed) in a capitalist state. Fat cats, are his invention too. Or haven’t you read das capital?

    You are attempting to discount my assertion by making my argument feeble through associating it with a politically correct propagandist entity that we all believe exists, but doesn’t. [this believe is actually held more by women, because women DO have a female equivalent of the old boys network. I can find the studies that show that women favor women out of hand, while men don’t. it was a great study, it showed that a woman would hire a man and mix her interests in business (which makes sense since normally her business area is home, not abstract away from home), while the man didn’t).

    In order to pass your anthropology courses you have to accept the dikta. Do you think that I would pass if I challenged the things being taught by showing that the history lays out that the people making the assertion were shams? Not at all… in school one must have the same answers as the indoctrinating teacher or said teacher will ruin you. those that adopt right thinking faster are rewarded. (the darker side of skinner, freud, etc).

    Much of what we knew “scientifically” as little as 50 years ago has been disproven, (such as the belief of miasma). Much of what we “know” today, will be obsolete tomorrow. This is a simple truth.

    Actually not. This is a fallacious leftist view of science and another philosophical wedge you have been taught. Miasma is not false, if you understand it in its proper context. In fact, one can argue that miasma is a precursor to understanding the concepts of germs and contamination.

    But that doesn’t jive with the new left philosophical view that science is not consitent, that there isn’t an absolute, etc.

    Biology till it married physics (and I am a physicist, so I get a lesson in complexity that you just don’t get. I can tell you how things operate from quanta, to micro, macro, and on and on). Till it did that, biology was like a worm with a skeleton… mostly soft, with some hard parts.

    The fallacy in the assertion above has to do with “what we knew scientifically”. Miasma was never known scientifically. When it was examined scientifically, it was discarded.

    So only huge categories of science built on foundational lies are the way you describe. The areas of physics, mathematics, chemistry, now bioloty, etc… they are all hard and absolute.

    And a concept of absolute knowlge that never changes is anathema to Marxism and current philosophy.

    As a really competent person in my field (and others as well – as carl can attest to), my grasp of reality is not philosophical. I cant answer the question I do and have the insight I have that ‘intrigues’ because if I had philosophical view, you could know where I am coming from and know the rest of it.

    Its this ‘knowing’ that keeps you asserting these philosophical points as truth, and assigning my truths as philosophical points.

    In physics this can be described as a two body universe. In a closed universe with only two particles, which one is moving?

    If you keep out the facts by calling them trivia, you get to reduce your view to the two body universe. And you reduce the argument to each of us asserting the opposite about each other. so I might say… I am holding still… but you are moving…. You will say… no no, I am holding still and you are moving.

    Without a third body of reference, we cant tell. See how philosophy screws with your head. A simple systemic truth is not available to you because you don’t have the real world meta knowledge to see it. whats more, is that your reflex is to reduce the situation this way, to then create an argument ability to flip things that normally cant be flipable.

    I don’t have time either… though I hope my answeres here gave you food for thought. Its all they are really intended to do.

    Your list of readings is heavily skewed, and until you realize it you wont read things that challeng them. they are skewed to create the concept that violence and such stems from maleness… but violence is a tool, and if women want to be violent or have the fruits of that, they have to engage a tool, not execute an action. This gives them a PHILOSOPHICAL advantage in claiming that all violence comes from the tool.

    Take that one and think about that… your training is missing the negative games…

    On another note… I have read a lot in forensic medicine, and other things. its still archaic. I can list out so many things that they should do that they don’t its ridiculous. Some of it being incredibly basic, other things having to do with creating a better set of data.

    As long as you’re looking for the answer you want, you will never see the answer you don’t want.

    There is a reason why men are giving up. it’s the same reason that a person knocks over the king on a chessboard. But these reasons are being hidden behind feminist ideology and blame tactics. And so they get to define the acceptable area that your allowed to look for answers. This means that they can keep any real progress from happening (lysenkoism) by defining where your allowed to look. You are allowed to look for needles in haystacks, but the area your allowed to look in has no haystacks.

    Twenty years of martial arts, meditation, and some heavy duty experiences in my life, in addition to other studies in “hard” sciences, have taught me that we ARE more than the sum of our physical parts.

    Actually not. that’s a bastardization of the concept for philosophical purposes.

    It’s a systemic truth, that agglomerations have different properties and more properties than the singular parts. A lever is a stick, a fulcrum and two weights (one being variably applied). Apart they can do no useful work.

    It may appear magical that they have more to them than the parts, but in truth, logically, a machine cant exceed what its parts can do.

    So a lever seems to have more ability to move weight, but does it? conservation of energy shows that there is no magic, no ability beyond the mechanical advantage of rearranging the parts.

    The only way to have that philosophical view is to be amazed by a preconception of limits.

    I can get into why or what you HAVE to think to support what you are saying.
    To a physicist, that view is not there (or not as much). there is a whole branch of sciences related to ‘emergence’, and similar things.

    You and I cant hold all the different potentials that the machine can do in our heads at once. In fact, most of us never test out our machines to the point of knowing the utter limits.

    So the idea tha we ARE more than the sum of the parts comes from the disparity between what we think we know, and can extrapolate from understanding a system, and what that system surprises us in doing.

    Such things are common to Artificuial intelligence where extremely complex behavior is exhibited by very simple rules. Take flocking as an example. seems hard. But its just a set of a few rules. With that you can get hundreds of individuals to appear to act as one.

    If you don’t know these principals, you magically think that the assembly has more ability that was inherent in it. no, it has more ability that your model inherently was able to project it having.

    See the difference?

    Your view is philosophical… it fills in the blanks with a kind of mysticism.

    Failure to know all the features and abilities of something from first blush, doesn’t embue it with abilities outside the sum of its parts.

    In fact, all of physics and the world around you shows that truth. physics couldn’t get the hard results it gets if it didn’t understand the world in absolute terms and understand that something cant have properties outside what its parts have. the parts together can accomplish more work than apart, but ONLY if they are arranged in ways that give them access to principals that they exploit. Combine the lever, fulcrum and weights in the wrong configuration, and the parts don’t exceed what they can do. the trick is understanding that your minds preference doesn’t generally make it consider such things at all, or as part of a COMPLETE solution space.

    It’s a privileged view that keeps you from seeing.

    I think this might wake you up a bit.

    In the video you will see a group of basketball players, some in white and some in black passing two balls around. Your goal is to count how many times the ball is passed by those wearing white shirts. It’s that simple. Remember, count just the passes of the ball by those wearing white. Once the movie is over, write down the number of passes you have counted.

    DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

    http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

    After you have watched the video go to this page to understand your results

    http://www.mercola.com/MindBlowingVideo/index.htm

    then follow the links…

    most find out that they don’t know themselves as much as they think they do.
    nor how they operate at all… know that there are whole areas of science and politics that work based on such knowledge, and such is not taught to the students that are wishing to make a positive career out of it.

  44. Artfldgr Says:

    Thanks for pointing out where I didn’t catch the assertion!!! Good catch!!! And you will always find me happy to find out where I wasn’t consistent. Usually I am consistent, but scattered.

    Your presentation of information is a bit scattered, and your thought processes seem erratic judging by your choice of language.

    I think divergently not convergently, makes for great discussions as one thing can literally lead anywhere, rather than several things converge on one thing. The other is that I am writing in between breaks and such, not as part of some evening relaxation. I type fast, and think fast, and normally people review and check their work. When I am answering I don’t have the time, so I try to just get it out there. if you read first drafts a lot then you will notice that they generally are not like Mozart cantatas either. However scattered as I may be a bit, you’re looking at a first draft, uncorrected, tract. If I was intelligentsia I could pump out papers by the week, and hire an editor to smooth out the bumps (as a friend does for me from time to time).

    The real hard part is that I know so much in so many different categories and have such a small space to write in (given the full histories and other things whole books can be written on singular phrases in these issues). I dominate conversation way too much that way, and while you might not think so, I do hold back a whole lot of stuff. (I also tend to hold back stuff that will lead people to the fruitcakes first, before the history. Otherwise they will go from conclusion to fact and not from fact to conclusion).

    Albert Einstein’s history of domestic violence/spouse abuse.

    I didn’t bring it up as it would make scattered even harder to understand. Faulting me for not creating a whole piece and a perfect explanation wont work, I will address that, as I will address other similar things.

    Care to list out the abuse? The evidence? Care to consider the dynamic of relationships and understand that the dynamic of woman not responsible for all outcomes is a false assertion. A person in a situation, even to the quantum level (Schrödinger), can not separate their actions or inactions from the situation. feminists love to cherry pick, they love to change the definitions, and they love to project what they think they know now into the past. so Christians in the 10th century are faulted for not having the same truth that wasn’t developed till the 14 and 15th centuries and is common knowledge now.

    I have read over a half dozen biographies, and I have also read the political instructions of desensitization and such in which the idea was to conflate and deconstruct and change (Stalinist), the perception of the past. To remove it from its proper context and to misunderstand it to reach a modern political goal.

    Only modern feminists would say that being distant to a harpy was abuse. Just as they tried to claim that she helped with the math. While this has been debunked, the fact that there are a bunch of useful idiots still towing the popular lies is easy to find. In fact, the more you get to the bubble world of women’s studies, which refuses to look at reality as what it is, the more distant the facts and such becomes. Stalinism does that. this is the main reason that most of them cant debate or refuse to, since to do so would then create the situation in which they find out the details of what was kept from them. this is why they prefer the psychological act of ‘jamming’. Some are loud at it, others do it through a more seeming introspective point (like you), but in essence they spend a lot of time wearing the other down, by constantly throwing little things as to omissions, or this poiont or that point. by doing this, they win when the other is tired of writing paragraphs for each sentence they spit.

    Bet you thought I didn’t know… I can tell you even better techniques, but this one is common in the persons that practice it pretend to themselves that they are on the quest for truth and education and such, but in fact their whole set of points is never meant to converge to a solution, but only lead another person arund and around in a circle till they give up.

    That’s not winning a debate… that’s equivalent to winning a chess game by punching out your opponent. In this way feminists are actually much more violent than contemporary men. if you consider violence as being in the attack, not in the methods used. But feminists changed that, and so sneaky attacks and barbs, and games are not seen that way, as they favor women.

    As far as mileva, well… isn’t it interesting that she attended a school in 1886/7, a time when feminists claim women weren’t allowed? Heck they were allowed, they just didn’t get the position through entitlement, they had to actually compete against the men toe to toe and eye to eye. Not like today. which is why we don’t have great women any more AND why we don’t have great men either. All standards were lowered to be ‘fair’, and so society moving into the future has been cheated by what could be in favor of lower productivity so that the ILLUSION of the body not determining the outcome is created. Read Harrison Bergeron and think deeply as that’s what’s going on now, just no so overt.

    The extent of Mileva’s contributions to Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis Papers is controversial. According to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva [6]. Senta Troemel-Ploetz, a German linguist, says that the ideas may have been Albert’s, but Mileva did the mathematics. Neither of these claims are likely.[7][8]

    Notice how that sentence starts out saying it’s controversial, and then shows that it’s a lie. How can that be controversial, it doesn’t exist?

    Go to wiki and you can work out that the reality of abuse and such is false too. look who is doing the work, what they believe, what ideology they support. Remember socialism is end justifies the means, and so all those people who happily support it have accepted that as their mantra.

    The case for Mileva as co-genius mostly depends on letters in which Albert referred to “our” theory and “our” work and on a divorce agreement in which Albert promised her his Nobel Prize money. He gave the money to Mileva but he did not publicly acknowledge any putative scientific involvement by her in his work. Mileva used the award money to support their sons. Based on newly released letters (sealed by Albert’s stepdaughter Margot Einstein until 20 years after her death), Walter Isaacson (Time 168(3):50-55, July 17, 2006) reported that Mileva invested Albert’s Nobel Prize money in three apartment buildings in Zurich.

    Care to look up the dates? Where they were? what political changes and ideology she followed? Etc? nope, for the most part you’re a womens studies parrot. You force others (if they can) to lead you to the real facts, while most you get to have a haughty false superiority over. that’s learning sociopathic contempt for the weak, who are weak because they fail to spend their lives trying to oppose lies and manipulation.

    The contention that the Soviet scientist Abraham Joffe claimed to have seen the original manuscripts of Einstein’s 1905 papers is not borne out by an examination of the passage in question, in which he clearly attributes them to a single author.

    If you study your COMPLETE history, you will find out that much of whats going on has been clouded. By whom? Track back the assertions and you will find a socialist communist playing games with history, or the definitions of words, etc.

    When Einstein’s surviving son was asked about his own mother’s scientific contribution to the Theory of Special Relativity he couldn’t recall any. Albert remained an extremely fruitful scientist for the rest of his life, producing works of importance long after divorcing Mileva. She, on the other hand, never published any significant work and was never mentioned, including by any of hers or Albert’s acquaintances, as having contributed any ideas to Einstein’s work. Mileva never claimed that she took any important part in the scientific work attributed to Albert

    So you think I am going to believe that einstein, a man who wrote a lot as to the dynamics of peace, would be an arbitrary abuser? Not likely. More likely and more to the truth, einstein did what most people do when they are married and a divorce is a bad thing (unlike today, remember not to project back then), he basically went into his work.

    However, feminists describe a man who isnt doing the housework, and is doing such other work, as being abusive. Of course, the wife got part of HIS noble prize money and lived off of it, but of course his working on his stuff to her exclusion was also abuse.

    Take some time and track back the abuse claims, find specifics. Look to who made the claim first. Was it a well known historian attempting to keep the facts straight, or is it a bunch of feminist harpies with a end justifies the means game? you will be surprised if you think your womens studies and others actually taught you. they play half truths, not whole truths. For instance did you know that before the baby boom womens attendance in college was above 40%? One of the favorites I have heard is them claiming, that before 19XX, a woman couldn’t get a degree from Harvard. Yup, that’s true, since Harvard was a mens college and the womens Harvard was called Radcliff, so a woman would get her degree from the ivy league Radcliff. Women only got to Harvard after they gutted things. but that was not to make women enter, that was to poison the men that the institution produced, and change its philosophies from free market capitliasm to fascism and corporatism, along with end justifies the means. so being a Harvard man before that and being a Harvard man after that became two different things, as enron will let you see.

    I agree with some of your statements concerning the military, and women. As I said, I have serve d my country for over 20 years. I will say, you must be careful not to believe so much of what you read regarding women in the military without full understanding of the facts. Journalism, while a noble art, is notorious for getting the story wrong.

    Can we have a quick eye to eye here? We are not discussing the women in the military that can do their load, that intend to serve with honor, that are full military people in every way. Many of them happen to be lesbians, women with more male like cognition (something that is totally impossible in a tabula rasa system, but completely and expected in a genetic system that mixes and matches things!)

    I have no problem with them. I see no reason to even discuss them. in fact, technically my discussion is about how the harpies and the other curmudgeons with an agenda spoil the whole contribution of such women.

    I have full understanding of the facts. I am 4F, I cant fight (deaf handicap), but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know anything. you will find out that because I had an eduction more like the founding fathers gentleman farmers, bundt, Lincoln, etc… that you will find out that I know things in detail. Detail that probably would surprise you… heck I surprised that poor marine in times square during one of their public displays of hand to hand combat training. Poor guy. Though I will say that unlike his contemporaries he will probably not underestimate civilians.

    Until feminism, women in the military had a very positive position in our and the worlds mentality. However ulterior motives changes that, and the way that things were changes were designed to weaken and make us eneffective. After all, the sisterhood is about getting communism to take over, and then celebrate them as heroes (though historically speaking they get slaughtered wholesale as the side they are fighting for realizes that they are traitors, and will turn the minute that they realize the reality of the situation).

    Some of what you say about a few women in the military is true…but to generalize so easily about “all” is a fallacy.

    No it’s not. its reality. It’s a fallacy to attempt to not generalize when it can be done.

    Here is a question, how many women have completed the army obstacle course that the men are required to pass in order to not be drummed out? ZERO.

    Not one woman has ever completed the course.

    So I CAN generalize. I can generalize that given the distribution of muscle fat and make up, that a pound of pound women are not physically capable of the same versatile range as men. period. men suffer a bit at fine motor skills way at the end of the scale, but their range covers that all the way up to moving huge weights.

    Women cant even do the same exercises in the same way. they had to be removed from dual basic because the women were ending up in the hospital. which shows that I do know that there are a heck of a lot of women with the right spirit, but not the right equipment.

    This isn’t a generalization. All one has to do is look at the differences in sports like powerlifting, boxing, and football. That gives one the idea of the tops. Backing it down by half, and the tops of women can’t come close.

    We are made for certain jobs. Period. men are made for conflict on behalf of their women
    Larger lung capacity, thicker bone plates, more powerful muscles pound for pound.

    Boxing being a very good example. boxing, unlike other sports, has fine divisions between opponents. 10 pounds makes an overwhelming difference between two men. there is a reason why guys like me rarely get into fights. We cause real damage. I am just under 6’3” and over 220. I am lean, and so have the same mass as Mike Tyson.

    That leads to the obvious though. That a woman in the military does not have to be the grunt. She can do the things you have mentioned. These are important things to do. the whole logistical miracle that is military deployment (really really wonderful and amazing), is more critical than a single platoon. Though the platoon guys will get medals, and the guys in the rear wont (I consider the girls who do their loads to be ‘guys’, and part of the team).

    I will ask you a serious question that will reveal a lot about men and women and such.

    Have you ever seen most men discriminate a woman when she is carrying her share of the work? I am not talking about the resistance they create at first to insure that your serious enough about being a part of the group and that they can trust you. I am talking about after that.

    Everywhere I have ever worked, this was true. However, when the new guy gets to dump risk on others and doesn’t get less than they do, that’s when trouble starts. When a girl enters a road crew, she gets to wave flags. Its dangerous, but not as dangerous daily as working the work, and the danger can be abridged by being awake, and so forth. so men used to use waving the flags as a break in which they worked. when she enters the group, she takes that since she cant, do and every guy in the team now has increased risk. in essence she is changing the risk dynamic. They realize that in this case more risk doesn’t get them more reward, and endangers their families future. So their grousing isn’t because they don’t want a girl, their grousing is because feminists have redefined the inputs to the equation so that real world considerations that would get them to understand, realize, and not demonize, are not allowed in the dialogue.

    I’ve seen men complain in medical about the smallest things in order to avoid being shipped to the sandbox.

    They are grousing to avoid a level of work that the women don’t do. a medical discharge for them is not the same as an honorable discharge. Is it? the benefits mix is different, isn’t it? and they don’t get a free ticket out, and that grousing effects their military careers too (the pregnant woman that leaves though doesn’t have to worry about that, does she?).

    What you are trying to do is reletevate through words, a man who gets sick because he knows that his chances of dying is higher because of women, than the chances of that woman dying.

    From TODAYS news.
    Record Number of Female Soldiers Fall
    http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2226/context/cover/

    What was that number? 33 women…

    How many men? the article doesn’t mention it. that would ruin the flavor for the women.

    In the Gulf War–the first major conflict where women soldiers served alongside male soldiers–216,000 women were enlisted and 16 were killed.

    Do you realize that that rate makes it safer for you to be in Iraq at war than living normally stateside?

    Its .0007%

    in Afghanistan the numbers get more in line with the work but they are still super tiny.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, only 17,000 female soldiers are enlisted. But their deaths account for 33 of the 1,000 estimated fatalities among servicewomen in U.S. history.

    That’s 0.19 %

    However, think of the diminishment of the men’s contribution such arguments make.
    In the history of the American military, only 1000 women have died.

    How many men? And you can’t say that it’s because women weren’t allowed to fight, they are now, and everyone is grousing over .19%. Women have been in every American war, and even more involved in the earlier ones!

    However if you were going to go up against the Russian military with their system of hazing that kills the men that are unfit, would you want a military that is 10% female?

    Historians estimate that only 20,000 American women have fought in battle since Margaret Corbin hoisted her petticoats and took charge of a canon after her husband fell in the Revolutionary War.

    Lets see… you can look here as to flight kill ratios. (in fact you can figure out from other reports how many men died doing the kind of work that women do now but don’t get killed now for) http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

    Your odds of dying in Normandy were horrible, and because of how things are now, the men will not fight like that again. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm

    Does the uplifting of 1000 women justify the downgrading of several million men?

    Many of these men died in battles in which the number of men killed in one day exceeds by several times the number of all women that have ever served in history.

    The problem is that without a reality based set of ideals, not ideology, women are put into situations that end up killing them for nothing, and end up killing the guys too. this does nothing but serve the enemy.

    I am all for women who want to be in the military, but I am against them doing it toe to toe with the guys, and I am against them equating what they do is any way reflective of the general doing that men do.

    By measuring the complaining and such, women with 1000 dead make much more noise than the 4 or so million men that died. (not the close to 300-400 million men worldwide in all conflicts).

    Violence comes in all genders, and neither one of the sexes holds a monopoly on “manipulation” of situations…they just approach it differently.

    Oh I agree… but one side has a protection and backing of an ideology that erases what they do, and has a much lower bar of conduct. I have seen women hit themselves and then claim the guy did it. that’s a form of situation manipulation that is backed by the monopoly power over life the state has.

    So again, you can’t equate the two. She comes into a hospital with a real accident, not abuse, and her husband may go to jail. He comes in with a steak knife in his shoulder and the nursing manuals and laws do not compel the staff to call the police. Did you know that? ever read the stuff from S.A.F.E.?

    Erin Pizzey, who creted the first womens shelter had this balanced view. I would suggest you read her stuff. she pointed out the full real dynamic and wanted to help. read how her more realistic view was literally pounded out of view by communist feminists. Back when the meetings had people calling each other comrade and there were brutish butch lesbians as brown shirters. She had to flee England because they would kill her.

    She is erased as Stalin erased people. while we have places who celebrate killers and such, her contribution has been erased because of the sisterhood.

    My current background in the military is in the medical field. I’m also pursing another degree in Public Health, focusing on Violence Studies, War and Conflict and Disaster Management. Part of my research and expertise is on gender issues, but I also have far more experience and background in Forensic Sciences, Criminal Justice, and Sex Crimes.

    So your so inculcated that your going to have a problem. the whole field has turned into a sham. I went trhough it. I was part of that sham meat grinder. My ex faked her murder. She disappeared for a while. Of course she only appeared just before they were to indict me. we had dual custody, after she returned from vacationing with family and watching the court system and people trained as you were, she took the kid. She got the fight out of venue, neither her or the kid was in the state that she played games. But since I sent the kid home since the police were making it impossible to take care of him, and the job was being destroyed. Turned out that she hooked up with a person with your exact credentials that they conspired to the outcome.

    If it wasn’t for another woman that I had no romantic relationship with, but our kids played together, and whose husbands life was destroyed by the system (As well as the children), she showed me how they were going to ‘get me’. so she volunteered to pick up my son, that way there was no link. she made sure to have her and her friends call me at home, and talk to me every few hours. That way there was no gap in time for them to insert a story. she made sure that I didn’t enter the apartment where she was abusing the child, that way I wouldn’t get blamed. She made it zero contact, but that didn’t mean that my ex didn’t try to get a bruise to be blamed on me.

    Wait. it goes on. After joint custody, she took off. she has never fulfilled her terms of it. it gets wackier. I paid my support, never got to see my son. I remember the day I finally saved up enough to see him after a few years. The false murder game destroyed a almost 6 figure career when I was in my early 20s. her expert with the same biased training as her, exlained that by doing that, the court would take more from me.

    Well, my son ran around the airport screaming that his father didn’t come visit him. I was the last person off the plane and he never remembered me. we have only played catch once. I am a physicist, my son I now a mathematics scholar. I have not been a part of his life.

    So a few years later, after a couple more puppies, and such, she then takes him, takes her other two children, then goes into a bank to rob it. my son ends up waiting in a jail for half a day before he decides to call my parents to pick him up. she served almost 2 years in federal prison for that.. and he got to live with my parents. Not because we went to court. No… the experts said don’t do that. she will blame you for not enough child support and you will end up being punished for her bank robbery! (this was after a nice supreme court judge who tried to help was side blinded by a false claim of abuse, of which everyone knows all men are abusers and rapists).

    So I ended up continuing to pay her child suppor even though the boy stopped living with her daily. He couldn’t come live with me since she would then fight and I would lose, and have to pay more money and see him even less. so I also had to pay my parents to help them too.

    Several familes were destroyed, and there was a whole cadre of women with your training who lined up, took state money, took what little money I had to see my son, and then proceeded to tar and feather me because I had a penis.

    You see such things tend to knock you right out of your liberal leftist world. How could a guy who has a great job, nice attitude, loves to help people, generous, and so on… end up in jail for a murder that never happened? Losing his career… his biological posterity… and so forth? when he never did a thing.

    So you want to know how I know so much. well you see I had ten years of hell to sit around an apartment when I wasn’t working and saving to read. (carl, are you taking notes? Still want my amazing ability). and combine that with what my family taught me of the germans and the Russians from our Latvian family history.

    I read the nursing books, and your text books. I found out the sham science that backs most of it up. how it is one sided, and how the other side is “jammed”. I learned how political movements work. how they are constructed. How useful idiots are created, and lots of stuff that we forgot because we don’t know it exists. I read the darker side of psychology, how the Frankfurt school promoted sexuality, Freudian ideas (Freud is dead, but from him, to Frankfurt school, to Columbia, to boas, to mead, to Kinsey, etc. a clear ideological trail leading directly back to soviet communism).

    You’re a part of that system because you so easy conflate and reletivate. Your training forces you to come at discussions from a more moderate point, but it’s not a point of equal to equal. Your above it. it’s a sociopathic view that many medical people pick up on as natural because its needed in their work. To be above it and to be able to see the interplay so one can analyze it. What do you think sociopaths do?

    Personally, I’ve never studied “Women’s Studies”. Medical Anthropology happens to be one of my many interests, however, I only listed the books I did before as a simple selection of historical essays/readings, not as an aggressive submission of proof of anything. I find your conversational approach intriguing, because you certainly have a wide range of trivia at your fingertips, but unfortunately you come across with what reads as emotional anger and arrogance. This takes away from the presentation of your arguments.

    Your right. And its not “trivia”. See how your reflex is to insure I am lower than you?

    Can you see it?

    Your contribution is “a simple selection of historical essays/readings”
    My contribution is “trivia”

    Even when you’re trying to be moderate you cant see how your needling the other. you cant see that you very well did select those things for a reason. Or are you going to tell me that after your training, you now believe we do random things with no purpose? No, we do everything for a purpose. Even select books and articles.

    I am glad you find the approach intriguing. I am sorry that it reads like emotional anger, and arrogance… but think of it contextually.

    Have you been taught that to be assertive with facts is just and valid discourse? Or have you been taught that to do so is to assert the individual, and the group ethos is better, and so one must hammer the bent nail, and call it arrogant?

    How I come accorss is unfortunate. I agree… but you have a schema. You have a color and tint to your world. I can see that, and I think (though I cant speak for her) that the blog owner sees it too.

    I know that as a person learning from the system, you have been led down a very specific corridor of information. do you realize that?

    My training is in physics, and so my argument style is from debating at Bronx science. it comes across as anger because the person at the other end of it is forced to either concede or has to contort.

    This is more like legal debate, and what people see as anger, is a skill to box them in and leave them no quarter in their logical point. I never expected to tussle with average people with poor debate skills, stunted histories, stunted education, stunted experience, and so forth. I expected to debate (and do) with giants in their field, who will not be so nice with the debate since everything lies on who is right. (which is why a top geneticist is having a ball discussing complex theories in genomic mathematics and things like that. I am equivalent to a power weight lifter, except it was my mind muscle I built up).

    I am actually very unemotional in my arguing, though often sensational or pushing a bit to make a point stand out in high relief. I seldom have a reasoned person as you on the other end. so as with anything we start off on the foot with the best odds.

    Others have had discussions with me on this kind of thing. everyone is not used to smart discourse, and having their ideas challenged outright. I am incapable of telling someone they are wrong politely (i am incapable of that kind of manipulation – with my tools for debate and my knowledge, such manipulative methods never developed).

    I will certainly look in to the writings of Susan Pinker during my research and studies. Having experience in research in cultural anthropology, as well as quantitative scientific studies, , I’ll have to disagree that anthropology is a “soft” science. Your statement simply falls back on the worn cliche’ standard of “good ol boyz” description. I find it amazing when people become so fixed in their philosophical positions, that they fail to consider the alternatives.

    Who is calling whom stone. What philosophical position do I have? keep discussing with me, you will find out that I don’t have a philosophical position. I understand too many philosophies and systems, so I know most are a crock, and cause a hell of a lot of trouble.

    Want me to show you your bias, and how YOU’RE the one with the philosophical position?

    Your argument style here was not to argue how anthorpologie is not a soft and subjective science, but to conjur up the feminist famed patriarchy.

    That good old boyz thing never existed. It’s a product of Marxism, and its description of fixed classes (that never existed) in a capitalist state. Fat cats, are his invention too. Or haven’t you read das capital?

    You are attempting to discount my assertion by making my argument feeble through associating it with a politically correct propagandist entity that we all believe exists, but doesn’t. [this believe is actually held more by women, because women DO have a female equivalent of the old boys network. I can find the studies that show that women favor women out of hand, while men don’t. it was a great study, it showed that a woman would hire a man and mix her interests in business (which makes sense since normally her business area is home, not abstract away from home), while the man didn’t).

    In order to pass your anthropology courses you have to accept the dikta. Do you think that I would pass if I challenged the things being taught by showing that the history lays out that the people making the assertion were shams? Not at all… in school one must have the same answers as the indoctrinating teacher or said teacher will ruin you. those that adopt right thinking faster are rewarded. (the darker side of skinner, freud, etc).

    Much of what we knew “scientifically” as little as 50 years ago has been disproven, (such as the belief of miasma). Much of what we “know” today, will be obsolete tomorrow. This is a simple truth.

    Actually not. This is a fallacious leftist view of science and another philosophical wedge you have been taught. Miasma is not false, if you understand it in its proper context. In fact, one can argue that miasma is a precursor to understanding the concepts of germs and contamination.

    But that doesn’t jive with the new left philosophical view that science is not consitent, that there isn’t an absolute, etc.

    Biology till it married physics (and I am a physicist, so I get a lesson in complexity that you just don’t get. I can tell you how things operate from quanta, to micro, macro, and on and on). Till it did that, biology was like a worm with a skeleton… mostly soft, with some hard parts.

    The fallacy in the assertion above has to do with “what we knew scientifically”. Miasma was never known scientifically. When it was examined scientifically, it was discarded.

    So only huge categories of science built on foundational lies are the way you describe. The areas of physics, mathematics, chemistry, now bioloty, etc… they are all hard and absolute.

    And a concept of absolute knowlge that never changes is anathema to Marxism and current philosophy.

    As a really competent person in my field (and others as well – as carl can attest to), my grasp of reality is not philosophical. I cant answer the question I do and have the insight I have that ‘intrigues’ because if I had philosophical view, you could know where I am coming from and know the rest of it.

    Its this ‘knowing’ that keeps you asserting these philosophical points as truth, and assigning my truths as philosophical points.

    In physics this can be described as a two body universe. In a closed universe with only two particles, which one is moving?

    If you keep out the facts by calling them trivia, you get to reduce your view to the two body universe. And you reduce the argument to each of us asserting the opposite about each other. so I might say… I am holding still… but you are moving…. You will say… no no, I am holding still and you are moving.

    Without a third body of reference, we cant tell. See how philosophy screws with your head. A simple systemic truth is not available to you because you don’t have the real world meta knowledge to see it. whats more, is that your reflex is to reduce the situation this way, to then create an argument ability to flip things that normally cant be flipable.

    I don’t have time either… though I hope my answeres here gave you food for thought. Its all they are really intended to do.

    Your list of readings is heavily skewed, and until you realize it you wont read things that challeng them. they are skewed to create the concept that violence and such stems from maleness… but violence is a tool, and if women want to be violent or have the fruits of that, they have to engage a tool, not execute an action. This gives them a PHILOSOPHICAL advantage in claiming that all violence comes from the tool.

    Take that one and think about that… your training is missing the negative games…

    On another note… I have read a lot in forensic medicine, and other things. its still archaic. I can list out so many things that they should do that they don’t its ridiculous. Some of it being incredibly basic, other things having to do with creating a better set of data.

    As long as you’re looking for the answer you want, you will never see the answer you don’t want.

    There is a reason why men are giving up. it’s the same reason that a person knocks over the king on a chessboard. But these reasons are being hidden behind feminist ideology and blame tactics. And so they get to define the acceptable area that your allowed to look for answers. This means that they can keep any real progress from happening (lysenkoism) by defining where your allowed to look. You are allowed to look for needles in haystacks, but the area your allowed to look in has no haystacks.

    Twenty years of martial arts, meditation, and some heavy duty experiences in my life, in addition to other studies in “hard” sciences, have taught me that we ARE more than the sum of our physical parts.

    Actually not. that’s a bastardization of the concept for philosophical purposes.

    It’s a systemic truth, that agglomerations have different properties and more properties than the singular parts. A lever is a stick, a fulcrum and two weights (one being variably applied). Apart they can do no useful work.

    It may appear magical that they have more to them than the parts, but in truth, logically, a machine cant exceed what its parts can do.

    So a lever seems to have more ability to move weight, but does it? conservation of energy shows that there is no magic, no ability beyond the mechanical advantage of rearranging the parts.

    The only way to have that philosophical view is to be amazed by a preconception of limits.

    I can get into why or what you HAVE to think to support what you are saying.
    To a physicist, that view is not there (or not as much). there is a whole branch of sciences related to ‘emergence’, and similar things.

    You and I cant hold all the different potentials that the machine can do in our heads at once. In fact, most of us never test out our machines to the point of knowing the utter limits.

    So the idea tha we ARE more than the sum of the parts comes from the disparity between what we think we know, and can extrapolate from understanding a system, and what that system surprises us in doing.

    Such things are common to Artificuial intelligence where extremely complex behavior is exhibited by very simple rules. Take flocking as an example. seems hard. But its just a set of a few rules. With that you can get hundreds of individuals to appear to act as one.

    If you don’t know these principals, you magically think that the assembly has more ability that was inherent in it. no, it has more ability that your model inherently was able to project it having.

    See the difference?

    Your view is philosophical… it fills in the blanks with a kind of mysticism.

    Failure to know all the features and abilities of something from first blush, doesn’t embue it with abilities outside the sum of its parts.

    In fact, all of physics and the world around you shows that truth. physics couldn’t get the hard results it gets if it didn’t understand the world in absolute terms and understand that something cant have properties outside what its parts have. the parts together can accomplish more work than apart, but ONLY if they are arranged in ways that give them access to principals that they exploit. Combine the lever, fulcrum and weights in the wrong configuration, and the parts don’t exceed what they can do. the trick is understanding that your minds preference doesn’t generally make it consider such things at all, or as part of a COMPLETE solution space.

    It’s a privileged view that keeps you from seeing.

    I think this might wake you up a bit.

    In the video you will see a group of basketball players, some in white and some in black passing two balls around. Your goal is to count how many times the ball is passed by those wearing white shirts. It’s that simple. Remember, count just the passes of the ball by those wearing white. Once the movie is over, write down the number of passes you have counted.

    DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

    http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

    After you have watched the video go to this page to understand your results

    http://www.mercola.com/MindBlowingVideo/index.htm

    then follow the links…

    most find out that they don’t know themselves as much as they think they do.
    nor how they operate at all… know that there are whole areas of science and politics that work based on such knowledge, and such is not taught to the students that are wishing to make a positive career out of it.

  45. Artfldgr Says:

    Thanks for pointing out where I didn’t catch the assertion!!! Good catch!!! And you will always find me happy to find out where I wasn’t consistent. Usually I am consistent, but scattered.

    Your presentation of information is a bit scattered, and your thought processes seem erratic judging by your choice of language.

    I think divergently not convergently, makes for great discussions as one thing can literally lead anywhere, rather than several things converge on one thing. The other is that I am writing in between breaks and such, not as part of some evening relaxation. I type fast, and think fast, and normally people review and check their work. When I am answering I don’t have the time, so I try to just get it out there. if you read first drafts a lot then you will notice that they generally are not like Mozart cantatas either. However scattered as I may be a bit, you’re looking at a first draft, uncorrected, tract. If I was intelligentsia I could pump out papers by the week, and hire an editor to smooth out the bumps (as a friend does for me from time to time).

    The real hard part is that I know so much in so many different categories and have such a small space to write in (given the full histories and other things whole books can be written on singular phrases in these issues). I dominate conversation way too much that way, and while you might not think so, I do hold back a whole lot of stuff. (I also tend to hold back stuff that will lead people to the fruitcakes first, before the history. Otherwise they will go from conclusion to fact and not from fact to conclusion).

    Albert Einstein’s history of domestic violence/spouse abuse.

    I didn’t bring it up as it would make scattered even harder to understand. Faulting me for not creating a whole piece and a perfect explanation wont work, I will address that, as I will address other similar things.

    Care to list out the abuse? The evidence? Care to consider the dynamic of relationships and understand that the dynamic of woman not responsible for all outcomes is a false assertion. A person in a situation, even to the quantum level (Schrödinger), can not separate their actions or inactions from the situation. feminists love to cherry pick, they love to change the definitions, and they love to project what they think they know now into the past. so Christians in the 10th century are faulted for not having the same truth that wasn’t developed till the 14 and 15th centuries and is common knowledge now.

    I have read over a half dozen biographies, and I have also read the political instructions of desensitization and such in which the idea was to conflate and deconstruct and change (Stalinist), the perception of the past. To remove it from its proper context and to misunderstand it to reach a modern political goal.

    Only modern feminists would say that being distant to a harpy was abuse. Just as they tried to claim that she helped with the math. While this has been debunked, the fact that there are a bunch of useful idiots still towing the popular lies is easy to find. In fact, the more you get to the bubble world of women’s studies, which refuses to look at reality as what it is, the more distant the facts and such becomes. Stalinism does that. this is the main reason that most of them cant debate or refuse to, since to do so would then create the situation in which they find out the details of what was kept from them. this is why they prefer the psychological act of ‘jamming’. Some are loud at it, others do it through a more seeming introspective point (like you), but in essence they spend a lot of time wearing the other down, by constantly throwing little things as to omissions, or this poiont or that point. by doing this, they win when the other is tired of writing paragraphs for each sentence they spit.

    Bet you thought I didn’t know… I can tell you even better techniques, but this one is common in the persons that practice it pretend to themselves that they are on the quest for truth and education and such, but in fact their whole set of points is never meant to converge to a solution, but only lead another person arund and around in a circle till they give up.

    That’s not winning a debate… that’s equivalent to winning a chess game by punching out your opponent. In this way feminists are actually much more violent than contemporary men. if you consider violence as being in the attack, not in the methods used. But feminists changed that, and so sneaky attacks and barbs, and games are not seen that way, as they favor women.

    As far as mileva, well… isn’t it interesting that she attended a school in 1886/7, a time when feminists claim women weren’t allowed? Heck they were allowed, they just didn’t get the position through entitlement, they had to actually compete against the men toe to toe and eye to eye. Not like today. which is why we don’t have great women any more AND why we don’t have great men either. All standards were lowered to be ‘fair’, and so society moving into the future has been cheated by what could be in favor of lower productivity so that the ILLUSION of the body not determining the outcome is created. Read Harrison Bergeron and think deeply as that’s what’s going on now, just no so overt.

    The extent of Mileva’s contributions to Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis Papers is controversial. According to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva [6]. Senta Troemel-Ploetz, a German linguist, says that the ideas may have been Albert’s, but Mileva did the mathematics. Neither of these claims are likely.[7][8]

    Notice how that sentence starts out saying it’s controversial, and then shows that it’s a lie. How can that be controversial, it doesn’t exist?

    Go to wiki and you can work out that the reality of abuse and such is false too. look who is doing the work, what they believe, what ideology they support. Remember socialism is end justifies the means, and so all those people who happily support it have accepted that as their mantra.

    The case for Mileva as co-genius mostly depends on letters in which Albert referred to “our” theory and “our” work and on a divorce agreement in which Albert promised her his Nobel Prize money. He gave the money to Mileva but he did not publicly acknowledge any putative scientific involvement by her in his work. Mileva used the award money to support their sons. Based on newly released letters (sealed by Albert’s stepdaughter Margot Einstein until 20 years after her death), Walter Isaacson (Time 168(3):50-55, July 17, 2006) reported that Mileva invested Albert’s Nobel Prize money in three apartment buildings in Zurich.

    Care to look up the dates? Where they were? what political changes and ideology she followed? Etc? nope, for the most part you’re a womens studies parrot. You force others (if they can) to lead you to the real facts, while most you get to have a haughty false superiority over. that’s learning sociopathic contempt for the weak, who are weak because they fail to spend their lives trying to oppose lies and manipulation.

    The contention that the Soviet scientist Abraham Joffe claimed to have seen the original manuscripts of Einstein’s 1905 papers is not borne out by an examination of the passage in question, in which he clearly attributes them to a single author.

    If you study your COMPLETE history, you will find out that much of whats going on has been clouded. By whom? Track back the assertions and you will find a socialist communist playing games with history, or the definitions of words, etc.

    When Einstein’s surviving son was asked about his own mother’s scientific contribution to the Theory of Special Relativity he couldn’t recall any. Albert remained an extremely fruitful scientist for the rest of his life, producing works of importance long after divorcing Mileva. She, on the other hand, never published any significant work and was never mentioned, including by any of hers or Albert’s acquaintances, as having contributed any ideas to Einstein’s work. Mileva never claimed that she took any important part in the scientific work attributed to Albert

    So you think I am going to believe that einstein, a man who wrote a lot as to the dynamics of peace, would be an arbitrary abuser? Not likely. More likely and more to the truth, einstein did what most people do when they are married and a divorce is a bad thing (unlike today, remember not to project back then), he basically went into his work.

    However, feminists describe a man who isnt doing the housework, and is doing such other work, as being abusive. Of course, the wife got part of HIS noble prize money and lived off of it, but of course his working on his stuff to her exclusion was also abuse.

    Take some time and track back the abuse claims, find specifics. Look to who made the claim first. Was it a well known historian attempting to keep the facts straight, or is it a bunch of feminist harpies with a end justifies the means game? you will be surprised if you think your womens studies and others actually taught you. they play half truths, not whole truths. For instance did you know that before the baby boom womens attendance in college was above 40%? One of the favorites I have heard is them claiming, that before 19XX, a woman couldn’t get a degree from Harvard. Yup, that’s true, since Harvard was a mens college and the womens Harvard was called Radcliff, so a woman would get her degree from the ivy league Radcliff. Women only got to Harvard after they gutted things. but that was not to make women enter, that was to poison the men that the institution produced, and change its philosophies from free market capitliasm to fascism and corporatism, along with end justifies the means. so being a Harvard man before that and being a Harvard man after that became two different things, as enron will let you see.

    I agree with some of your statements concerning the military, and women. As I said, I have serve d my country for over 20 years. I will say, you must be careful not to believe so much of what you read regarding women in the military without full understanding of the facts. Journalism, while a noble art, is notorious for getting the story wrong.

    Can we have a quick eye to eye here? We are not discussing the women in the military that can do their load, that intend to serve with honor, that are full military people in every way. Many of them happen to be lesbians, women with more male like cognition (something that is totally impossible in a tabula rasa system, but completely and expected in a genetic system that mixes and matches things!)

    I have no problem with them. I see no reason to even discuss them. in fact, technically my discussion is about how the harpies and the other curmudgeons with an agenda spoil the whole contribution of such women.

    I have full understanding of the facts. I am 4F, I cant fight (deaf handicap), but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know anything. you will find out that because I had an eduction more like the founding fathers gentleman farmers, bundt, Lincoln, etc… that you will find out that I know things in detail. Detail that probably would surprise you… heck I surprised that poor marine in times square during one of their public displays of hand to hand combat training. Poor guy. Though I will say that unlike his contemporaries he will probably not underestimate civilians.

    Until feminism, women in the military had a very positive position in our and the worlds mentality. However ulterior motives changes that, and the way that things were changes were designed to weaken and make us eneffective. After all, the sisterhood is about getting communism to take over, and then celebrate them as heroes (though historically speaking they get slaughtered wholesale as the side they are fighting for realizes that they are traitors, and will turn the minute that they realize the reality of the situation).

    Some of what you say about a few women in the military is true…but to generalize so easily about “all” is a fallacy.

    No it’s not. its reality. It’s a fallacy to attempt to not generalize when it can be done.

    Here is a question, how many women have completed the army obstacle course that the men are required to pass in order to not be drummed out? ZERO.

    Not one woman has ever completed the course.

    So I CAN generalize. I can generalize that given the distribution of muscle fat and make up, that a pound of pound women are not physically capable of the same versatile range as men. period. men suffer a bit at fine motor skills way at the end of the scale, but their range covers that all the way up to moving huge weights.

    Women cant even do the same exercises in the same way. they had to be removed from dual basic because the women were ending up in the hospital. which shows that I do know that there are a heck of a lot of women with the right spirit, but not the right equipment.

    This isn’t a generalization. All one has to do is look at the differences in sports like powerlifting, boxing, and football. That gives one the idea of the tops. Backing it down by half, and the tops of women can’t come close.

    We are made for certain jobs. Period. men are made for conflict on behalf of their women
    Larger lung capacity, thicker bone plates, more powerful muscles pound for pound.

    Boxing being a very good example. boxing, unlike other sports, has fine divisions between opponents. 10 pounds makes an overwhelming difference between two men. there is a reason why guys like me rarely get into fights. We cause real damage. I am just under 6’3” and over 220. I am lean, and so have the same mass as Mike Tyson.

    That leads to the obvious though. That a woman in the military does not have to be the grunt. She can do the things you have mentioned. These are important things to do. the whole logistical miracle that is military deployment (really really wonderful and amazing), is more critical than a single platoon. Though the platoon guys will get medals, and the guys in the rear wont (I consider the girls who do their loads to be ‘guys’, and part of the team).

    I will ask you a serious question that will reveal a lot about men and women and such.

    Have you ever seen most men discriminate a woman when she is carrying her share of the work? I am not talking about the resistance they create at first to insure that your serious enough about being a part of the group and that they can trust you. I am talking about after that.

    Everywhere I have ever worked, this was true. However, when the new guy gets to dump risk on others and doesn’t get less than they do, that’s when trouble starts. When a girl enters a road crew, she gets to wave flags. Its dangerous, but not as dangerous daily as working the work, and the danger can be abridged by being awake, and so forth. so men used to use waving the flags as a break in which they worked. when she enters the group, she takes that since she cant, do and every guy in the team now has increased risk. in essence she is changing the risk dynamic. They realize that in this case more risk doesn’t get them more reward, and endangers their families future. So their grousing isn’t because they don’t want a girl, their grousing is because feminists have redefined the inputs to the equation so that real world considerations that would get them to understand, realize, and not demonize, are not allowed in the dialogue.

    I’ve seen men complain in medical about the smallest things in order to avoid being shipped to the sandbox.

    They are grousing to avoid a level of work that the women don’t do. a medical discharge for them is not the same as an honorable discharge. Is it? the benefits mix is different, isn’t it? and they don’t get a free ticket out, and that grousing effects their military careers too (the pregnant woman that leaves though doesn’t have to worry about that, does she?).

    What you are trying to do is reletevate through words, a man who gets sick because he knows that his chances of dying is higher because of women, than the chances of that woman dying.

    From TODAYS news.
    Record Number of Female Soldiers Fall
    http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2226/context/cover/

    What was that number? 33 women…

    How many men? the article doesn’t mention it. that would ruin the flavor for the women.

    In the Gulf War–the first major conflict where women soldiers served alongside male soldiers–216,000 women were enlisted and 16 were killed.

    Do you realize that that rate makes it safer for you to be in Iraq at war than living normally stateside?

    Its .0007%

    in Afghanistan the numbers get more in line with the work but they are still super tiny.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, only 17,000 female soldiers are enlisted. But their deaths account for 33 of the 1,000 estimated fatalities among servicewomen in U.S. history.

    That’s 0.19 %

    However, think of the diminishment of the men’s contribution such arguments make.
    In the history of the American military, only 1000 women have died.

    How many men? And you can’t say that it’s because women weren’t allowed to fight, they are now, and everyone is grousing over .19%. Women have been in every American war, and even more involved in the earlier ones!

    However if you were going to go up against the Russian military with their system of hazing that kills the men that are unfit, would you want a military that is 10% female?

    Historians estimate that only 20,000 American women have fought in battle since Margaret Corbin hoisted her petticoats and took charge of a canon after her husband fell in the Revolutionary War.

    Lets see… you can look here as to flight kill ratios. (in fact you can figure out from other reports how many men died doing the kind of work that women do now but don’t get killed now for) http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

    Your odds of dying in Normandy were horrible, and because of how things are now, the men will not fight like that again. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm

    Does the uplifting of 1000 women justify the downgrading of several million men?

    Many of these men died in battles in which the number of men killed in one day exceeds by several times the number of all women that have ever served in history.

    The problem is that without a reality based set of ideals, not ideology, women are put into situations that end up killing them for nothing, and end up killing the guys too. this does nothing but serve the enemy.

    I am all for women who want to be in the military, but I am against them doing it toe to toe with the guys, and I am against them equating what they do is any way reflective of the general doing that men do.

    By measuring the complaining and such, women with 1000 dead make much more noise than the 4 or so million men that died. (not the close to 300-400 million men worldwide in all conflicts).

    Violence comes in all genders, and neither one of the sexes holds a monopoly on “manipulation” of situations…they just approach it differently.

    Oh I agree… but one side has a protection and backing of an ideology that erases what they do, and has a much lower bar of conduct. I have seen women hit themselves and then claim the guy did it. that’s a form of situation manipulation that is backed by the monopoly power over life the state has.

    So again, you can’t equate the two. She comes into a hospital with a real accident, not abuse, and her husband may go to jail. He comes in with a steak knife in his shoulder and the nursing manuals and laws do not compel the staff to call the police. Did you know that? ever read the stuff from S.A.F.E.?

    Erin Pizzey, who creted the first womens shelter had this balanced view. I would suggest you read her stuff. she pointed out the full real dynamic and wanted to help. read how her more realistic view was literally pounded out of view by communist feminists. Back when the meetings had people calling each other comrade and there were brutish butch lesbians as brown shirters. She had to flee England because they would kill her.

    She is erased as Stalin erased people. while we have places who celebrate killers and such, her contribution has been erased because of the sisterhood.

    My current background in the military is in the medical field. I’m also pursing another degree in Public Health, focusing on Violence Studies, War and Conflict and Disaster Management. Part of my research and expertise is on gender issues, but I also have far more experience and background in Forensic Sciences, Criminal Justice, and Sex Crimes.

    So your so inculcated that your going to have a problem. the whole field has turned into a sham. I went trhough it. I was part of that sham meat grinder. My ex faked her murder. She disappeared for a while. Of course she only appeared just before they were to indict me. we had dual custody, after she returned from vacationing with family and watching the court system and people trained as you were, she took the kid. She got the fight out of venue, neither her or the kid was in the state that she played games. But since I sent the kid home since the police were making it impossible to take care of him, and the job was being destroyed. Turned out that she hooked up with a person with your exact credentials that they conspired to the outcome.

    If it wasn’t for another woman that I had no romantic relationship with, but our kids played together, and whose husbands life was destroyed by the system (As well as the children), she showed me how they were going to ‘get me’. so she volunteered to pick up my son, that way there was no link. she made sure to have her and her friends call me at home, and talk to me every few hours. That way there was no gap in time for them to insert a story. she made sure that I didn’t enter the apartment where she was abusing the child, that way I wouldn’t get blamed. She made it zero contact, but that didn’t mean that my ex didn’t try to get a bruise to be blamed on me.

    Wait. it goes on. After joint custody, she took off. she has never fulfilled her terms of it. it gets wackier. I paid my support, never got to see my son. I remember the day I finally saved up enough to see him after a few years. The false murder game destroyed a almost 6 figure career when I was in my early 20s. her expert with the same biased training as her, exlained that by doing that, the court would take more from me.

    Well, my son ran around the airport screaming that his father didn’t come visit him. I was the last person off the plane and he never remembered me. we have only played catch once. I am a physicist, my son I now a mathematics scholar. I have not been a part of his life.

    So a few years later, after a couple more puppies, and such, she then takes him, takes her other two children, then goes into a bank to rob it. my son ends up waiting in a jail for half a day before he decides to call my parents to pick him up. she served almost 2 years in federal prison for that.. and he got to live with my parents. Not because we went to court. No… the experts said don’t do that. she will blame you for not enough child support and you will end up being punished for her bank robbery! (this was after a nice supreme court judge who tried to help was side blinded by a false claim of abuse, of which everyone knows all men are abusers and rapists).

    So I ended up continuing to pay her child suppor even though the boy stopped living with her daily. He couldn’t come live with me since she would then fight and I would lose, and have to pay more money and see him even less. so I also had to pay my parents to help them too.

    Several familes were destroyed, and there was a whole cadre of women with your training who lined up, took state money, took what little money I had to see my son, and then proceeded to tar and feather me because I had a penis.

    You see such things tend to knock you right out of your liberal leftist world. How could a guy who has a great job, nice attitude, loves to help people, generous, and so on… end up in jail for a murder that never happened? Losing his career… his biological posterity… and so forth? when he never did a thing.

    So you want to know how I know so much. well you see I had ten years of hell to sit around an apartment when I wasn’t working and saving to read. (carl, are you taking notes? Still want my amazing ability). and combine that with what my family taught me of the germans and the Russians from our Latvian family history.

    I read the nursing books, and your text books. I found out the sham science that backs most of it up. how it is one sided, and how the other side is “jammed”. I learned how political movements work. how they are constructed. How useful idiots are created, and lots of stuff that we forgot because we don’t know it exists. I read the darker side of psychology, how the Frankfurt school promoted sexuality, Freudian ideas (Freud is dead, but from him, to Frankfurt school, to Columbia, to boas, to mead, to Kinsey, etc. a clear ideological trail leading directly back to soviet communism).

    You’re a part of that system because you so easy conflate and reletivate. Your training forces you to come at discussions from a more moderate point, but it’s not a point of equal to equal. Your above it. it’s a sociopathic view that many medical people pick up on as natural because its needed in their work. To be above it and to be able to see the interplay so one can analyze it. What do you think sociopaths do?

    Personally, I’ve never studied “Women’s Studies”. Medical Anthropology happens to be one of my many interests, however, I only listed the books I did before as a simple selection of historical essays/readings, not as an aggressive submission of proof of anything. I find your conversational approach intriguing, because you certainly have a wide range of trivia at your fingertips, but unfortunately you come across with what reads as emotional anger and arrogance. This takes away from the presentation of your arguments.

    Your right. And its not “trivia”. See how your reflex is to insure I am lower than you?

    Can you see it?

    Your contribution is “a simple selection of historical essays/readings”
    My contribution is “trivia”

    Even when you’re trying to be moderate you cant see how your needling the other. you cant see that you very well did select those things for a reason. Or are you going to tell me that after your training, you now believe we do random things with no purpose? No, we do everything for a purpose. Even select books and articles.

    I am glad you find the approach intriguing. I am sorry that it reads like emotional anger, and arrogance… but think of it contextually.

    Have you been taught that to be assertive with facts is just and valid discourse? Or have you been taught that to do so is to assert the individual, and the group ethos is better, and so one must hammer the bent nail, and call it arrogant?

    How I come accorss is unfortunate. I agree… but you have a schema. You have a color and tint to your world. I can see that, and I think (though I cant speak for her) that the blog owner sees it too.

    I know that as a person learning from the system, you have been led down a very specific corridor of information. do you realize that?

    My training is in physics, and so my argument style is from debating at Bronx science. it comes across as anger because the person at the other end of it is forced to either concede or has to contort.

    This is more like legal debate, and what people see as anger, is a skill to box them in and leave them no quarter in their logical point. I never expected to tussle with average people with poor debate skills, stunted histories, stunted education, stunted experience, and so forth. I expected to debate (and do) with giants in their field, who will not be so nice with the debate since everything lies on who is right. (which is why a top geneticist is having a ball discussing complex theories in genomic mathematics and things like that. I am equivalent to a power weight lifter, except it was my mind muscle I built up).

    I am actually very unemotional in my arguing, though often sensational or pushing a bit to make a point stand out in high relief. I seldom have a reasoned person as you on the other end. so as with anything we start off on the foot with the best odds.

    Others have had discussions with me on this kind of thing. everyone is not used to smart discourse, and having their ideas challenged outright. I am incapable of telling someone they are wrong politely (i am incapable of that kind of manipulation – with my tools for debate and my knowledge, such manipulative methods never developed).

    I will certainly look in to the writings of Susan Pinker during my research and studies. Having experience in research in cultural anthropology, as well as quantitative scientific studies, , I’ll have to disagree that anthropology is a “soft” science. Your statement simply falls back on the worn cliche’ standard of “good ol boyz” description. I find it amazing when people become so fixed in their philosophical positions, that they fail to consider the alternatives.

    Who is calling whom stone. What philosophical position do I have? keep discussing with me, you will find out that I don’t have a philosophical position. I understand too many philosophies and systems, so I know most are a crock, and cause a hell of a lot of trouble.

    Want me to show you your bias, and how YOU’RE the one with the philosophical position?

    Your argument style here was not to argue how anthorpologie is not a soft and subjective science, but to conjur up the feminist famed patriarchy.

    That good old boyz thing never existed. It’s a product of Marxism, and its description of fixed classes (that never existed) in a capitalist state. Fat cats, are his invention too. Or haven’t you read das capital?

    You are attempting to discount my assertion by making my argument feeble through associating it with a politically correct propagandist entity that we all believe exists, but doesn’t. [this believe is actually held more by women, because women DO have a female equivalent of the old boys network. I can find the studies that show that women favor women out of hand, while men don’t. it was a great study, it showed that a woman would hire a man and mix her interests in business (which makes sense since normally her business area is home, not abstract away from home), while the man didn’t).

    In order to pass your anthropology courses you have to accept the dikta. Do you think that I would pass if I challenged the things being taught by showing that the history lays out that the people making the assertion were shams? Not at all… in school one must have the same answers as the indoctrinating teacher or said teacher will ruin you. those that adopt right thinking faster are rewarded. (the darker side of skinner, freud, etc).

    Much of what we knew “scientifically” as little as 50 years ago has been disproven, (such as the belief of miasma). Much of what we “know” today, will be obsolete tomorrow. This is a simple truth.

    Actually not. This is a fallacious leftist view of science and another philosophical wedge you have been taught. Miasma is not false, if you understand it in its proper context. In fact, one can argue that miasma is a precursor to understanding the concepts of germs and contamination.

    But that doesn’t jive with the new left philosophical view that science is not consitent, that there isn’t an absolute, etc.

    Biology till it married physics (and I am a physicist, so I get a lesson in complexity that you just don’t get. I can tell you how things operate from quanta, to micro, macro, and on and on). Till it did that, biology was like a worm with a skeleton… mostly soft, with some hard parts.

    The fallacy in the assertion above has to do with “what we knew scientifically”. Miasma was never known scientifically. When it was examined scientifically, it was discarded.

    So only huge categories of science built on foundational lies are the way you describe. The areas of physics, mathematics, chemistry, now bioloty, etc… they are all hard and absolute.

    And a concept of absolute knowlge that never changes is anathema to Marxism and current philosophy.

    As a really competent person in my field (and others as well – as carl can attest to), my grasp of reality is not philosophical. I cant answer the question I do and have the insight I have that ‘intrigues’ because if I had philosophical view, you could know where I am coming from and know the rest of it.

    Its this ‘knowing’ that keeps you asserting these philosophical points as truth, and assigning my truths as philosophical points.

    In physics this can be described as a two body universe. In a closed universe with only two particles, which one is moving?

    If you keep out the facts by calling them trivia, you get to reduce your view to the two body universe. And you reduce the argument to each of us asserting the opposite about each other. so I might say… I am holding still… but you are moving…. You will say… no no, I am holding still and you are moving.

    Without a third body of reference, we cant tell. See how philosophy screws with your head. A simple systemic truth is not available to you because you don’t have the real world meta knowledge to see it. whats more, is that your reflex is to reduce the situation this way, to then create an argument ability to flip things that normally cant be flipable.

    I don’t have time either… though I hope my answeres here gave you food for thought. Its all they are really intended to do.

    Your list of readings is heavily skewed, and until you realize it you wont read things that challeng them. they are skewed to create the concept that violence and such stems from maleness… but violence is a tool, and if women want to be violent or have the fruits of that, they have to engage a tool, not execute an action. This gives them a PHILOSOPHICAL advantage in claiming that all violence comes from the tool.

    Take that one and think about that… your training is missing the negative games…

    On another note… I have read a lot in forensic medicine, and other things. its still archaic. I can list out so many things that they should do that they don’t its ridiculous. Some of it being incredibly basic, other things having to do with creating a better set of data.

    As long as you’re looking for the answer you want, you will never see the answer you don’t want.

    There is a reason why men are giving up. it’s the same reason that a person knocks over the king on a chessboard. But these reasons are being hidden behind feminist ideology and blame tactics. And so they get to define the acceptable area that your allowed to look for answers. This means that they can keep any real progress from happening (lysenkoism) by defining where your allowed to look. You are allowed to look for needles in haystacks, but the area your allowed to look in has no haystacks.

    Twenty years of martial arts, meditation, and some heavy duty experiences in my life, in addition to other studies in “hard” sciences, have taught me that we ARE more than the sum of our physical parts.

    Actually not. that’s a bastardization of the concept for philosophical purposes.

    It’s a systemic truth, that agglomerations have different properties and more properties than the singular parts. A lever is a stick, a fulcrum and two weights (one being variably applied). Apart they can do no useful work.

    It may appear magical that they have more to them than the parts, but in truth, logically, a machine cant exceed what its parts can do.

    So a lever seems to have more ability to move weight, but does it? conservation of energy shows that there is no magic, no ability beyond the mechanical advantage of rearranging the parts.

    The only way to have that philosophical view is to be amazed by a preconception of limits.

    I can get into why or what you HAVE to think to support what you are saying.
    To a physicist, that view is not there (or not as much). there is a whole branch of sciences related to ‘emergence’, and similar things.

    You and I cant hold all the different potentials that the machine can do in our heads at once. In fact, most of us never test out our machines to the point of knowing the utter limits.

    So the idea tha we ARE more than the sum of the parts comes from the disparity between what we think we know, and can extrapolate from understanding a system, and what that system surprises us in doing.

    Such things are common to Artificuial intelligence where extremely complex behavior is exhibited by very simple rules. Take flocking as an example. seems hard. But its just a set of a few rules. With that you can get hundreds of individuals to appear to act as one.

    If you don’t know these principals, you magically think that the assembly has more ability that was inherent in it. no, it has more ability that your model inherently was able to project it having.

    See the difference?

    Your view is philosophical… it fills in the blanks with a kind of mysticism.

    Failure to know all the features and abilities of something from first blush, doesn’t embue it with abilities outside the sum of its parts.

    In fact, all of physics and the world around you shows that truth. physics couldn’t get the hard results it gets if it didn’t understand the world in absolute terms and understand that something cant have properties outside what its parts have. the parts together can accomplish more work than apart, but ONLY if they are arranged in ways that give them access to principals that they exploit. Combine the lever, fulcrum and weights in the wrong configuration, and the parts don’t exceed what they can do. the trick is understanding that your minds preference doesn’t generally make it consider such things at all, or as part of a COMPLETE solution space.

    It’s a privileged view that keeps you from seeing.

    I think this might wake you up a bit.

    In the video you will see a group of basketball players, some in white and some in black passing two balls around. Your goal is to count how many times the ball is passed by those wearing white shirts. It’s that simple. Remember, count just the passes of the ball by those wearing white. Once the movie is over, write down the number of passes you have counted.

    DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

    http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

    After you have watched the video go to this page to understand your results

    http://www.mercola.com/MindBlowingVideo/index.htm

    then follow the links…

    most find out that they don’t know themselves as much as they think they do.
    nor how they operate at all… know that there are whole areas of science and politics that work based on such knowledge, and such is not taught to the students that are wishing to make a positive career out of it.

  46. Artfldgr Says:

    forgot to mention.. the arguments in the book you suggested, showing women in combat (as part of conscripted troops of totalitarian regimes), is also the exact same argument to using children in war.

    all three of those examples used children as combatants, and the vietcong, cambodians, etc used them extensively.

    you cant separate the arguments and reasoning unless your wiling to deny the lefts assertinos of children as adults.

    just look at those pesky third graders who teamed up to wack their teacher for bad grades (i remember when i was a kid and they pushed an elderly woman teacher down 5 flights of stairs putting her i critical, and the day they shot the cop outside my homeroom door. and that was early 70s)

    these kids showed that they are actually more capable than adult women at this kind of thing.

    and none of the parents knew it at all. why? because mom is not home and no family member who cares watches them.

    by the way… admiral farragut recieved his first military commission at the age of 12.

    so… once you can allow women, you can allow children.

    both arguments hinge on special class status. which in equality you dont have any more.

    when the times get tough because of their policies, we will do the same as then it will be an all or nothing fight.

  47. Artfldgr Says:

    forgot to mention.. the arguments in the book you suggested, showing women in combat (as part of conscripted troops of totalitarian regimes), is also the exact same argument to using children in war.

    all three of those examples used children as combatants, and the vietcong, cambodians, etc used them extensively.

    you cant separate the arguments and reasoning unless your wiling to deny the lefts assertinos of children as adults.

    just look at those pesky third graders who teamed up to wack their teacher for bad grades (i remember when i was a kid and they pushed an elderly woman teacher down 5 flights of stairs putting her i critical, and the day they shot the cop outside my homeroom door. and that was early 70s)

    these kids showed that they are actually more capable than adult women at this kind of thing.

    and none of the parents knew it at all. why? because mom is not home and no family member who cares watches them.

    by the way… admiral farragut recieved his first military commission at the age of 12.

    so… once you can allow women, you can allow children.

    both arguments hinge on special class status. which in equality you dont have any more.

    when the times get tough because of their policies, we will do the same as then it will be an all or nothing fight.

  48. Artfldgr Says:

    forgot to mention.. the arguments in the book you suggested, showing women in combat (as part of conscripted troops of totalitarian regimes), is also the exact same argument to using children in war.

    all three of those examples used children as combatants, and the vietcong, cambodians, etc used them extensively.

    you cant separate the arguments and reasoning unless your wiling to deny the lefts assertinos of children as adults.

    just look at those pesky third graders who teamed up to wack their teacher for bad grades (i remember when i was a kid and they pushed an elderly woman teacher down 5 flights of stairs putting her i critical, and the day they shot the cop outside my homeroom door. and that was early 70s)

    these kids showed that they are actually more capable than adult women at this kind of thing.

    and none of the parents knew it at all. why? because mom is not home and no family member who cares watches them.

    by the way… admiral farragut recieved his first military commission at the age of 12.

    so… once you can allow women, you can allow children.

    both arguments hinge on special class status. which in equality you dont have any more.

    when the times get tough because of their policies, we will do the same as then it will be an all or nothing fight.

  49. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    It definitely takes me much more time than you to consider issues, look up facts, and read and learn. I find myself quite intrigued at a number of your comments. Although you disdain my choice of education, one of the reasons I’m here is to try to change what I can of the system. I, too, know its broken, and the only way I could think to try to fix it is to obtain part of an education that will allow me to make positive change.

    As someone who has sat in the courtroom, and reviewed records on sexual assault cases, I’ve been amazed at the lack of good forensic evidence, and astounded at what juries (seemingly arbitrarily) convict men on. One of my interests is in insuring fair trial processes, and in trying to teach Forensic Clinicians and Nurses how to properly gather evidence. I also tend to challenge popular thought, by presenting what seems to me logical issues on client care, and caring for suspects as well as alleged victims. I believe it should be more balanced and systematic. I find that much of the U.S. policy on sexual violence falls under the guidance of the women’s organizations seeking prevention of violence against women which I disagree with. The U.S. Navy Sexual Assault health policy program currently falls under the branch of “women’s health”, which seems to automatically imply that men don’t suffer violence.

    I do have to say, I think your comment about most of the women in the military service being lesbian is in error. Or maybe you meant that most of the women in the military service doing their equal share are lesbian…I wasn’t sure. Being someone who provides medical care to a number of military women,and who has worked with U.S. military women for a number of years, that simply isn’t true. There are some lesbian women, and some gay men, and some who are bi and transgender…but (and I can only speak to my experience) most of the women I work with and medically treat are heterosexual and many of them have been excellent leaders/soldiers/sailors, etc.

    My apologies for prior ‘flippant’ comments/statements. I can certainly see where I was assuming a lot, and shouldn’t have gone there. You bring out some really good points about thought process and writing styles…things I’ll work on paying more attention to in the future.

    You’ve mentioned my list of readings is skewed, and I am certainly open to reading opposing views. I honestly welcome the opportunity. You’ve stated you too have a busy schedule, but if you don’t mind (and I’m sorry for to the group if this is redundant) I’d be grateful for a basic reading list…(don’t overwhelm me…but some baby steps) I’ve since obtained some of your prior suggestions, and (since I read slowly) should be done in a week or so. I also obtained one book on the issues related to Margaret Meade and what is said to be fabrications of research on the Samoans.

    I’ll still disagree on the issues of the mind and spirit. These are separate from our physical make-up, but integrated. It’s not mysticism, in my view…it just is.
    And our minds and spirits can take the drivers seat over our DNA behavioral predispositions.

    Thanks again for taking so much time for a response, and providing some interesting dialog and information. It will take me some time to digest.

  50. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    It definitely takes me much more time than you to consider issues, look up facts, and read and learn. I find myself quite intrigued at a number of your comments. Although you disdain my choice of education, one of the reasons I’m here is to try to change what I can of the system. I, too, know its broken, and the only way I could think to try to fix it is to obtain part of an education that will allow me to make positive change.

    As someone who has sat in the courtroom, and reviewed records on sexual assault cases, I’ve been amazed at the lack of good forensic evidence, and astounded at what juries (seemingly arbitrarily) convict men on. One of my interests is in insuring fair trial processes, and in trying to teach Forensic Clinicians and Nurses how to properly gather evidence. I also tend to challenge popular thought, by presenting what seems to me logical issues on client care, and caring for suspects as well as alleged victims. I believe it should be more balanced and systematic. I find that much of the U.S. policy on sexual violence falls under the guidance of the women’s organizations seeking prevention of violence against women which I disagree with. The U.S. Navy Sexual Assault health policy program currently falls under the branch of “women’s health”, which seems to automatically imply that men don’t suffer violence.

    I do have to say, I think your comment about most of the women in the military service being lesbian is in error. Or maybe you meant that most of the women in the military service doing their equal share are lesbian…I wasn’t sure. Being someone who provides medical care to a number of military women,and who has worked with U.S. military women for a number of years, that simply isn’t true. There are some lesbian women, and some gay men, and some who are bi and transgender…but (and I can only speak to my experience) most of the women I work with and medically treat are heterosexual and many of them have been excellent leaders/soldiers/sailors, etc.

    My apologies for prior ‘flippant’ comments/statements. I can certainly see where I was assuming a lot, and shouldn’t have gone there. You bring out some really good points about thought process and writing styles…things I’ll work on paying more attention to in the future.

    You’ve mentioned my list of readings is skewed, and I am certainly open to reading opposing views. I honestly welcome the opportunity. You’ve stated you too have a busy schedule, but if you don’t mind (and I’m sorry for to the group if this is redundant) I’d be grateful for a basic reading list…(don’t overwhelm me…but some baby steps) I’ve since obtained some of your prior suggestions, and (since I read slowly) should be done in a week or so. I also obtained one book on the issues related to Margaret Meade and what is said to be fabrications of research on the Samoans.

    I’ll still disagree on the issues of the mind and spirit. These are separate from our physical make-up, but integrated. It’s not mysticism, in my view…it just is.
    And our minds and spirits can take the drivers seat over our DNA behavioral predispositions.

    Thanks again for taking so much time for a response, and providing some interesting dialog and information. It will take me some time to digest.

  51. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    It definitely takes me much more time than you to consider issues, look up facts, and read and learn. I find myself quite intrigued at a number of your comments. Although you disdain my choice of education, one of the reasons I’m here is to try to change what I can of the system. I, too, know its broken, and the only way I could think to try to fix it is to obtain part of an education that will allow me to make positive change.

    As someone who has sat in the courtroom, and reviewed records on sexual assault cases, I’ve been amazed at the lack of good forensic evidence, and astounded at what juries (seemingly arbitrarily) convict men on. One of my interests is in insuring fair trial processes, and in trying to teach Forensic Clinicians and Nurses how to properly gather evidence. I also tend to challenge popular thought, by presenting what seems to me logical issues on client care, and caring for suspects as well as alleged victims. I believe it should be more balanced and systematic. I find that much of the U.S. policy on sexual violence falls under the guidance of the women’s organizations seeking prevention of violence against women which I disagree with. The U.S. Navy Sexual Assault health policy program currently falls under the branch of “women’s health”, which seems to automatically imply that men don’t suffer violence.

    I do have to say, I think your comment about most of the women in the military service being lesbian is in error. Or maybe you meant that most of the women in the military service doing their equal share are lesbian…I wasn’t sure. Being someone who provides medical care to a number of military women,and who has worked with U.S. military women for a number of years, that simply isn’t true. There are some lesbian women, and some gay men, and some who are bi and transgender…but (and I can only speak to my experience) most of the women I work with and medically treat are heterosexual and many of them have been excellent leaders/soldiers/sailors, etc.

    My apologies for prior ‘flippant’ comments/statements. I can certainly see where I was assuming a lot, and shouldn’t have gone there. You bring out some really good points about thought process and writing styles…things I’ll work on paying more attention to in the future.

    You’ve mentioned my list of readings is skewed, and I am certainly open to reading opposing views. I honestly welcome the opportunity. You’ve stated you too have a busy schedule, but if you don’t mind (and I’m sorry for to the group if this is redundant) I’d be grateful for a basic reading list…(don’t overwhelm me…but some baby steps) I’ve since obtained some of your prior suggestions, and (since I read slowly) should be done in a week or so. I also obtained one book on the issues related to Margaret Meade and what is said to be fabrications of research on the Samoans.

    I’ll still disagree on the issues of the mind and spirit. These are separate from our physical make-up, but integrated. It’s not mysticism, in my view…it just is.
    And our minds and spirits can take the drivers seat over our DNA behavioral predispositions.

    Thanks again for taking so much time for a response, and providing some interesting dialog and information. It will take me some time to digest.

  52. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    I respect you immensely for being willing to read books that illustrate a point of view completely different from the one you currently hold. I hope you don’t mind if I offer some reading suggestions of my own. Just a few that should hopefully give you an idea of where we’re coming from. These aren’t actual male chauvinist books (if you want some of those, check my sidebar), just ones that display the flaws in the Marxist/feminist worldview.

    Feminist Fantasies by Phyllis Schafly
    Domestic Tranquility by Carolyn LaGraglia
    The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker
    The Road to Malpsychia by Joyce Milton (an indictment of psychiatry and therapy)
    A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell

    Also, The Garbage Generation is available online; it’s linked on my sidebar. Unlike the other books I listed, this one does qualify as male chauvinist, at least in my opinion, but it does an excellent job of showing why doing away with the nuclear family, marriage and fatherhood is very damaging to society, children and adults.

    I’m trying to keep the list short, so I’ll stop now. If you read them, I know it’ll take you a long time to process them, since you clearly are operating on assumptions completely different from those in these books. You deserve a lot of credit for being willing to try.

  53. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    I respect you immensely for being willing to read books that illustrate a point of view completely different from the one you currently hold. I hope you don’t mind if I offer some reading suggestions of my own. Just a few that should hopefully give you an idea of where we’re coming from. These aren’t actual male chauvinist books (if you want some of those, check my sidebar), just ones that display the flaws in the Marxist/feminist worldview.

    Feminist Fantasies by Phyllis Schafly
    Domestic Tranquility by Carolyn LaGraglia
    The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker
    The Road to Malpsychia by Joyce Milton (an indictment of psychiatry and therapy)
    A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell

    Also, The Garbage Generation is available online; it’s linked on my sidebar. Unlike the other books I listed, this one does qualify as male chauvinist, at least in my opinion, but it does an excellent job of showing why doing away with the nuclear family, marriage and fatherhood is very damaging to society, children and adults.

    I’m trying to keep the list short, so I’ll stop now. If you read them, I know it’ll take you a long time to process them, since you clearly are operating on assumptions completely different from those in these books. You deserve a lot of credit for being willing to try.

  54. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    I respect you immensely for being willing to read books that illustrate a point of view completely different from the one you currently hold. I hope you don’t mind if I offer some reading suggestions of my own. Just a few that should hopefully give you an idea of where we’re coming from. These aren’t actual male chauvinist books (if you want some of those, check my sidebar), just ones that display the flaws in the Marxist/feminist worldview.

    Feminist Fantasies by Phyllis Schafly
    Domestic Tranquility by Carolyn LaGraglia
    The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker
    The Road to Malpsychia by Joyce Milton (an indictment of psychiatry and therapy)
    A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell

    Also, The Garbage Generation is available online; it’s linked on my sidebar. Unlike the other books I listed, this one does qualify as male chauvinist, at least in my opinion, but it does an excellent job of showing why doing away with the nuclear family, marriage and fatherhood is very damaging to society, children and adults.

    I’m trying to keep the list short, so I’ll stop now. If you read them, I know it’ll take you a long time to process them, since you clearly are operating on assumptions completely different from those in these books. You deserve a lot of credit for being willing to try.

  55. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks MCW,

    I do appreciate the suggestions, and will consume what I can. One can’t really understand the totality of an issue until they’ve seen it from all sides.

  56. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks MCW,

    I do appreciate the suggestions, and will consume what I can. One can’t really understand the totality of an issue until they’ve seen it from all sides.

  57. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks MCW,

    I do appreciate the suggestions, and will consume what I can. One can’t really understand the totality of an issue until they’ve seen it from all sides.

  58. Artfldgr Says:

    Hallo querus..

    Nice to hear from you… I am glad you have decided to learn things for yourself. First, lets brush away the commentary quickly.

    It definitely takes me much more time than you to consider issues, look up facts, and read and learn.

    It gets faster with practice, and even better if you learned when you were a child. However, I think you haven’t realized that this is a many year long journey. The information is more emergent. It’s kind of like once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is on purpose. After you start studying the history, you start saying, what is 300 times?

    I find myself quite intrigued at a number of your comments. Although you disdain my choice of education, one of the reasons I’m here is to try to change what I can of the system.

    Glad you find me entertaining. I am also glad that your giving me space to spit things out fast, and without a lot of depth. That other post was almost 20 pages long, and if I had to get into depth, a publisher may have to be called.

    I don’t disdain your choice; I disdain what they did to a noble scientific effort and domain. You are not responsible for choices you make without knowledge. Though you are responsible for not digging beyond the tour they want you to walk on.

    Your ability to change the system will be nill unless you can understand the bigger issues going on. The minute you expose yourself as a person with their own mind, you will find your career will suddenly veer off and you will wonder what happened. (track what happens to mamett over the next few years). Social workers burn out because they want to come in and do well. They come from the American judeo Christian ethos of good works. But when they get into the system, they find that its not changeable by them. in fact, long ago, they structured it so that people like you cant just come in and upset the apple cart.

    Look at what happened to Watson the second he deviated from the socialist mandate. His career is over because he challenged the old socialist work of the spy boas who asserted that there were no differences in the races (however if you think about this, and you think what the outcomes would be based on either conjecture, you will figure out that there is differences, but as long as we are not adapting to that and working from their, your going to have underperformers that don’t understand that they are crippled. And they are going to side with an authority that will smash those it believes to be its opponents. The way women are smashing and blaming men for their lives, when historically speaking and accurately the guys have done what the women wanted).

    As someone who has sat in the courtroom, and reviewed records on sexual assault cases, I’ve been amazed at the lack of good forensic evidence, and astounded at what juries (seemingly arbitrarily) convict men on

    Then you should understand that juries are selected for that reason. They immediately select out people with any knowledge. It’s a perversion of the court system, but socialist changes have made such perversions the norm and justified by the coming of utopia.

    The lack of good forensic evidence is intentional. So until you get it out of your head that this is all just a system that needs tuning, and not a system designed tofail, you will not get anywhere.

    Bad forensic evidence + the gender issue = bias towards conviction as a best answer to bad data. It’s the concept of erring on the side of caution. Couple this with the message in womens mags, the messages on tv, and so forth, and you have a preloaded jury that knows the right answers, and cant bear to let a male go free and do that to someone else.

    When you read mckinnons work and feminist theories of the state, and other communist tracts, you get the clear image that these are not stupid people who are not having things go their way, their accidents are not accidents because they work out in their favor too much. like the point that Male Chauvinist Woman said… that it boggles her mind that they are doing this and leaving the girls etc.

    Well it only boggles the mind if your not wiling to accept that people can be very evil, and that the evil is not circumstantial to their lives, and that they are perfectly willing to ruin lives and everything in order to get their way. Oh, and they have a long range plan of the kind that think tanks think of.

    I do have to say, I think your comment about most of the women in the military service being lesbian is in error.

    I don’t think I said most, or meant most as in a count of what goes into the military. I said a lot. AND can you actually give me a actual example of a transsexual gender dysphoric person in the military?

    Your right I wasn’t clear… however lesbians are more likely to be tom boys, they are more likely to want to prove themselves directly. I have had quite a number of friends of weird persuasions, and have been to many an odd place (of which the freaks are more polite than the general public). When you have nearly gotten in a fist fight because you wore some fetish wear that her girl friend likes, you get to understand a certain mentality of a certain subclass. This is a subset.

    There are a lot of gay men who don’t realize their gay that end up in the military to hyper sexualize as a solution. Women are not immune to that either.

    However what they have sex with is wholly not pertinent to their ability to serve. Just pertinent to the research data as to the weaknesses that they can bring. They are well known, but no one can talk about them any more. from lack of cohesion, to increased perversion, to being a clear target for the other side. You see a sociopathic or gay person (not saying the two are equivalent at all), have a similar weakness. Their interests create a situation where they can be controlled externally. That’s one reason intelligence organizations target them, another is that they are used to living dual lives. Most people don’t know how or can live two lives and not have people known. That’s a talent that intelligence agencies like. and to pish tosh this is to not realize that these are our defenders and these defenders are less secure than others. (Another reason why conservatives are not liked by the left, they are independent, they don’t do dirt, its nearly impossible to put them on a leash).

    For the most part, in all we discuss so far, and probably in the future, the issue of their sexual partners is not really an issue. my personal feelings on the subject are quite irrelevant as I am an old fashioned sort and believe everyone can go to hell their own way and be happy doing it (just don’t drag others with you). While this might not sound great, its actually better than leftist tolerance. I don’t have to approve, but that doesn’t mean I have to actively do something about things that as Bogart said “don’t amount to a hill of beans”.

    most of the women I work with and medically treat are heterosexual and many of them have been excellent leaders/soldiers/sailors, etc.

    I never said they weren’t good leaders soldiers and such… in fact I have no way to make that assessment, and technically you don’t either. its an assumption. When they are in battle and they ask their men to die for them, that’s when we will know whether they are good leaders. Men don’t follow just because someone has a rank. Which is why they are not as good as the men at this…

    They are a liability anywhere where their liabilities come into play. If you think a man getting trench foot is bad, you should see what trench crotch is like. Deserts are so much more sanitary than the rest of the planet.

    You’ve mentioned my list of readings is skewed, and I am certainly open to reading opposing views. I honestly welcome the opportunity. You’ve stated you too have a busy schedule, but if you don’t mind (and I’m sorry for to the group if this is redundant) I’d be grateful for a basic reading list…(don’t overwhelm me…but some baby steps)

    I will do you one better. I will say do what Dorothy taught you. you put your foot on the first step of the journey, and you follow the yellow brick road. There you will then find out the truth about the world, and will find out that the statists and such are all just images, and games. [why do you think you cant find classics anymore? They have to be perverted to continue to destroy things]

    If you want something that people have recommended that’s timely, then read liberal fascism.

    If you want to know the story, then start with the Frankfurt school then just follow the threads.

    I will say that your going to have to be careful. What makes tin hatters tin hatters is not just the info they have, a lot of the info they have is correct, it’s the conclusions that they make.

    So you will end up bumping into the white supremacists… but you will have to figure out if that’s what you see, or these are just white people who don’t like that they are targets and think that no one should be.

    A lot of the movers and shakers in the world are Jewish. they are one of those racial groups with higher iqs. In fact the highest. So they would naturally be overrepresented in everything that intelligence (g type) is good at helping at. Just so you know the Chinese are next in line, then Caucasians, etc.

    So the supremacists see this part in the evidence and they come up with jewish conspiracies. Well there are such, there are also others too. The natural state of the world is conspiratorial since no one advertises what they do every time they do it.

    If you pay attention you will figure out that they are shills, and are sinks. They sink the inquiry that may skirt their games, and they are fed stuff from other places. Which is why their information tends to always catch America at bad, but not others.

    The biggest thread you will find in all of it will be communism and world government.

    So you will read about the franfurt school. A bunch of jewish intellectuals who started a Marxist org designed as a think tank to figure out how to tear down western culture to make communist society possible in the west. They did a lot of their early work in germany, and much of that ended up opening up the door to Hitler, who kicked them out.

    They came to the US and settled in Columbia university, and proceeded to change this country.

    When you read you will find out that some of the most favorite sayings of the 60s are made up by some of these people. You will find out that the lefts concept of the conservatived being mental comes from the work of adorno.

    You will also find out, if you track when things happen, that much of what happens is tried out on the black community. Which is why you can see a lag between what happens to them and then to the rest. You will find out that some from the school went to music, others went to hollyweird.

    You can literally start anywhere… there isn’t a preferred curricula for valid truth.

    Which is a key you should remember. No one that gives you a special list and guides you and doesn’t let you explore is giving you truth.

    And watch out for “peas and carrots”… the childrens trick is used on adults all the time, mom wants to make dinner, so in order to get the child to eat vegetables she gives them a choice between two vegetables. The kids think they have choice, but in reality its not choice. (that’s our election game).

    You will find out that there are very wealthy people and families that have been trying for a very long time to control everything. you will find that rugged individualism of the American spirit is almost dead, since communism requires groupism.

    The whole thing is interconnected… Herbert marcuse, adorno, meade,boas, etc.

    Then if you desire, go read the books by known and verified defectors. Like golitsyn, sejna, and especially mitrokhen… and don’t forget the new comrade j.

    Your whole world view will change when you find out the truth behind things that are still commonly bantered about.

    For instance, farakan and the black nazi’s (what do you think black national socialists are?), and the wrong rev wright, all spout commuist propaganda as to the origin of the aids virus. But that origin was corrected and admitted to by the soviets.

    So why are they still spouting it. dig more and you might find the details of obamas uncle. He was a communist operative that opened up a school in which they didn’t help the Africans, but instead subverted and overthrew the western government there.

    You will dig and you will find out lots of stuff that the left just does not discuss. like the fact that rosa parks attended a school in which she learned a week before her bus incident how do do that. This school was also the place that taught martin luthor king, and pete seeger. The people connected to running it was the same organization that funded the Tuskegee experiment. Kind of interesting that the worst incident of American medicine and such was funded by a communist organization. No? they also funded the school for the civil rights movement. Which is why no black would be with the democrats till the 30s, when they started bribing them with their own money. before that it was the republicans and the Christians and such that invited them into the whitehouse and fought against jim crow. The left was FOR jim crow. Go ahead look it up.

    They still hate the blacks and want them exterminated, but now they are more clever about it since the people did not rise up with them.

    Keep digging.. that’s all… follow what the founding fathers said… don’t trust your leaders. Don’t listen to their excuses. Don’t give to partie,s but to people. (other wise you only get who the party selects). Americans vote was not in voting, voting was the tie breaker, America has always voted with money and never realized it. which is why they shifted this to party politics and not individual. It allowed the polity to control who was elected over who the people wanted. And we never noticed.

    So you have your own journey of discovery to go on. Don’t limit it to just the narrow corridor. You will miss the big picture, the general flow of the movements. Which is the game.

    Then you will wakeup and realize that thoughts are nothing unless they change material actions. You will realize that the game is to get the horse to go where you want, and the leaders really don’t care what the horse thinks as long as it materially moves and does whats needed.

    Think of that when you try to persuade yourself that planned parenthood is a social good. If so, then why don’t they teach abstinence? If so then why are there many more of them in black neighborhoods than similar white ones? Go study rev jesse jacskon. In the early days that he was in place, he ranted on these very facts, then suddenly he gets a lift from the democrats, and he sells out.

    Especially read the stuff from the anarchists and fellow travelers that changed sides after they discovered the truth.

    None of this is hidden, and even less so now with the net.. which is why they are threatening net neutrality… then they can stop the easy dissemination of this information.

    Think about it. sangers autobiography was out of print since 1927. if no publisher repreinted it, no one would find it to read it. the elderly who remembered her, would not be around. Which is why her past was buried. The left got caught, and is just ignoring it hoping it will go away… but you can read her book again. you can read how she dispised the Chinese, and wanted to exterminate the blacks. And all this at the same time that boas was teaching us that genetics doesn’t matter.

    That last is interesting if you analyse it. if you don’t think what you are and what you contribute comes from your genes, then are you going to care about the uniqueness that comes from them? I pointed out in another post that if homosexuality is genetic, then the current practice of coming out and no longer mating will erase them. (I think that this sitiation is for populations in which one side or the other is desimated, and so this secondary relationship method comes out and preserves coherence till they can dominate and then reform. Without it they break up. Which is why stress creates more homosexuals in the womb)

    The left elites really hate homosexuals, except that they can control them. one only needs to look at who ends up in camps and such to know what the REAL end desire is.

    So if you wanted to do the same, but you couldn’t march them, then what would you do? well first convinve them that they are not the product of their genes, that way they don’t value them or try to understand them. then you get them to come out come out wherever they are…then they will cull themselves from the gene pool and in 100 years what do you have?

    Apply that to feminisms love for abortion. Take a look who is aborting. Then take a look at who is not having babies.

    You will find that the brightest smartest women that would have had kids and would have had kids that challenged the leaders would now never exist.

    They figured out how to get the best and brightest women to gladly not have kids and so erase their competitive gene contribution from the future for all eternity.

    How does that help women? Well it makes sure that the women that got power now, don’t have it taken away from some smart slave later.

    So you go figure things out. . don’t listen to me. challenge what I say. Prove me wrong. In truth, that would actually make me happy since this truth is pretty scary.

    You will find your own books, you will find them interesting… you will go from one, to another, to another. All you have to do is keep a pad handy, and when someone mentions an interesting name or side bar… then jot it down.

    That’s how I mostly educated myself. Just went to the library, and picked something I was interested in, and I followed its yellow brick road. Each leading to something else. Each related to everything else.

    And enjoy your journey… remember that nothing you find out is really revelatory, just what was going on that you didn’t know.

    Remember what Nixon said. the average American is like the small child in the family.

    Time for the children to grow up.

  59. Artfldgr Says:

    Hallo querus..

    Nice to hear from you… I am glad you have decided to learn things for yourself. First, lets brush away the commentary quickly.

    It definitely takes me much more time than you to consider issues, look up facts, and read and learn.

    It gets faster with practice, and even better if you learned when you were a child. However, I think you haven’t realized that this is a many year long journey. The information is more emergent. It’s kind of like once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is on purpose. After you start studying the history, you start saying, what is 300 times?

    I find myself quite intrigued at a number of your comments. Although you disdain my choice of education, one of the reasons I’m here is to try to change what I can of the system.

    Glad you find me entertaining. I am also glad that your giving me space to spit things out fast, and without a lot of depth. That other post was almost 20 pages long, and if I had to get into depth, a publisher may have to be called.

    I don’t disdain your choice; I disdain what they did to a noble scientific effort and domain. You are not responsible for choices you make without knowledge. Though you are responsible for not digging beyond the tour they want you to walk on.

    Your ability to change the system will be nill unless you can understand the bigger issues going on. The minute you expose yourself as a person with their own mind, you will find your career will suddenly veer off and you will wonder what happened. (track what happens to mamett over the next few years). Social workers burn out because they want to come in and do well. They come from the American judeo Christian ethos of good works. But when they get into the system, they find that its not changeable by them. in fact, long ago, they structured it so that people like you cant just come in and upset the apple cart.

    Look at what happened to Watson the second he deviated from the socialist mandate. His career is over because he challenged the old socialist work of the spy boas who asserted that there were no differences in the races (however if you think about this, and you think what the outcomes would be based on either conjecture, you will figure out that there is differences, but as long as we are not adapting to that and working from their, your going to have underperformers that don’t understand that they are crippled. And they are going to side with an authority that will smash those it believes to be its opponents. The way women are smashing and blaming men for their lives, when historically speaking and accurately the guys have done what the women wanted).

    As someone who has sat in the courtroom, and reviewed records on sexual assault cases, I’ve been amazed at the lack of good forensic evidence, and astounded at what juries (seemingly arbitrarily) convict men on

    Then you should understand that juries are selected for that reason. They immediately select out people with any knowledge. It’s a perversion of the court system, but socialist changes have made such perversions the norm and justified by the coming of utopia.

    The lack of good forensic evidence is intentional. So until you get it out of your head that this is all just a system that needs tuning, and not a system designed tofail, you will not get anywhere.

    Bad forensic evidence + the gender issue = bias towards conviction as a best answer to bad data. It’s the concept of erring on the side of caution. Couple this with the message in womens mags, the messages on tv, and so forth, and you have a preloaded jury that knows the right answers, and cant bear to let a male go free and do that to someone else.

    When you read mckinnons work and feminist theories of the state, and other communist tracts, you get the clear image that these are not stupid people who are not having things go their way, their accidents are not accidents because they work out in their favor too much. like the point that Male Chauvinist Woman said… that it boggles her mind that they are doing this and leaving the girls etc.

    Well it only boggles the mind if your not wiling to accept that people can be very evil, and that the evil is not circumstantial to their lives, and that they are perfectly willing to ruin lives and everything in order to get their way. Oh, and they have a long range plan of the kind that think tanks think of.

    I do have to say, I think your comment about most of the women in the military service being lesbian is in error.

    I don’t think I said most, or meant most as in a count of what goes into the military. I said a lot. AND can you actually give me a actual example of a transsexual gender dysphoric person in the military?

    Your right I wasn’t clear… however lesbians are more likely to be tom boys, they are more likely to want to prove themselves directly. I have had quite a number of friends of weird persuasions, and have been to many an odd place (of which the freaks are more polite than the general public). When you have nearly gotten in a fist fight because you wore some fetish wear that her girl friend likes, you get to understand a certain mentality of a certain subclass. This is a subset.

    There are a lot of gay men who don’t realize their gay that end up in the military to hyper sexualize as a solution. Women are not immune to that either.

    However what they have sex with is wholly not pertinent to their ability to serve. Just pertinent to the research data as to the weaknesses that they can bring. They are well known, but no one can talk about them any more. from lack of cohesion, to increased perversion, to being a clear target for the other side. You see a sociopathic or gay person (not saying the two are equivalent at all), have a similar weakness. Their interests create a situation where they can be controlled externally. That’s one reason intelligence organizations target them, another is that they are used to living dual lives. Most people don’t know how or can live two lives and not have people known. That’s a talent that intelligence agencies like. and to pish tosh this is to not realize that these are our defenders and these defenders are less secure than others. (Another reason why conservatives are not liked by the left, they are independent, they don’t do dirt, its nearly impossible to put them on a leash).

    For the most part, in all we discuss so far, and probably in the future, the issue of their sexual partners is not really an issue. my personal feelings on the subject are quite irrelevant as I am an old fashioned sort and believe everyone can go to hell their own way and be happy doing it (just don’t drag others with you). While this might not sound great, its actually better than leftist tolerance. I don’t have to approve, but that doesn’t mean I have to actively do something about things that as Bogart said “don’t amount to a hill of beans”.

    most of the women I work with and medically treat are heterosexual and many of them have been excellent leaders/soldiers/sailors, etc.

    I never said they weren’t good leaders soldiers and such… in fact I have no way to make that assessment, and technically you don’t either. its an assumption. When they are in battle and they ask their men to die for them, that’s when we will know whether they are good leaders. Men don’t follow just because someone has a rank. Which is why they are not as good as the men at this…

    They are a liability anywhere where their liabilities come into play. If you think a man getting trench foot is bad, you should see what trench crotch is like. Deserts are so much more sanitary than the rest of the planet.

    You’ve mentioned my list of readings is skewed, and I am certainly open to reading opposing views. I honestly welcome the opportunity. You’ve stated you too have a busy schedule, but if you don’t mind (and I’m sorry for to the group if this is redundant) I’d be grateful for a basic reading list…(don’t overwhelm me…but some baby steps)

    I will do you one better. I will say do what Dorothy taught you. you put your foot on the first step of the journey, and you follow the yellow brick road. There you will then find out the truth about the world, and will find out that the statists and such are all just images, and games. [why do you think you cant find classics anymore? They have to be perverted to continue to destroy things]

    If you want something that people have recommended that’s timely, then read liberal fascism.

    If you want to know the story, then start with the Frankfurt school then just follow the threads.

    I will say that your going to have to be careful. What makes tin hatters tin hatters is not just the info they have, a lot of the info they have is correct, it’s the conclusions that they make.

    So you will end up bumping into the white supremacists… but you will have to figure out if that’s what you see, or these are just white people who don’t like that they are targets and think that no one should be.

    A lot of the movers and shakers in the world are Jewish. they are one of those racial groups with higher iqs. In fact the highest. So they would naturally be overrepresented in everything that intelligence (g type) is good at helping at. Just so you know the Chinese are next in line, then Caucasians, etc.

    So the supremacists see this part in the evidence and they come up with jewish conspiracies. Well there are such, there are also others too. The natural state of the world is conspiratorial since no one advertises what they do every time they do it.

    If you pay attention you will figure out that they are shills, and are sinks. They sink the inquiry that may skirt their games, and they are fed stuff from other places. Which is why their information tends to always catch America at bad, but not others.

    The biggest thread you will find in all of it will be communism and world government.

    So you will read about the franfurt school. A bunch of jewish intellectuals who started a Marxist org designed as a think tank to figure out how to tear down western culture to make communist society possible in the west. They did a lot of their early work in germany, and much of that ended up opening up the door to Hitler, who kicked them out.

    They came to the US and settled in Columbia university, and proceeded to change this country.

    When you read you will find out that some of the most favorite sayings of the 60s are made up by some of these people. You will find out that the lefts concept of the conservatived being mental comes from the work of adorno.

    You will also find out, if you track when things happen, that much of what happens is tried out on the black community. Which is why you can see a lag between what happens to them and then to the rest. You will find out that some from the school went to music, others went to hollyweird.

    You can literally start anywhere… there isn’t a preferred curricula for valid truth.

    Which is a key you should remember. No one that gives you a special list and guides you and doesn’t let you explore is giving you truth.

    And watch out for “peas and carrots”… the childrens trick is used on adults all the time, mom wants to make dinner, so in order to get the child to eat vegetables she gives them a choice between two vegetables. The kids think they have choice, but in reality its not choice. (that’s our election game).

    You will find out that there are very wealthy people and families that have been trying for a very long time to control everything. you will find that rugged individualism of the American spirit is almost dead, since communism requires groupism.

    The whole thing is interconnected… Herbert marcuse, adorno, meade,boas, etc.

    Then if you desire, go read the books by known and verified defectors. Like golitsyn, sejna, and especially mitrokhen… and don’t forget the new comrade j.

    Your whole world view will change when you find out the truth behind things that are still commonly bantered about.

    For instance, farakan and the black nazi’s (what do you think black national socialists are?), and the wrong rev wright, all spout commuist propaganda as to the origin of the aids virus. But that origin was corrected and admitted to by the soviets.

    So why are they still spouting it. dig more and you might find the details of obamas uncle. He was a communist operative that opened up a school in which they didn’t help the Africans, but instead subverted and overthrew the western government there.

    You will dig and you will find out lots of stuff that the left just does not discuss. like the fact that rosa parks attended a school in which she learned a week before her bus incident how do do that. This school was also the place that taught martin luthor king, and pete seeger. The people connected to running it was the same organization that funded the Tuskegee experiment. Kind of interesting that the worst incident of American medicine and such was funded by a communist organization. No? they also funded the school for the civil rights movement. Which is why no black would be with the democrats till the 30s, when they started bribing them with their own money. before that it was the republicans and the Christians and such that invited them into the whitehouse and fought against jim crow. The left was FOR jim crow. Go ahead look it up.

    They still hate the blacks and want them exterminated, but now they are more clever about it since the people did not rise up with them.

    Keep digging.. that’s all… follow what the founding fathers said… don’t trust your leaders. Don’t listen to their excuses. Don’t give to partie,s but to people. (other wise you only get who the party selects). Americans vote was not in voting, voting was the tie breaker, America has always voted with money and never realized it. which is why they shifted this to party politics and not individual. It allowed the polity to control who was elected over who the people wanted. And we never noticed.

    So you have your own journey of discovery to go on. Don’t limit it to just the narrow corridor. You will miss the big picture, the general flow of the movements. Which is the game.

    Then you will wakeup and realize that thoughts are nothing unless they change material actions. You will realize that the game is to get the horse to go where you want, and the leaders really don’t care what the horse thinks as long as it materially moves and does whats needed.

    Think of that when you try to persuade yourself that planned parenthood is a social good. If so, then why don’t they teach abstinence? If so then why are there many more of them in black neighborhoods than similar white ones? Go study rev jesse jacskon. In the early days that he was in place, he ranted on these very facts, then suddenly he gets a lift from the democrats, and he sells out.

    Especially read the stuff from the anarchists and fellow travelers that changed sides after they discovered the truth.

    None of this is hidden, and even less so now with the net.. which is why they are threatening net neutrality… then they can stop the easy dissemination of this information.

    Think about it. sangers autobiography was out of print since 1927. if no publisher repreinted it, no one would find it to read it. the elderly who remembered her, would not be around. Which is why her past was buried. The left got caught, and is just ignoring it hoping it will go away… but you can read her book again. you can read how she dispised the Chinese, and wanted to exterminate the blacks. And all this at the same time that boas was teaching us that genetics doesn’t matter.

    That last is interesting if you analyse it. if you don’t think what you are and what you contribute comes from your genes, then are you going to care about the uniqueness that comes from them? I pointed out in another post that if homosexuality is genetic, then the current practice of coming out and no longer mating will erase them. (I think that this sitiation is for populations in which one side or the other is desimated, and so this secondary relationship method comes out and preserves coherence till they can dominate and then reform. Without it they break up. Which is why stress creates more homosexuals in the womb)

    The left elites really hate homosexuals, except that they can control them. one only needs to look at who ends up in camps and such to know what the REAL end desire is.

    So if you wanted to do the same, but you couldn’t march them, then what would you do? well first convinve them that they are not the product of their genes, that way they don’t value them or try to understand them. then you get them to come out come out wherever they are…then they will cull themselves from the gene pool and in 100 years what do you have?

    Apply that to feminisms love for abortion. Take a look who is aborting. Then take a look at who is not having babies.

    You will find that the brightest smartest women that would have had kids and would have had kids that challenged the leaders would now never exist.

    They figured out how to get the best and brightest women to gladly not have kids and so erase their competitive gene contribution from the future for all eternity.

    How does that help women? Well it makes sure that the women that got power now, don’t have it taken away from some smart slave later.

    So you go figure things out. . don’t listen to me. challenge what I say. Prove me wrong. In truth, that would actually make me happy since this truth is pretty scary.

    You will find your own books, you will find them interesting… you will go from one, to another, to another. All you have to do is keep a pad handy, and when someone mentions an interesting name or side bar… then jot it down.

    That’s how I mostly educated myself. Just went to the library, and picked something I was interested in, and I followed its yellow brick road. Each leading to something else. Each related to everything else.

    And enjoy your journey… remember that nothing you find out is really revelatory, just what was going on that you didn’t know.

    Remember what Nixon said. the average American is like the small child in the family.

    Time for the children to grow up.

  60. Artfldgr Says:

    Hallo querus..

    Nice to hear from you… I am glad you have decided to learn things for yourself. First, lets brush away the commentary quickly.

    It definitely takes me much more time than you to consider issues, look up facts, and read and learn.

    It gets faster with practice, and even better if you learned when you were a child. However, I think you haven’t realized that this is a many year long journey. The information is more emergent. It’s kind of like once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is on purpose. After you start studying the history, you start saying, what is 300 times?

    I find myself quite intrigued at a number of your comments. Although you disdain my choice of education, one of the reasons I’m here is to try to change what I can of the system.

    Glad you find me entertaining. I am also glad that your giving me space to spit things out fast, and without a lot of depth. That other post was almost 20 pages long, and if I had to get into depth, a publisher may have to be called.

    I don’t disdain your choice; I disdain what they did to a noble scientific effort and domain. You are not responsible for choices you make without knowledge. Though you are responsible for not digging beyond the tour they want you to walk on.

    Your ability to change the system will be nill unless you can understand the bigger issues going on. The minute you expose yourself as a person with their own mind, you will find your career will suddenly veer off and you will wonder what happened. (track what happens to mamett over the next few years). Social workers burn out because they want to come in and do well. They come from the American judeo Christian ethos of good works. But when they get into the system, they find that its not changeable by them. in fact, long ago, they structured it so that people like you cant just come in and upset the apple cart.

    Look at what happened to Watson the second he deviated from the socialist mandate. His career is over because he challenged the old socialist work of the spy boas who asserted that there were no differences in the races (however if you think about this, and you think what the outcomes would be based on either conjecture, you will figure out that there is differences, but as long as we are not adapting to that and working from their, your going to have underperformers that don’t understand that they are crippled. And they are going to side with an authority that will smash those it believes to be its opponents. The way women are smashing and blaming men for their lives, when historically speaking and accurately the guys have done what the women wanted).

    As someone who has sat in the courtroom, and reviewed records on sexual assault cases, I’ve been amazed at the lack of good forensic evidence, and astounded at what juries (seemingly arbitrarily) convict men on

    Then you should understand that juries are selected for that reason. They immediately select out people with any knowledge. It’s a perversion of the court system, but socialist changes have made such perversions the norm and justified by the coming of utopia.

    The lack of good forensic evidence is intentional. So until you get it out of your head that this is all just a system that needs tuning, and not a system designed tofail, you will not get anywhere.

    Bad forensic evidence + the gender issue = bias towards conviction as a best answer to bad data. It’s the concept of erring on the side of caution. Couple this with the message in womens mags, the messages on tv, and so forth, and you have a preloaded jury that knows the right answers, and cant bear to let a male go free and do that to someone else.

    When you read mckinnons work and feminist theories of the state, and other communist tracts, you get the clear image that these are not stupid people who are not having things go their way, their accidents are not accidents because they work out in their favor too much. like the point that Male Chauvinist Woman said… that it boggles her mind that they are doing this and leaving the girls etc.

    Well it only boggles the mind if your not wiling to accept that people can be very evil, and that the evil is not circumstantial to their lives, and that they are perfectly willing to ruin lives and everything in order to get their way. Oh, and they have a long range plan of the kind that think tanks think of.

    I do have to say, I think your comment about most of the women in the military service being lesbian is in error.

    I don’t think I said most, or meant most as in a count of what goes into the military. I said a lot. AND can you actually give me a actual example of a transsexual gender dysphoric person in the military?

    Your right I wasn’t clear… however lesbians are more likely to be tom boys, they are more likely to want to prove themselves directly. I have had quite a number of friends of weird persuasions, and have been to many an odd place (of which the freaks are more polite than the general public). When you have nearly gotten in a fist fight because you wore some fetish wear that her girl friend likes, you get to understand a certain mentality of a certain subclass. This is a subset.

    There are a lot of gay men who don’t realize their gay that end up in the military to hyper sexualize as a solution. Women are not immune to that either.

    However what they have sex with is wholly not pertinent to their ability to serve. Just pertinent to the research data as to the weaknesses that they can bring. They are well known, but no one can talk about them any more. from lack of cohesion, to increased perversion, to being a clear target for the other side. You see a sociopathic or gay person (not saying the two are equivalent at all), have a similar weakness. Their interests create a situation where they can be controlled externally. That’s one reason intelligence organizations target them, another is that they are used to living dual lives. Most people don’t know how or can live two lives and not have people known. That’s a talent that intelligence agencies like. and to pish tosh this is to not realize that these are our defenders and these defenders are less secure than others. (Another reason why conservatives are not liked by the left, they are independent, they don’t do dirt, its nearly impossible to put them on a leash).

    For the most part, in all we discuss so far, and probably in the future, the issue of their sexual partners is not really an issue. my personal feelings on the subject are quite irrelevant as I am an old fashioned sort and believe everyone can go to hell their own way and be happy doing it (just don’t drag others with you). While this might not sound great, its actually better than leftist tolerance. I don’t have to approve, but that doesn’t mean I have to actively do something about things that as Bogart said “don’t amount to a hill of beans”.

    most of the women I work with and medically treat are heterosexual and many of them have been excellent leaders/soldiers/sailors, etc.

    I never said they weren’t good leaders soldiers and such… in fact I have no way to make that assessment, and technically you don’t either. its an assumption. When they are in battle and they ask their men to die for them, that’s when we will know whether they are good leaders. Men don’t follow just because someone has a rank. Which is why they are not as good as the men at this…

    They are a liability anywhere where their liabilities come into play. If you think a man getting trench foot is bad, you should see what trench crotch is like. Deserts are so much more sanitary than the rest of the planet.

    You’ve mentioned my list of readings is skewed, and I am certainly open to reading opposing views. I honestly welcome the opportunity. You’ve stated you too have a busy schedule, but if you don’t mind (and I’m sorry for to the group if this is redundant) I’d be grateful for a basic reading list…(don’t overwhelm me…but some baby steps)

    I will do you one better. I will say do what Dorothy taught you. you put your foot on the first step of the journey, and you follow the yellow brick road. There you will then find out the truth about the world, and will find out that the statists and such are all just images, and games. [why do you think you cant find classics anymore? They have to be perverted to continue to destroy things]

    If you want something that people have recommended that’s timely, then read liberal fascism.

    If you want to know the story, then start with the Frankfurt school then just follow the threads.

    I will say that your going to have to be careful. What makes tin hatters tin hatters is not just the info they have, a lot of the info they have is correct, it’s the conclusions that they make.

    So you will end up bumping into the white supremacists… but you will have to figure out if that’s what you see, or these are just white people who don’t like that they are targets and think that no one should be.

    A lot of the movers and shakers in the world are Jewish. they are one of those racial groups with higher iqs. In fact the highest. So they would naturally be overrepresented in everything that intelligence (g type) is good at helping at. Just so you know the Chinese are next in line, then Caucasians, etc.

    So the supremacists see this part in the evidence and they come up with jewish conspiracies. Well there are such, there are also others too. The natural state of the world is conspiratorial since no one advertises what they do every time they do it.

    If you pay attention you will figure out that they are shills, and are sinks. They sink the inquiry that may skirt their games, and they are fed stuff from other places. Which is why their information tends to always catch America at bad, but not others.

    The biggest thread you will find in all of it will be communism and world government.

    So you will read about the franfurt school. A bunch of jewish intellectuals who started a Marxist org designed as a think tank to figure out how to tear down western culture to make communist society possible in the west. They did a lot of their early work in germany, and much of that ended up opening up the door to Hitler, who kicked them out.

    They came to the US and settled in Columbia university, and proceeded to change this country.

    When you read you will find out that some of the most favorite sayings of the 60s are made up by some of these people. You will find out that the lefts concept of the conservatived being mental comes from the work of adorno.

    You will also find out, if you track when things happen, that much of what happens is tried out on the black community. Which is why you can see a lag between what happens to them and then to the rest. You will find out that some from the school went to music, others went to hollyweird.

    You can literally start anywhere… there isn’t a preferred curricula for valid truth.

    Which is a key you should remember. No one that gives you a special list and guides you and doesn’t let you explore is giving you truth.

    And watch out for “peas and carrots”… the childrens trick is used on adults all the time, mom wants to make dinner, so in order to get the child to eat vegetables she gives them a choice between two vegetables. The kids think they have choice, but in reality its not choice. (that’s our election game).

    You will find out that there are very wealthy people and families that have been trying for a very long time to control everything. you will find that rugged individualism of the American spirit is almost dead, since communism requires groupism.

    The whole thing is interconnected… Herbert marcuse, adorno, meade,boas, etc.

    Then if you desire, go read the books by known and verified defectors. Like golitsyn, sejna, and especially mitrokhen… and don’t forget the new comrade j.

    Your whole world view will change when you find out the truth behind things that are still commonly bantered about.

    For instance, farakan and the black nazi’s (what do you think black national socialists are?), and the wrong rev wright, all spout commuist propaganda as to the origin of the aids virus. But that origin was corrected and admitted to by the soviets.

    So why are they still spouting it. dig more and you might find the details of obamas uncle. He was a communist operative that opened up a school in which they didn’t help the Africans, but instead subverted and overthrew the western government there.

    You will dig and you will find out lots of stuff that the left just does not discuss. like the fact that rosa parks attended a school in which she learned a week before her bus incident how do do that. This school was also the place that taught martin luthor king, and pete seeger. The people connected to running it was the same organization that funded the Tuskegee experiment. Kind of interesting that the worst incident of American medicine and such was funded by a communist organization. No? they also funded the school for the civil rights movement. Which is why no black would be with the democrats till the 30s, when they started bribing them with their own money. before that it was the republicans and the Christians and such that invited them into the whitehouse and fought against jim crow. The left was FOR jim crow. Go ahead look it up.

    They still hate the blacks and want them exterminated, but now they are more clever about it since the people did not rise up with them.

    Keep digging.. that’s all… follow what the founding fathers said… don’t trust your leaders. Don’t listen to their excuses. Don’t give to partie,s but to people. (other wise you only get who the party selects). Americans vote was not in voting, voting was the tie breaker, America has always voted with money and never realized it. which is why they shifted this to party politics and not individual. It allowed the polity to control who was elected over who the people wanted. And we never noticed.

    So you have your own journey of discovery to go on. Don’t limit it to just the narrow corridor. You will miss the big picture, the general flow of the movements. Which is the game.

    Then you will wakeup and realize that thoughts are nothing unless they change material actions. You will realize that the game is to get the horse to go where you want, and the leaders really don’t care what the horse thinks as long as it materially moves and does whats needed.

    Think of that when you try to persuade yourself that planned parenthood is a social good. If so, then why don’t they teach abstinence? If so then why are there many more of them in black neighborhoods than similar white ones? Go study rev jesse jacskon. In the early days that he was in place, he ranted on these very facts, then suddenly he gets a lift from the democrats, and he sells out.

    Especially read the stuff from the anarchists and fellow travelers that changed sides after they discovered the truth.

    None of this is hidden, and even less so now with the net.. which is why they are threatening net neutrality… then they can stop the easy dissemination of this information.

    Think about it. sangers autobiography was out of print since 1927. if no publisher repreinted it, no one would find it to read it. the elderly who remembered her, would not be around. Which is why her past was buried. The left got caught, and is just ignoring it hoping it will go away… but you can read her book again. you can read how she dispised the Chinese, and wanted to exterminate the blacks. And all this at the same time that boas was teaching us that genetics doesn’t matter.

    That last is interesting if you analyse it. if you don’t think what you are and what you contribute comes from your genes, then are you going to care about the uniqueness that comes from them? I pointed out in another post that if homosexuality is genetic, then the current practice of coming out and no longer mating will erase them. (I think that this sitiation is for populations in which one side or the other is desimated, and so this secondary relationship method comes out and preserves coherence till they can dominate and then reform. Without it they break up. Which is why stress creates more homosexuals in the womb)

    The left elites really hate homosexuals, except that they can control them. one only needs to look at who ends up in camps and such to know what the REAL end desire is.

    So if you wanted to do the same, but you couldn’t march them, then what would you do? well first convinve them that they are not the product of their genes, that way they don’t value them or try to understand them. then you get them to come out come out wherever they are…then they will cull themselves from the gene pool and in 100 years what do you have?

    Apply that to feminisms love for abortion. Take a look who is aborting. Then take a look at who is not having babies.

    You will find that the brightest smartest women that would have had kids and would have had kids that challenged the leaders would now never exist.

    They figured out how to get the best and brightest women to gladly not have kids and so erase their competitive gene contribution from the future for all eternity.

    How does that help women? Well it makes sure that the women that got power now, don’t have it taken away from some smart slave later.

    So you go figure things out. . don’t listen to me. challenge what I say. Prove me wrong. In truth, that would actually make me happy since this truth is pretty scary.

    You will find your own books, you will find them interesting… you will go from one, to another, to another. All you have to do is keep a pad handy, and when someone mentions an interesting name or side bar… then jot it down.

    That’s how I mostly educated myself. Just went to the library, and picked something I was interested in, and I followed its yellow brick road. Each leading to something else. Each related to everything else.

    And enjoy your journey… remember that nothing you find out is really revelatory, just what was going on that you didn’t know.

    Remember what Nixon said. the average American is like the small child in the family.

    Time for the children to grow up.

  61. Artfldgr Says:

    i agree… your wilingness to challenge your own world view is not a small thing.

    just keep your emotions in check. when you find out things they tend to put some in some real emotional turmoil.

    oh… and dont get religion. your sudden enthusasm and such will have you tryig to knock all you know to wake them up. most dont want to be woken up at all. so they will get hostile.

    and be careful what you reveasl of yourself to your contemporaries in the field. given that this place is now operating a lot like the soviet union, wrong thinking will be cleverly punished… and you dont know who is willing to listen, who is listening to get information, and who just wants to get rid of you since now your no longer maneuverable, your a liability.

    your about to find out how hostile the side you have been on really is.

    so be careful, and keep that same even open attitude.

    that book list is a good one.. pinkers book is good… the others are good… after you get up to speed, go back and read the stuff that is on the left side. you will start railing about how much you missed. how could you not see that etc.

    [you might dig up the point that hillary worked on the team to impeach nixon. and was pretty miuch fired for serous lying, manipulating, hiding records (like she had wellesly do with ther thesis on marx), and more]

    your going to find out why the matrix was a hit. it resonated.

    your also going to find out why rocky horror and shock treatment were odd hits.. they resonate

    [rocky horror is the story of the frankfurt school coming to pervert western culture. shock treatment is part two. reality tv, men bound up, women singing the me of me… its all there]

  62. Artfldgr Says:

    i agree… your wilingness to challenge your own world view is not a small thing.

    just keep your emotions in check. when you find out things they tend to put some in some real emotional turmoil.

    oh… and dont get religion. your sudden enthusasm and such will have you tryig to knock all you know to wake them up. most dont want to be woken up at all. so they will get hostile.

    and be careful what you reveasl of yourself to your contemporaries in the field. given that this place is now operating a lot like the soviet union, wrong thinking will be cleverly punished… and you dont know who is willing to listen, who is listening to get information, and who just wants to get rid of you since now your no longer maneuverable, your a liability.

    your about to find out how hostile the side you have been on really is.

    so be careful, and keep that same even open attitude.

    that book list is a good one.. pinkers book is good… the others are good… after you get up to speed, go back and read the stuff that is on the left side. you will start railing about how much you missed. how could you not see that etc.

    [you might dig up the point that hillary worked on the team to impeach nixon. and was pretty miuch fired for serous lying, manipulating, hiding records (like she had wellesly do with ther thesis on marx), and more]

    your going to find out why the matrix was a hit. it resonated.

    your also going to find out why rocky horror and shock treatment were odd hits.. they resonate

    [rocky horror is the story of the frankfurt school coming to pervert western culture. shock treatment is part two. reality tv, men bound up, women singing the me of me… its all there]

  63. Artfldgr Says:

    i agree… your wilingness to challenge your own world view is not a small thing.

    just keep your emotions in check. when you find out things they tend to put some in some real emotional turmoil.

    oh… and dont get religion. your sudden enthusasm and such will have you tryig to knock all you know to wake them up. most dont want to be woken up at all. so they will get hostile.

    and be careful what you reveasl of yourself to your contemporaries in the field. given that this place is now operating a lot like the soviet union, wrong thinking will be cleverly punished… and you dont know who is willing to listen, who is listening to get information, and who just wants to get rid of you since now your no longer maneuverable, your a liability.

    your about to find out how hostile the side you have been on really is.

    so be careful, and keep that same even open attitude.

    that book list is a good one.. pinkers book is good… the others are good… after you get up to speed, go back and read the stuff that is on the left side. you will start railing about how much you missed. how could you not see that etc.

    [you might dig up the point that hillary worked on the team to impeach nixon. and was pretty miuch fired for serous lying, manipulating, hiding records (like she had wellesly do with ther thesis on marx), and more]

    your going to find out why the matrix was a hit. it resonated.

    your also going to find out why rocky horror and shock treatment were odd hits.. they resonate

    [rocky horror is the story of the frankfurt school coming to pervert western culture. shock treatment is part two. reality tv, men bound up, women singing the me of me… its all there]

  64. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Great Art,

    I ask for baby steps and you pummel me with a lifetime. 🙂 I can’t say I’m disappointed. Thank you.

  65. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Great Art,

    I ask for baby steps and you pummel me with a lifetime. 🙂 I can’t say I’m disappointed. Thank you.

  66. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Great Art,

    I ask for baby steps and you pummel me with a lifetime. 🙂 I can’t say I’m disappointed. Thank you.

  67. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    *G* My list was the baby steps! Or at least, toddler steps. I actually read all of those works I listed before I knew anything about Marcuse, Adorno and the rest of the Frankfort School who launched cultural Marxism.

  68. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    *G* My list was the baby steps! Or at least, toddler steps. I actually read all of those works I listed before I knew anything about Marcuse, Adorno and the rest of the Frankfort School who launched cultural Marxism.

  69. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    *G* My list was the baby steps! Or at least, toddler steps. I actually read all of those works I listed before I knew anything about Marcuse, Adorno and the rest of the Frankfort School who launched cultural Marxism.

  70. Artfldgr Says:

    sorry Q…

    i guess i was overstating that i dont want you to fall into another trap of letting others decide what you know.

    besides the threading through things is what makes the internet fun. (kind of funny that i was hyper learning through the card catalog the way we hyper thread on the net).

    sometimes getting through a list of books that someone else gives is not so easy (sometimes its great). the books listed are great.

    and so is toqueville, and Menken.
    [a slight bit over would also be dalyrymple]

    there is a world of really great writing and good thinking out there.

    right now people are reading dawkins slough thorugh the same old arguments about god. but how unfair that he didnt point to the best works that address that that are not exactly modern writing. he didnt want you to know he couldnt refute them, or even know their logic, or let you know that they lead to a thread that you can follow.

    wait till you find out that liberal meant the opposite of what it means today… it used to mean as free as you can be and minimal government and its intrusion. people handling their own affairs and the state so small that all it can tax is for infrastructure, defense, etc… not planned economy.

    anyway… good luck.. enjoy!

  71. Artfldgr Says:

    sorry Q…

    i guess i was overstating that i dont want you to fall into another trap of letting others decide what you know.

    besides the threading through things is what makes the internet fun. (kind of funny that i was hyper learning through the card catalog the way we hyper thread on the net).

    sometimes getting through a list of books that someone else gives is not so easy (sometimes its great). the books listed are great.

    and so is toqueville, and Menken.
    [a slight bit over would also be dalyrymple]

    there is a world of really great writing and good thinking out there.

    right now people are reading dawkins slough thorugh the same old arguments about god. but how unfair that he didnt point to the best works that address that that are not exactly modern writing. he didnt want you to know he couldnt refute them, or even know their logic, or let you know that they lead to a thread that you can follow.

    wait till you find out that liberal meant the opposite of what it means today… it used to mean as free as you can be and minimal government and its intrusion. people handling their own affairs and the state so small that all it can tax is for infrastructure, defense, etc… not planned economy.

    anyway… good luck.. enjoy!

  72. Artfldgr Says:

    sorry Q…

    i guess i was overstating that i dont want you to fall into another trap of letting others decide what you know.

    besides the threading through things is what makes the internet fun. (kind of funny that i was hyper learning through the card catalog the way we hyper thread on the net).

    sometimes getting through a list of books that someone else gives is not so easy (sometimes its great). the books listed are great.

    and so is toqueville, and Menken.
    [a slight bit over would also be dalyrymple]

    there is a world of really great writing and good thinking out there.

    right now people are reading dawkins slough thorugh the same old arguments about god. but how unfair that he didnt point to the best works that address that that are not exactly modern writing. he didnt want you to know he couldnt refute them, or even know their logic, or let you know that they lead to a thread that you can follow.

    wait till you find out that liberal meant the opposite of what it means today… it used to mean as free as you can be and minimal government and its intrusion. people handling their own affairs and the state so small that all it can tax is for infrastructure, defense, etc… not planned economy.

    anyway… good luck.. enjoy!

  73. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    I understand very much about letting people make up their own minds, and your earlier statements about following the yellow brick earned a lot of respect in my book.

    You mentioned that you are “old”. Not knowing what old is in your world…I hope you are no older than 60 or 72 max, and will be around for a while. If you’re 47, then you are young (that would go with your younger years in school in the 70’s) and it’s good to know you’ll be around for longer. I’m sure to have a ton of questions with these readings, and its nice to have a critical voice/mind to bounce ideas/findings off of.

    With the Frankfort School, (and mind you, I’m Internet impaired right now, just taking the quick routes through Wiki..trivia at MY fingertips at present…) I noted the links to Freud, and to Karl Marx and Boas.

    You mentioned that:
    “meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.” I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. From what I’ve read so far, you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology. Looking objectively, I personally see the benefit of sound ethnographic research. Certainly, there are some social scientists who have lied about their findings or manipulated their research, but I’m hoping that is a very few. There have definitely been reports of scientists in other disciplines who have lied about their findings as well, but other professionals have shown integrity and published true to their data (without manipulating it). After reading so many of what appear to be useful ethnographic texts, there seems to be a lot of value in them, to me. Many of them describe the value of family and of women as the ‘culture’ keepers. More often, their great contribution is in describing what they see and hear within populations, and documenting a piece of culture in time. One text I’m currently reading is “Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War” by Stephen Lubkeman. I’ve enjoyed his writing He seems to report a variety of issues often from hardline and logical perspectives. His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored (ie: the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco). I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    Arghh, there’s just not enough time to write, read, study and sleep.

  74. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    I understand very much about letting people make up their own minds, and your earlier statements about following the yellow brick earned a lot of respect in my book.

    You mentioned that you are “old”. Not knowing what old is in your world…I hope you are no older than 60 or 72 max, and will be around for a while. If you’re 47, then you are young (that would go with your younger years in school in the 70’s) and it’s good to know you’ll be around for longer. I’m sure to have a ton of questions with these readings, and its nice to have a critical voice/mind to bounce ideas/findings off of.

    With the Frankfort School, (and mind you, I’m Internet impaired right now, just taking the quick routes through Wiki..trivia at MY fingertips at present…) I noted the links to Freud, and to Karl Marx and Boas.

    You mentioned that:
    “meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.” I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. From what I’ve read so far, you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology. Looking objectively, I personally see the benefit of sound ethnographic research. Certainly, there are some social scientists who have lied about their findings or manipulated their research, but I’m hoping that is a very few. There have definitely been reports of scientists in other disciplines who have lied about their findings as well, but other professionals have shown integrity and published true to their data (without manipulating it). After reading so many of what appear to be useful ethnographic texts, there seems to be a lot of value in them, to me. Many of them describe the value of family and of women as the ‘culture’ keepers. More often, their great contribution is in describing what they see and hear within populations, and documenting a piece of culture in time. One text I’m currently reading is “Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War” by Stephen Lubkeman. I’ve enjoyed his writing He seems to report a variety of issues often from hardline and logical perspectives. His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored (ie: the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco). I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    Arghh, there’s just not enough time to write, read, study and sleep.

  75. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    I understand very much about letting people make up their own minds, and your earlier statements about following the yellow brick earned a lot of respect in my book.

    You mentioned that you are “old”. Not knowing what old is in your world…I hope you are no older than 60 or 72 max, and will be around for a while. If you’re 47, then you are young (that would go with your younger years in school in the 70’s) and it’s good to know you’ll be around for longer. I’m sure to have a ton of questions with these readings, and its nice to have a critical voice/mind to bounce ideas/findings off of.

    With the Frankfort School, (and mind you, I’m Internet impaired right now, just taking the quick routes through Wiki..trivia at MY fingertips at present…) I noted the links to Freud, and to Karl Marx and Boas.

    You mentioned that:
    “meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.” I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. From what I’ve read so far, you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology. Looking objectively, I personally see the benefit of sound ethnographic research. Certainly, there are some social scientists who have lied about their findings or manipulated their research, but I’m hoping that is a very few. There have definitely been reports of scientists in other disciplines who have lied about their findings as well, but other professionals have shown integrity and published true to their data (without manipulating it). After reading so many of what appear to be useful ethnographic texts, there seems to be a lot of value in them, to me. Many of them describe the value of family and of women as the ‘culture’ keepers. More often, their great contribution is in describing what they see and hear within populations, and documenting a piece of culture in time. One text I’m currently reading is “Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War” by Stephen Lubkeman. I’ve enjoyed his writing He seems to report a variety of issues often from hardline and logical perspectives. His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored (ie: the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco). I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    Arghh, there’s just not enough time to write, read, study and sleep.

  76. Artfldgr Says:

    everyone lucks out today…
    {serindipity runs very high in my life!)

    a big dialogue arguing about meade and derek freeman!

    Many readers here will probably be aware of the historical role played by Margaret Mead in the Leftist attack on sexual morality. Her influential book “Growing up in Samoa” paraded Mead’s libertine ideology as anthropological fact. I have made a few comments on the matter over the years and Prof. Hiram Caton has recently taken me to task over some of my comments. You can read the dialogue here. The dialogue is actually about Derek Freeman, the man principally responsible for exposing Mead’s lies. Freeman had to be an unusual character to take on such an acclaimed figure as Mead was and Caton says that Freeman was a nut. I suspect that Freeman simply had a strong ego but that the furious attacks that he sustained from the Left did unnerve him at times. But, as I initially pointed out to Caton, all that is ad hominem anyway.

    http://ofint2.blogspot.com/

    one would say that freeman was arrogant, no?

    but if he was liked, then he would be captivating and the same behavior would be seen as good.

    i havent read the whole read so cant comment on, but jon ray is VERY well versed, and he also covers genetics and all kinds of things well. however, he is truthful, and like many others, he became aware when his truth collided with their agenda. he sided with truth, others side with the agenda and have nicer careers. watson sided with truth, venter sided with agenda.

    interesting world.

  77. Artfldgr Says:

    everyone lucks out today…
    {serindipity runs very high in my life!)

    a big dialogue arguing about meade and derek freeman!

    Many readers here will probably be aware of the historical role played by Margaret Mead in the Leftist attack on sexual morality. Her influential book “Growing up in Samoa” paraded Mead’s libertine ideology as anthropological fact. I have made a few comments on the matter over the years and Prof. Hiram Caton has recently taken me to task over some of my comments. You can read the dialogue here. The dialogue is actually about Derek Freeman, the man principally responsible for exposing Mead’s lies. Freeman had to be an unusual character to take on such an acclaimed figure as Mead was and Caton says that Freeman was a nut. I suspect that Freeman simply had a strong ego but that the furious attacks that he sustained from the Left did unnerve him at times. But, as I initially pointed out to Caton, all that is ad hominem anyway.

    http://ofint2.blogspot.com/

    one would say that freeman was arrogant, no?

    but if he was liked, then he would be captivating and the same behavior would be seen as good.

    i havent read the whole read so cant comment on, but jon ray is VERY well versed, and he also covers genetics and all kinds of things well. however, he is truthful, and like many others, he became aware when his truth collided with their agenda. he sided with truth, others side with the agenda and have nicer careers. watson sided with truth, venter sided with agenda.

    interesting world.

  78. Artfldgr Says:

    everyone lucks out today…
    {serindipity runs very high in my life!)

    a big dialogue arguing about meade and derek freeman!

    Many readers here will probably be aware of the historical role played by Margaret Mead in the Leftist attack on sexual morality. Her influential book “Growing up in Samoa” paraded Mead’s libertine ideology as anthropological fact. I have made a few comments on the matter over the years and Prof. Hiram Caton has recently taken me to task over some of my comments. You can read the dialogue here. The dialogue is actually about Derek Freeman, the man principally responsible for exposing Mead’s lies. Freeman had to be an unusual character to take on such an acclaimed figure as Mead was and Caton says that Freeman was a nut. I suspect that Freeman simply had a strong ego but that the furious attacks that he sustained from the Left did unnerve him at times. But, as I initially pointed out to Caton, all that is ad hominem anyway.

    http://ofint2.blogspot.com/

    one would say that freeman was arrogant, no?

    but if he was liked, then he would be captivating and the same behavior would be seen as good.

    i havent read the whole read so cant comment on, but jon ray is VERY well versed, and he also covers genetics and all kinds of things well. however, he is truthful, and like many others, he became aware when his truth collided with their agenda. he sided with truth, others side with the agenda and have nicer careers. watson sided with truth, venter sided with agenda.

    interesting world.

  79. Artfldgr Says:

    and your earlier statements about following the yellow brick earned a lot of respect in my book.

    Thanks. It was meant since the truth is that by doing so I was showing that I was sincere in you understanding things. and if I control what you read, I control what you think. That’s the part that the people in school fail to remember, and so they fail to say “why are they asking me to read this, and not giving time for that?”, or some other question that gets us to think about what they are handing out. While the razor blade in the apple is a Halloween myth, that’s exactly what they do educationally.

    You will find a lot more on the political right of socialism that have my concepts. I would bet my bottom dollar that our host does too. (Though she is a bit more helpful than I am, it’s our different styles).

    You mentioned that you are “old”.

    Ah, there are many ways to look at ‘old’.

    Physically or chronologically I am still ‘young’, just over 40.
    I came from a family with very good genes (live to near 100), but alas, some have early onset Alzheimer’s. So it probably will not be death that takes the thing you like, at least not at first.

    There is another way to look at age. Through education or experience.

    From a young age I have pretty much not slept much. I sleep about 4 hours a night, and have been constructive always. So when I am not sleeping longer, which is only once in a while, I am also reading, studying, etc. I also fill all the cracks of life with education. Riding the subway I read, I read on the porcelain throne, I read when my wife runs in for something and I am sitting in a car, etc. I always have a notepad with me, and so forth.

    Dieting doesn’t work, it’s a lifestyle…

    Guess what, spot learning is like dieting. : )

    Anyway… let’s say that from 5 on I only slept 4 hours instead of the average 8. Since my retention is great, the time is not wasted, and since I don’t stop working, its also not wasted. It’s a learning lifestyle (soon to be in self help books everywhere, but since they don’t make misery that causes you to come back for more, I guess it’s a dead end)

    So I get 1460 hours extra to learn a year. That’s 60 days. or two more waking months per year than other people have. in 35 years that comes to 70 months which is about 6 years.

    So physically one can say that I am around 40, mental educationally you can say I am closer to 60…

    So am I young or old? Is the next dalai llama as a child young or old?

    You see, the word old is not singular in meaning, it has to be qualified. And if one doesn’t do that, one usually fills in the blanks with the assumptive. Like male or female, however doing that rarely really affects the point, but it does allow one to keep going rather than stall.

    I feel old… as my contemporaries are more like children in their education based on comparing them to yesteryear.

    Much of these books, the older ones, were required reading in schools. Our reading levels were higher. So what you used to get as a child that gave you competence has been removed, so you hve to ‘catch up’, meanwhile your reading skills and work ethos has been dinked so it feels like catching up when you also have to carry a millstone.

    I’m sure to have a ton of questions with these readings, and its nice to have a critical voice/mind to bounce ideas/findings off of.

    Actually the nice part is that once you get past my strong assertiveness you find that I am actually fair, honest, have proper boundaries, can keep my ego and desires out of it, and so forth.

    That’s really what makes it nice. [and no my wife doesn’t take advantage of it at all]

    With the Frankfort School, (and mind you, I’m Internet impaired right now, just taking the quick routes through Wiki..trivia at MY fingertips at present…) I noted the links to Freud, and to Karl Marx and Boas.

    The Frankfurt school thought to combine the ideas of Freud, skinner, Marx, etc. after they synthesized this, things like Meade and boas and such came shortly later, as the work of the Frankfurt school predates their arrival in the US. After all, the work they did was published, and so it was easy for another state to pick it up and then help make the suppositions reality, and the people doing it found lucre from that so continued.

    “meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.” I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. From what I’ve read so far, you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology.

    Well if you study boas from a distance and you collect all you can, not revisionist you get a different picture of him.

    Boas came up from nowhere. He actually didn’t even have much anthropological experience, and suddenly was at the forefront of things. His biggest contribution was his communist/socialist agenda on race. Denying genetics and race creates the explanation that race problems are not due to actual differences but must be due to oppression.

    Take away the material physical explanation, and you take away natural causes. Take away natural causes, you then have no explanation. Then you can insert the explanation that you want. Which is why leftists deny genetics and science so much, that way they can assert a reality they want. Note that most of us will function just fine not knowing whether an atom exists or is real. Our system is created to not know and function. Otherwise it would break down and stall for not being god or perfect.

    you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology.

    I am not a fan because his work was ideologically based, not scientifically based. He ran 44 front organizations which meant that most of his time was spent coordinating these ideas politically. This is kind of like Lamarck campaigning to promote his ideas over Darwin because he can’t win with a lie. This is exactly what happened in the soviet union, and you can see this play out in the history of Lysenko’s.

    From the 30s, when African Americans had solid families, good homes, were a part of the culture. take a look at history. Look at the history of food, and ribs. Not in a racial way, but as history. A lot of rib places in the south were run and opened by black men who were able to coble together some money and start a business. Stubbs is a classic example. started with less than 100, stubbs is still around, and now worth millions. The fact that it is family owned and started BEFORE the democrat socialists helped them is why the FAMILY was not destroyed and now their FAMILY is prosperous.

    The same story is told in the movie “the persuit of happiness”. The story is a true story, the part played by will smith is the part played by an actual man. the point was that he couldn’t get his flick made without them changing it. they wanted to add marxs fat cats, and show that success was blocked by the ‘good ol boy network’, and so on and so forth.

    Guess what? all that is propaganda, and it took this man to take his OWN MONEY from the HIS OWN brokerage firm to fund the movie.

    Think about that. this down and out black man who had no money and a son, and by his own admission was stupid. Rose from that level in a business that is the very heart of capitalism and fat cats and what we all imagine is white privilege, and did so well, that he started his own brokerage firm, made so much money that he could hire an actor like will smith. He had to pay for the advertising, and as you can note, the movie was a hit, but they shuttled it real fast through distribution and such to get it out of the stream.

    This is why capitalists are hated, not because they have more. but because having more means they can act on their own conscious, they can circumnavigate around the Maginot line, and take the prize. The controllers are never as inventive as the needers.

    He was trying to show that the only person holding someone back in a capitalist society is you, and if you listen to the wrong people, they will give you a mindset of failure, then convince you that its someone else’s fault because taking responsibility for your own life and choices is hard, and has no one to help you. And accepting their logic gives you an instant cadre of fair weather friends. he showed that if you weather the storms, you get to see the sun.

    Looking objectively, I personally see the benefit of sound ethnographic research.

    You still haven’t realized that lies can’t lead to truth. You personally can see the benefit because they worked out the argument to sell you on it. It shifts the whole thing from empirical information to anecdote and that shifts it to opinion, and makes the whole seeming truth vulnerable to the “big lie”.

    That’s why margrets work was so influential. There was a whole cadre of fellow travelers and useful idiots that got the message to keep bringing her up, keep pushing the lie, keep
    doing that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
    The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

    Margret meade and boas was distorting the truth so far, that we still have problems accepting the invalidity of their work, and the many many many others that based their ideas and such on it.

    By making it all subjective, the whole science could blithely go along making up stuff and as long as it sounded good, or right, it was right. That created the situation where the whole body of work was a useless mish mosh of valid and invalid. In essence only a bit of arsenic is needed to ruin a lot of water.

    And what was the result? Once the “science” was in place, they could then use the science to justify public policy and action. The rest of the world would see that to discover something that went against the flow was to get washed away by the power of the flow.

    Read the definition of ethnography.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography

    Ethnography (ἔθνος ethnos = people and γράφειν graphein = writing) is the genre of writing that presents varying degrees of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of human social phenomena, based on fieldwork. Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently of each other. The genre has both formal and historical connections to travel writing and colonial office reports. Several academic traditions, in particular the constructivist and relativist paradigms, employ ethnographic research as a crucial research method. Many cultural anthropologists consider ethnography the essence of the discipline

    Does that sound like hard science to you, or does it sound like one could play with that one all one wants by falsifying consensus?

    Basically a biased person watches the people and then tells us whats going on.

    So if a black national socialist was watching and was steeped in heavy class dialectics, would they be able to see the truth? just as our host was aghast as to the concept that a woman would be upset that rapists didn’t target all ages of women equally, that’s how warped their research can be.

    So you educate them in cultural Marxism and power views as the only view, and what will they do when they go into the field? Well describe everything in those terms.

    So they don’t see a natural family as a cohesive and beneficial unit, they can only see it as a power struggle. And so they describe it like that, we internalilze it like that,and we take the shortcut that “if it’s a power struggle, then I lose if I act in a certain way”. what you then get is people who think taking a back seat sometimes is always wrong as they always lose. The family turns from a ship in which a captain steers where his passengers want to go (cause a captain that doesn’t doesn’t have a crew and ship to steer. Shows you how far the public information is skewed). ‘

    In their new world view, everyone has to argue and fight to be the captain. Why? because the captain has status and power. but that’s only if you imagine a captain as a kidnapper who can take his charges anywhere and impose destinations on them. this is true operationally as things that could be done, and sometimes are. but in truth, the overall flow has to take them to a better place or things fall apart.

    When you have 2 captains, and no passengers, you get the idea of the new modern American family. Meanwhile, the truth is that each leads in their own way in their own domain. So a dad may steer the large gross movements, and a mom may tune things. a captain may set the legal and fair rules, because they can be ejected so the only way to keep everyone together is to be truly fair (against moms natural proclivity to keep taking unfair portions. Great for outer connections deadly to the family inside).

    However everyone has to be happy with how things go. If the other fancies themselves the captain, they also have to take responsibility for where things go. The women take the helm and do not want to lose it, and you lose it by not doing well. so the dialectic changes the paradigm from merit, where the incumbent can be ejected by bad acts, to power, where the incumbent oppressed must always occupy the captains seat to prevent the oppression of the captain.

    The odd outcomes are from how this plays out. Some men will mutiny and beat up the captain and take control of the ship. Some men will then sit and become passengers, and so the new captain gets upset that they are now responsible for everything and they cant enjoy sitting on the deck chairs.

    Suddenly under power dialectics, we wonder if the dog is walking the man, or the man is walking the dog. Who cleans up after whom like a butler?

    So the minute she takes the captains power, she sees the power she HAD. And since it’s a power game, she has to have the most to win. Like communism, she becomes totalitarian as any power base is now a threat to her power. so suddenly she gets pisssed that he now doesn’t have to work as hard. She cant reform the power dialectic as its all she now knows (then conveniently leave out others methods or demonize them so they are not options).

    What no one sees is that real power is fractured to be efficient. No one entity can actually have power or dominion over all and still function. In essence they made every family relationship into a mini copy of soviet politics and with the result that over time every little soviet union collapses.

    You find me intriguing because I have real answers that are better than theirs. since you want to learn the dissonance is not being avoided but being seen as a indicator of a trail.

    It’s like being stuck watching an accident and such. Too horrible to really take in, but too horrible to look away. but in this case its because of the myths that you think are truth, and so you see things in those terms.

    A neighbor of mine is a feminist. She knows that I am definitely not. she thought she would screw up my marriage by having a cocktail party and inviting my foreign wife.

    She is used up. she followed the whole feminist program and has been cheated out of money to a yonger man who had nothing, she has nothing, she constantly tries to show that she can be a great in business, and she constantly drinks too much wine. Kind of like the result of the sex in the city girls after the show ended.

    Feminism is about spite and envy. So her impulse was to act out “if I cant have it then no one can”, isn’t that what heather mills is doing.

    Well the next day after the party we are walking up the stairs and she pops her head out and she says to me.

    “I know that you’re an anti-feminist, but I just wanted to tell you that your wife has more freedom than the rest of us or any other woman I know”

    I looked at her weirdly and said of course… I am against feminism. So I am against controlling people, and we went up the stairs.

    Certainly, there are some social scientists who have lied about their findings or manipulated their research, but I’m hoping that is a very few.

    Look at your language there. all assumptive and all skewed towards the general idea that man is good. don’t you realize that there is BILLIONS of dollars and huge power at stake that comes from the information that comes out?

    THAT’S WHY hard sciences are favored by meritocracies, and soft sciences are favored by communists.

    Barak obama was able to get the US to side with an appropriation of almost a trillion dollars to help the oppressed nations.

    The fake information from boas, meade, Kinsey, et al. IS worth 800 billion in largesse’s.
    That much money can easily be misdirected and unaccounted. Heck we gave russia almost a billion a year rather than give our soldiers humvees armor.

    Do you still think that hope is enough?

    The number doesn’t matter. few or many. Its not the number it’s the specificity and placement. Its diamond cutting verses chain saw.

    Meade is the most quoted researcher in the whole body of work. how do you weed that out? how do you redo all the work and suppositions that come after her that based their ideas on her sham?

    And note that boas educated about a dozen of these… they then went to a dozen of the most prestigious ivy league schools. From Columbia, to Harvard, to yale, etc.

    Which is worse, ten people as department heads and curriculum overloards in the top ivy league schools everyone else copies, or a hundred people on the bottom?

    This is the same sham argument between cigarettes and marijuana. Marijuana has more chemicals known to be cancer causing, but they are mild. Cigarettes have less, but the main ones are incredibly bad. But the theme of the propaganda is that M is worse than C because M has more X.

    Note that it took almost 40 years before someone stood up and took notice of this and then did the work.

    There have definitely been reports of scientists in other disciplines who have lied about their findings as well, but other professionals have shown integrity and published true to their data (without manipulating it).

    Notice what you just said. You blithely considered the actions in a hard science as equivalent to a soft science. you reletevated the two to make your point. the DATA in sociology and anthropology is subjective, you cant prove or disprove based on the data.

    Howevever, the other disciplines are harder, and when you publish a paper, lots go out and attempt to duplicate the work. they attempt to have reproducible answers.

    The new methods and dicvisions boas took specifically moved that science domain away from that.

    It also took 40 years to notice that Kinsey couldn’t get his work done unless he was abusing the children in his charge. The data was their, but you had to say “how did he get this data” in order to realize that it was wrong in some way. the wrongness wasn’t the measurements, the wrongness was methodology which was left out. it would have described hiring two pedophiles and having them abuse a child for 15 hours to see how many times they could force the baby to have an orgasm. So methods were left out, and since Kinsey was now in the new anecdotal science, it was ok to leave this out.

    Right now ¼ of the young female population in America has a cancer causing, fertility stopping virus, precisely because of Meade, Boas, Kinsey, Freidan, etc.

    After reading so many of what appear to be useful ethnographic texts, there seems to be a lot of value in them, to me.

    Of course, you have been outclassed. Imagine a room with a dozen people as smart and insightful as me answering the question, how can I trick the very smart but less smart than me.

    You like them because they are in feminine dialogue. They are a form of formalized gossip pretending to be science. Doing that would change the make up of the genders in the science. Men would see the discussions as frivolous and going no where, and would leave the domain, and women would think the gossip was key research.

    Your still IN it, not ABOVE it.
    Your IN the glass house.

    “Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War” by Stephen Lubkeman. I’ve enjoyed his writing He seems to report a variety of issues often from hardline and logical perspectives. His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored (ie: the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco). I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    See. Gossip.

    I don’t have the book, so I can’t look it up. However your confusing persuasion with validity. This is validity through consensus, not validity through merit.

    If he can ‘convince’ you, then he must be right.
    So the person who can control the conversation, like in a book, can then control the outcome by leaving out the information that is troublesome.

    Care to check out who and when the word genocide was coined? Hard to do something when the meaning doesn’t even exist yet, isn’t it? but its easy to look back and revision history and say there it is, here it is too… but in truth, the knowledge of what genocide is and amounts to changes the dynamic of considering it as an act. those not aware of the larger implication of things, would not be choosing genocide but a historically pragmatic need because of what lessons you learn from bible to the godfather series. (what happened because one boy survived?). I can collect lessons from david in the bible, the godfather… the Japanese tale of the boy that became a prostitute to get an std, then become the lover of the emperor that murdered his family. There are TONS of these examples, but notice how they leave them out.

    Lubkemann focuses on how Ndau social networks were fragmented by wartime displacement and the profound effect this had on gender relations.

    I can say its sham because it comes from Marxist dialectics and so is placing things in terms of power and such.

    I will bet you that he doesn’t touch on the very nature of war and conflict. That would be a bad place to go, since if he wanted to handle it fully and not skewed he would have to get his readers to understand clauswitz, and tsun tsu, and many others. and that, like dawkins, is not to be done as it doesn’t serve the propaganda.

    Why gender relations? Because everthing for the state, everything from the state, and everything to the state. and Marxism socialism is the state ideology and so everything from the state means everything.

    Gender concepts is cultural Marxism. How can you get to real information if that information contradicts cultural Marxism? You cant. Which is the whole point.

    As long as your sitting in their little box reading all these compliecated self referencing circular stuff, you will always think its fine.

    Let me know if you thnk things in the US are much better since the “truth” has been revealed by the cultural Marxists. Or has the ulterior objective of gutting us as human beings and making us uneducated animals that need a totalitarian state the way a pack of dogs needs to be penned up for everyone’s good.

    Haven’t you noticed that the more of this stuff gets made, the worse things get?

    His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored

    I will bet you $20 dollars that you don’t know history of Africa. Do you know that sierra leone is an African equivalent to Israel?

    May I ask why should America not ignore a sovereign state?

    Do you realize that clauswitz described what starts wars in clear terms.

    One entity tells another entity what to do in their own domain. If the other entity refuses to comply, and the first entity refuses to back down, you get war.

    So does making America pay attention to what happens in other places create war or create peace?

    See the meta argument… he is justifying a constant state of revolutionary war and totalitarian intervention, and your eating it up.

    Why? because you don’t know the subjects and so are a slave to the logic that sounds reasonable not the logic that is correct.

    the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco

    Well who trained us to consider that news and want to see that? Remember before feminism, news was not fun and entertaining, it required state money and laws to insure that it was on television. Or don’t you know that?

    what does your little section of comment imply we should have been doing rather than watching OJ. Perhaps invading rawanda and doing there what we are trying to do in iraq?

    See the contradiction? They are pushing intervention, then when it happens they are saying we are mean, then they are forcing a demoralizeing and world hurting retreat.

    They are acting like the worst type of woman that tries to get everyone to fight by playing them off of each other, and then watching the huge war, while sitting there innocently taking the moral high ground.

    I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    Of course you do. You have your career and the tests answers to insure that that’s your attitude. Otherwise you might be like Freeman (Meade), or pinker (tabula rasa), or Watson (genetics over boas), or Copernicus, or a long list of others. They were all willing to put their necks on the chopping blocks for truth.

    Ah, but we don’t have a culture that is worth that anymore.. and so its easier to make your career on a lie and keep going. no?

    The Dubious Origins of ‘Gay Studies’
    Kinsey’s Fraudulent ‘Science’ Pervades Law and Academia
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=1700

    After you read that, let me know whether you think the lying is a nothing.

    [Note that 54 million potential children have been summarily executed before birth to fit a soft eugenics program. Millions of people are making their life choices on the information that we can no longer separate out. and their decisions, since the data is false, are actually only good for a world where that information would be true. Which means they are acting correctly for a world they don’t live in. and they are frustrated, angry, full of blame and confused. That about sums up the behavior slid of the past 40 years from a culture that was polite, much less racist, more sharing, loving, etc]

    Citing Kinsey’s phony “data” is standard procedure in the legal profession and in the academic “scholarship” that jurists use to support their rulings.

    That’s from the article. Still think that the sham stuff is harmless? If its known to be bad and sham, then why are they using it? because it has precedence and provides them a solid scientific reasoning to force the outcome they want politically, which is the destruction of family, and the replacement of religion and parentage with the state as god the father.

    Part one in this series exposed the Court’s “scientific understanding” in Lawrence as turning on the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code (ALIMPC) and the 1957 (British) Wolfenden Report. Both relied on Kinsey’s bogus “findings” in his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

    The reason wasn’t to embed it in science, the reason was to embed it in laws to change the culture.

    Now you know.

    Most useful idiots fit the quote from hamlet.
    “I shall find myself bounded in a nutshell, and call myself a king of infinite space”

    Until this moment you compartmentalized things to make them ok. You throw a rock in the water, and you see the ripples go out and don’t realized hat they go down the stream too to the other pools. It will take more than 100 years to remove that stuff, and we will never get the chance.

    in part two, we’ll scrutinize more Kinsey-worshiping the sort of “scientific subject matter” that persuaded six Supreme Court justices in Lawrence that outlawing “homosexual sodomy furthers no legitimate state interest.” In his powerful dissent from Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity . . . [are all] called into question by today’s decision.”

    Still think boas, meade, Kinsey and such didn’t do much?

    Your now only seeing a very small hint of the iceberg.

    Isn’t it amazing that you never saw the elephant in the room?

    Justice Scalia is right; the “law-profession culture” is on record as subscribing to Kinsey’s sexual ideology. Consider that over a 16-year period, from 1982 to 1998, at least 1,000 major law school journal articles quoted Kinsey as their sex science authority. And the critically important American Association of Law Schools commands total submission to its homosexual “equity” ethic. But it’s not just the law schools. One survey (American Enterprise, 2002) confirms the anecdotal observation that almost 100% of those teaching history, women’s and “gay studies” in our major universities are self-identified as leftists. This means academia is blacklisting traditionalist scholars. That is bad science and, as seen in Lawrence, it produces bad law. Kinsey disciples also dominate the social sciences. The Science Citation & Social Science Citation Indices from 1948 to 1997 yielded 5,796 academic publications that quoted Kinsey, far more than the next “sexuality” contender, Masters & Johnson, at 3,716. Instead of objectively searching for truth, scholars are accepting Kinseyan sexuality uncritically because they like his fake “findings.”

    Maybe our host might not like me now for this. but as Jefferson said, you don’t make friends by telling the truth. another aside to groupisms using the need to be in the group as a Skinnerian method to create a environment where lies are better than truth. in this way, we can handle less and less truth.

    Ultimately, the demographics of this will end up removing them from the population.

    Something that we shouldn’t be deciding through our limited views and short lives, while nature has views 100,000 years long.

  80. Artfldgr Says:

    and your earlier statements about following the yellow brick earned a lot of respect in my book.

    Thanks. It was meant since the truth is that by doing so I was showing that I was sincere in you understanding things. and if I control what you read, I control what you think. That’s the part that the people in school fail to remember, and so they fail to say “why are they asking me to read this, and not giving time for that?”, or some other question that gets us to think about what they are handing out. While the razor blade in the apple is a Halloween myth, that’s exactly what they do educationally.

    You will find a lot more on the political right of socialism that have my concepts. I would bet my bottom dollar that our host does too. (Though she is a bit more helpful than I am, it’s our different styles).

    You mentioned that you are “old”.

    Ah, there are many ways to look at ‘old’.

    Physically or chronologically I am still ‘young’, just over 40.
    I came from a family with very good genes (live to near 100), but alas, some have early onset Alzheimer’s. So it probably will not be death that takes the thing you like, at least not at first.

    There is another way to look at age. Through education or experience.

    From a young age I have pretty much not slept much. I sleep about 4 hours a night, and have been constructive always. So when I am not sleeping longer, which is only once in a while, I am also reading, studying, etc. I also fill all the cracks of life with education. Riding the subway I read, I read on the porcelain throne, I read when my wife runs in for something and I am sitting in a car, etc. I always have a notepad with me, and so forth.

    Dieting doesn’t work, it’s a lifestyle…

    Guess what, spot learning is like dieting. : )

    Anyway… let’s say that from 5 on I only slept 4 hours instead of the average 8. Since my retention is great, the time is not wasted, and since I don’t stop working, its also not wasted. It’s a learning lifestyle (soon to be in self help books everywhere, but since they don’t make misery that causes you to come back for more, I guess it’s a dead end)

    So I get 1460 hours extra to learn a year. That’s 60 days. or two more waking months per year than other people have. in 35 years that comes to 70 months which is about 6 years.

    So physically one can say that I am around 40, mental educationally you can say I am closer to 60…

    So am I young or old? Is the next dalai llama as a child young or old?

    You see, the word old is not singular in meaning, it has to be qualified. And if one doesn’t do that, one usually fills in the blanks with the assumptive. Like male or female, however doing that rarely really affects the point, but it does allow one to keep going rather than stall.

    I feel old… as my contemporaries are more like children in their education based on comparing them to yesteryear.

    Much of these books, the older ones, were required reading in schools. Our reading levels were higher. So what you used to get as a child that gave you competence has been removed, so you hve to ‘catch up’, meanwhile your reading skills and work ethos has been dinked so it feels like catching up when you also have to carry a millstone.

    I’m sure to have a ton of questions with these readings, and its nice to have a critical voice/mind to bounce ideas/findings off of.

    Actually the nice part is that once you get past my strong assertiveness you find that I am actually fair, honest, have proper boundaries, can keep my ego and desires out of it, and so forth.

    That’s really what makes it nice. [and no my wife doesn’t take advantage of it at all]

    With the Frankfort School, (and mind you, I’m Internet impaired right now, just taking the quick routes through Wiki..trivia at MY fingertips at present…) I noted the links to Freud, and to Karl Marx and Boas.

    The Frankfurt school thought to combine the ideas of Freud, skinner, Marx, etc. after they synthesized this, things like Meade and boas and such came shortly later, as the work of the Frankfurt school predates their arrival in the US. After all, the work they did was published, and so it was easy for another state to pick it up and then help make the suppositions reality, and the people doing it found lucre from that so continued.

    “meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.” I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. From what I’ve read so far, you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology.

    Well if you study boas from a distance and you collect all you can, not revisionist you get a different picture of him.

    Boas came up from nowhere. He actually didn’t even have much anthropological experience, and suddenly was at the forefront of things. His biggest contribution was his communist/socialist agenda on race. Denying genetics and race creates the explanation that race problems are not due to actual differences but must be due to oppression.

    Take away the material physical explanation, and you take away natural causes. Take away natural causes, you then have no explanation. Then you can insert the explanation that you want. Which is why leftists deny genetics and science so much, that way they can assert a reality they want. Note that most of us will function just fine not knowing whether an atom exists or is real. Our system is created to not know and function. Otherwise it would break down and stall for not being god or perfect.

    you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology.

    I am not a fan because his work was ideologically based, not scientifically based. He ran 44 front organizations which meant that most of his time was spent coordinating these ideas politically. This is kind of like Lamarck campaigning to promote his ideas over Darwin because he can’t win with a lie. This is exactly what happened in the soviet union, and you can see this play out in the history of Lysenko’s.

    From the 30s, when African Americans had solid families, good homes, were a part of the culture. take a look at history. Look at the history of food, and ribs. Not in a racial way, but as history. A lot of rib places in the south were run and opened by black men who were able to coble together some money and start a business. Stubbs is a classic example. started with less than 100, stubbs is still around, and now worth millions. The fact that it is family owned and started BEFORE the democrat socialists helped them is why the FAMILY was not destroyed and now their FAMILY is prosperous.

    The same story is told in the movie “the persuit of happiness”. The story is a true story, the part played by will smith is the part played by an actual man. the point was that he couldn’t get his flick made without them changing it. they wanted to add marxs fat cats, and show that success was blocked by the ‘good ol boy network’, and so on and so forth.

    Guess what? all that is propaganda, and it took this man to take his OWN MONEY from the HIS OWN brokerage firm to fund the movie.

    Think about that. this down and out black man who had no money and a son, and by his own admission was stupid. Rose from that level in a business that is the very heart of capitalism and fat cats and what we all imagine is white privilege, and did so well, that he started his own brokerage firm, made so much money that he could hire an actor like will smith. He had to pay for the advertising, and as you can note, the movie was a hit, but they shuttled it real fast through distribution and such to get it out of the stream.

    This is why capitalists are hated, not because they have more. but because having more means they can act on their own conscious, they can circumnavigate around the Maginot line, and take the prize. The controllers are never as inventive as the needers.

    He was trying to show that the only person holding someone back in a capitalist society is you, and if you listen to the wrong people, they will give you a mindset of failure, then convince you that its someone else’s fault because taking responsibility for your own life and choices is hard, and has no one to help you. And accepting their logic gives you an instant cadre of fair weather friends. he showed that if you weather the storms, you get to see the sun.

    Looking objectively, I personally see the benefit of sound ethnographic research.

    You still haven’t realized that lies can’t lead to truth. You personally can see the benefit because they worked out the argument to sell you on it. It shifts the whole thing from empirical information to anecdote and that shifts it to opinion, and makes the whole seeming truth vulnerable to the “big lie”.

    That’s why margrets work was so influential. There was a whole cadre of fellow travelers and useful idiots that got the message to keep bringing her up, keep pushing the lie, keep
    doing that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
    The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

    Margret meade and boas was distorting the truth so far, that we still have problems accepting the invalidity of their work, and the many many many others that based their ideas and such on it.

    By making it all subjective, the whole science could blithely go along making up stuff and as long as it sounded good, or right, it was right. That created the situation where the whole body of work was a useless mish mosh of valid and invalid. In essence only a bit of arsenic is needed to ruin a lot of water.

    And what was the result? Once the “science” was in place, they could then use the science to justify public policy and action. The rest of the world would see that to discover something that went against the flow was to get washed away by the power of the flow.

    Read the definition of ethnography.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography

    Ethnography (ἔθνος ethnos = people and γράφειν graphein = writing) is the genre of writing that presents varying degrees of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of human social phenomena, based on fieldwork. Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently of each other. The genre has both formal and historical connections to travel writing and colonial office reports. Several academic traditions, in particular the constructivist and relativist paradigms, employ ethnographic research as a crucial research method. Many cultural anthropologists consider ethnography the essence of the discipline

    Does that sound like hard science to you, or does it sound like one could play with that one all one wants by falsifying consensus?

    Basically a biased person watches the people and then tells us whats going on.

    So if a black national socialist was watching and was steeped in heavy class dialectics, would they be able to see the truth? just as our host was aghast as to the concept that a woman would be upset that rapists didn’t target all ages of women equally, that’s how warped their research can be.

    So you educate them in cultural Marxism and power views as the only view, and what will they do when they go into the field? Well describe everything in those terms.

    So they don’t see a natural family as a cohesive and beneficial unit, they can only see it as a power struggle. And so they describe it like that, we internalilze it like that,and we take the shortcut that “if it’s a power struggle, then I lose if I act in a certain way”. what you then get is people who think taking a back seat sometimes is always wrong as they always lose. The family turns from a ship in which a captain steers where his passengers want to go (cause a captain that doesn’t doesn’t have a crew and ship to steer. Shows you how far the public information is skewed). ‘

    In their new world view, everyone has to argue and fight to be the captain. Why? because the captain has status and power. but that’s only if you imagine a captain as a kidnapper who can take his charges anywhere and impose destinations on them. this is true operationally as things that could be done, and sometimes are. but in truth, the overall flow has to take them to a better place or things fall apart.

    When you have 2 captains, and no passengers, you get the idea of the new modern American family. Meanwhile, the truth is that each leads in their own way in their own domain. So a dad may steer the large gross movements, and a mom may tune things. a captain may set the legal and fair rules, because they can be ejected so the only way to keep everyone together is to be truly fair (against moms natural proclivity to keep taking unfair portions. Great for outer connections deadly to the family inside).

    However everyone has to be happy with how things go. If the other fancies themselves the captain, they also have to take responsibility for where things go. The women take the helm and do not want to lose it, and you lose it by not doing well. so the dialectic changes the paradigm from merit, where the incumbent can be ejected by bad acts, to power, where the incumbent oppressed must always occupy the captains seat to prevent the oppression of the captain.

    The odd outcomes are from how this plays out. Some men will mutiny and beat up the captain and take control of the ship. Some men will then sit and become passengers, and so the new captain gets upset that they are now responsible for everything and they cant enjoy sitting on the deck chairs.

    Suddenly under power dialectics, we wonder if the dog is walking the man, or the man is walking the dog. Who cleans up after whom like a butler?

    So the minute she takes the captains power, she sees the power she HAD. And since it’s a power game, she has to have the most to win. Like communism, she becomes totalitarian as any power base is now a threat to her power. so suddenly she gets pisssed that he now doesn’t have to work as hard. She cant reform the power dialectic as its all she now knows (then conveniently leave out others methods or demonize them so they are not options).

    What no one sees is that real power is fractured to be efficient. No one entity can actually have power or dominion over all and still function. In essence they made every family relationship into a mini copy of soviet politics and with the result that over time every little soviet union collapses.

    You find me intriguing because I have real answers that are better than theirs. since you want to learn the dissonance is not being avoided but being seen as a indicator of a trail.

    It’s like being stuck watching an accident and such. Too horrible to really take in, but too horrible to look away. but in this case its because of the myths that you think are truth, and so you see things in those terms.

    A neighbor of mine is a feminist. She knows that I am definitely not. she thought she would screw up my marriage by having a cocktail party and inviting my foreign wife.

    She is used up. she followed the whole feminist program and has been cheated out of money to a yonger man who had nothing, she has nothing, she constantly tries to show that she can be a great in business, and she constantly drinks too much wine. Kind of like the result of the sex in the city girls after the show ended.

    Feminism is about spite and envy. So her impulse was to act out “if I cant have it then no one can”, isn’t that what heather mills is doing.

    Well the next day after the party we are walking up the stairs and she pops her head out and she says to me.

    “I know that you’re an anti-feminist, but I just wanted to tell you that your wife has more freedom than the rest of us or any other woman I know”

    I looked at her weirdly and said of course… I am against feminism. So I am against controlling people, and we went up the stairs.

    Certainly, there are some social scientists who have lied about their findings or manipulated their research, but I’m hoping that is a very few.

    Look at your language there. all assumptive and all skewed towards the general idea that man is good. don’t you realize that there is BILLIONS of dollars and huge power at stake that comes from the information that comes out?

    THAT’S WHY hard sciences are favored by meritocracies, and soft sciences are favored by communists.

    Barak obama was able to get the US to side with an appropriation of almost a trillion dollars to help the oppressed nations.

    The fake information from boas, meade, Kinsey, et al. IS worth 800 billion in largesse’s.
    That much money can easily be misdirected and unaccounted. Heck we gave russia almost a billion a year rather than give our soldiers humvees armor.

    Do you still think that hope is enough?

    The number doesn’t matter. few or many. Its not the number it’s the specificity and placement. Its diamond cutting verses chain saw.

    Meade is the most quoted researcher in the whole body of work. how do you weed that out? how do you redo all the work and suppositions that come after her that based their ideas on her sham?

    And note that boas educated about a dozen of these… they then went to a dozen of the most prestigious ivy league schools. From Columbia, to Harvard, to yale, etc.

    Which is worse, ten people as department heads and curriculum overloards in the top ivy league schools everyone else copies, or a hundred people on the bottom?

    This is the same sham argument between cigarettes and marijuana. Marijuana has more chemicals known to be cancer causing, but they are mild. Cigarettes have less, but the main ones are incredibly bad. But the theme of the propaganda is that M is worse than C because M has more X.

    Note that it took almost 40 years before someone stood up and took notice of this and then did the work.

    There have definitely been reports of scientists in other disciplines who have lied about their findings as well, but other professionals have shown integrity and published true to their data (without manipulating it).

    Notice what you just said. You blithely considered the actions in a hard science as equivalent to a soft science. you reletevated the two to make your point. the DATA in sociology and anthropology is subjective, you cant prove or disprove based on the data.

    Howevever, the other disciplines are harder, and when you publish a paper, lots go out and attempt to duplicate the work. they attempt to have reproducible answers.

    The new methods and dicvisions boas took specifically moved that science domain away from that.

    It also took 40 years to notice that Kinsey couldn’t get his work done unless he was abusing the children in his charge. The data was their, but you had to say “how did he get this data” in order to realize that it was wrong in some way. the wrongness wasn’t the measurements, the wrongness was methodology which was left out. it would have described hiring two pedophiles and having them abuse a child for 15 hours to see how many times they could force the baby to have an orgasm. So methods were left out, and since Kinsey was now in the new anecdotal science, it was ok to leave this out.

    Right now ¼ of the young female population in America has a cancer causing, fertility stopping virus, precisely because of Meade, Boas, Kinsey, Freidan, etc.

    After reading so many of what appear to be useful ethnographic texts, there seems to be a lot of value in them, to me.

    Of course, you have been outclassed. Imagine a room with a dozen people as smart and insightful as me answering the question, how can I trick the very smart but less smart than me.

    You like them because they are in feminine dialogue. They are a form of formalized gossip pretending to be science. Doing that would change the make up of the genders in the science. Men would see the discussions as frivolous and going no where, and would leave the domain, and women would think the gossip was key research.

    Your still IN it, not ABOVE it.
    Your IN the glass house.

    “Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War” by Stephen Lubkeman. I’ve enjoyed his writing He seems to report a variety of issues often from hardline and logical perspectives. His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored (ie: the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco). I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    See. Gossip.

    I don’t have the book, so I can’t look it up. However your confusing persuasion with validity. This is validity through consensus, not validity through merit.

    If he can ‘convince’ you, then he must be right.
    So the person who can control the conversation, like in a book, can then control the outcome by leaving out the information that is troublesome.

    Care to check out who and when the word genocide was coined? Hard to do something when the meaning doesn’t even exist yet, isn’t it? but its easy to look back and revision history and say there it is, here it is too… but in truth, the knowledge of what genocide is and amounts to changes the dynamic of considering it as an act. those not aware of the larger implication of things, would not be choosing genocide but a historically pragmatic need because of what lessons you learn from bible to the godfather series. (what happened because one boy survived?). I can collect lessons from david in the bible, the godfather… the Japanese tale of the boy that became a prostitute to get an std, then become the lover of the emperor that murdered his family. There are TONS of these examples, but notice how they leave them out.

    Lubkemann focuses on how Ndau social networks were fragmented by wartime displacement and the profound effect this had on gender relations.

    I can say its sham because it comes from Marxist dialectics and so is placing things in terms of power and such.

    I will bet you that he doesn’t touch on the very nature of war and conflict. That would be a bad place to go, since if he wanted to handle it fully and not skewed he would have to get his readers to understand clauswitz, and tsun tsu, and many others. and that, like dawkins, is not to be done as it doesn’t serve the propaganda.

    Why gender relations? Because everthing for the state, everything from the state, and everything to the state. and Marxism socialism is the state ideology and so everything from the state means everything.

    Gender concepts is cultural Marxism. How can you get to real information if that information contradicts cultural Marxism? You cant. Which is the whole point.

    As long as your sitting in their little box reading all these compliecated self referencing circular stuff, you will always think its fine.

    Let me know if you thnk things in the US are much better since the “truth” has been revealed by the cultural Marxists. Or has the ulterior objective of gutting us as human beings and making us uneducated animals that need a totalitarian state the way a pack of dogs needs to be penned up for everyone’s good.

    Haven’t you noticed that the more of this stuff gets made, the worse things get?

    His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored

    I will bet you $20 dollars that you don’t know history of Africa. Do you know that sierra leone is an African equivalent to Israel?

    May I ask why should America not ignore a sovereign state?

    Do you realize that clauswitz described what starts wars in clear terms.

    One entity tells another entity what to do in their own domain. If the other entity refuses to comply, and the first entity refuses to back down, you get war.

    So does making America pay attention to what happens in other places create war or create peace?

    See the meta argument… he is justifying a constant state of revolutionary war and totalitarian intervention, and your eating it up.

    Why? because you don’t know the subjects and so are a slave to the logic that sounds reasonable not the logic that is correct.

    the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco

    Well who trained us to consider that news and want to see that? Remember before feminism, news was not fun and entertaining, it required state money and laws to insure that it was on television. Or don’t you know that?

    what does your little section of comment imply we should have been doing rather than watching OJ. Perhaps invading rawanda and doing there what we are trying to do in iraq?

    See the contradiction? They are pushing intervention, then when it happens they are saying we are mean, then they are forcing a demoralizeing and world hurting retreat.

    They are acting like the worst type of woman that tries to get everyone to fight by playing them off of each other, and then watching the huge war, while sitting there innocently taking the moral high ground.

    I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    Of course you do. You have your career and the tests answers to insure that that’s your attitude. Otherwise you might be like Freeman (Meade), or pinker (tabula rasa), or Watson (genetics over boas), or Copernicus, or a long list of others. They were all willing to put their necks on the chopping blocks for truth.

    Ah, but we don’t have a culture that is worth that anymore.. and so its easier to make your career on a lie and keep going. no?

    The Dubious Origins of ‘Gay Studies’
    Kinsey’s Fraudulent ‘Science’ Pervades Law and Academia
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=1700

    After you read that, let me know whether you think the lying is a nothing.

    [Note that 54 million potential children have been summarily executed before birth to fit a soft eugenics program. Millions of people are making their life choices on the information that we can no longer separate out. and their decisions, since the data is false, are actually only good for a world where that information would be true. Which means they are acting correctly for a world they don’t live in. and they are frustrated, angry, full of blame and confused. That about sums up the behavior slid of the past 40 years from a culture that was polite, much less racist, more sharing, loving, etc]

    Citing Kinsey’s phony “data” is standard procedure in the legal profession and in the academic “scholarship” that jurists use to support their rulings.

    That’s from the article. Still think that the sham stuff is harmless? If its known to be bad and sham, then why are they using it? because it has precedence and provides them a solid scientific reasoning to force the outcome they want politically, which is the destruction of family, and the replacement of religion and parentage with the state as god the father.

    Part one in this series exposed the Court’s “scientific understanding” in Lawrence as turning on the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code (ALIMPC) and the 1957 (British) Wolfenden Report. Both relied on Kinsey’s bogus “findings” in his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

    The reason wasn’t to embed it in science, the reason was to embed it in laws to change the culture.

    Now you know.

    Most useful idiots fit the quote from hamlet.
    “I shall find myself bounded in a nutshell, and call myself a king of infinite space”

    Until this moment you compartmentalized things to make them ok. You throw a rock in the water, and you see the ripples go out and don’t realized hat they go down the stream too to the other pools. It will take more than 100 years to remove that stuff, and we will never get the chance.

    in part two, we’ll scrutinize more Kinsey-worshiping the sort of “scientific subject matter” that persuaded six Supreme Court justices in Lawrence that outlawing “homosexual sodomy furthers no legitimate state interest.” In his powerful dissent from Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity . . . [are all] called into question by today’s decision.”

    Still think boas, meade, Kinsey and such didn’t do much?

    Your now only seeing a very small hint of the iceberg.

    Isn’t it amazing that you never saw the elephant in the room?

    Justice Scalia is right; the “law-profession culture” is on record as subscribing to Kinsey’s sexual ideology. Consider that over a 16-year period, from 1982 to 1998, at least 1,000 major law school journal articles quoted Kinsey as their sex science authority. And the critically important American Association of Law Schools commands total submission to its homosexual “equity” ethic. But it’s not just the law schools. One survey (American Enterprise, 2002) confirms the anecdotal observation that almost 100% of those teaching history, women’s and “gay studies” in our major universities are self-identified as leftists. This means academia is blacklisting traditionalist scholars. That is bad science and, as seen in Lawrence, it produces bad law. Kinsey disciples also dominate the social sciences. The Science Citation & Social Science Citation Indices from 1948 to 1997 yielded 5,796 academic publications that quoted Kinsey, far more than the next “sexuality” contender, Masters & Johnson, at 3,716. Instead of objectively searching for truth, scholars are accepting Kinseyan sexuality uncritically because they like his fake “findings.”

    Maybe our host might not like me now for this. but as Jefferson said, you don’t make friends by telling the truth. another aside to groupisms using the need to be in the group as a Skinnerian method to create a environment where lies are better than truth. in this way, we can handle less and less truth.

    Ultimately, the demographics of this will end up removing them from the population.

    Something that we shouldn’t be deciding through our limited views and short lives, while nature has views 100,000 years long.

  81. Artfldgr Says:

    and your earlier statements about following the yellow brick earned a lot of respect in my book.

    Thanks. It was meant since the truth is that by doing so I was showing that I was sincere in you understanding things. and if I control what you read, I control what you think. That’s the part that the people in school fail to remember, and so they fail to say “why are they asking me to read this, and not giving time for that?”, or some other question that gets us to think about what they are handing out. While the razor blade in the apple is a Halloween myth, that’s exactly what they do educationally.

    You will find a lot more on the political right of socialism that have my concepts. I would bet my bottom dollar that our host does too. (Though she is a bit more helpful than I am, it’s our different styles).

    You mentioned that you are “old”.

    Ah, there are many ways to look at ‘old’.

    Physically or chronologically I am still ‘young’, just over 40.
    I came from a family with very good genes (live to near 100), but alas, some have early onset Alzheimer’s. So it probably will not be death that takes the thing you like, at least not at first.

    There is another way to look at age. Through education or experience.

    From a young age I have pretty much not slept much. I sleep about 4 hours a night, and have been constructive always. So when I am not sleeping longer, which is only once in a while, I am also reading, studying, etc. I also fill all the cracks of life with education. Riding the subway I read, I read on the porcelain throne, I read when my wife runs in for something and I am sitting in a car, etc. I always have a notepad with me, and so forth.

    Dieting doesn’t work, it’s a lifestyle…

    Guess what, spot learning is like dieting. : )

    Anyway… let’s say that from 5 on I only slept 4 hours instead of the average 8. Since my retention is great, the time is not wasted, and since I don’t stop working, its also not wasted. It’s a learning lifestyle (soon to be in self help books everywhere, but since they don’t make misery that causes you to come back for more, I guess it’s a dead end)

    So I get 1460 hours extra to learn a year. That’s 60 days. or two more waking months per year than other people have. in 35 years that comes to 70 months which is about 6 years.

    So physically one can say that I am around 40, mental educationally you can say I am closer to 60…

    So am I young or old? Is the next dalai llama as a child young or old?

    You see, the word old is not singular in meaning, it has to be qualified. And if one doesn’t do that, one usually fills in the blanks with the assumptive. Like male or female, however doing that rarely really affects the point, but it does allow one to keep going rather than stall.

    I feel old… as my contemporaries are more like children in their education based on comparing them to yesteryear.

    Much of these books, the older ones, were required reading in schools. Our reading levels were higher. So what you used to get as a child that gave you competence has been removed, so you hve to ‘catch up’, meanwhile your reading skills and work ethos has been dinked so it feels like catching up when you also have to carry a millstone.

    I’m sure to have a ton of questions with these readings, and its nice to have a critical voice/mind to bounce ideas/findings off of.

    Actually the nice part is that once you get past my strong assertiveness you find that I am actually fair, honest, have proper boundaries, can keep my ego and desires out of it, and so forth.

    That’s really what makes it nice. [and no my wife doesn’t take advantage of it at all]

    With the Frankfort School, (and mind you, I’m Internet impaired right now, just taking the quick routes through Wiki..trivia at MY fingertips at present…) I noted the links to Freud, and to Karl Marx and Boas.

    The Frankfurt school thought to combine the ideas of Freud, skinner, Marx, etc. after they synthesized this, things like Meade and boas and such came shortly later, as the work of the Frankfurt school predates their arrival in the US. After all, the work they did was published, and so it was easy for another state to pick it up and then help make the suppositions reality, and the people doing it found lucre from that so continued.

    “meade was taped by boas. and boas was later found to be a spy.” I didn’t quite understand what you meant there. From what I’ve read so far, you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology.

    Well if you study boas from a distance and you collect all you can, not revisionist you get a different picture of him.

    Boas came up from nowhere. He actually didn’t even have much anthropological experience, and suddenly was at the forefront of things. His biggest contribution was his communist/socialist agenda on race. Denying genetics and race creates the explanation that race problems are not due to actual differences but must be due to oppression.

    Take away the material physical explanation, and you take away natural causes. Take away natural causes, you then have no explanation. Then you can insert the explanation that you want. Which is why leftists deny genetics and science so much, that way they can assert a reality they want. Note that most of us will function just fine not knowing whether an atom exists or is real. Our system is created to not know and function. Otherwise it would break down and stall for not being god or perfect.

    you probably weren’t a fan of Boas since he reportedly rejected physics to use history as a model for anthropology.

    I am not a fan because his work was ideologically based, not scientifically based. He ran 44 front organizations which meant that most of his time was spent coordinating these ideas politically. This is kind of like Lamarck campaigning to promote his ideas over Darwin because he can’t win with a lie. This is exactly what happened in the soviet union, and you can see this play out in the history of Lysenko’s.

    From the 30s, when African Americans had solid families, good homes, were a part of the culture. take a look at history. Look at the history of food, and ribs. Not in a racial way, but as history. A lot of rib places in the south were run and opened by black men who were able to coble together some money and start a business. Stubbs is a classic example. started with less than 100, stubbs is still around, and now worth millions. The fact that it is family owned and started BEFORE the democrat socialists helped them is why the FAMILY was not destroyed and now their FAMILY is prosperous.

    The same story is told in the movie “the persuit of happiness”. The story is a true story, the part played by will smith is the part played by an actual man. the point was that he couldn’t get his flick made without them changing it. they wanted to add marxs fat cats, and show that success was blocked by the ‘good ol boy network’, and so on and so forth.

    Guess what? all that is propaganda, and it took this man to take his OWN MONEY from the HIS OWN brokerage firm to fund the movie.

    Think about that. this down and out black man who had no money and a son, and by his own admission was stupid. Rose from that level in a business that is the very heart of capitalism and fat cats and what we all imagine is white privilege, and did so well, that he started his own brokerage firm, made so much money that he could hire an actor like will smith. He had to pay for the advertising, and as you can note, the movie was a hit, but they shuttled it real fast through distribution and such to get it out of the stream.

    This is why capitalists are hated, not because they have more. but because having more means they can act on their own conscious, they can circumnavigate around the Maginot line, and take the prize. The controllers are never as inventive as the needers.

    He was trying to show that the only person holding someone back in a capitalist society is you, and if you listen to the wrong people, they will give you a mindset of failure, then convince you that its someone else’s fault because taking responsibility for your own life and choices is hard, and has no one to help you. And accepting their logic gives you an instant cadre of fair weather friends. he showed that if you weather the storms, you get to see the sun.

    Looking objectively, I personally see the benefit of sound ethnographic research.

    You still haven’t realized that lies can’t lead to truth. You personally can see the benefit because they worked out the argument to sell you on it. It shifts the whole thing from empirical information to anecdote and that shifts it to opinion, and makes the whole seeming truth vulnerable to the “big lie”.

    That’s why margrets work was so influential. There was a whole cadre of fellow travelers and useful idiots that got the message to keep bringing her up, keep pushing the lie, keep
    doing that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
    The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

    Margret meade and boas was distorting the truth so far, that we still have problems accepting the invalidity of their work, and the many many many others that based their ideas and such on it.

    By making it all subjective, the whole science could blithely go along making up stuff and as long as it sounded good, or right, it was right. That created the situation where the whole body of work was a useless mish mosh of valid and invalid. In essence only a bit of arsenic is needed to ruin a lot of water.

    And what was the result? Once the “science” was in place, they could then use the science to justify public policy and action. The rest of the world would see that to discover something that went against the flow was to get washed away by the power of the flow.

    Read the definition of ethnography.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography

    Ethnography (ἔθνος ethnos = people and γράφειν graphein = writing) is the genre of writing that presents varying degrees of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of human social phenomena, based on fieldwork. Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently of each other. The genre has both formal and historical connections to travel writing and colonial office reports. Several academic traditions, in particular the constructivist and relativist paradigms, employ ethnographic research as a crucial research method. Many cultural anthropologists consider ethnography the essence of the discipline

    Does that sound like hard science to you, or does it sound like one could play with that one all one wants by falsifying consensus?

    Basically a biased person watches the people and then tells us whats going on.

    So if a black national socialist was watching and was steeped in heavy class dialectics, would they be able to see the truth? just as our host was aghast as to the concept that a woman would be upset that rapists didn’t target all ages of women equally, that’s how warped their research can be.

    So you educate them in cultural Marxism and power views as the only view, and what will they do when they go into the field? Well describe everything in those terms.

    So they don’t see a natural family as a cohesive and beneficial unit, they can only see it as a power struggle. And so they describe it like that, we internalilze it like that,and we take the shortcut that “if it’s a power struggle, then I lose if I act in a certain way”. what you then get is people who think taking a back seat sometimes is always wrong as they always lose. The family turns from a ship in which a captain steers where his passengers want to go (cause a captain that doesn’t doesn’t have a crew and ship to steer. Shows you how far the public information is skewed). ‘

    In their new world view, everyone has to argue and fight to be the captain. Why? because the captain has status and power. but that’s only if you imagine a captain as a kidnapper who can take his charges anywhere and impose destinations on them. this is true operationally as things that could be done, and sometimes are. but in truth, the overall flow has to take them to a better place or things fall apart.

    When you have 2 captains, and no passengers, you get the idea of the new modern American family. Meanwhile, the truth is that each leads in their own way in their own domain. So a dad may steer the large gross movements, and a mom may tune things. a captain may set the legal and fair rules, because they can be ejected so the only way to keep everyone together is to be truly fair (against moms natural proclivity to keep taking unfair portions. Great for outer connections deadly to the family inside).

    However everyone has to be happy with how things go. If the other fancies themselves the captain, they also have to take responsibility for where things go. The women take the helm and do not want to lose it, and you lose it by not doing well. so the dialectic changes the paradigm from merit, where the incumbent can be ejected by bad acts, to power, where the incumbent oppressed must always occupy the captains seat to prevent the oppression of the captain.

    The odd outcomes are from how this plays out. Some men will mutiny and beat up the captain and take control of the ship. Some men will then sit and become passengers, and so the new captain gets upset that they are now responsible for everything and they cant enjoy sitting on the deck chairs.

    Suddenly under power dialectics, we wonder if the dog is walking the man, or the man is walking the dog. Who cleans up after whom like a butler?

    So the minute she takes the captains power, she sees the power she HAD. And since it’s a power game, she has to have the most to win. Like communism, she becomes totalitarian as any power base is now a threat to her power. so suddenly she gets pisssed that he now doesn’t have to work as hard. She cant reform the power dialectic as its all she now knows (then conveniently leave out others methods or demonize them so they are not options).

    What no one sees is that real power is fractured to be efficient. No one entity can actually have power or dominion over all and still function. In essence they made every family relationship into a mini copy of soviet politics and with the result that over time every little soviet union collapses.

    You find me intriguing because I have real answers that are better than theirs. since you want to learn the dissonance is not being avoided but being seen as a indicator of a trail.

    It’s like being stuck watching an accident and such. Too horrible to really take in, but too horrible to look away. but in this case its because of the myths that you think are truth, and so you see things in those terms.

    A neighbor of mine is a feminist. She knows that I am definitely not. she thought she would screw up my marriage by having a cocktail party and inviting my foreign wife.

    She is used up. she followed the whole feminist program and has been cheated out of money to a yonger man who had nothing, she has nothing, she constantly tries to show that she can be a great in business, and she constantly drinks too much wine. Kind of like the result of the sex in the city girls after the show ended.

    Feminism is about spite and envy. So her impulse was to act out “if I cant have it then no one can”, isn’t that what heather mills is doing.

    Well the next day after the party we are walking up the stairs and she pops her head out and she says to me.

    “I know that you’re an anti-feminist, but I just wanted to tell you that your wife has more freedom than the rest of us or any other woman I know”

    I looked at her weirdly and said of course… I am against feminism. So I am against controlling people, and we went up the stairs.

    Certainly, there are some social scientists who have lied about their findings or manipulated their research, but I’m hoping that is a very few.

    Look at your language there. all assumptive and all skewed towards the general idea that man is good. don’t you realize that there is BILLIONS of dollars and huge power at stake that comes from the information that comes out?

    THAT’S WHY hard sciences are favored by meritocracies, and soft sciences are favored by communists.

    Barak obama was able to get the US to side with an appropriation of almost a trillion dollars to help the oppressed nations.

    The fake information from boas, meade, Kinsey, et al. IS worth 800 billion in largesse’s.
    That much money can easily be misdirected and unaccounted. Heck we gave russia almost a billion a year rather than give our soldiers humvees armor.

    Do you still think that hope is enough?

    The number doesn’t matter. few or many. Its not the number it’s the specificity and placement. Its diamond cutting verses chain saw.

    Meade is the most quoted researcher in the whole body of work. how do you weed that out? how do you redo all the work and suppositions that come after her that based their ideas on her sham?

    And note that boas educated about a dozen of these… they then went to a dozen of the most prestigious ivy league schools. From Columbia, to Harvard, to yale, etc.

    Which is worse, ten people as department heads and curriculum overloards in the top ivy league schools everyone else copies, or a hundred people on the bottom?

    This is the same sham argument between cigarettes and marijuana. Marijuana has more chemicals known to be cancer causing, but they are mild. Cigarettes have less, but the main ones are incredibly bad. But the theme of the propaganda is that M is worse than C because M has more X.

    Note that it took almost 40 years before someone stood up and took notice of this and then did the work.

    There have definitely been reports of scientists in other disciplines who have lied about their findings as well, but other professionals have shown integrity and published true to their data (without manipulating it).

    Notice what you just said. You blithely considered the actions in a hard science as equivalent to a soft science. you reletevated the two to make your point. the DATA in sociology and anthropology is subjective, you cant prove or disprove based on the data.

    Howevever, the other disciplines are harder, and when you publish a paper, lots go out and attempt to duplicate the work. they attempt to have reproducible answers.

    The new methods and dicvisions boas took specifically moved that science domain away from that.

    It also took 40 years to notice that Kinsey couldn’t get his work done unless he was abusing the children in his charge. The data was their, but you had to say “how did he get this data” in order to realize that it was wrong in some way. the wrongness wasn’t the measurements, the wrongness was methodology which was left out. it would have described hiring two pedophiles and having them abuse a child for 15 hours to see how many times they could force the baby to have an orgasm. So methods were left out, and since Kinsey was now in the new anecdotal science, it was ok to leave this out.

    Right now ¼ of the young female population in America has a cancer causing, fertility stopping virus, precisely because of Meade, Boas, Kinsey, Freidan, etc.

    After reading so many of what appear to be useful ethnographic texts, there seems to be a lot of value in them, to me.

    Of course, you have been outclassed. Imagine a room with a dozen people as smart and insightful as me answering the question, how can I trick the very smart but less smart than me.

    You like them because they are in feminine dialogue. They are a form of formalized gossip pretending to be science. Doing that would change the make up of the genders in the science. Men would see the discussions as frivolous and going no where, and would leave the domain, and women would think the gossip was key research.

    Your still IN it, not ABOVE it.
    Your IN the glass house.

    “Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War” by Stephen Lubkeman. I’ve enjoyed his writing He seems to report a variety of issues often from hardline and logical perspectives. His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored (ie: the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco). I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    See. Gossip.

    I don’t have the book, so I can’t look it up. However your confusing persuasion with validity. This is validity through consensus, not validity through merit.

    If he can ‘convince’ you, then he must be right.
    So the person who can control the conversation, like in a book, can then control the outcome by leaving out the information that is troublesome.

    Care to check out who and when the word genocide was coined? Hard to do something when the meaning doesn’t even exist yet, isn’t it? but its easy to look back and revision history and say there it is, here it is too… but in truth, the knowledge of what genocide is and amounts to changes the dynamic of considering it as an act. those not aware of the larger implication of things, would not be choosing genocide but a historically pragmatic need because of what lessons you learn from bible to the godfather series. (what happened because one boy survived?). I can collect lessons from david in the bible, the godfather… the Japanese tale of the boy that became a prostitute to get an std, then become the lover of the emperor that murdered his family. There are TONS of these examples, but notice how they leave them out.

    Lubkemann focuses on how Ndau social networks were fragmented by wartime displacement and the profound effect this had on gender relations.

    I can say its sham because it comes from Marxist dialectics and so is placing things in terms of power and such.

    I will bet you that he doesn’t touch on the very nature of war and conflict. That would be a bad place to go, since if he wanted to handle it fully and not skewed he would have to get his readers to understand clauswitz, and tsun tsu, and many others. and that, like dawkins, is not to be done as it doesn’t serve the propaganda.

    Why gender relations? Because everthing for the state, everything from the state, and everything to the state. and Marxism socialism is the state ideology and so everything from the state means everything.

    Gender concepts is cultural Marxism. How can you get to real information if that information contradicts cultural Marxism? You cant. Which is the whole point.

    As long as your sitting in their little box reading all these compliecated self referencing circular stuff, you will always think its fine.

    Let me know if you thnk things in the US are much better since the “truth” has been revealed by the cultural Marxists. Or has the ulterior objective of gutting us as human beings and making us uneducated animals that need a totalitarian state the way a pack of dogs needs to be penned up for everyone’s good.

    Haven’t you noticed that the more of this stuff gets made, the worse things get?

    His text is mostly about African issues and experienes, and issues that much of America has generally ignored

    I will bet you $20 dollars that you don’t know history of Africa. Do you know that sierra leone is an African equivalent to Israel?

    May I ask why should America not ignore a sovereign state?

    Do you realize that clauswitz described what starts wars in clear terms.

    One entity tells another entity what to do in their own domain. If the other entity refuses to comply, and the first entity refuses to back down, you get war.

    So does making America pay attention to what happens in other places create war or create peace?

    See the meta argument… he is justifying a constant state of revolutionary war and totalitarian intervention, and your eating it up.

    Why? because you don’t know the subjects and so are a slave to the logic that sounds reasonable not the logic that is correct.

    the Genocide in Rwanda…while over a million people died in days, the US was home watching OJ Simpson ride around in a white bronco

    Well who trained us to consider that news and want to see that? Remember before feminism, news was not fun and entertaining, it required state money and laws to insure that it was on television. Or don’t you know that?

    what does your little section of comment imply we should have been doing rather than watching OJ. Perhaps invading rawanda and doing there what we are trying to do in iraq?

    See the contradiction? They are pushing intervention, then when it happens they are saying we are mean, then they are forcing a demoralizeing and world hurting retreat.

    They are acting like the worst type of woman that tries to get everyone to fight by playing them off of each other, and then watching the huge war, while sitting there innocently taking the moral high ground.

    I find value in good ethnography, despite some of the linkages to Meade, and Boas, and others.

    Of course you do. You have your career and the tests answers to insure that that’s your attitude. Otherwise you might be like Freeman (Meade), or pinker (tabula rasa), or Watson (genetics over boas), or Copernicus, or a long list of others. They were all willing to put their necks on the chopping blocks for truth.

    Ah, but we don’t have a culture that is worth that anymore.. and so its easier to make your career on a lie and keep going. no?

    The Dubious Origins of ‘Gay Studies’
    Kinsey’s Fraudulent ‘Science’ Pervades Law and Academia
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=1700

    After you read that, let me know whether you think the lying is a nothing.

    [Note that 54 million potential children have been summarily executed before birth to fit a soft eugenics program. Millions of people are making their life choices on the information that we can no longer separate out. and their decisions, since the data is false, are actually only good for a world where that information would be true. Which means they are acting correctly for a world they don’t live in. and they are frustrated, angry, full of blame and confused. That about sums up the behavior slid of the past 40 years from a culture that was polite, much less racist, more sharing, loving, etc]

    Citing Kinsey’s phony “data” is standard procedure in the legal profession and in the academic “scholarship” that jurists use to support their rulings.

    That’s from the article. Still think that the sham stuff is harmless? If its known to be bad and sham, then why are they using it? because it has precedence and provides them a solid scientific reasoning to force the outcome they want politically, which is the destruction of family, and the replacement of religion and parentage with the state as god the father.

    Part one in this series exposed the Court’s “scientific understanding” in Lawrence as turning on the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code (ALIMPC) and the 1957 (British) Wolfenden Report. Both relied on Kinsey’s bogus “findings” in his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

    The reason wasn’t to embed it in science, the reason was to embed it in laws to change the culture.

    Now you know.

    Most useful idiots fit the quote from hamlet.
    “I shall find myself bounded in a nutshell, and call myself a king of infinite space”

    Until this moment you compartmentalized things to make them ok. You throw a rock in the water, and you see the ripples go out and don’t realized hat they go down the stream too to the other pools. It will take more than 100 years to remove that stuff, and we will never get the chance.

    in part two, we’ll scrutinize more Kinsey-worshiping the sort of “scientific subject matter” that persuaded six Supreme Court justices in Lawrence that outlawing “homosexual sodomy furthers no legitimate state interest.” In his powerful dissent from Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity . . . [are all] called into question by today’s decision.”

    Still think boas, meade, Kinsey and such didn’t do much?

    Your now only seeing a very small hint of the iceberg.

    Isn’t it amazing that you never saw the elephant in the room?

    Justice Scalia is right; the “law-profession culture” is on record as subscribing to Kinsey’s sexual ideology. Consider that over a 16-year period, from 1982 to 1998, at least 1,000 major law school journal articles quoted Kinsey as their sex science authority. And the critically important American Association of Law Schools commands total submission to its homosexual “equity” ethic. But it’s not just the law schools. One survey (American Enterprise, 2002) confirms the anecdotal observation that almost 100% of those teaching history, women’s and “gay studies” in our major universities are self-identified as leftists. This means academia is blacklisting traditionalist scholars. That is bad science and, as seen in Lawrence, it produces bad law. Kinsey disciples also dominate the social sciences. The Science Citation & Social Science Citation Indices from 1948 to 1997 yielded 5,796 academic publications that quoted Kinsey, far more than the next “sexuality” contender, Masters & Johnson, at 3,716. Instead of objectively searching for truth, scholars are accepting Kinseyan sexuality uncritically because they like his fake “findings.”

    Maybe our host might not like me now for this. but as Jefferson said, you don’t make friends by telling the truth. another aside to groupisms using the need to be in the group as a Skinnerian method to create a environment where lies are better than truth. in this way, we can handle less and less truth.

    Ultimately, the demographics of this will end up removing them from the population.

    Something that we shouldn’t be deciding through our limited views and short lives, while nature has views 100,000 years long.

  82. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way, if you want to understand the captian and deck chairs analogy and how the power suddenly appears to flip, all you have to do is understand the concept of “topping from the bottom”.

    the s&m community understand this concept when the rest of us are ignroant of it.

    that in a mutual relationship where the commisseration is somewhat voluntary, the power system flips. the one on the bottom is in control since that person can leave and give the top nothing to control

    so when women were in marraige, and such, the balance was maintained through the uneven bond that created a parity system. she was locked to him, and so couldnt totally top him from the bottom… and the bond was not so strong, that he could ignore that.

    there was a balance, but only if you understand REAL power, and not the APPEARANCES of it.

    so when no fault divorce comes in, ALL the power shifts to the one that can leave. they can completely top from the bottom and appear as if they are weak and helpless.

    tell me that power focused lesbians dont understand that game? their the ones that taught it to me!

    the alimony and other things creates the opposite too… the male cant leave freely and so cant have an equity power either.

    so the situation is zero parity.

    however, it appears as if its completely opposite to what it is.

    this also allows the one in power to shift the responsibility for outcome to the helpless and defensless one.

    this is the difference between really understanding power, and not understanding power.

  83. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way, if you want to understand the captian and deck chairs analogy and how the power suddenly appears to flip, all you have to do is understand the concept of “topping from the bottom”.

    the s&m community understand this concept when the rest of us are ignroant of it.

    that in a mutual relationship where the commisseration is somewhat voluntary, the power system flips. the one on the bottom is in control since that person can leave and give the top nothing to control

    so when women were in marraige, and such, the balance was maintained through the uneven bond that created a parity system. she was locked to him, and so couldnt totally top him from the bottom… and the bond was not so strong, that he could ignore that.

    there was a balance, but only if you understand REAL power, and not the APPEARANCES of it.

    so when no fault divorce comes in, ALL the power shifts to the one that can leave. they can completely top from the bottom and appear as if they are weak and helpless.

    tell me that power focused lesbians dont understand that game? their the ones that taught it to me!

    the alimony and other things creates the opposite too… the male cant leave freely and so cant have an equity power either.

    so the situation is zero parity.

    however, it appears as if its completely opposite to what it is.

    this also allows the one in power to shift the responsibility for outcome to the helpless and defensless one.

    this is the difference between really understanding power, and not understanding power.

  84. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way, if you want to understand the captian and deck chairs analogy and how the power suddenly appears to flip, all you have to do is understand the concept of “topping from the bottom”.

    the s&m community understand this concept when the rest of us are ignroant of it.

    that in a mutual relationship where the commisseration is somewhat voluntary, the power system flips. the one on the bottom is in control since that person can leave and give the top nothing to control

    so when women were in marraige, and such, the balance was maintained through the uneven bond that created a parity system. she was locked to him, and so couldnt totally top him from the bottom… and the bond was not so strong, that he could ignore that.

    there was a balance, but only if you understand REAL power, and not the APPEARANCES of it.

    so when no fault divorce comes in, ALL the power shifts to the one that can leave. they can completely top from the bottom and appear as if they are weak and helpless.

    tell me that power focused lesbians dont understand that game? their the ones that taught it to me!

    the alimony and other things creates the opposite too… the male cant leave freely and so cant have an equity power either.

    so the situation is zero parity.

    however, it appears as if its completely opposite to what it is.

    this also allows the one in power to shift the responsibility for outcome to the helpless and defensless one.

    this is the difference between really understanding power, and not understanding power.

  85. Artfldgr Says:

    there was a balance, but only if you understand REAL power, and not the APPEARANCES of it.

    anthropology focuses on appearancs, hard sciences focus on reality.

    so an anthropologist will not ‘see’ toping from the bottom for what it is.

    but an evolutionary psychologist will beacuse they are about the internal operating principals and do not cower in the face of complexity as an excuse to avoid the undesriable.

    so anthropology is more conducive to creating output for the Domestic violence industry that will totally ignroe the REAL dynamic, and will promote the declarations from how it appears to be.

  86. Artfldgr Says:

    there was a balance, but only if you understand REAL power, and not the APPEARANCES of it.

    anthropology focuses on appearancs, hard sciences focus on reality.

    so an anthropologist will not ‘see’ toping from the bottom for what it is.

    but an evolutionary psychologist will beacuse they are about the internal operating principals and do not cower in the face of complexity as an excuse to avoid the undesriable.

    so anthropology is more conducive to creating output for the Domestic violence industry that will totally ignroe the REAL dynamic, and will promote the declarations from how it appears to be.

  87. Artfldgr Says:

    there was a balance, but only if you understand REAL power, and not the APPEARANCES of it.

    anthropology focuses on appearancs, hard sciences focus on reality.

    so an anthropologist will not ‘see’ toping from the bottom for what it is.

    but an evolutionary psychologist will beacuse they are about the internal operating principals and do not cower in the face of complexity as an excuse to avoid the undesriable.

    so anthropology is more conducive to creating output for the Domestic violence industry that will totally ignroe the REAL dynamic, and will promote the declarations from how it appears to be.

  88. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Maybe our host might not like me now for this.

    Not to worry. Opposing the gay agenda is not at all the same thing as being bigoted; *I* oppose the gay agenda. Actually, I can even live with people being bigoted against me (I get plenty of bigotry for my non-PC beliefs, after all) as long as they don’t assault or harass me. You have every right to dislike me, disapprove of me, etc., but no right to batter me, lock me up, and so on.

    I’m a Dyke Going My Own Way and I am totally against most of the gay agenda. I vote Republican. The Frankfort School chose us homosexuals as one of the groups whose grievances they could exploit; basically, in return for being granted the right to have sex as we’re inclined to, we are being persuaded to give up all of our other rights.

    My idea of “gay rights” is that we shouldn’t be arrested or institutionalized for having sex with each other, and that we should have civil unions. I think gay marriage would be a bad idea because the fact that men and women are different requires that they have different obligations to each other in a marriage. That has been eroded considerably, but gay marriage will just muddy the waters even further, and cause drawn-out court battles, exactly what this country does not need more of.

    I don’t consider pro-gay propaganda in colleges or schools to be “gay rights”. I don’t think that encouraging straight girls to “experiment” with lesbians before going back to men (often leaving a broken dyke heart behind them) is “gay rights”. I don’t think excessive funding of AIDS research or treatment at the expense of more dangerous diseases, not to mention worthless “AIDS Awareness” campagins, are gay “rights”. Really, the only other homosexuals with whom I have any common ground are Log Cabin Republicans.

    I always thought Democrats were using us queers, carpetbagger-style. When I learned about the Frankfort School, I had proof.

  89. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Maybe our host might not like me now for this.

    Not to worry. Opposing the gay agenda is not at all the same thing as being bigoted; *I* oppose the gay agenda. Actually, I can even live with people being bigoted against me (I get plenty of bigotry for my non-PC beliefs, after all) as long as they don’t assault or harass me. You have every right to dislike me, disapprove of me, etc., but no right to batter me, lock me up, and so on.

    I’m a Dyke Going My Own Way and I am totally against most of the gay agenda. I vote Republican. The Frankfort School chose us homosexuals as one of the groups whose grievances they could exploit; basically, in return for being granted the right to have sex as we’re inclined to, we are being persuaded to give up all of our other rights.

    My idea of “gay rights” is that we shouldn’t be arrested or institutionalized for having sex with each other, and that we should have civil unions. I think gay marriage would be a bad idea because the fact that men and women are different requires that they have different obligations to each other in a marriage. That has been eroded considerably, but gay marriage will just muddy the waters even further, and cause drawn-out court battles, exactly what this country does not need more of.

    I don’t consider pro-gay propaganda in colleges or schools to be “gay rights”. I don’t think that encouraging straight girls to “experiment” with lesbians before going back to men (often leaving a broken dyke heart behind them) is “gay rights”. I don’t think excessive funding of AIDS research or treatment at the expense of more dangerous diseases, not to mention worthless “AIDS Awareness” campagins, are gay “rights”. Really, the only other homosexuals with whom I have any common ground are Log Cabin Republicans.

    I always thought Democrats were using us queers, carpetbagger-style. When I learned about the Frankfort School, I had proof.

  90. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Maybe our host might not like me now for this.

    Not to worry. Opposing the gay agenda is not at all the same thing as being bigoted; *I* oppose the gay agenda. Actually, I can even live with people being bigoted against me (I get plenty of bigotry for my non-PC beliefs, after all) as long as they don’t assault or harass me. You have every right to dislike me, disapprove of me, etc., but no right to batter me, lock me up, and so on.

    I’m a Dyke Going My Own Way and I am totally against most of the gay agenda. I vote Republican. The Frankfort School chose us homosexuals as one of the groups whose grievances they could exploit; basically, in return for being granted the right to have sex as we’re inclined to, we are being persuaded to give up all of our other rights.

    My idea of “gay rights” is that we shouldn’t be arrested or institutionalized for having sex with each other, and that we should have civil unions. I think gay marriage would be a bad idea because the fact that men and women are different requires that they have different obligations to each other in a marriage. That has been eroded considerably, but gay marriage will just muddy the waters even further, and cause drawn-out court battles, exactly what this country does not need more of.

    I don’t consider pro-gay propaganda in colleges or schools to be “gay rights”. I don’t think that encouraging straight girls to “experiment” with lesbians before going back to men (often leaving a broken dyke heart behind them) is “gay rights”. I don’t think excessive funding of AIDS research or treatment at the expense of more dangerous diseases, not to mention worthless “AIDS Awareness” campagins, are gay “rights”. Really, the only other homosexuals with whom I have any common ground are Log Cabin Republicans.

    I always thought Democrats were using us queers, carpetbagger-style. When I learned about the Frankfort School, I had proof.

  91. Artfldgr Says:

    i never thought the things you inserted under “gay rights” was gay rights.

    to me, the consitutional provisions of privacy and self determination were enough.

    i have nothing whatsoever againt gays per se, and it seems that we share a similr dislike for them being used for a nasty political agenda, which means most are being tricked.

    what do i care what people do that doesnt hurt anyone?

    who you want to bed, is of no concern to me… that is until everyone runs around feeling they have to tell me what they do.

    i dont even find things disgusting and have had 3 relatinships with lesbians (for some reason they used to try with me despite me being male).

    the point is that i dont walk around declaring my love of pudenda, and i think that children should also get to not think about those things till older.

    abusing the gays to insert an agenda that is wholefully harmful, is wrong wrong wrong.

    i just didnt know how you would take my point. i hoped you would be as even as you were, but heck, you know what i get when i talk given the amount of information i have.

    just to let you know, my cousin was a gay man who was the worst of the breed. meanwhile, at the same time, i knew some great people that would never have been near such things.

    i take people as they come… (no pun intended). 🙂

    oh.. and Q… i put something for you in the pink job thread.

    it covers the UN, and points out how it was Kofi that let 800,000 die, not the american public. bet your book doesnt reveal much of that!

  92. Artfldgr Says:

    i never thought the things you inserted under “gay rights” was gay rights.

    to me, the consitutional provisions of privacy and self determination were enough.

    i have nothing whatsoever againt gays per se, and it seems that we share a similr dislike for them being used for a nasty political agenda, which means most are being tricked.

    what do i care what people do that doesnt hurt anyone?

    who you want to bed, is of no concern to me… that is until everyone runs around feeling they have to tell me what they do.

    i dont even find things disgusting and have had 3 relatinships with lesbians (for some reason they used to try with me despite me being male).

    the point is that i dont walk around declaring my love of pudenda, and i think that children should also get to not think about those things till older.

    abusing the gays to insert an agenda that is wholefully harmful, is wrong wrong wrong.

    i just didnt know how you would take my point. i hoped you would be as even as you were, but heck, you know what i get when i talk given the amount of information i have.

    just to let you know, my cousin was a gay man who was the worst of the breed. meanwhile, at the same time, i knew some great people that would never have been near such things.

    i take people as they come… (no pun intended). 🙂

    oh.. and Q… i put something for you in the pink job thread.

    it covers the UN, and points out how it was Kofi that let 800,000 die, not the american public. bet your book doesnt reveal much of that!

  93. Artfldgr Says:

    i never thought the things you inserted under “gay rights” was gay rights.

    to me, the consitutional provisions of privacy and self determination were enough.

    i have nothing whatsoever againt gays per se, and it seems that we share a similr dislike for them being used for a nasty political agenda, which means most are being tricked.

    what do i care what people do that doesnt hurt anyone?

    who you want to bed, is of no concern to me… that is until everyone runs around feeling they have to tell me what they do.

    i dont even find things disgusting and have had 3 relatinships with lesbians (for some reason they used to try with me despite me being male).

    the point is that i dont walk around declaring my love of pudenda, and i think that children should also get to not think about those things till older.

    abusing the gays to insert an agenda that is wholefully harmful, is wrong wrong wrong.

    i just didnt know how you would take my point. i hoped you would be as even as you were, but heck, you know what i get when i talk given the amount of information i have.

    just to let you know, my cousin was a gay man who was the worst of the breed. meanwhile, at the same time, i knew some great people that would never have been near such things.

    i take people as they come… (no pun intended). 🙂

    oh.. and Q… i put something for you in the pink job thread.

    it covers the UN, and points out how it was Kofi that let 800,000 die, not the american public. bet your book doesnt reveal much of that!

  94. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks Art,

    Your post deserves thoughtful consideration, although I still can’t discount the value of ethnography. From what I critically see and read, I have worked through some of what reading seems ‘opinion’ and what reading is based on historical accounts, facts, experiences. People’s experiences matter, if even as a way to document what they were. History is often written by the winners. I see ethnography as a way of writing what happened from a grass roots approach, down at the foundation of the people. Does journalism have much of a different value in your eyes? Much of what we read, and what is reported is due to journalism, and so there is so much that needs to be approached with a critical eye.

    I guess I also think about things (admittedly) in terms of my own beliefs and approaches, because I enjoy finding out the truth and exposing it…not intentionally covering it or making it what I want it to be. I think anthropology/ethnography is useful for that if one has integrity, does historical and factual research and presents the unadulterated full picture. It’s one of the reason I’ve enjoyed the older book/collection of essays: Female Soldiers-Combatants or Noncombants? by Nancy Loring Goldman. It has essays that present different perspectives.

    From one of the essays by Jeff M. Tuten: Aggressiveness is a biologically determined trait that is found more often in men than in women. Evidence of male aggressiveness comes from anthropologists, ethnologists, and endocrinologists. It appears in virtually all human societies.”

    He writes: “The exclusion of women from front-line ground combat is mandated by their lesser physical capabilities. This exclusion is not based upon any gallant desire to shield women from the horrors of war. Rather, it is dictated by the requirement to WIN.”(Tuten, 1982)

    Jeff Tuten was an operationa analyst specializing in mobilization manpower, and served 25 years as an infantry officer.

    Regarding Lubkeman, he has studied African history, although to what extent I don’t know. His expertise is in violence/conflict studies, diasporas and refugee/post-conflict displacements. In one paragraph I’ve picked out, talking about postconflict displacements, he writes the following:

    “The growing popularity of transnational polygyny among Macazian men in South Africa no only generated projects of post conflict return that placed them at odds with the international communitiy’s repatriation efforts but also engendered new struggles with other members of Machazian society–most notably spouses–over the meaning of marriage and migration. Before the war, marriage had been vital to the successes of those aspects of men’s life strategies that were realized exclusively in Machaze. Marriage ensured social reproduction, the (female) labor for subsistence agriculture and care of aging parents, as well as comfort and security in old age. marriage before the war primarily took care of men’s Machaze-specific needs. However, once polygyny was transnationalized, marriage also increasingly played a role in the strategies that men used for coping with a broader range of challenges, including economic volatility, rising social and safety risks, and the unwelcome attention of both eh Mozambican and the South African States.” (Lubkeman, 2008)

    In his intro, he describes his approach:

    “I chose to pursue fieldwork in Machaze because of the district’s particularly high incidence of war-time displacement. My plan was to investigate how anthropology could contribute to the demographic analysis of wartime migration and postconflict return. In Mozambique, as in most contemporary war torn countries, migration was one of the most important and common ways people coped with violence and its effects–and Machaze was among those districts in the country that ranked highest in its incidence of war-time out-migration. In fact, regardless of whether they ever left the district, virtually every inhabitant in Machaze relocated–often several times–during the war.” (Lubkeman, 2008) He utilizes excerpts from Clausewitz’s work …”Similarly, Clausewiz’s famous dictim “War is the pursuit of politics by other means” also identifies violence as the marker that distinguishes war from other political modalities of political struggle.” (Lubkeman, 2008). These are just a couple of examples quickly pulled from the text, but when I view his text in comparison to other ‘traditional’ anthropological texts, I can see a big difference in his utilization of facts, history, synthesis of material and critical observations of those who have not provided factual detail. I’ve found this type of anthropological format refreshing, and it seems different to me than many other texts out there under the same category.

    Right now, I just got “Who Stole Feminism: How Women have Betrayed Women” by Christina Sommers in the mail. I’m hoping to read some of it tonight after I write a ‘traditional education paper’ for class on “Health Education of Developing Countries”.

    And Art…I’ve noticed you’ve apologized a couple of times for your seeming ‘arrogance’…so I hope I can offer advance apologies for my actual ignorance in many areas, and that folks here will put up with my elementary questions and alternative views. For what its worth, there is an honest desire to learn.

    Later…

    Reference:

    Goldman, N. (1982) Tuten, J. (Chapter 13) The Arguement Against Female Combatants. Female Soldiers-Combatants or Noncombatants?: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Greenwood Press: Connecticut

    Lubkeman, S. (2008) Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

  95. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks Art,

    Your post deserves thoughtful consideration, although I still can’t discount the value of ethnography. From what I critically see and read, I have worked through some of what reading seems ‘opinion’ and what reading is based on historical accounts, facts, experiences. People’s experiences matter, if even as a way to document what they were. History is often written by the winners. I see ethnography as a way of writing what happened from a grass roots approach, down at the foundation of the people. Does journalism have much of a different value in your eyes? Much of what we read, and what is reported is due to journalism, and so there is so much that needs to be approached with a critical eye.

    I guess I also think about things (admittedly) in terms of my own beliefs and approaches, because I enjoy finding out the truth and exposing it…not intentionally covering it or making it what I want it to be. I think anthropology/ethnography is useful for that if one has integrity, does historical and factual research and presents the unadulterated full picture. It’s one of the reason I’ve enjoyed the older book/collection of essays: Female Soldiers-Combatants or Noncombants? by Nancy Loring Goldman. It has essays that present different perspectives.

    From one of the essays by Jeff M. Tuten: Aggressiveness is a biologically determined trait that is found more often in men than in women. Evidence of male aggressiveness comes from anthropologists, ethnologists, and endocrinologists. It appears in virtually all human societies.”

    He writes: “The exclusion of women from front-line ground combat is mandated by their lesser physical capabilities. This exclusion is not based upon any gallant desire to shield women from the horrors of war. Rather, it is dictated by the requirement to WIN.”(Tuten, 1982)

    Jeff Tuten was an operationa analyst specializing in mobilization manpower, and served 25 years as an infantry officer.

    Regarding Lubkeman, he has studied African history, although to what extent I don’t know. His expertise is in violence/conflict studies, diasporas and refugee/post-conflict displacements. In one paragraph I’ve picked out, talking about postconflict displacements, he writes the following:

    “The growing popularity of transnational polygyny among Macazian men in South Africa no only generated projects of post conflict return that placed them at odds with the international communitiy’s repatriation efforts but also engendered new struggles with other members of Machazian society–most notably spouses–over the meaning of marriage and migration. Before the war, marriage had been vital to the successes of those aspects of men’s life strategies that were realized exclusively in Machaze. Marriage ensured social reproduction, the (female) labor for subsistence agriculture and care of aging parents, as well as comfort and security in old age. marriage before the war primarily took care of men’s Machaze-specific needs. However, once polygyny was transnationalized, marriage also increasingly played a role in the strategies that men used for coping with a broader range of challenges, including economic volatility, rising social and safety risks, and the unwelcome attention of both eh Mozambican and the South African States.” (Lubkeman, 2008)

    In his intro, he describes his approach:

    “I chose to pursue fieldwork in Machaze because of the district’s particularly high incidence of war-time displacement. My plan was to investigate how anthropology could contribute to the demographic analysis of wartime migration and postconflict return. In Mozambique, as in most contemporary war torn countries, migration was one of the most important and common ways people coped with violence and its effects–and Machaze was among those districts in the country that ranked highest in its incidence of war-time out-migration. In fact, regardless of whether they ever left the district, virtually every inhabitant in Machaze relocated–often several times–during the war.” (Lubkeman, 2008) He utilizes excerpts from Clausewitz’s work …”Similarly, Clausewiz’s famous dictim “War is the pursuit of politics by other means” also identifies violence as the marker that distinguishes war from other political modalities of political struggle.” (Lubkeman, 2008). These are just a couple of examples quickly pulled from the text, but when I view his text in comparison to other ‘traditional’ anthropological texts, I can see a big difference in his utilization of facts, history, synthesis of material and critical observations of those who have not provided factual detail. I’ve found this type of anthropological format refreshing, and it seems different to me than many other texts out there under the same category.

    Right now, I just got “Who Stole Feminism: How Women have Betrayed Women” by Christina Sommers in the mail. I’m hoping to read some of it tonight after I write a ‘traditional education paper’ for class on “Health Education of Developing Countries”.

    And Art…I’ve noticed you’ve apologized a couple of times for your seeming ‘arrogance’…so I hope I can offer advance apologies for my actual ignorance in many areas, and that folks here will put up with my elementary questions and alternative views. For what its worth, there is an honest desire to learn.

    Later…

    Reference:

    Goldman, N. (1982) Tuten, J. (Chapter 13) The Arguement Against Female Combatants. Female Soldiers-Combatants or Noncombatants?: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Greenwood Press: Connecticut

    Lubkeman, S. (2008) Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

  96. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks Art,

    Your post deserves thoughtful consideration, although I still can’t discount the value of ethnography. From what I critically see and read, I have worked through some of what reading seems ‘opinion’ and what reading is based on historical accounts, facts, experiences. People’s experiences matter, if even as a way to document what they were. History is often written by the winners. I see ethnography as a way of writing what happened from a grass roots approach, down at the foundation of the people. Does journalism have much of a different value in your eyes? Much of what we read, and what is reported is due to journalism, and so there is so much that needs to be approached with a critical eye.

    I guess I also think about things (admittedly) in terms of my own beliefs and approaches, because I enjoy finding out the truth and exposing it…not intentionally covering it or making it what I want it to be. I think anthropology/ethnography is useful for that if one has integrity, does historical and factual research and presents the unadulterated full picture. It’s one of the reason I’ve enjoyed the older book/collection of essays: Female Soldiers-Combatants or Noncombants? by Nancy Loring Goldman. It has essays that present different perspectives.

    From one of the essays by Jeff M. Tuten: Aggressiveness is a biologically determined trait that is found more often in men than in women. Evidence of male aggressiveness comes from anthropologists, ethnologists, and endocrinologists. It appears in virtually all human societies.”

    He writes: “The exclusion of women from front-line ground combat is mandated by their lesser physical capabilities. This exclusion is not based upon any gallant desire to shield women from the horrors of war. Rather, it is dictated by the requirement to WIN.”(Tuten, 1982)

    Jeff Tuten was an operationa analyst specializing in mobilization manpower, and served 25 years as an infantry officer.

    Regarding Lubkeman, he has studied African history, although to what extent I don’t know. His expertise is in violence/conflict studies, diasporas and refugee/post-conflict displacements. In one paragraph I’ve picked out, talking about postconflict displacements, he writes the following:

    “The growing popularity of transnational polygyny among Macazian men in South Africa no only generated projects of post conflict return that placed them at odds with the international communitiy’s repatriation efforts but also engendered new struggles with other members of Machazian society–most notably spouses–over the meaning of marriage and migration. Before the war, marriage had been vital to the successes of those aspects of men’s life strategies that were realized exclusively in Machaze. Marriage ensured social reproduction, the (female) labor for subsistence agriculture and care of aging parents, as well as comfort and security in old age. marriage before the war primarily took care of men’s Machaze-specific needs. However, once polygyny was transnationalized, marriage also increasingly played a role in the strategies that men used for coping with a broader range of challenges, including economic volatility, rising social and safety risks, and the unwelcome attention of both eh Mozambican and the South African States.” (Lubkeman, 2008)

    In his intro, he describes his approach:

    “I chose to pursue fieldwork in Machaze because of the district’s particularly high incidence of war-time displacement. My plan was to investigate how anthropology could contribute to the demographic analysis of wartime migration and postconflict return. In Mozambique, as in most contemporary war torn countries, migration was one of the most important and common ways people coped with violence and its effects–and Machaze was among those districts in the country that ranked highest in its incidence of war-time out-migration. In fact, regardless of whether they ever left the district, virtually every inhabitant in Machaze relocated–often several times–during the war.” (Lubkeman, 2008) He utilizes excerpts from Clausewitz’s work …”Similarly, Clausewiz’s famous dictim “War is the pursuit of politics by other means” also identifies violence as the marker that distinguishes war from other political modalities of political struggle.” (Lubkeman, 2008). These are just a couple of examples quickly pulled from the text, but when I view his text in comparison to other ‘traditional’ anthropological texts, I can see a big difference in his utilization of facts, history, synthesis of material and critical observations of those who have not provided factual detail. I’ve found this type of anthropological format refreshing, and it seems different to me than many other texts out there under the same category.

    Right now, I just got “Who Stole Feminism: How Women have Betrayed Women” by Christina Sommers in the mail. I’m hoping to read some of it tonight after I write a ‘traditional education paper’ for class on “Health Education of Developing Countries”.

    And Art…I’ve noticed you’ve apologized a couple of times for your seeming ‘arrogance’…so I hope I can offer advance apologies for my actual ignorance in many areas, and that folks here will put up with my elementary questions and alternative views. For what its worth, there is an honest desire to learn.

    Later…

    Reference:

    Goldman, N. (1982) Tuten, J. (Chapter 13) The Arguement Against Female Combatants. Female Soldiers-Combatants or Noncombatants?: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Greenwood Press: Connecticut

    Lubkeman, S. (2008) Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

  97. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Art,

    i never thought the things you inserted under “gay rights” was gay rights.

    Well, neither do I, but a lot of people – leftists – do.

    to me, the consitutional provisions of privacy and self determination were enough.

    That’s what I always figured!

    just to let you know, my cousin was a gay man who was the worst of the breed.

    *nods* I’ve dated women who were the worst of the breed. I keep pointing out that a lot of the exceptions to my generalizations are lesbians, but unfortunately for me, those are the ones who I adopt as “brothers”. The ones I dated, back when I still bothered, alway sturned out to be, as you say, the worst of the breed. The worst of both worlds!

  98. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Art,

    i never thought the things you inserted under “gay rights” was gay rights.

    Well, neither do I, but a lot of people – leftists – do.

    to me, the consitutional provisions of privacy and self determination were enough.

    That’s what I always figured!

    just to let you know, my cousin was a gay man who was the worst of the breed.

    *nods* I’ve dated women who were the worst of the breed. I keep pointing out that a lot of the exceptions to my generalizations are lesbians, but unfortunately for me, those are the ones who I adopt as “brothers”. The ones I dated, back when I still bothered, alway sturned out to be, as you say, the worst of the breed. The worst of both worlds!

  99. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Art,

    i never thought the things you inserted under “gay rights” was gay rights.

    Well, neither do I, but a lot of people – leftists – do.

    to me, the consitutional provisions of privacy and self determination were enough.

    That’s what I always figured!

    just to let you know, my cousin was a gay man who was the worst of the breed.

    *nods* I’ve dated women who were the worst of the breed. I keep pointing out that a lot of the exceptions to my generalizations are lesbians, but unfortunately for me, those are the ones who I adopt as “brothers”. The ones I dated, back when I still bothered, alway sturned out to be, as you say, the worst of the breed. The worst of both worlds!

  100. Artfldgr Says:

    🙂

    i didnt know how to make a giant one.

  101. Artfldgr Says:

    🙂

    i didnt know how to make a giant one.

  102. Artfldgr Says:

    🙂

    i didnt know how to make a giant one.

  103. The_Editrix Says:

    I realize that this thread is past its sell-by date, but I will explode if I don't comment on this:

    "Interesting you assume I'm a man."

    That isn't "interesting", that's somewhat "natural" for somebody who grew up within the Western culture with its Latin roots, somebody who is thus bound to have absorbed that the suffix "us" is related to the male gender.

    But of course, there MUST be an underlying misogynist cause, and, true to form, that sort of "reasoning" is self-serving and vain: Art was so overwhelmed by "Querus'" intelligent, brilliant remarks, that he assumed that this poster must be man, when he was — presumably — just under the impression of a male-sounding moniker.

    Dear God, let brain rain down!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: