Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Why women should not be heads of state

November 28, 2009

Rape victim’s parents charged with abuse

The parents of an 8-year-old Liberian girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted by four boys in July were arrested Friday on child abuse charges, according to Arizona police….

The parents said they felt they had been shamed by their child and blamed her for being victimized. As a result, the girl was taken from her home and placed in state custody.

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf said at the time that the parents’ reaction was wrong and that they needed counseling.

When parents of a little girl brutally beat her and starve her as punishment for being raped, a female head of state will sentence them to… counseling!

This is why female-headed households produce rapists. And why sexual assault is so common in schools, where most of the authority figures are female.

If feminists really opposed rape, they would fight against any woman ever being allowed to wield authority.

Links

July 20, 2009

I don’t often check my wordpress backup of this blog, so comments there tend to wait a lot longer. Anyway, some random person found my post about Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant over there and left a fiery misguided comment, which I approved but didn’t bother to argue with, because the poor soul has had her(?) head stuffed with so much nonsense that it will take years of head-on collisions with harsh reality before it would be possible to begin to reason with her.

Anyway, her unspoken premise, and probably that of a lot of my other trolls, is that civilization depends on people never retaliating against assholery, rather than on people refraining from assholery. That is, some people (read: women) should be allowed to be as vicious as they want to others, while other people (read: men) have a duty to exercise self-control instead of retaliating.

If it were not for the fact that men have about a thousand times as much self-control as women, for the last forty years white middle-class men would have been just as violent as feminists pretend that they are. We would all be living in a Lifetime Channel movie.

Now, the divide between those who are licensed to practice unlimited assholery and those who are expected to stoically endure it with patience normally only exhibited by people who have statues erected to them in cathedrals is not always male-female. The bad-boys who make women wet are also exempt. This is how schools are operated, as I have discussed before.

It’s natural for females, whose survival depends upon ingratiating themselves with those who are willing to do violence, to advocate this method of dealing with people. It isn’t very effective, however. People can be trained to let women and the designated bad-boy bullies who make them wet treat them like dirt a great deal, but no one can tolerate it forever and eventually they’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.

It doesn’t even take a lot in the way of retaliation, by the way. I’ve had people – mostly women – in my life treat me like dirt, and I would exercise self-restraint and politely request that they stop and tell them how I felt and all the other shit that feminists claim is highly effective against rape when it isn’t even effective against your so-called friends telling random passing strangers intimate details of your life. Finally, when it was clear there was going to be no change in their vile behavior, I would snap and retaliate. Now, since I’m short and female, when I “snap and retaliate”, it means I yell at you for maybe two minutes tops and then you never see me again. But even this, after many warnings, sometimes months of warnings, utterly shocks these entitlement princesses. They have been so well trained to believe that they can do whatever they want, no matter how harmful it is to other people, and that it is the responsibility of their victims to exercise infinite self-restraint while their rights are being trampled upon, that they literally cannot believe it when they hear a raised voice and a slammed door. No wonder they don’t believe that serious wrongdoing, or serious stupidity, can lead to violence. They believe they can keep friends by treating those friends like shit, and they are genuinely astonished when it doesn’t work that way.

Now for today’s links.

Jacqui Smith: I’d never run a thing before the Home Office

Jacqui Smith has admitted for the first time that she was not up to the job of Home Secretary.

She said she was thrust into one of the biggest posts in Government without any training and called for MPs to receive help before they become ministers.

She also suggested that any successes she had in her post were down to ‘luck’ rather than skill.

Also, a woman besides me is sick of women going to the office dressed like prostitutes.

She was wearing a ‘spray-on’ dress, cut low enough to reveal yards of cleavage and high enough to barely skim her thighs, with shoes so high she had trouble walking in them.

Those clothes spoke volumes more than the carefully crafted CV and told me two essential things: this woman is not intelligent, and she does not respect me or herself….

Dropping into an estate agent’s office last weekend, I found myself transfixed by the female agent who’s bra straps were clearly on display and who was wearing so much lip gloss her lips were almost glued together.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. It damages every woman who engages in it, and undermines women at work generally.

The way we dress has a huge effect on the way we perceive ourselves, and on the way we’re perceived. Sadly, the two don’t always match up.

My star candidate in the sexy dress, for example, may have looked in her mirror that morning and seen ‘confident, individual, fashionable’. I saw ‘bimbo, trying too hard, someone who doesn’t have the sense to dress for the context in which she’s going to be seen’.

Yeah. Just this weekend, I was ogling a really hot chick who was about one inch of cloth away from indecent exposure, and then I overheard some of her conversation and realized that she’s still in high school. I quickly started looking the other way, even though it’s not illegal to look, but I can hardly believe any parent let their daughter go out looking like that. Yes, most women today who are not lesbians firmly believe that women who dress like hookers are no more likely to be ogled than women who dress normally, so they won’t stop their daughters from dressing like that. (Why on earth do they think hookers dress this way? Because it makes men hard and dykes wet, that’s why!) But if these mothers haven’t deprived them of their fathers, and surely not all of them have, their fathers know what makes a man’s dick hard. I once said all this to an older woman and her suggestion was that fathers have too strong a mental block against ever seeing their daughters as sexual beings to even notice when they look like they’re trying to score $50 for their next hit. If I were ever to have a daughter – highly unlikely, considering my age and my manifest reluctance to saddle myself with a wife who could be young enough to have children – I would probably build the same kind of mental block against seeing her that way, so I suppose that could be true.

Domestic Violence Against Men In Colorado

Boys and their toys? It’s biological, not social

The males monkeys played with the ‘boys’ toys while the females played with ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toys

Boys prefer playing with cars to dolls because of basic biological differences rather than social pressures, scientists say.

Researchers observed young male monkeys spent more time playing with vehicles than with cuddly toys.

They believe this suggests that in most cases boys have an innate predisposition for masculine toys, which is then reinforced by what they learn from their parents, friends and wider society.

Dr Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, studied a group of captive, mainly juvenile male and female rhesus monkeys.

The Political Spectrum

July 16, 2009

It has occurred to me that since I have been talking about my erstwhile membership in the Log Cabin Republicans and how many women vote Democrat and other things that are a little off the main topic here, perhaps I should state where I am on the political spectrum.

The answer, of course, is: traditionalist. That is, most of the Americans who call themselves “Republicans” find me way too reactionary. Even if they’ve only heard the pabulumized version of my beliefs, which in my normal life is all I show most people.

Like pretty much every conservative, of any variety of conservatism, I have a large streak of libertarianism in me. Of course, a lot of libertarians, and all liberals, don’t realize that the personal autonomy they desire requires an awful lot of responsible behavior. Freedom comes with responsibility.

Also, the libertarian way would result in de facto male privilege. This is why liberals don’t want a meritocracy; if merit is the only criteria, the winners will mostly be white men, Asian men, and Jews. A couple of the male chauvinist books in my sidebar have mischievously suggested that genuine sexual equality (as opposed to the female privileges feminists want) would be a boon to men; if quotas of women and sex discrimination lawsuits weren’t around, men would easily outcompete women in every area of life.

I recognize biologically based differences between humans, particularly male and female, gay and straight. This puts me definitely out of today’s conservative mainstream. I have outlined some of the theories of why patriarchy is necessary to civilization – they can be found in the works of Daniel Amneus, Steven Goldberg, and the other authors in my sidebar – to a very few trusted friends who are sensible enough not to scream and faint at hearing the facts which have been known to 100% of pre-1960 humans. Their response is to concede that it makes sense and gee, maybe it was necessary back before birth control etc., but they still believe that we can do away with patriarchy and still enjoy its beneficial effects on human behavior. They are so civilized that they don’t truly believe that anyone else isn’t. Or, they believe that just because a handful of people can and do behave themselves without the traditional restraints of society, this means that everyone will. All we have to do is read one page of any newspaper to see that this is not working. The structures of society that have always existed, exist for very good reasons.

If I took Ayn Rand’s famous challenge and recited my political philosophy while standing on one foot, I suppose I could summarize it thus: “Patriarchy, property, capitalism, tradition, merit.” Most of today’s “conservatives” would only go along with three of these.

Link dump

July 16, 2009

Oh, brother. It looks like I’m going to be getting irate comments on my post denouncing feminists for encouraging women to put themselves in danger forever. The basic premise of these people seems to be that, since women should be safe anywhere, including in a man’s bed without panties or drunk in a bad neighborhood wearing a miniskirt, women should go right ahead and behave as if they were safe anywhere, and just hope that the men they encounter happen, by pure chance, to be the enlightened sort.

Most of the comments were so nonsensical that I was embarrassed to belong to the same species as those who made them, but they had clearly worked themselves up into a self-righteous lather over at hexadecimal’s post. (Just think if they used that fervor against actual rapists instead of against people who mention ways of avoiding rape.) And considering that his idea of a good way to open a conversation is to brag about how horrified he is at the very existence of the person with whom he wishes to converse, it’s not too surprising that his commenters act the way they do.

Unlike that poor mangina Professor Anonymous, however, I have the balls not to cave to pressure to take my post down. And there’s always the hope that some woman who reads it will make some kind of subconscious connection and not endanger herself despite the urgings of feminists.

Oh, also, it seems I am guilty of not condoning premarital sex. Which I don’t. Not that I recommend that any man get married in today’s legal climate, and it would be cruel to expect men to be celibate in addition to everything else they have to put up with these days, but that’s not at all the same as approving of screwing around. It doesn’t mean that the women who do it deserve any respect. Sure, the civilization western men have created recognizes basic human rights of sluts, just as it does those of felons, the retarded, the comatose, the unborn, etc. But respect is not a basic human right, and certainly not anything that a woman who sleeps around can expect.

I linked the Editrix to a post I made some time ago about how fatherlessness helped cause the rise of fascism, which, considering how many boys grow up without fathers today throughout Europe and America, is something to worry about. She replied with this post in which she partially agrees with me but says my post was oversimplifying, which I knew it was. The purpose of this blog is to rail against one particular force in the destruction of our civilization. Feminism has accelerated it beyond the wildest hopes of Marx and Gramsci, but it was not the root cause. For the root cause, well, one good place to start would be here. Actually, let me clarify: the “root cause” is human nature. Progressive lies are appealing because they promise a utopia to come as soon as everybody is sufficiently enlightened, and because they relieve those who subscribe to them of responsibility for their actions. Of course that’s appealing. Someone who claimed to have invented a pill that would make ice cream and pizza accelerate weight loss would acquire a following too.

Back to the Editrix’s post, some time ago I found casualty figures for the Great War, broken down by country, but I can’t find them now. When I dig them up again, I’ll post them, but I do remember that Germany’s casualties exceeded everyone else’s by a wide margin.

Roissy has echoed my contention that feminism is just one big “shit test”.

Actually, I don’t think American women want to be equal. That’s just what they tell themselves to rationalize their aggressively masculine posturing toward men. More accurately, of all the world’s women, American women are the biggest shit testers because they so very much DON’T want to be equal to the supplicating American betaboys they date. A desire by American women to shit test men to kingdom come to find the alpha gem among the beta shale is often miscontrued by men as a desire for equal footing with them. The truth is, in fact, just the opposite. They shit test because they want to find a man who puts himself on a footing above her. This is why even the most hardcore self-professed feminists will wilt into a puddle of submissive passion for a devil-may-care alpha male who doesn’t take her oh-so-profound ideology or her empty bleatings for equality seriously.

I hadn’t been keeping up with Oz Conservative, but he’s got a lot of great posts lately. In Sweden, feminists are trying to force men to pee sitting down. Men, don’t let this happen to you! You know, back when Camille Paglia first said, “Male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendence. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on,” I just thought she was being nutty, as she often is. Swedish feminists, it seems, believed her.

Also, guys, follow the great F. Roger Devlin’s advice not to give a woman a baby unless she agrees to a real marriage to you. Even if all you do is donate sperm, she could come after you for money later.

This article… I can’t even stand to quote it. Just go read. If the feminist trolls are still lurking here, they’ll probably approve of everything in it.

Left-wing rants disguised as “science”

February 23, 2009

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

Left-wing rants disguised as "science"

February 23, 2009

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

<a href="
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/sexism_or_just_idiocy_from_cat.php”>Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

Left-wing rants disguised as "science"

February 23, 2009

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

February 21, 2009

The Testosterone Crisis

While an excess of yang energy was considered explosive and dangerous, what happens in a country like contemporary America when there seems to be a dangerous oversupply of feminine yin?

In his book The Suicide of Reason Lee Harris argues that our present state of liberal democracy has led to “eliminating the alpha males from our midst, and at a dizzyingly accelerating rate.” Instead of supporting and valuing testosterone’s virtues we’re “drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin.” In addition, one could view Barack Obama’s election as the triumph of yin over yang. Obama’s policies promise to cast the father out of America’s parks and replace him with the more “caring” and yin oriented federal government. For Lee Harris however the feminization of American men comes at an extremely high price:

“The end of testosterone in the West alone will not culminate in the end of history, but it may well culminate in the end of the West.”

It was in ancient Greece for example when the West began to associate the masculine yang voice with freedom and self-reliance. Why? Because when Athenian citizens perused the known world they noticed something rather curious: in no country other than Greece did citizens enjoy freedom or the virtues of democratic government. Famous Greeks like the fifth century B.C. physician Hippocrates attempted to explain this fascinating anomaly. What Hippocrates and other Greek observers all tended to conclude was that the rest of the world’s subjects must be “effeminate” or else, like the Greeks, they would have demanded — like real men — to be left alone by their leaders.

September 13, 2008

Women Are Replaceable: Sarah Palin

We’re talking about women here. Women are illogical and vindictive. They’re not going to look at her voting record, her NRA membership, or anything like that. Women will vote for her because she’s a woman and they’re mad at Barack for edging out a victory, end of story. Republicans are geniuses.

September 10, 2008

Martin Luther on women in politics.