Archive for the ‘evolution’ Category

Feminism FAQ

November 21, 2009

An evolutionary psychologist sent me this link:

Feminism FAQ

Is feminism internally consistent?

No. Feminists claim that i) men and women are equally capable of all jobs, and ii) if jobs were done by women, they would be done differently. In other words, they claim that with regards to work men and women are both the same and yet different, which is impossible. Feminists believe that women need to be proportionally represented in Parliament; yet if they were the same as men, there would be no reason for men not to represent women’s interests. A contradiction.

This FAQ would probably make most feminists’ heads explode. 🙂


Quick post

November 2, 2009

I’ve got the flu and am too sick to post much, but I did want to share this link a commenter left:

A Conjecture about why Women are Disloyal, Calculating, Conniving, Catty little Cunts, and Males are Hopeless Bromantics

Good post.

Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism

August 7, 2009

Newsweek’s Begley illustrates Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism

Sharon Begley wrote a column for Newsweek that represents her attempt to debunk evolutionary psychology.

“Attempt” is the right word. I have yet to see any argument against evolutionary psychology that held water. Such arguments generally fall into these categories:

1. “But if evo psych were true, then suicide and homosexuality and everything else that makes people less likely to reproduce would NEVER HAPPEN!” This one is based on an incredibly simplistic understanding of evolutionary principles.

2. “Those evo psych people are just trying to MAKE EXCUSES for BAD BEHAVIOR! Darwin made me do it!” Understanding why something happens does not constitute excusing it. I’m always explaining why women behave badly when men don’t supervise them; does anybody here think I’m excusing them? I suspect if we blamed capitalism or patriarchy for bad behavior, we wouldn’t be accused of “excusing” it.

3. “The behavior that evo psych claims to explain doesn’t exist!” Yeah, stepfathers never kill other men’s children, fertile women are no more likely to be raped, and women aren’t attracted to men who look like they can beat up other men.

4. “We are all born as blank slates. SOCIETY is to blame for EVERYTHING. People can be molded into ANYTHING!” No, they can’t. How much molding we can take is limited. No amount of molding is going to make women equal to men, for example.

Back to Begley. She doesn’t like the idea that men are attracted to youth and beauty, women to status.

He then quotes where she tries to convince us that the world is full of men who turn on to fat, old women, backing this up with vague, dubious data.

Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: “The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”

The Red Queen

June 28, 2009

I’m reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It’s an evolutionary psychology book, but flawed by the author’s left-wing politics. He tries very hard to deny the social implications of the biologically based qualities he discusses. For example, after 15 pages about the innate differences between the male and female mind, he suddenly declares,

Therefore, there is absolutely no justification from evolutionary biology for the view that men should earn and women should darn their socks….

Indeed, in a curious way, an evolutionary perspective justifies affirmative action more than a more egalitarian philosophy would, for it implies that women have different ambitions and even more than different abilities…. Since the bane of all organizations, whether they are companies, charities, or governments, is that they reward cunning ambition rather than ability (the people who are good at getting to the top are not necessarily the people who are best at doing the job,) and since men are more endowed with such ambition than women, it is absolutely right that promotion should be biased in favor of women – not to redress prejudice but to redress human nature.

Do I even need to comment on this?

Or here:

Laws against racism do have an effect because one of the more appealing aspects of human nature is that people calculate the consequences of their actions. But I am saying that even after a thousand years of strictly enforced laws against racism, we will not one day suddenly able to declare the problem of racism solved and abolish the laws secure in the knowledge that racial prejudice is a thing of the past.

I expect that most readers of this blog are familiar with the ways that “anti-racism laws” have been abused. Besides which, the libertarian in me cannot stomach limiting personal, individual freedom in favor of what whoever controls the government has decided would be best for all of us to be forced to do. Right now it’s getting rid of racism, so sacred a principle that individual rights must be scrapped if it conflicts with it. What will it be tomorrow? There’s a reason certain individual rights are sacrosanct, not to be scrapped with political fashions. But Ridley sees absolutely no problem with repressive, easily broken, ill-defined laws for the rest of humanity’s existence.

Anyway, here’s the passage I wanted to share:

Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, live in promiscuous societies in which females seek as many sexual partners as possible and a male will kill the infants of strange females with whom he has not mated. There is no human society that remotely resembles this particular pattern. Why not? Because human nature is different from chimp nature.

That kind of naivete is downright touching.

Yet again, science confirms what everybody already knew.

November 15, 2008

Why fertile women hate a pretty face

Everyone loves a pretty face – except those women who might see it as a threat. With eyes on the competition, women of childbearing age rate other attractive women consistently lower than women who have entered menopause, according to a new study….

No matter their menopausal status, women favoured masculine-looking men. Yet when rating other women, women still able to have children rated feminine faces as slightly less attractive than menopausal women.

November 15, 2008

How warfare shaped human evolution

Chimpanzees don’t go to war in the way we do because they lack the abstract thought required to see themselves as part of a collective that expands beyond their immediate associates, says Wrangham. However, “the real story of our evolutionary past is not simply that warfare drove the evolution of social behaviour,” says Samuel Bowles, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and the University of Siena, Italy. The real driver, he says, was “some interplay between warfare and the alternative benefits of peace”.

Though women seem to help broker harmony within groups, says Van Vugt, men may be better at peacekeeping between groups.

Site of interest to MRA’s

November 8, 2008

as it is recognized by awful bore

second edition

Authorized translation from Russian by Mikhail Linetsky

The primativeness correlates more with emotionality than with culture. Instinctive programs, when finding resemblance of internal signaling attributes with some factors of outside situation, create corresponding emotions and a highly primative person gladly submits to them. A low primative person, feeling the same forceful emotions, is capable of acting contrary to them….

As was mentioned above, women trust intuition and feelings more than logical conclusions, this composes a so-called woman’s logic. I.e. the highly primative specimens are prevalent among women. It is known that girls study better than boys in schools, universities and other institutions even in ones with technical majors. While studying, not only theory is lectured, but also practical tasks are solved, and laboratory works are held. And girls are doing this better than boys! But when the time comes to utilize the knowledge in practice, the much needed thought does not come to mind.

Hat tip: Roissy in DC, whose blog you all need to be reading.

Men are the leaders

November 3, 2008

I just finished reading King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership by Arnold M. Ludwig, an evolutionary psychology book. One thing the author learned is that we are genetically designed to want the head of state to be male. As Heretic pointed out, the only reason that women ever were heads of state is that if the king didn’t have a son, the royal family would put his daughter on the throne in order to preserve their position. It’s been pointed out that there were far more female heads of state in the world before feminism than after. People can live with a queen inheriting the throne because people like the stability of a royal family, but when people have the chance to choose by voting, they rarely choose a woman. Even women don’t vote for women.

Ludwig quotes another book:

What if only primate males have political prowess? Could there ever be a woman president; should we even allow it? What if females are evolutionarily so constructed as to be able to do nothing except rear babies? As I traced the history of ideas about baboons… there was no mistaking its compelling message: males were the building blocks and the cement of the group. The male-dominance hierarchy… was what gave the group its social structure.
~Shirley C. Strum, Almost Human: A Journey into the World of Baboons

Feminist Evolutionary Psychology

August 13, 2008

No amount of facts or logic can convince women to accept their proper place; only organized patriarchal society can do so.

I often draw on evolutionary psychology in my misogynist theories. Books of evolutionary psychology often carefully avoid coming right out and taking their evidence to its logical conclusions: that however unfair and tragic it might be, the good of all nonetheless depends upon barring women from wielding power and discouraging them from working outside the home. It is evident that many of these writers realize this, but are too canny to say so outright.

Naturally this cannot be allowed to stand. There is now an attempt at interpreting evolutionary psychology in a feminist light.

The basic idea is apparently that by choosing to mate with wimpy, spineless males, women can change the course of human evolution so that there will be no war or capitalism, no nasty morals stopping us from doing whatever we feel like, and everyone can have lots of indiscriminate sex and we can all go to Woodstock every weekend. The grammatical bloopers are as hilarious as the ideas.

A few samples:

This confirms that the female must be, not only free to make her own choices determining her progency’s future fate, but those choices include the female of the past picking agressive [sic] and destructive males as “helpers” in raising children.

I think this is an attempt to say that in the future, women should not choose “agressive” and destructive males to be the fathers of their children. I suppose that instead they prefer weak, vacillating men instead. This is supported by another bit:

Females do not form coalitions that attack their own species; only males. Overwhelming empirical and historical evidence teaches us that of the 4,000 mammal species on the planet, only two form coalitions to attack their own species. Those two are the (Pan troglodytes) chimpanzees, and (Homo sapiens) humans; in both species, it is only the males that organize and attack. Not once, in recorded history, has the female been noted in this organized activity.

No doubt they naively imagine that this is evidence that women are more fit to wield power, instead of proof that they are incapable of it.

Thus, if the female has only a limited choice of males, (i.e., fundamentalist Muslins or Evangelical Christians) she will evaluate mate selection based mainly on resource assessments surrounding those males at the time and location of her selection.

I have no idea what was the point of the passage from which the above sentence was taken. I quoted it because I got a kick out of the “fundamentalist Muslins”. Those cotton weaves can certainly be dogmatic.

As a species, we have determined that living in groups is best for our survival and that means that we must conform to a consensus that forms around us concerning those behaviors. Those behaviors are controlled by ruling elites who also form and transmit social norms of behavior. Those who follow those elites must be acceptable to those who dominate and control those memes. If we fail to follow those rules, it might mean that we could be banished from the dominate inner circle in which we live. In most cases, if the female choices to live freely outside that circle, (if she can) that means limited resources available for the female to raise her progeny. In most cases, all of us, including the fertile female of reproductive age, chooses to follow the social norms, even if it appears to be against her best interests.

To answer the intriguing question as to why it took this long for humanity to discover this truth of equal competitiveness? Because the female majority, up till now, has concluded that the present “institutions” established, and the lessons learned within those institutions (marriage, social groups that one identifies with, friends, family, racial, ethnic, etc.), were the best possible way to pass their genes into the next generation; there has been no need in the past to change the evolutionary process. Now, with the planet on the verge of destroying itself, dominated by males with support of their female supporters, perhaps the sex that controls the reproductive process is having second thoughts.

Here the authoress fails to understand that women have not “chosen” to follow social norms, or “concluded” that present institutions were the best. Our ancestresses did not sit down and think this out, they obeyed instincts which they experienced as emotional reactions. The “lessons learned within those institutions” is equally silly, probably drawn from the theosophical notion that we get reincarnated in order to “learn”, which implies a nonjudgmental attitude towards folly and sin.

Of course, the planet is not remotely on the verge of “destroying itself”. (I presume she means that we are on the verge of destroying it, not that it is about to destroy itself.) But women like that kind of histrionic stuff. Civilization, on the other hand, is very much on the verge of destroying itself, because it is no longer dominated by males.

The page titled Morphing Into Matriarchy; Inching Towards Peace has some of the most outrageous nonsense:

Q: Ok, for the sake of argument you’ve convinced me that women are the cause of evolved male competitive aggression and you’ve also convinced me that women will shift the tide of world events towards world peace by once again morphing this male aggression into supportive partnerships – How is this going to happen?

A: Since the female of our species created man because she needed assistance in child rearing, the female of our species in the future most likely will create substitutes for the resources that the male provided in the past in the creation of the nuclear family.

I know I don’t need to enumerate all this for you, but still: women didn’t “create” men because she needed babysitters. Even many unicellular organisms have males and females. And nature, not women, “created” males. Seeing as how throughout history, it is the male of our species who has “created substitutes for the resources that the male provided in the past”, I see no reason that women will suddenly manifest the ability to do so. No doubt they’ll keep voting for “substitutes”, i.e. welfare programs that steal money from productively employed men and give it to unwed mothers so they can use it to buy good produced by men. This is probably what these bimbos mean by “creating substitutes”.

The crutch of the new movement is the view that the human male’s historical preference for dominance through war has gone way beyond the evolutionary necessities of child rearing into nothing more than nationalistic testosterone contests between established and emerging nations whom are controlled by patriarchal coalitions; the modern, organized female groups also realize that this has evolved due to their support of “standing by ‘their’ men.”

First off, that’s the “crux” of it, not the “crutch”. “Nationalistic testosterone contests” – that is typical of the feminine grasp of political issues. “Nations whom are controlled by patriarchal coalitions” – WHOM? Well, I suppose grammar is a tool of patriarchal oppression. And if these nations were indeed controlled by patriarchal coalitions, everyone would be much better off. Patriarchy is the foundation of civilization.

This whole essay is hilarious.

This educational emphasis should help create a cultural shift in the belief that success of the movement could succeed and will lower, and perhaps, eliminate the possibility of large scale wars, which, we all know, does not benefit any living thing on the planet except the bottom line of corporate war profiteers and religious fundamentalists.

If “we all know” this, then why do we still have them? And you know, before World War II, a lot of people “understood” that “corporate war profiteers” were behind wars, only back then they called them “Jews”. “Religious fundamentalists” is just a standard smear for anyone who advocates valid religions which would make people like this behave instead of running around wrecking society in the service of their utopian fantasies.

A new emphasis should be placed on assaulting the bastions of corporate elites and their privileged lifestyles – in particular the wives of these individuals who tend to be invisible – and who prop up the culture and lifestyle by supporting the males in the elitist ranks. The objective: to teach corporations that wars kill people, and dead people don’t contribute to the profits of most corporations with the exception of those who value money over people and the survival of our planet.

New emphasis? That’s all we’ve been doing for decades! Also, good luck teaching a “corporation” that wars kill people. A corporation is a legal entity. The people who work for it are doubtless already aware that wars kill people. As for “dead people don’t contribute to the profits of most corporations”, that is precisely why Americans still value human life enough to think that euthanizing the elderly or disabled is wrong, while this is becoming more and more common in Europe; why the U.S. government doesn’t have planned famines or death camps; why we don’t put our resources into flying planes into foreign skyscrapers. (Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if these bimbos were 9/11 Truthers.) Considering the thinly veiled attacks on capitalism in the rest of the site, the essayist only weakens her argument further by appealing to it as a motivation not to have wars.

She “would like to fame [sic] the beginning of this FAQ”… “extreme anxiety on the dominate [sic], established groups”… “Our species is adapting to this problem [oil] by evolving the automobile away from the gasoline powered-engine and building denser communities closer to mass transit.” I would like the opportunity to tell her that urban sprawl was caused, right or wrong, by integration which led white people to move out of the inner city areas which had become too dangerous for them. (Again, I am not a racist; I don’t believe that the circumstances which have caused blacks and Latinos to have higher crime rates are genetically caused.)

“For example, if the female of our species no longer needs the aggressive male as in the past….” Well, actually, she does, so we needn’t consider that proposition any further.

Of course, all of the myths of “man the hunter” as the great provider have been thoroughly trashed, and in the truth of the matter, it has been found in today’s hunter-gatherer tribes — and thus most likely our primal ancestor’s — that it is the women that provide over 75% for the tribe/clan’s provisions by their “gathering.”

Er, not exactly. That is, the proportions are more or less correct, but much as vegetarian wackos like to pretend otherwise, humans need meat desperately. This is one of the reasons that male hunters have always been so highly valued.

Hm, she also seems to believe the whole “Wicca is a survival of Ancient Fertility Religions [TM] that was persecuted in witch hunts!” First off, pagan religions were just as patriarchal as Judeo-Christian ones. Second, the Margaret Murray myth has indeed been “thoroughly trashed”, chiefly in the very good book A Razor for a Goat.

Here’s a really extraordinary passage about the alleged Machiavellian machinations of traditional women:

Another group that would be upset by the evolutionary feminist movement would be the conservative, dominate women who benefit the most from these ancestral past ways of reproductive competition. Listen to me ladies – this is the most dangerous group that you will face after the physical threats of male religious fundamentalists, and you must be prepared to do battle — These women do not care for your children or other children born downwind of opportunity; these are the women who live in safe communities who care only about the safety, health, and well-being of their own children. These are the women who whisper into the ears of their alpha male protectors while making love to them and construct in them belief that they are good, strong, and powerful men, who, by their position in life, are being rewarded for their vaulted status by the alpha female‘s sexual essence that is lusted for by other men. These dominate females also whisper in the alpha males’ ears that their children — their future genetic vessels — are sleeping soundly at night knowing that their powerful father is in the next room to protect them.

Do you suppose she actually believes this nonsense?

It has been argued that the bonobos and the chimpanzees are our two closest primate relatives, but DNA testing has determined that the chimpanzees are the more likely candidates as our human ancestors (see reference below). This is important because the chimpanzee males are aggressive and dominate the female chimpanzee; the bonobo males are considered the complete opposite and are dominated by the female. The important difference is that in the world of the bonobos, their society is without physical violence – the males do not “patrol boarders,” they don’t “form coalitions to go off to war,” and do not kill any “invading” bonobo males that may wonder in from another group as do the chimpanzee males.

Where to begin? CHIMPANZEES ARE NOT OUR ANCESTORS. Every high school kid learns this these days. They are merely our closest cousins. As for the claptrap about bonobos, it’s been “thoroughly trashed”; I’ve linked articles about it before. Still, at least she’s honest about chimp male dominance.

So, what is it that the female of our species needs in order to raise her child without male assistance?

A miracle. It isn’t possible. If it’s not a father paying the bills, it’s male taxpayers paying for welfare bestowed by male politicians. Women aren’t capable of producing the goods or the money. And women have proven that they’re not capable of providing the moral framework needed for civilized society.

I think that if we turn to theMom’s organization, whose manifesto strongly believes that there is real discrimination bias against mothers in the modern American workplace and in society in general.

I should certainly hope so.

Their mission statement is to reverse these mechanisms against the female child provider.

The female who provides children?

I could go on, but I’ve gotten bored sporking this idiocy. All she’s done is, yet again, prove that most women should stick to needlepoint.

Nice guys finish last

June 30, 2008

Bad guys really do get the most girls

* 18 June 2008
* news service
* Mason Inman

NICE guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the “dark triad” persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs.

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators.

But being just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. “We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy.”

Jonason and his colleagues subjected 200 college students to personality tests designed to rank them for each of the dark triad traits. They also asked about their attitudes to sexual relationships and about their sex lives, including how many partners they’d had and whether they were seeking brief affairs.

The study found that those who scored higher on the dark triad personality traits tended to have more partners and more desire for short-term relationships, Jonason reported at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting in Kyoto, Japan, earlier this month. But the correlation only held in males.

James Bond epitomises this set of traits, Jonason says. “He’s clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying new things – killing people, new women.” Just as Bond seduces woman after woman, people with dark triad traits may be more successful with a quantity-style or shotgun approach to reproduction, even if they don’t stick around for parenting. “The strategy seems to have worked. We still have these traits,” Jonason says.

This observation seems to hold across cultures. David Schmitt of Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, presented preliminary results at the same meeting from a survey of more than 35,000 people in 57 countries. He found a similar link between the dark triad and reproductive success in men. “It is universal across cultures for high dark triad scorers to be more active in short-term mating,” Schmitt says. “They are more likely to try and poach other people’s partners for a brief affair.”

Barbara Oakley of Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, says that the studies “verify something a lot of people have conjectured about”.

Christopher von Rueden of the University of California at Santa Barbara says that the studies are important because they confirm that personality variation has direct fitness consequences.

“They still have to explain why it hasn’t spread to everyone,” says Matthew Keller of the University of Colorado in Boulder. “There must be some cost of the traits.” One possibility, both Keller and Jonason suggest, is that the strategy is most successful when dark triad personalities are rare. Otherwise, others would become more wary and guarded.

From issue 2661 of New Scientist magazine, 18 June 2008, page 1