"La Garde meurt mais ne se rend pas. Vive l'Empereur Napoléon, vive la France!"

- Monsieur Nicholas Chauvin

This blog was written in defence of male superiority and patriarchal dominance; it was written with the idea in mind that all women are breeders and homemakers who belong in the kitchen. The blog itself was initially conceived of as being a great counter-offensive against the twin evils of both feminism and liberal socialism.

Women should NEVER have been given the right to vote!

Women should NEVER have been given the right to vote!

Dick Masterson: I love this guy!


Women have no sense of humour...

Women have no sense of humour...

All women should cover their ugly faces in public!

All women should cover their ugly faces in public!
The best way to discipline a western woman is to have her draped in a burkha...

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Women of High Intelligence Look and Act Like Men

Only Genetically Masculinized Females Display Above Average Levels of Human Intelligence and Creativity; or Why Do Smart Women Look and Act Like Men?

Marie Curie, the celebrated French physicist of Polish extraction, was a woman of high intelligence who both looked and acted like a genetically masculinized female. Note the broad forehead, receding hairline, and large cranial capacity typical of males.

Madame Curie is the perfect example of an intellectually gifted woman who, by logical extension, was also highly virilized in both thought and action. Even from a cursory examination of her portraiture, it becomes immediately apparent from her obviously masculinised physiognomy that she was either suffering from congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) or an epidemiological condition whose aetiology involves much of the complex symptomatology that underlies certain forms of excess ovarian androgenic hormone production. According to much of the historiography and biographical materials surrounding her life in the early twentieth century, it would seem that her life was one that was drenched in buckets of liquid testosterone. Many of the details surrounding her life seem to be consistent with the numerous clinical observations made by the late Johns Hopkins psychologist Dr. Money concerning highly masculinised women suffering from CAH. For one thing, the outward physical appearance of Madame Curie struck even the casual observer as overtly masculine: she was a woman with an unusually broad forehead and receding hairline, traits often indicative of male pattern baldness; on her throat could be observed the slight traces of an adam’s apple; she had unusually large hands and feet, as well as particularly lengthy digits that happen to be uncharacteristic for her sex. In addition, she also displayed very few of the secondary sex characteristics that are sex-typical for her gender: her breasts were largely underdeveloped and she had virtually no waist-to-hip ratio.

In true masculine style, she had little interest in cosmetics or fashion, prefering to wear the same black dress that she wore for days on end. She even managed to push her contempt for fashion to such extremes as to wear the same kind of clothing she was accustomed to wear in the laboratory to both of the Nobel Prize ceremonies she was obliged to attend.

Contrary to the champions of woman’s emancipation, she had no interest in being seen as a woman seeking equality with men. Her strongest desire was to be accepted as an honorary man who wished to be treated as a man on exclusively male terms. As indicated by her biographer Richard Reid, Madame Curie neither identified herself as a feminist nor did she have the slightest inclination to organize as one. In fact, she was contemptuous of feminism and believed that science, whether theoretical or experimental, could solve all of the world’s problems.

In the laboratory, she was known to display her masculine strength and energy by performing the hard physical labour of a stevedore. She was known as a woman capable of performing such physically strenuous tasks, many of which obviously exceed the physical capacities of the vast majority of women, because of the high muscle to body fat ratio and upper body muscular development that characterized so much of her individual physiology. The physicist Georges Urbain, having observed her working diligently in the laboratory, exclaimed in amazement that:

... he saw Madame Curie work like a man in the difficult treatments of great quantities of pitchblende.

Having established that Madame Curie was really a man in both thought and action, we must now try to understand why women of high intelligence always act and look like men. As les frères Goncourt once declared in a famous aphorism:

There are no women of genius; the women of genius are men.

From the biographical details of Madame Curie, we can see that the only near genius produced by the opposite sex was really a man in drag; a female of high intelligence is really a man trapped in the frigid dungeon of a woman’s body. According to Cesare Lombroso, the great Italian criminologist and physical anthropologist of the nineteenth century, all of the most illustrious women who have existed throughout history, consistent with their available portraiture and biographical details, were all highly masculinized women who thought, acted and felt like typical adult males; therefore, we should not be surprised if, numbered amongst these supposedly female luminaries, were many women who were intersexed or hermaphroditic in both phenotype and behavioural traits. In his bestseller La donna criminale, la prostituta e la donna normale, Lombroso writes:

Women of genius frequently have masculine appearances. Female genius can be explained as Darwin explained the colouration of birds that resemble the males of their species: by a confusion of secondary sexual characteristics produced by a mismatch of paternal and maternal heredity. One need only look at the pictures of women of genius of our day to realize that they seem to be men in disguise. (pg.83)

Concerning the causal relationship between masculinity and intelligence in women, one can readily see that Lombroso’s observations have enormous relevance for our understanding of the female psyche of today once they are stripped of their reliance on craniometric analysis and phrenological measurement. In fact, much of the data he collected from his own empirical observations of those extremely rare women of high intelligence can be readily explained through the discipline of modern endocrinology by invoking the well-known linkage between elevated levels of circulating androgens in the blood-stream and high intelligence and aggressiveness in women.There is a large body of evidence that indicates that female performance on tests of visual spatialization, the general mental capacity underlying both mathematical and analytical ability, and general intelligence are clearly determined by either the presence of fluctuating hormones throughout the menstrual cycle or abnormally high levels of testosterone brought on by the pre-natal masculinization of the female central nervous system.

A number of scientific investigations, most notably those conducted by E. Hampson in the early 1990s, have actually found that variations in the levels of circulating estradiol and progesterone throughout the menstrual cycle are responsible for modulating levels of female cognitive functioning; the researchers noted that whereas higher concentrations of estradiol and progesterone throughout the midluteal phase of the ovulatory cycle were responsible for a diminution of visuo-spatial ability, the correspondingly lower concentrations of both hormones at the onset of menstruation, relative to substantial levels of androstenedione (the most common female androgen), actually resulted in an improved ability to write tests evaluating both intelligence and the ability to rotate 3-dimensional geometric figures. It was established by Silverman and Phillips (1997) that female performance on the Mental Rotation Test (MRT) increased by almost 50% during menstruation due to the lower blood serum concentrations of estradiol and progesterone relative to elevated levels of androstenedione. In addition, it is a well-known fact that masculine women, who have elevated levels of testosterone, tend to demonstrate high intelligence throughout their lives, whereas those women (the overwhelming majority) who possess very little or no testosterone tend to be of mediocre or below average intellectual functioning. Consistent with this report, the researchers S.M. Resnick et al. (1986) administered both IQ and MRT tests to women affected with CAH, a condition characterized by high levels of circulating testosterone in the blood-stream, and women unaffected by the same condition. It was observed by Resnick et al. that the highly masculinised women tended to score significantly higher on both the IQ test and the MRT than the control group of normal women.

Futhermore, in a personal communication received by the writer earlier this year from English psychologist Richard Lynn, it was stated that women who display levels of intelligence outside the somewhat below average range of normal female intelligence tend to have been genetically masculinized during embryological development in the womb.

Thus, women who are intelligent always look and act like men, if not being essentially men in female disguise.

Males Exceed Females in All Things; or Are Men Really Better than Women?

Men are many times more complex than women in terms of personality and behaviour. In other words, what we have is female conservatism on the one hand and male progressivism on the other; because of the great complexity of male socio-sexual behaviour, men vary much more in terms of human trait possession than women. The mere recognition of greater male variability in terms of both mental, emotional, and physical characteristics is something that has been known by Charles Darwin and discussed at great length by the celebrated English sexologist Havelock Ellis. Concerning the principle of greater male variability as manifested in terms of genius, Havelock Ellis wrote in the book Man and Woman:

We must regard genius as an organic congenital abnormality ... and in nearly every department it is undeniably of more frequent occurrence among men than among women.... Genius is more common among men by virtue of the same general tendency by which idiocy is more common among men. The two facts are but two aspects of a larger zoological fact — the greater variability of the male.

Concerning the greater variational tendency of the male, Charles Darwin writes in Chapter VIII of the Descent of Man:

The great eagerness of the males has thus indirectly led to their much more frequently developing secondary sexual characters than the females. But the development of such characters would be much aided, if the males were more liable to vary than the females--as I concluded they were--after along study of domesticated animals. Von Nathusius, who has had very wide experience, is strongly of the same opinion. (22. 'Vortrage uberViehzucht,' 1872, p. 63.) Good evidence also in favour of this conclusioncan be produced by a comparison of the two sexes in mankind. During theNovara Expedition (23. 'Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil,' 1867, ss.216-269. The results were calculated by Dr. Weisbach from measurements made by Drs. K. Scherzer and Schwarz. On the greater variability of themales of domesticated animals, see my 'Variation of Animals and Plantsunder Domestication,' vol. ii. 1868, p. 75.) a vast number of measurements was made of various parts of the body in different races, and the men werefound in almost every case to present a greater range of variation than thewomen; but I shall have to recur to this subject in a future chapter. Mr.J. Wood (24. 'Proceedings of the Royal Society,' vol. xvi. July 1868, pp.519 and 524.), who has carefully attended to the variation of the muscles in man, puts in italics the conclusion that "the greatest number ofabnormalities in each subject is found in the males." He had previously remarked that "altogether in 102 subjects, the varieties of redundancy were found to be half as many again as in females, contrasting widely with the greater frequency of deficiency in females before described." ProfessorMacalister likewise remarks (25. 'Proc. Royal Irish Academy,' vol. x.1868, p. 123.) that variations in the muscles "are probably more common inmales than females." Certain muscles which are not normally present in mankind are also more frequently developed in the male than in the female sex, although exceptions to this rule are said to occur. Dr. Burt Wilder(26. 'Massachusetts Medical Society,' vol. ii. No. 3, 1868, p. 9.) has tabulated the cases of 152 individuals with supernumerary digits, of which86 were males, and 39, or less than half, females, the remaining 27 being of unknown sex. It should not, however, be overlooked that women would more frequently endeavour to conceal a deformity of this kind than men. Again, Dr. L. Meyer asserts that the ears of man are more variable in formthan those of a woman. (27. 'Archiv fur Path. Anat. und Phys.' 1871, p.488.) Lastly the temperature is more variable in man than in woman. (28.The conclusions recently arrived at by Dr. J. Stockton Hough, on thetemperature of man, are given in the 'Pop. Sci. Review,' Jan. 1st, 1874, p.97.)The cause of the greater general variability in the male sex, than in the female is unknown, except in so far as secondary sexual characters are extraordinarily variable, and are usually confined to the males; and, as weshall presently see, this fact is, to a certain extent, intelligible.

Through the action of sexual and natural selection male animals have been rendered in very many instances widely different from their females; but independently of selection the two sexes, from differing constitutionally,tend to vary in a somewhat different manner. The female has to expend much organic matter in the formation of her ova, whereas the male expends much force in fierce contests with his rivals, in wandering about in search ofthe female, in exerting his voice, pouring out odoriferous secretions,etc.: and this expenditure is generally concentrated within a short period. The great vigour of the male during the season of love seems oftento intensify his colours, independently of any marked difference from thefemale. (29. Prof. Mantegazza is inclined to believe ('Lettera a CarloDarwin,' 'Archivio per l'Anthropologia,' 1871, p. 306) that the bright colours, common in so many male animals, are due to the presence and retention by them of the spermatic fluid; but this can hardly be the case;for many male birds, for instance young pheasants, become brightly coloured in the autumn of their first year.) In mankind, and even as low down inthe organic scale as in the Lepidoptera, the temperature of the body is higher in the male than in the female, accompanied in the case of man by aslower pulse. (30. For mankind, see Dr. J. Stockton Hough, whose conclusions are given in the 'Popular Science Review,' 1874, p. 97. See Girard's observations on the Lepidoptera, as given in the 'Zoological Record,' 1869, p. 347.) On the whole the expenditure of matter and force by the two sexes is probably nearly equal, though effected in very different ways and at different rates.

In a recent scientific paper by Strand, Deary, and Smith (2005), it was observed that:

The majority of studies have only considered sex differences in mean scores. However, in an often overlooked aspect of their review, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) also concluded that males were more variable than females in mathematical and spatial abilities, although the sexes were equally variable in verbal ability. The issue of increased cognitive variability in males was previously discussed in detail by Heim (1970). Feingold (1992) analysed the results for the national standardisations of the DAT, the SAT, the WAIS, and the California Achievement tests. Males tended to be more variable than females in general knowledge, mechanical reasoning, quantitative ability, spatial visualisation, and spelling. There was little difference in variability for most verbal tests, short-term memory, non-verbal reasoning and perceptual speed (see Table 1 for DAT results). Hedges & Nowell (1995) reported that males had greater variance than females in all but two of the areas they considered, typically in the order of 3%-15% greater variability in boys’ scores than in girls’ scores. Cole (1997) also reported greater variability in boys’ scores on many of the tests analysed. For example, at age 17, males outnumbered females in the top 10% on maths tests by 1.5 to 1, and in science by 2 to 1.

Sex differences in spread or variability are important because they help to explain why males may outnumber females among the highest scoring individuals in tests that show only a small male advantage in mean score (Feingold, 1992; Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Nowell & Hedges, 1998). The obverse was also true: in Hedges & Nowell’s (1995) study boys outnumbered girls in the bottom 10% for those tests with only a small female advantage in mean score (e.g., reading comprehension, perceptual speed and associative memory).

The principle of male variance and monotonous female uniformity can be readily demonstrated on a mathematical level by constructing a Gaussian curve which plots the incidence of sexual dimorphism in male-female personality and behaviour. It will be seen from the standard normal distribution along the curve itself that not only do men have higher standard deviations than women but that men always have a tendency to cluster around the upper and lower extremes of the curve, whereas women, being generally homogeneous in both personality and behaviour, tend to have lower standard deviations and tend to gravitate towards the middle of the curve. Thus, there are more men of genius and high intelligence than women; women of talent and ability are extremely rare, and in many instances, nonexistent. In addition, there are more male daredevils than women; more male eccentrics than women; more males with tremendous athletic ability than women; more men with high levels of creativity than women; more men with a much greater sense of humour than women; more male criminals than women etc.

This is so because of three major reasons. Firstly, because alleles on both sex chromosomes present within the male genome are not coupled in the same dominant or recessive pairs as in the female; this means that there is nothing to mask the expression of gene replication errors in RNA transcription within the male lineage itself, ultimately producing a wide variation in both male temperament and phenotype. Secondly, men often bear the brunt of male-male competition for available females, and because of this are forced to become a kind of genetic filter for the species. Lastly, greater male variability is due to the presence of testosterone which enhances neuro-biological mechanisms for individual motivation within the male central nervous system, thus giving men a much greater drive to adapt and overcome whatever obstacles have been placed in their way by an unforgiving and merciless environment. All of these features are lacking in the human female, making women roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour across all times and places, all ethnicities and cultures.

In conclusion, by way of recapitulation, there is much greater variability in personality and behaviour amongst males, than amongst females; it is exceedingly difficult to construct a body of multivariate statistical analysis that can rigidly predetermine the biomechanical operation of male socio-sexual functioning; this is because men tend to cluster around the very extremes of any trait that is either expressed phenotypically/ genotypically, or one that is ultimately the natural by-product of socio-cultural adaptation. Thus, men tend to be all things in all times and places. However, women tend to be roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour.

The female of the species always tends to cluster around the middle of any Gaussian distribution that statistically calculates the relative probability of any trait being distributed throughout a given population demographic. Thus, because women tend to be relatively uniform in all places and times, they tend to operate as a collective organism functioning within the confines of an amorphous social network, the boundaries of which are ultimately defined by the biological parameters of the maternal instinct.

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Myth of Female Oppression

Only people who are full of shit believe that women have suffered the historical indignities of oppression. Women are one of the most privileged groups of human beings to have ever lived; only lower status men have ever suffered from discrimination.

The premise that men oppress women for the benefit of other men is fundamentally flawed. It seems to be the by-product of philosophical speculation within the domain of the social sciences, rather than based on any rigorously oriented scientific methodology. Although I doubt the veracity of the foregoing premise, I do believe there is considerable empirical and statistical evidence pointing to a tremendous amount of oppression being exerted by women over other women. As a matter of fact, it is quite possible to assert that women have been oppressed; except that women have historically oppressed other women, as well as many men, through the use of both her sexuality and reproductive biology.

To begin with, sexual relations between both genders functions as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the woman offers both her womb and vagina as a means of receiving such benefits as money, status, power and commitment. Sex would be used as a means of economic exchange at a going marketable rate that most women would accept as adequate compensation for the giving of sexual favours. Due to the fact that men compete for women as a scarce commodity within the marketplace of heterosexual transactions, women are inevitably driven to possess little desire for any particular sexual relationship itself given the superabundance of men she is able to choose from; this enables her to exert a considerable amount of influence over the relationship by coercing the man to provide her with resources that will persuade her to have sex with him.

Women who would offer sex readily, without participating within the process of sexual negotiation based on socio-economic exchange would readily invoke the hostility of most women by making the service of copulation readily accessible to men; by lowering the costs of sex, the ‘loose’ woman is a threat to most women because she undercuts the economic bargaining power of women within heterosexual transactions and reduces her ability to maneuvre her way into positions of power in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance.

As many evolutionary psychologists have noted repeatedly, it should come as no surprise that women have a considerably greater hostility towards pornography and prostitution than men do. In a survey conducted by Klassen et al. (1989), 69% of women, as opposed to 45% of men were likely to disapprove of prostitution. In fact, female opposition to both prostitution and pornography is of long-standing duration. According to Walkowitz (1980), the anti-prostitution and smut campaigns of the nineteenth century were largely participated in by women.The laws which have formed the basis of every society that has ever existed has been aimed primarily at controlling men and not women. Men are arrested for all manner of crimes at a much greater magnitude than women are. Baumeister (2002) says that in 1998, 92% of all arrests for sex crimes involved men and the other 8% of arrests would involve women. The only exception to the rule would be prostitution and as we see from Walkowitz, much anti-prostitution legislation was put in place by means of direct female agitation.

In addition, it is women and only women who have sanctioned the horrific practice of mutilating the bodies of pre-pubescent females; a notable example of such would be the practice of genital subincision and infibulation or female genital circumcision. According to researcher H. Lightfoot-Klein (1989), the decision as to which daughter was to be circumcised was determined exclusively by the maternal figures of the household and that the operation is performed solely by women. Lightfoot-Klein also notes that girls who refuse to allow themselves to be genitally circumcised are routinely harassed and socially ostracized by other girls. Another researcher, A.A. Shandall (1967, 1979), found, after a statistical analysis of hundreds of surveys submitted in the region of northeastern Africa, that most men actually prefer wives who have not undergone the surgery and that female circumcision is not conducive to male sexual pleasure.

The notion of culture and socialization functioning as the primary agents behind sexual differentiation in anatomical sex and gender roles really invokes the argument of infinite third man regression; if we are socialized by society than what socializes the basic infrastructure around which the dominant social institutions gravitate? Who or what socializes society? The division of labour between men and women is largely a product of neuro-endocrinological and physiological differentiation between both genders, resulting in sexual dimorphism in such traits as physical strength and intelligence. Every society that has ever existed has been a patriarchy dominated by men; there has never been a society ruled by women. In spite of enormous cross-cultural variation between many societies, the sexual physiological differentiation between men and women is the same in all societies. The universality of patriarchy on an anthropological level, as well as the androgenic hormonalization of the male central nervous system during embryological development producing significantly higher levels of male aggression and motivation, would make the existence of male patriarchal dominance physiologically inevitable.

Thus, subjecting male-female relations to a Marxist-Leninist sociological analysis along class lines is clearly illogical. The members of both groups possess the same hormones, albeit in vastly different quantities, and none can truly be in any dialectical antagonism to the other because a certain symbiosis between both sexes is necessary for the perpetuation of the human species. In the final analysis, the concept of sex is really a synthesis of both biological and socio-cultural factors; the social organization of human interactions is really an instance of behavioural conformation to a limited set of biological parameters that determine our existence as living organisms.

The Economic Dimension of Female Sexuality

It is often said by feminists that men commodify women as sex objects; however, what is forgotten is that women commodify men both economically and physically as walking ATM machines, status symbols, and big muscles. When it comes to men, building female attraction is based on two things and two things only:

1. Money or the ability to acquire material resources.

2. High levels of testosterone-fuelled aggression or physical strength.

Christ, women are such narrow, materialistic, superficial creatures!

Women supply sex as a means of facilitating socio-economic exchange, which in its broadest possible conceptualization, operates as a reliable means of barter. It involves the trade of both material and non-material goods and services where men are both the consumers and buyers of sex. Sexual relations between both sexes functions as a means of financial exchange in which the roles participated in by both genders within a heterosexual marketplace are highly asymmetrical; sex is a female service or social resource that the woman as supplier will use as a means of barter for the highest marketable price, in the form of capital or natural resources, that she can command on both her sexuality and reproductive biology under the prevailing circumstances in which the act of economic exchange takes place.

In stark contrast, male sexuality is relatively worthless and cannot be exchanged for material goods; no man can command any price on either his body or his ability to simultaneously impregnate multiple females within the space of a few hours; even a man who is relatively virginal or of chaste reputation cannot command anything economically for his sexuality and could face derision as a result for even attempting to do such. In western industrial capitalist societies, the underlying parameters which determine how the heterosexual marketplace mediates the economic matrix through which sexual transactions are mediated is determined by the autonomous sex drive of men and the relative sexual frigidity of most women. It is also substantially moulded by the fact that men have both historically and contemporaneously been in a position to accumulate the most amount of resources. Ultimately, this psycho-physiological fact alone enables women to have a certain degree of individual choice; it allows them to optimally maximize their ability to select the most desirable mate. It would also be pre-determined by the reality that norms and prescriptions concerning sex as a resource for economic exchange would presumably enlighten women as to the maximum amount of resources she can command for both her vagina and womb from the competing males around her.

Sex functions as a social resource for women because of her greater investment in parenthood, including a nine month period of foetal gestation and possible death in childbirth. Sex also has potentially negative consequences for women, as opposed to men, and therefore women are driven to apply a kind of cost-benefit analysis that evaluates the economic rationality of any market-driven process of partner selection; this immediately transforms sex into a benefit that men have to pay for in one form or the other. Another reason for why sex is a female resource is because of the differential strength in sex drive between both genders. For this, there is a considerable amount of empirical information supporting the relative frigidity of the human female; these can be readily enumerated as being the fact that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are women and that male prostitutes, with very rare or unusual exceptions, service a male clientele only.

Given the greater male physical strength and higher levels of aggression, it is almost physiologically inevitable that men are almost always expected to be the ones to contribute resources and expend a large amount of time and energy in the process of charming a woman, whereas the female role in ritualized human courtship is really the logical extension of the prostitute’s role in attracting male clients. In addition, infidelity on the part of the woman is punished much more harshly than on the part of the man; this is very much conducive with the idea that sex is a resource supplied by females and that female sexuality is considerably of greater value than male sexuality.

According to the principle of social exchange theory, the person who has the least interest in a relationship is the one who exerts the most amount of influence. Thus, because men desire sex more than women. Men are intrinsically biologically motivated to seek out sexual gratification as an end in itself, whereas few women are internally driven seek out sex as an end in itself. It is this aspect of neuro-endocrinological sexual differentiation between both genders that places women in the advantageous position of being able to exert a considerable amount of leverage within the hetero-social interaction itself, blindly coercing the male into a position of powerlessness, provided he stays within the norms of socio-sexual behaviour prescribed by the overarching cultural framework we, as autonomous social subjectivities, are expected to operate within.

Another possible reason for sex being exchanged by women for both material goods and monetary media of exchange is because men are often physically stronger and more intelligent than women are and because of this have greater earning power than women do; in order to increase her access to those material resources monopolized by men, women are driven to use sex as a bargaining chip in the sexual negotiation of rights over her own body. However, it is possible to argue that the accumulation of capital amongst men and the economic differential between both genders is largely driven by female-female competition for the most desirable or dominant male.

The marriage gradient, extensively documented by J. Bernard (1982), in which husbands have more economic and social clout than wives and both high-status women and low-ranking men are routinely left out, is almost exclusively driven by the fact that women regard the sex act itself as a mode of exchange by which the woman accumulates status and resources for herself. This is because female sexuality and male sexuality cannot be exchanged economically the one for the other in an act of equitable distribution; the man must always offer something more by way of money, material goods, status, or commitment to compensate for whatever deficit his sexuality might bring to the relationship. As a general rule, the man must always be in a much better position economically, politically, and socially than the woman. The fact that the primary physiological urge amongst females is the maternal instinct and that women are more susceptible to disease than men often makes it necessary for the woman to maximize her ability to acquire as many resources as possible so as to successfully reproduce healthy viable offspring and ensure her livelihood and protection in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance. The conclusion is inescapable; women are responsible for the status and economic differential between both genders.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The Wise Schopenhauer on Women...

On Women (complete and unabridged)

by Arthur Schopenhauer

These few words of Jouy, Sans les femmes le commencement de notre vie seroit privé de secours, le milieu de plaisirs et la fin de consolation, more exactly express, in my opinion, the true praise of woman than Schiller’s poem, Würde der Frauen, which is the fruit of much careful thought and impressive because of its antithesis and use of contrast. The same thing is more pathetically expressed by Byron in Sardanapalus, Act i, Sc. 2:—

“The very first

Of human life must spring from woman’s breast,

Your first small words are taught you from her lips,

Your first tears quench’d by her, and your last sighs

Too often breathed out in a woman’s hearing,

When men have shrunk from the ignoble care

Of watching the last hour of him who led them.”

Both passages show the right point of view for the appreciation of women.

One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.

With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.

Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention.

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.

As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.

It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious but innate moral of woman is: We are justified in deceiving those who, because they care a little for us,—that is to say for the individual,—imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties conscientiously.

But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.)

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.

It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian–Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.

In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved. The Salic law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous truism. The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive. It is exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. Even Lord Byron says (Letters and Papers, by Thomas Moore, vol. ii. p. 399), Thought of the state of women under the ancient Greeks—convenient enough. Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal ages—artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home—and be well fed and clothed—but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in religion—but to read neither poetry nor politics—nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music—drawing—dancing—also a little gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?

In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than Nature accords.

For the unnatural position of privilege which the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which accompany it, assign to the woman, whereby she is regarded throughout as a full equivalent of the man, which she is not by any means, cause intelligent and prudent men to reflect a great deal before they make so great a sacrifice and consent to so unfair an arrangement. Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations every woman finds maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of married women is limited, and a countless number of women who are without support remain over; those in the upper classes vegetate as useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of a distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as joyless as it is void of honour. But under such circumstances they become a necessity to the masculine sex; so that their position is openly recognised as a special means for protecting from seduction those other women favoured by fate either to have found husbands, or who hope to find them. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. Then what are these women who have come too quickly to this most terrible end but human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? The women here referred to and who are placed in this wretched position are the inevitable counterbalance to the European lady, with her pretensions and arrogance. Hence polygamy is a real benefit to the female sex, taking it as a whole. And, on the other hand, there is no reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. Many people become converts to Mormonism for the precise reasons that they condemn the unnatural institution of monogamy. The conferring of unnatural rights upon women has imposed unnatural duties upon them, the violation of which, however, makes them unhappy. For example, many a man thinks marriage unadvisable as far as his social standing and monetary position are concerned, unless he contracts a brilliant match. He will then wish to win a woman of his own choice under different conditions, namely, under those which will render safe her future and that of her children. Be the conditions ever so just, reasonable, and adequate, and she consents by giving up those undue privileges which marriage, as the basis of civil society, alone can bestow, she must to a certain extent lose her honour and lead a life of loneliness; since human nature makes us dependent on the opinion of others in a way that is completely out of proportion to its value. While, if the woman does not consent, she runs the risk of being compelled to marry a man she dislikes, or of shrivelling up into an old maid; for the time allotted to her to find a home is very short. In view of this side of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’s profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading, for it shows that, among all nations, and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was allowed, nay, that it was an institution, in a certain measure even recognised by law and associated with no dishonour. And it held this position until the Lutheran Reformation, when it was recognised as another means for justifying the marriage of the clergy; whereupon the Catholic party did not dare to remain behindhand in the matter.

It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady, that monster of European civilisation and Christian–Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’ standpoint is right.

In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the control of her father or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance with the law of Manu.

It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves on their husband’s dead body; but it is also revolting that the money which the husband has earned by working diligently for all his life, in the hope that he was working for his children, should be wasted on her paramours. Medium tenuere beati. The first love of a mother, as that of animals and men, is purely instinctive, and consequently ceases when the child is no longer physically helpless. After that, the first love should be reinstated by a love based on habit and reason; but this often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved the father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature and more sincere; it is founded on a recognition of his own inner self in the child, and is therefore metaphysical in its origin.

In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that one has departed from this. That the property which men have with difficulty acquired by long-continued struggling and hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women, who, in their want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise waste it, is an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. It seems to me that it would be a better arrangement if women, be they widows or daughters, only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It is men who make the money, and not women; therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it nor capable of administrating it. Women should never have the free disposition of wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital, houses, and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances whatever. The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material things—that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show. This is why they are in their right element in society. This it is which makes them inclined to be extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].10 Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like. Aristotle explains in the Politics11 the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.


9 Let me refer to what I have said in my treatise on The Foundation of Morals, §71.

10 Brunck’s Gnomici poetae graeci v. 115.

11 Bk. I., ch. 9.

On Anglo-Saxon Puritanism

I am intrigued by the constant literary allusions I keep finding concerning the puritanical basis of much contemporary Western European culture and civilization, with especial reference to the Protestant Anglo-Saxon strain of Western-derived social organization in particular. Richard Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has written a fascinating book called Sex and Reason. The central thesis of the book gravitates around the subject of how the modern conceptualization of human sexuality can be fully integrated within both a jurisprudential and economic framework. However, Posner also manages to meticulously explore why many of the societies of the ancient past, such as Greece and Rome, as well as many existing Third World and Catholic Mediterranean societies, that happen to be very “machista” in both social atmosphere and tone, tend to be much more liberal towards human sexual expression than either their corresponding Western European complement in general or their Anglo-Saxon equivalent in particular. Mr Posner’s understanding of the rigid nature of the prevailing Calvinist morality that undergirds the fundamental structure of the contemporary social institutions of the Anglo-Saxon world rests on a distinction he draws between companionate and noncompanionate marriage. He defines companionate marriage as being a genuine partnership between husband and wife supposedly based on mutual love and respect, with both spouses expected to participate equally in the daily operation of the household economy. It is chiefly distinguished from noncompanionate marriage by the fact that male-female relations are no longer exclusively organized around the male need for sexual release or the assurance of paternity and patrilineal inheritance. In his book, Posner writes:

Companionate marriage fosters puritanical attitudes generally, so we should not be surprised by the puritanical strain in the Anglo-American sexual culture. A husband’s adultery becomes for the first time offensive , because it undermines love and trust and reduces the amount of time that he spends with his wife, which are elements of companionate but not of noncompanionate marriage. The patronizing of prostitutes by married men is a form of adultery, and so also becomes offensive. Moreover, as a male-female relationship signally lacking in love and trust – a relationship characterized, indeed, by the impersonality of the spot market – prostitution is incongruous in a society that has turned its back on the businesslike model of noncompanionate marriage. But because prostitution is a substitute for forms of extramarital sex that are more threatening to companionate marriage, and thus is a complement to as well as a substitute for such marriage, the effect of a social commitment to companionate marriage is not to condemn outright but to problematize what in a society of noncompanionate marriage would be an unproblematic institution. (158)

Posner generally attributes the puritanical undercurrents of modern Anglo-Saxon culture to the rise of companionate marriage during the sixteenth century. This is brought about through the advent of a nascent Western capitalism and the English version of the Lutheran Reformation. It stands in sharp bas-relief to the more traditional noncompanionate forms of marriage which had previously dominated all of the societies of classical antiquity and other non-Western cultures before the advent of European exploration and colonization. As an interesting sidebar, it seems that wherever the shadow of the Pax Britannia fell, so fell the rigidly puritanical values it brought with it. Consistent with this, many previous scholars and ethnographers once argued that the culture of the Indian sub-continent was positively licentious. As a matter of fact, pre-Mughal Indian culture was characterized by having a highly sexualized body of erotic literature (such as the Kama Sutra) and many of its most sacred temple complexes were decorated in a rich pornographic imagery. After the eighteenth century introduction of the British Raj, the East India Company, and the legions of evangelizing Christian missionaries who came trailing behind from the rear, the Indians became even more fanatically puritanical than the traditionally more socially rigid Englishman.

Maybe we should also be looking at the notion of the Protestant Work Ethic developed by German sociologist Max Weber. It is evident that much of the socially conservative, morally puritanical underpinnings of Anglo-American civilization (the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand) come from the rigid Calvinist morality preached by the first English pilgrims settling the New World. The reformer John Calvin, the theological idol of the first Puritans, did stress the value of hard work and the full completion of those religious tasks mandated by God as a means of determining who ultimately numbered amongst “the predestined Elect.” Additionally, the only way any of the believers could be certain of his salvation was on the basis of how much wealth he had accumulated throughout an entire lifetime, eventually culminating in the “time is money” mantra of modern Western capitalism (secularized Calvinist morality). Thus, those who were either financially impoverished or deviated from the average code of conduct prescribed by Calvin and personally exemplified by many a Puritan believer, were regarded as social outcastes condemned to an eternity of hellfire and suffering.

Rape is about sex, not power!

The Rape of the Sabine Women by Nicholas Poussin

The act of forcible copulation is primarily motivated by the desire for sexual gratification. If such is the case, then the act of rape itself cannot occur without sexual arousal, involving activation of the psycho-sexual centres of the brain, sustained erection and possible ejaculation of seminal fluid. Without the initial experience of sexual physiological arousal in the human male, it would be virtually impossible to commit rape. On this basis alone, it should be obvious that the commission of rape is about the illicit search for carnal satisfaction. Another fact concerning rape is that the overwhelming majority of women targeted as rape victims are women of child-bearing age (according to researchers Thornhill and Palmer (2000), most victims are roughly between the ages of 16 – 24; a U.S. Department of Justice report released in 1994 states that over 50% of all women who were raped in 1992 are between the ages of 16 - 18). If rape is about power, than why is rape almost always perpetrated against women who are at the peak of both their physical strength and vitality? If forcible copulation was driven by the motivation to seek power, then logically speaking, the overwhelming majority of women who would be subject to rape would be pre-pubescent children or geriatric cases in their sixties and seventies, those chronological periods which correspond the most to those moments in a woman's life cycle when she is at her weakest and most vulnerable. However, this is not the case; relatively young, nubile, physically strong and athletic women are targeted with great frequency because rape is about sexual gratification and has absolutely nothing to do with the brute exercise of naked power.

Consistent with the afore-mentioned data, the fact that women are raped has everything to do with the natural repugnance towards human sexuality harboured by the vast majority of women. If women enjoyed sex, than why should rape be such a painful ordeal? If women enjoyed sex just as much as men did, rape would be a welcome, if not highly enjoyable diversion. However, this is not the case because women are filled with a violent hatred towards all forms of sexual activity; in other words, women have evolved by means of natural selection to only use the act of coitus as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the most desirable males are coerced into providing money and resources in exchange for both reproductively and sexually available females. Additionally, because men have higher levels of testosterone and correspondingly higher sex drives than women, who either have lower levels of testosterone or are physiologically insensitive to the presence of androgenic steroids, it is obvious that men will want sex more, whereas women will desire it less or not at all. Those men who desire sex more, because of the more sophisticated neuro-biological mechanism of sexual motivation found within the male central nervous system, can easily lead to a situation of forcible copulation where the woman does not want sex because of her lesser sex drive or complete sexual frigidity.

From an evolutionary biological perspective, it is the primacy of female reproductive choice that has the potential to act as a rape trigger. On the one hand, because women can only have small numbers of offspring, most women are rigidly monogamous; on the other hand, because of the great male potential for gene proliferation through large numbers of offspring, it only takes a small number of males to tie up the reproductive functioning of hundreds, if not many thousands, of females, thereby depriving many males of access to both sexually and reproductively available females. It is within the context of these biological parameters, that a heterosexual marketplace, based on the principles of socio-economic exchange and driven by the mechanism of male-male intra-sexual competition, is automatically established because of the monopolization of large numbers of available females at the hands of a small number of dominant males. Because the male-male competition for available females will be fierce, if not violent, those men who are unable to attract an available female because of poverty, lack of status, or absence of great physical strength and aggression, will be completely denied access to available females and the chance to transmit their DNA to future generations, ultimately transforming rape into the natural evolutionary by-product of sexual physiological differentiation between both genders.

Those who say that rape is about power are merely regurgitating the ideological mantras of radical feminism. Rape is about sex, not power. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? If the vast majority of men want sex all of the time and the vast majority of women have a strong, natural aversion to sex, then wouldn’t one of the inevitable outcomes of such a sex difference, which operates on both a neuro-endocrinological and biochemical level, be rape?


Women Hate Sex


Given the centrality of orgasm in the full achievement of male reproductive and sexual capacity, it is impossible to speak of any man as suffering from sexual frigidity. Because frigidity is a problem which is exclusively physical, rather than psychic, in origin, it is only applicable to women, given the fact that on an anatomical level, women are not physiologically designed to achieve orgasm through intercourse because of the great distance of the clitoris from the vaginal introitus, as well as the fact that the clitoris possesses very few or no nerve endings whatsoever. Even on an historical and clinical level, sexual frigidity, or more technically anorgasmia, has always been associated with female sexual dysfunction where orgasm and sexual pleasure are marginal or relatively unimportant to the achievement of maximum female reproductive functioning. On the other hand, there is a considerably lower prevalence of male sexual problems compared to a female sexuality that is frequently plagued by both dysfunctionality and psychopathology; in addition, the root cause of male sexual dysfunction is largely due to psychological factors. Furthermore, the forms of hypoactive sexual desire that often afflict women with great frequency are anorgasmia (the modern clinical equivalent of sexual frigidity), dyspareunia and vaginismus, whereas with men, it is premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction and delayed orgasmic response.

Thus, although no man can be clinically spoken of as being anorgasmic, it must be noted that the overwhelming majority of women are essentially frigid beings who are almost completely devoid of sexual passion, or experience virtually no sexual desire whatsoever. According to the most recent statistical computations based on raw data derived from an in-depth analysis of the social organization of human sexuality, 71% of women are incapable of achieving orgasm through intercourse, compared to less than 3% of men who have similar difficulties. Although there is a consensus amongst many scholars that approximately 46% of all women, regardless of chronological age, happen to be completely incapable of experiencing sexual desire or achieving any degree of sexual physiological arousal whatsoever, some scholars have actually estimated the prevalence of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (lack of sex drive) to be as high as 52.4% amongst naturally menopausal women. Another 66% of women are unconquerably frigid or completely anorgasmic, being physiologically incapable of achieving orgasm through masturbation, compared to less than 1% of men.

Even under the most repressive conditions, such as abuse or war, men are still significantly more sexual than women, who often lack sex drives and are generally physiologically incapable of producing any kind of orgasmic response. Male sexual desire is much more difficult to suppress and men have a greater interest in both novelty and variety. From an historical point of view, male sexuality has always been much more vigorously suppressed by the state and the dominant culture than that of the relatively frigid, asexual female. How else does one explain the fact that over 90% of all arrests for sex crimes, such as rape, incest, pedophilia, voyeurism, and exhibitionism involve men? We, in the modern West, live in one of the most sexually liberated cultures known to man, yet women happen to be just as frigid and asexual as they were a thousand years ago; as a matter of fact, there has never been a culture in the history of mankind where women were just as sexual or more sexual than men. If there was ever such a thing as the cultural suppression of female sexuality, then women would be overrepresented in arrest statistics for sex crimes. However, because most women are sexually frigid and fiercely monogamous, such is not the case.

Sexual desire is operationally defined as the intrinsic, biologically driven motivation to seek out sexual intercourse for its own sake; across all scientific measures and studies of human sexuality, it has been found that women masturbate less, are less promiscuous, fantasize less, rarely respond sexually to visual erotic stimuli, despise their own genitals, have little interest in pornography and almost never have any need to pay a prostitute for sexual release. As further confirmation of the widespread existence of female passionlessness, the famous longitudinal study produced by researchers Julien, Bonchard, Gagnon, and Pomerleau (1992) of suburban Montreal couples demonstrated beyond all shadow of a doubt that almost all problems caused within marital relationships are either the fault of the low female sex drive or the high male sex drive, with the vast majority of both wives and husbands acknowledging the greater sexuality of the human male. Thus, it can be seen from the aforementioned data that women have a much more dysfunctional sexuality than men and although men have been much more violently persecuted for their sexuality down throughout the ages, they remain considerably more sexual than the relatively sexless and frigid human female.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Feminism is an Evil Ideology Based on Lies!

Feminism is a form of social AIDS: the only cure is death.

Feminism is not about the assurance of equal rights between both sexes; it is about the granting of preferential treatment to a small group of elite female sophisticates - upper-class women who are fundamentally disconnected from the realities of everyday existence - at the expense of the vast majority of men. In fact, feminism has never been about equality; it is about, at its very core, a social engineering project in the form of a massive psychological intervention into the male personality and its subsequent elimination through the process of gradual androgenisation. It is an attempt to do away with traditional feminine roles by replacing them with sex-typical masculine behaviour patterns and by doing this, subsequently introducing an element of post-modernist cognitive dissonance into human socio-sexual relations.

In addition, it is also the concrete expression of the subconscious wish to do away with the masculine personality and facilitate the so-called feminization of the male, which is ultimately a foolish attempt to undermine the hetero-patriarchal foundation upon which modern civilization is based by returning to an idealized vision of a society consisting of innocent primitives. After all, are not women, the majority of people in the West, falsely described of as being victims and entitled to special treatment? Have not women been given considerably more privileged treatment than men? Are not women of a much higher socio-economic and political status than the vast majority of men? The fact that women are granted special status under the institutions of Western jurisprudence by always being awarded alimony payments and granted custody is a clear example of the fact that women are considered more equal than men. Other examples of female power and privilege include the fact that the entire education system of the West has been socially engineered according to female thought and behaviour patterns and that affirmative action and employment equity programmes elevate women to undeserved positions of influence and power at the expense of hard work.

The notion of women being oppressed by men because of some form of systemic discrimination is a myth of colossal proportions. Nowhere and in no other historical period have such lies ever been spread so widely and used to deliberately brainwash others. If anything, for untold millennia, women have been more privileged than men and in no time has this ever been more true than during the twenty-first century.

Feminism, by subverting traditional female roles and attempting to annihilate all visible traces of masculinity, is in effect a denial of the reality of human nature. Although feminists often counter objections from their male opponents with denigrating, psychologically emasculating remarks, even they cannot deny the fact that feminism is about simultaneously reinforcing both gender inequity and the socio-political superiority of a small number of elite WASP/ Western European women. Ultimately, feminism is about the replacement of Western culture with a false consciousness grounded in the thoroughly discredited school of Freudian-Marxist ideology; it will prove to be the downfall of modern human civilization as we know it.

The clitoris: a useless appendage?

The clitoris is a primitive organ that serves no biological function whatsoever; in anatomical structure, it resembles a miniature penis that failed to differentiate sexually during the course of embryological development due to the absence of those genes responsible for foetal androgen synthesis. The clitoris is a vestigial appendage that is really nothing more but the evolutionary by-product of the male genitalia and its capacity to produce an orgasmic response that has developed over hundreds of thousands of years of human physiological adaptation to the external environment of our hominid ancestors.

As a matter of fact, only the human male alone, out of all species within the animal kingdom, possesses a sophisticated apparatus of sexual physiological arousal that is unparalleled in the history of biological evolution. Detailed, meticulous observations derived from extensive anatomical investigations conducted by various scientific researchers throughout the twentieth century have revealed that the penis, foreskin included, contains anywhere between 80, 000 to well over 100, 000 nerve endings, whereas the clitoris contains anywhere between 0 - 8000 nerve endings.

To elaborate further, the overwhelming majority of women possess virtually no nerve endings whatsoever within the clitoris and are therefore organically frigid. How else does one explain the fact that over 86% of women are physiologically incapable of achieving orgasm through intercourse or that more than 66% of women are virtually incapable of achieving orgasm through masturbation? The widespread inability to achieve orgasm amongst woman is a reflection of the fact that both sexual frigidity and anorgasmia are exclusively female problems. It should be obvious to even the most limited intellect that the clitoris is a vestigial organ that is completely devoid of any discernible biological function; it is an organ that should be removed surgically by means of clitoridectomy in order to protect both the physical and psychological health of the woman.

Men exceed Women in All Things

Men are many times more complex than women in terms of personality and behaviour. In other words, what we have is female conservatism on the one hand and male progressivism on the other; because of the great complexity of male socio-sexual behaviour, men vary much more in terms of human trait possession than women. The mere recognition of greater male variability in terms of both mental, emotional, and physical characteristics is something that has been known by Charles Darwin and discussed at great length by the celebrated English sexologist Havelock Ellis. Concerning the principle of greater male variability as manifested in terms of genius, Havelock Ellis wrote in the book "Man and Woman":

We must regard genius as an organic congenital abnormality ... and in nearly every department it is undeniably of more frequent occurrence among men than among women.... Genius is more common among men by virtue of the same general tendency by which idiocy is more common among men. The two facts are but two aspects of a larger zoological fact — the greater variability of the male.

The principle of male variance and monotonous female uniformity can be readily demonstrated on a mathematical level by constructing a Gaussian curve which plots the incidence of sexual dimorphism in male-female personality and behaviour. It will be seen from the standard normal distribution along the curve itself that not only do men have higher standard deviations than women but that men always have a tendency to cluster around the upper and lower extremes of the curve, whereas women, being generally homogeneous in both personality and behaviour, tend to have lower standard deviations and tend to gravitate towards the middle of the curve. Thus, there are more men of genius and high intelligence than women; more male daredevils than women; more male eccentrics than women; more males with tremendous athletic ability than women; more men with high levels of creativity than women; more men with a much greater sense of humour than women; more male criminals than women etc. This is so because of three major reasons. Firstly, because alleles on both sex chromosomes present within the male genome are not coupled in the same dominant or recessive pairs as in the female; this means that there is nothing to mask the expression of gene replication errors in RNA transcription within the male lineage itself, ultimately producing a wide variation in both male temperament and phenotype. Secondly, men often bear the brunt of male-male competition for available females, and because of this are forced to become a kind of genetic filter for the species.

Lastly, greater male variability is due to the presence of testosterone which enhances neuro-biological mechanisms for individual motivation within the male central nervous system, thus giving men a much greater drive to adapt and overcome whatever obstacles have been placed in their way by an unforgiving and merciless environment. All of these features are lacking in the human female, making women roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour across all times and places, all ethnicities and cultures.

The Female of the Species

By Rudyard Kipling

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man, He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can. But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws, They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws. 'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say, For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away; But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale – The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations – worm and savage otherwise, – Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise. Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low, To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe. Mirth obscene diverts his anger – Doubt and Pity oft perplex Him in dealing with an issue – to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same, And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail, The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breastMay not deal in doubt or pity – must not swerve for fact or jest. These be purely male diversions – not in these her honour dwells. She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate. And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions – in default of grosser ties; Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! – He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild, Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges – even so the she-bear fights, Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons – even so the cobra bites, Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw And the victim writhes in anguish – like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands To some God of Abstract Justice – which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him Must command but may not govern – shall enthral but not enslave him. And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail, That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Are women really attracted to men of high intelligence?

Although women are generally attracted to men who tend to be marginally more intelligent than they are, it still remains a fact that the vast majority of women tend to be intimidated by men of high intelligence. One possible explanation for the usual female reluctance to date men of high intelligence is probably becasue of the statistical rarity or total absence of intellectually superior women at the furthermost reaches of the bell curve distribution of psychometric intelligence; since the overwhelming majority of women tend to be roughly homogeneous in personality and behaviour, men of high intelligence often find it difficult, if not almost impossible, to find a woman who is similarly gifted in mental capacity.

Interestingly enough, I managed to pose a similar question to a number of well-known and justly celebrated academics and scholars. My question was:

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius.” A close personal acquaintance of mine seems to believe that most women are physically repelled by men of high intelligence because most women are seeking a man who can be easily manipulated mentally into handing over whatever natural resources he is capable of commanding. He has also informed me that the more highly intelligent a man is, the greater will be his risk of having to endure a lifetime of perpetual celibacy given the statistical rarity of female intellectuals and the fact that “likes generally tend to attract likes” (women, being generally average in intelligence, pursue men who are similarly average or slightly above average in mental capacity). Certain studies would seem to bear this out; for example, a study conducted by C.T. Halpern et al (2000) suggests that “higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity in adolescence and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor.” A number of writers, such as Clifford Pickover (Strange Brains) and Cesare Lombroso (The Man of Genius) before him, have also suggested that both intellectual giftedness and especially genius are highly correlated with celibacy, even gynophobia. I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny?
Here are some of the responses I received:

David C. Geary Ph.d., author of the book “Male, Female”, wrote:

Well, there are studies that suggest that women are attracted to these traits in men. But, there is a negative correlation between IQ and men’s reproductive success; positive correlation for income. My guess is that women do not want men who are too extreme on any trait; they want tall, but not too tall, e.g. This is probably true of IQ and for reasons you state. What is too extreme? I don’t know, but probably once you get passed the 145 range (3 standard deviations > mean), you’re probably getting there. Of course, someone this bright should be able to figure out how to cover this up, except when necessary.

Professor David Buss, author of “The Evolution of Desire”, responded by saying:

Interesting thoughts, but they are not supported by my data, nor the studies of others. Women are indeed attracted to intelligent men, and in fact marry men on average 4 IQ points higher than their own. At the tails of the distribution, of course, one runs into trouble; so yes, at the very high ends, both men and women have problems finding someone they can talk to. Still, women are drawn to men smarter than they are; men are more willing to settle for a woman less intelligent, since they prioritize looks and other qualities more.

The famous anthropologist Donald Symons, author of the classic work “The Evolution of Human Sexuality”, wrote:

Here are a few observations re your questions.

Human intelligence increased dramatically over several million years of evolution, which wouldn’t have happened if intelligent men were at a reproductive disadvantage.

Studies of women’s mating criteria consistently show that intelligence is valued by women (cf David Buss’s books on human mating). Intelligence is near, but not at the top of the list, and there’s no reason to suppose that high intelligence by iteself can compensate for other deficits. Furthermore, other female mating criteria, such as high status, economic prowess and being funny correlate positively (though, of course,imperfectly) with intelligence. I would guess that geniuses like Newton, who is not known to ever have had sex with a woman, were celibate by choice, because of odd character quirks, and not because they were too intelligent to be attractive. Einstein certainly did well with women, and it sure wasn’t because of the remorseless precision of his profile.

Studies of preliterate peoples have consistently shown that headmen and shamans, who tend to have more wives and children, are regularly described as unusually intelligent. These are the societies that most closely resemble those that obtained during most of human evolution. And in modern industrialized societies, which diverge in many ways from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, upper classes have fewer children because they choose to and have the means to (reliable contraceptives), not because upper class men can’t find wives or other sexual partners.

The anthropologist April Gorry analyzed the character traits of the heroes of 45 highly successful romance novels, written by and for women. Heroes were described as muscular (45/45), handsome (44), strong (42), large (35) and so forth, and no hero was described as the opposite of any of these things. Heroes also had various character traits, such as sexually bold (40), calm (39), confident (39), etc., and in 38 of the 45 novels he was explicitly described as intelligent. No hero was described as not having any of these traits or of being unintelligent. I find these data especially compelling, because women are voting for these books with their money, and the market will produce the kinds of romantic fantasies that women want to read.

In sum, I think that intelligence is a highly valued trait in men, and always has been, though it may not be number one on the list, and certainly can’t compensate, for most women, if other highly desirable traits are absent.

The psychologist Roy Baumeister, author of “The Social Dimension of Sex”, wrote:

Hmm, this has not been my impression, except for the statement that highly intelligent young men are slower to commence sex. But my understanding is that they often make up for lost time and live better sex lives than the dummies. Not sure, though.

In future, in the US at least, we are moving toward having a strong majority of university degrees going to women. Because women tend to marry up, this will be quite a sexual bonanza for the next few generations of men who earn advanced degrees. Educated women won’t want to marry uneducated men, and there won’t be enough highly educated men to go around, so those men who are available will be able to pick and choose like studs.

Controversial scholar Richard Lynn, author of “Wealth and IQ”, remarked:



I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny?


Is there a causal relationship between psychoticism (mental illness) and genius?


And, if so, is it possible that this factor alone could discourage men of high intelligence from finding suitable mating opportunities?


The famous evolutionary biologist Steven Pinker wrote:

It’s totally false. Survey after survey has shown that intelligence is one of the most highly valued traits for a woman seeking a man. There is no evidence that intelligent men are more likely to be celibate. The Halpern study says that smart teenagers are less likely to have sex, not that smart men are unattractive to women.

I also asked Professor Geary this question:

Is there a strong connection between high intelligence and psychopathology? Historically, the notion that genius and madness are somehow interconnected goes back to the time of Aristotle. Certain researchers, such as JC Kaufman (2001) and RA Prentky (2001), have suggested that the incidence of mental illness increases dramatically the farther one goes up the high end of the normal distribution of human intelligence; others have alleged that even high levels of creativity itself could possibly be connected to such disorders as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Even Lewis M. Terman (1947) found a considerably higher degree of social and emotional maladjustment amongst his longitudinal sample of gifted children relative to the normal population at large. Do men of high intelligence share many psychological traits in common with the mentally ill? Does the connection between genius and madness make it difficult for one to form normal relationships with others, especially women? Does it pre-dispose men of genius to lives of complete social isolation from others and the world around them? Can it readily account for the eccentricity and unconventionality that characterize so many of the personal lives of highly intelligent men? How much of this is true?

Is there a causal relationship between psychoticism (mental illness) and genius? And, if so, is it possible that this factor alone could discourage men of high intelligence from finding suitable mating opportunities? What do you think, professor?

The learned professor responded by saying:

Great questions. You might find Redfield’s Touched with Fire of interest. There does seem to be a good link between “genius” – creativity – and bipolar disorder, at least the more mild forms of it. My guess is that this sorts independently of IQ and thus genius types have both, along with a few other traits. There may also be some social awkwardness among really high IQ individuals, independent of bipolar, because they are different from other folks that thus find it hard to really relate to their issues and level of understanding. Some genius types, such as Newton, had a combination of high IQ, and possibly a mild form of bipolar disorder and I suspect Asperger. Overall, since there are more males than females at the high end of this continuum, finding an “equal” will be difficult, but it doesn’t mean a life of isolation. Newton never married, but Darwin did. Galileo had a long-term relationship and sired several children… Tesla never married, but Edison did.

To someone like this, talking to a psychologist about these frustrations might be helpful. Learning a few tricks about dealing with other people is helpful.

Additionally, I posed another question to Steven Pinker:

Evolutionary biologists have long suggested that it is the most successful men who attract women as wives and girlfriends, whereas men who are relatively unsuccessful more often than not tend to attract none. How is this reconciled with the fact that it is always men of the lowest socio-economic strata who tend to be the most fertile?

Mr. Pinker wrote:

Evolutionary predictions concern the time span over which we evolved, not the present. Until the twentieth century and the invention of contraception, wealthy men had far more surviving offspring than poorer men.

Even today, men of the lowest strata are not more fertile, though they use contraception less – that is a big difference.

Are all women whores?

Are all women evil incarnate?

Finally, something that ALL women are good at... BEING WHORES!

Finally, something that ALL women are good at... BEING WHORES!


The burkha is the only antidote to liberal socialism and feminism!