Monsieur Chauvin's Male Chauvinist Corner

Women of High Intelligence Look and Act Like Men

2008-10-16T06:35:00.003-04:00

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).

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.

The Myth of Female Oppression

2008-08-22T14:36:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-22T13:44:00.007-04:00

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.

The Wise Schopenhauer on Women...

2008-08-19T12:37:00.005-04:00

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.

Notes

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

2008-08-19T12:22:00.003-04:00

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!

2008-08-19T12:03:00.003-04:00

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?

RAPE IS ABOUT SEX AND NOT POWER!

Women Hate Sex

2008-08-19T11:45:00.004-04:00

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WOMEN ARE
SEXLESS, FRIGID BITCHES WITH A DEADLY HATRED OF HUMAN
SEXUALITY

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.

Feminism is an Evil Ideology Based on Lies!

2008-08-16T17:10:00.005-04:00

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?

2008-08-16T17:00:00.003-04:00

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

2008-08-16T16:52:00.003-04:00

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

2008-08-16T16:16:00.004-04:00

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.

Are women really attracted to men of high intelligence?

2008-07-17T09:58:00.002-04:00

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:

DEAR SIR

YOU HAVE PRESENTED ME WITH SOME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS.

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?

I DOUBT IT

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

YES - MORE WITH ARTISTS, WRITERS THAN SCIENTISTS

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

POSSIBLY

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.

Women should learn when to shut the fuck up...

2008-07-16T11:52:00.004-04:00

... because every woman is a goose-stepping, black-booted Fascist at heart!

The greatest essay ever written on female psychology!

2008-07-16T11:27:00.005-04:00

On Women (abridged)

by Arthur Schopenhauer

The nature of the female

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

Insipid women-veneration

This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Monogamy and 'filles de joie'

In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

No argument about polygamy

There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband's funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband's money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.
In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

Society has always given women more privileges than men...

2008-07-11T18:50:00.001-04:00

In no civilization have men and women ever been treated as equals; as a matter of fact, in all civilizations, women have been granted preferential treatment and special privileges, whereas men, especially those of the middle and lower classes, have always been discriminated against harshly and treated with great brutality. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, women were granted more privileges and a much higher status than the vast majority of men in such societies as Pharaonic Egypt, Ancient Rome, Han China, Japan under the shoguns, and the feudal kingdoms of the Middle Ages. In these cultures, the vast majority of men were bought and sold as slaves, coerced at the end of a sword to till the soil like serfs bound to the land forever. In what historical period have women ever been treated with such barbarism? After all, is woman not redeemed solely through the presence of her vagina?

It is under the aegis of contemporary Western society, that women are more privileged now than they have ever been throughout the history of the world. The notion of female oppression by males is an ideological fantasy concocted by Marxist historical revisionists; women have always been placed on pedestals and those men with the audacity to curtail female entitlement have always been subject to violent retaliation. Even in the polygamous culture of Islam, where most available young women are confined to lavish harems of concubines and beautiful odalisques, women have always been granted a higher status than men, given the fact that none ever have to work, pay taxes or fight wars. However, in Islam, female entitlement never reaches the same bizarre extreme as it does in the West.

The only difference between the contemporary West and previous civilizations is that the West has granted women so many privileges as to subvert the current patriarchal basis of civilization. Because all civilizations are founded and held together on the basis of male strength and intelligence, the elevation of the human female to such dizzying heights of power and wealth can only undermine the very fabric of Western society and ensure a civilizational collapse of the modern West more spectacular than that of the Roman Empire during late classical antiquity.

Why do women suck in bed?

2008-07-10T19:18:00.002-04:00

The overwhelming majority of women, irrespective of whatever level of maturity they possess, have difficulty performing in bed because they either have very little sexual desire to begin with or are completely sexually frigid. A significant percentage of women are also highly dysfunctional in terms of their ability to achieve physiological sexual arousal; it is this dysfunctionality, together with the female lack of sexual passion, which ultimately prevents women from being able to take collective responsibility for their own actions and subsequently coerces them into blaming their own personal failures on men. This is solely due to the fact that women, because of the relatively small size of the female central nervous system, are largely deficient in both logical reasoning and mathematical analysis; they are less capable of reasoning logically in a systematic fashion than men because female socio-sexual functioning is largely driven by behavioural responsiveness to gonadal steroidogenesis. It means that the female psychology itself is largely dominated by a powerful psycho-physiological urge that drives her to fully realize the maternal instinct at all costs, which is in turn regulated exclusively by the endocrinological activity of both estrogen and progesterone.

Thus, women have smaller brains, lower intelligence, possess little or no human sexuality and are more under the influence of hormones than men; it is because of these factors alone that women are transformed into nothing more except socio-economic parasites and sponges who cannot support themselves without the agency of male earning power. Because female socio-sexual behaviour can only operate within certain physiological parameters, they are coerced by their own biology into using sex as a bargaining chip in exchange for those natural resources, fortunately controlled by men, which are crucial to their ability to successfully give birth and rear infants.

Anyway, has anyone ever considered purchasing a harem of sex slaves? That would certainly be a much better investment than any participation in the effeminating Western institution of marriage. The slave trade in female flesh, especially as it exists in eastern Europe and southeast Asia is probably the best antidote to female entitlement and feminist ideology there is…

Most women are unconquerably frigid...

2008-07-10T11:09:00.002-04:00

The English Victorians, as well as their Western European and American counterparts, strike us as quite puritanical and repressive in terms of their moral and socio-political stances. However, it is to their credit that they truly recognized the lower level of of female sexual desire for what it was, as well as the total absence of any tangible evidence for female sexual insatiability (nymphomania). Of all the observations made by the medical authorities of nineteenth century England and America, it cannot but help be noticed that they achieve a certain unanimity of opinion when speaking of the lack of female sexual impulse. Many of the most celebrated physicians of the day argued that women cannot be described as physical creatures amenable to the influence of any known sexual passion. Many even went so far as to suggest that the ascription of sexual passion to the woman was akin to making a vile calumny against an innocent bystander’s character. However, others disagreed and were grudgingly willing to concede that the majority of women possess a very slight sex drive, very much mild in comparison to the potency and urgency of the truly explosive male libido. Most were of the opinion that whatever the actual level of female sex drive itself, the overwhelming majority of women, with a characteristic uniformity that reflects the underlying psycho-physiological reality that sharply differentiates the two sexes, have considerably lower sex drives than men do. Indeed, it was frequently noted by many a physician of the late nineteenth century that all women, or atleast a significant majority of them, possessed no sex drive whatsoever and were incapable of expressing any truly urgent or autonomous level of sexual desire.

Amongst them, one of the more literary exponents of nineteenth century female passionlessness was an English physician named William Acton. He argued that God himself had personally created the woman as a being largely indifferent to the natural processes of human sexuality, patiently enduring the lustful advances of other men as so many tortures of the damned in hell. To Acton, this interpretation made sense, given the limited amount of vital fluid produced by the testis of each male, the complete drainage of which could prove devastating to the male temperament. In a textbook circulated throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire, Dr. William Acton writes:

I should say that the majority of women (happily for society) are not very much troubled by sexual feeling of any kind. What men are habitually, women are only exceptionally… there can be no doubt that sexual feeling in the female is in the majority of cases in abeyance, and that it requires positive and considerable excitement to be roused at all: and even if roused (which in many instances it never can be) it is very moderate compared with that of the male… I am ready to maintain that there are many females who never feel any sexual excitement whatever. Others, again, immediately after each period, do become to a limited degree, capable of experiencing it; but this capacity is often temporary, and may entirely cease until the next menstrual period. Many of the best wives, mothers, and managers of households, know little of or are careless of sexual indulgences. Love of home, of children, and of domestic duties are the only passions they feel. As a general rule, a modest woman seldom desires any sexual gratification for herself. She submits to her husbands embraces, but principally to gratify him; and, were it not for the desire for maternity, would far rather be relieved from his attentions… the married woman has no wish to be placed on the footing of a mistress. (The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs, in Childhood, Youth, Adult Age and Advanced Life, pg. 162-164)

Many observers on the European continent also came to the conclusion that women were nonsexual creatures; the manifestation of sexual passion within any female was seen as a species of grave mental illness requiring institutionalization within a sanatorium specializing in intensive treatment. The distinguished German neurologist and pioneer in the art of hypnotism, Richard von Krafft-Ebbing eloquently stated quite succinctly in his book, Psychopathia Sexualis, that

Man has beyond doubt the stronger sexual appetite of the two. From the period of pubescence he is instinctively drawn towards woman. His love is sensual, and his choice is strongly prejudiced in favour of physical attractions. A mighty impulse of nature makes him aggressive and impetuous in his courtship. Yet the law of nature does not wholly fill his psychic being. Having won the prize, his love is temporarily eclipsed by other vital and social interests.Woman, however, if physically and mentally normal, and properly educated, has but little sensual desire. If it were otherwise, marriage and family life would be empty words. As yet the man who avoids women, and the woman who seeks men are sheer anomalies.(pg. 8)

In a similar vein, George Napheys observed that “only in very rare instances do women feel one tithe of the sexual feeling which is familiar to most men. Many of them are entirely frigid, and not even in marriage do they ever perceive any real desire.”( On the Transmission of Life, pg. 7)

The only passion women were psycho-physiologically capable of experiencing, these manuals argued, was maternal, with predictable consequences for the female character.To them, the ideal woman of the male erotic imagination, such as it was in late Victorian times, was as a frigid being, an angel on a pedestal, with little capacity for arousal and a strong natural repugnance to all forms of human sexuality. The more conspicuously intense the condition of anaesthesia sexualis, or complete extinction of sexual desire, in the woman, the greater her value as housewife and mother. Thus, having a reputation of great virtue became highly valued amongst a genteel female public. After all, it was the attainment of such a reputation that consequently led to the greater desirability of the female as a commodity within the bio-economic system of the heterosexual marketplace. By manipulating the imperiousness of male libido through the display of her feminine charms, she secures whatever money and power that can be had as the price for the full physiological realization of her maternal instinct. To the Romantics of the day, many of the most beautiful women were conceived of as creatures more frigid than ice, devoid of all erotic impulse. The more sanitized a woman was of her sexuality, the greater her worth and position in society.

If ever a stereotype had any truth, and many stereotypes do possess a grain of truth, there is none more true than this one. It is made seemingly inevitable by the psycho-physiological reality that teases apart the male libido and the frigid/oestral state of the female; it then takes both these halves and sets them up as two separate dimensions of the same reality. Many stereotypes can be highly rational in logical structure, such as being stylistically coherent, adhering to the principle of noncontradiction and internal self-consistency. The rational stereotype can also be based objectively on the sensory impressions derived from external reality. These can be rigorously evaluated according to the tools of scientific methodology and statistical analysis, those vital instruments which regularly guide investigations into natural phenomena. A stereotype need not be structured around such heights of incoherence as to wilfully posit that all the elements of a set are uniform in the possession of a certain trait in order to be considered a stereotypical judgment. All it need demonstrate is that a certain trait or collection of traits revolve around a number of statistical polarities along a bell curve distribution. It is this last property that renders such an assertion susceptible to any empirical evaluation as to its corresponding level of veracity, as can ultimately be discerned from its basic structure.

The notion of stereotype can be defined as a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession, whose validity can be verified mathematically by means of a series of Bayesian statistical formulae, typically of the form P x (A\B)= P x (B\A) x P x (A)/P x (B) where P x (A) and P x (B) is the marginal probability of A and B is the probability of one event not tied to the simultaneous occurrence of any other event, and that P x (A\B) and P x (B\A) is the conditional probability A or B, given the occurrence of B or A.

The stereotype that the generality of women hate sex is by no means irrational, but a statistical generalization based on a large amount of empirical information that lend a high degree of conditional probability to the factuality of the argument itself. It is a scientific fact that the overwhelming majority of women have significantly lower sex drives than men or are completely frigid; few women have strong passions so overwhelming as to be difficult to control. In addition, women have considerably lower levels of both sexual motivation and interest than men. Furthermore, it has been known for hundreds of years that women also demonstrate significantly lower levels of sexual physiological arousibility than men. There is an abundance of scientific data, drawn extensively from the disciplines of endocrinology, biochemistry, molecular genetics, neurology, evolutionary biology, and social psychology, pointing in this direction. If one defines sex drive as frequency and intensity of desire for sexual gratification for its own sake, then women possess very little or no sexual desire whatsoever.

Why is India such a morally puritanical society?

2008-07-02T19:24:00.003-04:00

There can be little doubt itself that the culture of contemporary India is rigidly puritanical and characterized by a very conventional morality; one could even plausibly argue that modern India is probably more uptight than the English Victorians at fin de siècle who preceded them ever were. This is amply demonstrated by the well-known controversy in the spring of 2007 over Richard Gere kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty in public. Alas, one need only be reminded of the fact that public kissing is still a criminal offense, punishable on summary conviction, throughout the length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent in order to accurately gauge the depth of Indian puritanism. Moreover, India has some of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world; much of the civic opposition to the free and unrestricted teaching of those health issues surrounding human sexuality is most certainly to blame for such a pandemic. The rapid spread of the AIDS virus and other STDs within the local population demographic, now surpassing rates of HIV infection in other parts of the globe, is also facilitated by public pressure to ban sex education in schools and to place a moratorium on the open sale of effective prophylactic devices. It is this aforementioned undertaking of a reactionary Hindu public which, in and of itself, constitutes a continuing reflection of the taboo placed on certain discursive practices enveloping the subject of human sexuality within the fabric of Indian life and culture.

As a preliminary remark, it must be said that it would be a mistake to assume that any patriarchal society whose basic marital institutions are founded on polygamy and servile concubinage are necessarily repressive or rigidly conformist. As a matter of fact, the connection between modern liberalism, social welfare economics and the old-fashioned values of the Calvinist work ethic is much stronger than any of the linkages between patriarchy and social traditionalism. All liberal utopias produce bastions of rigid social conservatism; it is these new orders of “right” thinking that eventually come to dictate the kinds of socio-political discourse that ultimately helps define the individual as a social subjectivity in relation to the spatio-historical conjuncture he finds himself in at any given moment of continuous homogeneous time. After all, the conceptualization of the New Man and Woman in the utopian vision of Friedrich Engels (from whose pen originally sprang such quaint notions as mother right and matriarchy), especially after the abolition of private property, the dissolution of familial bonds and the equalization of wages across social substrata, are really the New Puritans remade in the image of a secularized Christian Messianism.

Only a civilization that remains male-dominated, staying close to its patriarchal origins could produce a society capable of celebrating the sensuality of the body in a new poetry of eroticism. Such an example would be the culture of classical India. Before the Muslim and especially British invaders, it was strongly characterized by a kind of sexual liberalism without precedent in the culture of Western Europe in general, and Protestant Anglo-Saxon civilization in particular. The India of the pre-Gupta period was an alien world in comparison to the British India of the Victorians. Virginity was not particularly revered and celibacy was never regarded as any sort of necessary virtue. Many ancient temples and monuments, such as the Khajuraho monuments of Madhya Pradesh, are decorated in explicit sexual imagery. Although Hindu sexual liberality helped shield such actions as sexual assault and child abuse from the daily gaze of others, it otherwise allowed people considerable personal autonomy in the expression of individual sexualities, without the daily threat of persecution, within the privacy of their own homes.

In medieval Hindu culture, the sacred whores, or “deva-dasi”, who had dedicated their lives to the service of the local god, were worshipped as goddesses; they were seen by many Vedic thinkers as the purest incarnation of true womanhood. With the exception of those men of the Brahmin caste, there was virtually no stigma attached to a man who chose to be serviced exclusively by whores. Much of the sculpture and art, as well as many of the song and dance rituals of the period, were characterized by an explicit eroticism that in many respects, still shocks many today. When the English began colonizing India at the end of the eighteenth century, many were shocked, even outraged, by what they saw as the pervasive sensuality of much Indian culture. The blatant display of so much eroticism, not only deeply offended the sensibilities of the British Raj, but was seen as a reflection of that wanton excess so often associated with pure barbarism as understood by the Victorian imagination. To the English Tories of the day, although slightly tempered in their remarks by those Orientalists who recognized India as a great civilization, sexual repression was the chief mark of civilization and “progress.” As a faithful compendium of the sort of British attitudes towards Indian sexuality as they existed in 1817, James Mill writes in his “History of British India”:

It is by no means unnatural for the religion of a rude people to unite opposite qualities, to preach the most harsh austerities, and at the same time to encourage the loosest morality. It may be matter of controversy to what degree the indecent objects employed in the Hindu worship imply depravity of manners; but a religion which subjects to the eyes of its votaries the grossest images of sensual pleasure, and renders even the emblems of generation objects of worship; which ascribes to the supreme God an immense train of obscene acts; which has them engraved on the sacred cars, pourtrayed in the temples, and presented to the people as objects of adoration, which pays worship to the Yoni, and the Lingam, cannot be regarded as favourable to chastity. Nor can it be supposed, when to all these circumstances is added the institution of a number of girls, attached to the temples, whose business is dancing and prostitution, that this is a virtue encouraged by the religion of the Hindus.

The British response to the overt sexuality of so much of the local Indian culture was to stamp out as much of it that it possibly could. Through the direct imperial administration of the Indian subcontinent, the British gradually imposed their own culture and views, especially those of the hypocritical English Victorian morality much in vogue at the time. Thus, the previous ritualistic practices that had gravely shocked the first English colonizers were gradually stigmatized, erased from the consciousness of an entire populace, and substituted with the ideals of modern Western European culture. Much of the Victorian morality of the English was spread by a number of nineteenth century Hindu socio-religious mass movements, such as the Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. Many of these movements ultimately strove for the rapid westernization of India through the embrace of the pivotal ideas of European culture, such as the education of women. Unfortunately, many of these movements also advocated the harsh morality and strict temperance of the English Victorians as integral to the civilizational development of India as a culture. Although women were allowed to freely mix with men in public, an elaborate set of formalized rules and prescribed castigations were developed which determined how men and women were expected to behave around one another. Even Mahatma Ghandi’s voluntary renunciation of his own sexuality through his eventual conversion to the practice of “brahmacharya” in the Hindu faith is a spitting image of the constant tension between Victorian morality and medieval Indian sexual liberality. From the perspective of Ghandi, it seemed as if the union of the self with ultimate reality could only be carried out through the medium of Protestant (especially Calvinist) influenced theology! It is this Puritanism of nineteenth century Anglo-Saxon culture which characterizes, even defines, much of what is seen as ethically normative in the India of today.

Concerning books about the British imposition of Victorian morality over the Indian subcontinent, I did manage to find one of some interest. It is called “Race, Sex and Class under the Raj: Imperial Attitudes and Policies and their Critics, 1793 – 1905.” It was authored by the late Kenneth A. Ballhatchet, a former Professor Emeritus of South Asian history at the University of London. His central thesis is that colonial British attitudes towards Indian sexual behaviour helped preserve those mechanisms of political control already established from the time of the initial colonization. The spread of Victorian morality also helped dissuade against symbolic transgression across racial lines by discouraging miscegenation amongst the British colonizers; by persuading them to seek out wives from amongst the Anglo-Indian class (White Protestants who had been born and raised in India) it prevented them from “going native” by providing a buffer against the unnatural lasciviousness of the heathen and the civilized morality of the “domiciled British.” The rigidification of ethnic boundaries through the systematic encouragement of racial endogamy also helped to further reinforce English control of the Indian subcontinent by placing the native inhabitant in a double bind; if he decided to keep his native practices, he was sharply denounced by the colonial British as a benighted savage in need of enlightened guidance; if he decided to pursue a Western education in the colonial metropole, he was cast in a pejorative light as a clumsy imitator of European culture and sneered at by the English as another “babu.” It was this policy which not only separated the supposedly civilized European from the undifferentiated sensuality of the racially defined “other” by a great chasm, but it also helped perpetuate a disenfranchisement amongst the people by preserving a British hegemony that was ultimately echoed in the Imperial hierarchy of the Raj.

Women are loveless, sexless creatures

2008-07-02T19:17:00.000-04:00

MOST WOMEN ARE DEVOID OF THE CAPACITY TO LOVE

The vast majority of women, probably over 90%, are considerably grasping and possess little, if any, normal human emotion or natural affection. There is virtually no such thing as a woman who could truly be described as possessing the capacity to love. It would seem that the overwhelming majority of women are not psychologically, nor physiologically, capable of loving others in the absence of any sort of direct socio-economic exchange or consanguineous ties; in other words, women only love for money, status, and power, and little else besides. Women are often described as the more “romantic” of the sexes; however, given the fact that the man has, both from a socio-historical and evolutionary biological point of view, always been expected to pursue the reluctant female by means of a system of courtship and romantic gallantry exclusively devised by legions of ingenious males, this is not likely to be true.

Additionally, women are often described as having the greater capacity to love, but this also seems to be an egregious blunder as well; in reality, it is actually a foolish concession on the part of a gracious male patriarchy which has allowed itself to be, to use that sparkling, very apt phrase of Schopenhauer, “clouded by sex drive.” It seems all too obvious that it is men who love the most and women who love the least. After all, it is a well-known fact, scientifically and historically speaking, that men fall in love the fastest and the easiest. In light of the fact that most divorces and separations are female-initiated, it seems obvious that men are also the ones to stay in love for the longest period of time. Consistent with this, one sees that all of the greatest love poetry and romantic literature was composed by men; even the very conventions of medieval chivalry, which much of this romantic literature celebrates, was devised by men as a means of successfully demonstrating the power to visibly charm the female, enabling insatiable Mars to court frigid Venus with greater ease. In fact, the very concept of romance and our modern understanding of love was formulated exclusively by males.

In conclusion, I don’t think any woman truly knows what love is… Most women are cold and selfish… Women do not know the first thing about love; women do not possess the psychological capacity to truly love another human being unconditionally the way a man does. Women are not capable of true love; only men love… only men can be vividly described as possessing a highly evolved romantic temperament; only men can ever be truly romantic.

Vaginas are gross

2008-07-02T19:13:00.001-04:00

Georgia O’Keeffe’s vivid portrayal of the vulva as most closely approximating a flower in both real life and on a purely symbolic level is a rather quite humorous analogy that can only bring laughter to the face of any sane man; however, to believe such a thing is to be under the influence of self-delusion. As a matter of fact, the vagina is a dank, slimy hole that resembles a pair of lips spotted with cold sores. As is well known to all who have been exposed to one, this filthy orifice is capable of emitting a tremendous stink so powerful that those who approach it are immediately paralyzed by both nausea and fear. The vagina is a vile, filthy piece of genital tissue; only someone who was clearly sick in the head would derive any pleasure from staring at one; even the great psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud admitted to how grossly assymetrical the vulva is on an anatomical level and freely described it as a thing that was the very obverse of beautiful. On the other hand, no one can deny the fact that the female anus is certainly much prettier and more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than the vulva; from a purely hygienic perspective, it is much more sanitary and certainly does not stink as badly. If a woman should take pride in anything, she should take pride in her anus, which is smooth and round, clean and soft, as opposed to the embarrassment of having such a useless, primitive appendage as the vulva between the legs!

The only function that the vagina performs with any degree of efficiency at all is to secrete pus and menstrual blood, mingled with fecal matter and other slime dribbling from the anus, as well as popping out the occasional baby after a brief period of incubation. Otherwise, the vagina is largely a vestigial organ; it is the ultimate mark of both female intellectual and biological inferiority; it is the supreme testimony of the body that bears witness to the female inertia of untold millenia, on (1) a socio-historical level and (2) on the level of intellectual stagnation in terms of action and the gradual development of western philosophical ideas.

In light of the foregoing, anyone can see that the penis is obviously a much superior organ to any vagina. In addition to being a thing of great beauty and convenience, it is also easily stimulated and highly orgasmic, whereas the vulva is frigid and cold, only rarely capable of yielding even the smallest amount of pleasure to those who bear one. The penis is a weapon of conquest and domination, whereas the vagina is an intrument of passivity and submissiveness. The male member is the supreme mechanism of order, by which man, beast, and even the entire universe itself is filtered out from the surrounding chaos, gradually tamed and brought under control. The penis is the source of civilization and culture; science and technology spring from it’s ceaseless activity and high levels of natural aggression. But of what world-historical significance is the vagina, other than for spewing out pus and fecal matter, as well as for whelping infants? Clearly, the fate of the universe hangs on the omnipotent shaft of the male member, and not the bloody, slimy mess produced by a loose vulva.

We should thank the gods on Mount Olympus for the penis, because without it we would be living in grass huts, almost completely naked, scrawling illegible hieroglyphs on cave walls.

Rape is about sexual enjoyment, nothing more...

2008-07-02T19:03:00.003-04:00

RAPE IS ABOUT SEXUAL GRATIFICATION!

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 kind of “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?

RAPE IS ABOUT SEX AND NOT POWER!

On controlling women

2008-04-20T17:46:00.002-04:00

It is incredibly inspirational to know that all of the world’s major religious traditions have always recognized the fundamental distinction between genders as being marked by the internal dialectic of male patriarchal dominance and complete female subordination and debasement. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity have all understood all women as being essentially sick, twisted, evil creatures in need of superior masculine guidance.

One text I would love to recommend to all of my male readers is the so-called Laws of Manu or the Manu Smriti (in Sanskrit), one of the oldest Hindu religious and legal texts amongst a collection of works known as the Dharmasastra, the composition of which dates from around 200 BC. Regardless of whatever one’s opinions on religion are, I firmly believe that even the most atheistic and materialistic of men can still profit enormously from the great wisdom and insight offered into the character of women and the nature of femininity provided by the Laws of Manu. It is a very spiritually uplifting work and can provide a tremendous amount of encouragement and inspiration for all those men seeking to keep their wives and mistresses under the control of an iron fist. Some of the great and timeless pearls of wisdom contained within the Laws of Manu include,

It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never left unguarded in the company of females. For women are able to lead astray in this world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and to make him a slave of anger and desire. (Manu, 2: 213-214)

By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. (Manu, 5: 147)

Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife. (Manu, 5: 154)

The rightly celebrated, yet controversial, ninth section of the Laws of Manu contains a vivid portrait of how thoroughly perverse and satanic all women are. One can readily see from the opening paragraphs of section IX itself that the knowledge that “all women are whores” is many thousands of years old.

It was once famously quipped upon the discovery and publication of the Laws of Manu by the Indologist Sir William Jones in 1794, that the British Raj thereafter almost universally neglected the education of women throughout their colonial occupation of India. It was widely known that the strong legal prohibitions against women reading or even touching the sacred Vedic literature in the Laws of Manu were widely interpreted by the English colonizers as justifying the total subjugation of women through denying them any access to education, not just in India but everywhere. It also revealed that male dominance and female inferiority has been sanctioned by Hinduism as the supreme law of India for untold millenia.

Thus, I think that the Laws of Manu should be essential reading for all virile men regardless of religious or even spiritual conviction. No philosophically inclined chauvinist should lead his life in abysmal ignorance of it. Let no man who wishes to dominate and fully control his wife or mistress be without knowledge of its contents. It is one of the many ancient works revealing how cold, selfish and incredibly mentally limited all women are in a most didactic, picturesque way. Even Friedrich Nietzsche, that immortal prophet of a will to power the natural consequence of which is pure, unadulterated masculinity, declared that the New Testament pales in comparison to the Laws of Manu. He saw all other ethical codes as simply imitations or gross caricatures of it. Nietzsche saw the Laws of Manu as being a salubrious breath of fresh air amidst the frozen wastes of Christian “slave morality.”

In praise of Islam

2008-04-20T17:40:00.003-04:00

I certainly understand the great disgust that most men harbour against the Islamic religion. The very theological underpinnings of Muslim fundamentalism may seem irrational, if not downright incoherent. Osama bin Laden and company may be the most comical of demagogues since Charlie Chaplin last goose-stepped on camera. However, the strict Wahhabi puritanism of most Islamist terrorists and salafi jihadists, the images of which are commonly plastered throughout the media, are actually rather quite marginal to the overall aims of the Islamic religion as a whole.There seem to be numerous misconceptions about Islam itself. I have little interest in evangelizing anybody in the central tenets of Islamist theology. After all, I am no missionary, but an apostle of male patriarchal dominance in its purest form. However, the very social structure legitimated by the religion of Islam is certainly praiseworthy and very much in harmony with the ideals of the truest and most virile masculinity.

Those people who are fully assimilated to the values as well as ideological superstructure of modern Western European civilization can actually learn a thing or two about manliness and manhood from Muslim culture.In fact, the United States on September 11, 2001, as well as other western societies like Great Britain and Spain, were successfully attacked by teams of well-organized radical Islamic fundamentalists because of the fact that all western societies have been undergoing a period of rapid feminization since the dawn of the Sexual Revolution in the sixties. The Sexual Revolution was the foolish male attempt to liberate themselves from the tyranny of female domesticity and matriarchal asexuality through the invention of effective synthetic progesterone-based oral contraceptives. Ultimately, it seems that the invention of the pill itself, which relieved so many women from the burdern of pregnancy by making the timing of pregnancy the outcome purely of female choice, triggered the catastrophic de-masculinization of western society that has made the current global social and political order almost tottering on the brink of collapse.

Actually, the contemporary scene within the Occident on an international level can no longer be seen as consisting of the great western democracies. Rather, we are living in an age which is politically dominated by female-controlled western cliterocracies or gynecocracies. Thus, on the eve of September 11, the United States, in the grips of a dangerous matriarchal obsession with (embarassingly enough) women in all levels of the central bureaucracy itself, was attacked. It was attacked because the people of the United States were too busy feminizing all apects of the Western European culture within it. Maybe if the androgenization of both genders, the chief ideological goal of any doctrinaire feminism, wasn’t so touted by the male feminist-dominated United States legislature, the World Trade Centre would never have been attacked.Now, my brothers, let’s look at how Islam deals with women. I know the religious doctrines may sound a tad objectionable to our rationalistic male sensibilities. However, let us ignore the religious dogmas for a minute and let’s focus on religious practice.For one thing, in Islam, the woman belongs in the kitchen and is legislated at gunpoint to stay in the kitchen. I find this an excellent solution to the problem of pay equity and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Islam also teaches us that having women in the workplace is a crime against nature; those who permit women to participate in the workforce should be beaten severely, even executed by the government. In addition, Islam is its strict segregation of the sexes, known as purdah. Islam fully recognizes the obvious intellectual and biological inferiority of women and mandates that they should have no right to associate with any man in public, barring blood relatives. Islam also demands that all women be veiled from head to foot when they go out in public. This makes it exceedingly difficult for any woman to use the natural weapons of her sex, namely the use of her body to financially exploit male sexual vulnerability. Another example of the excellence of religion of the prophet is that no woman can testify against any man in court. A husband’s right to administer corporal punishment to his wife is legally enshrined within the constitution of the Islamic Caliphate itself.Women are also not allowed to vote or participate in public office as well. Another highly praiseworthy aspect of Muslim culture is its legal recognition that women are essentially pieces of chattel property that should be bought and sold. It also alleviates the marriage problem by allowing any man to purchase a wife as a commodity that can be disposed of at any time. In Islam, only men have the right to divorce. Women are not even allowed to have access to any kind of education whatsoever.

In the Muslim religion, men are men and women are women. All women must obey all men and any woman who refuses to submit to male dominance will be promptly handed over to the police and imprisoned.Islam, when it comes to the treatment of women, is a paradise for men.So, my brothers, I don’t think we should be so quick to dismiss the religion of Islam. Yes, I admit Osama is a bit laughable, but the Prophet Mohammed was really onto something when he allowed polygamous marriages in which women are treated as property.

I think that Islam has many virtues, especially in its celebration of unbridled masculinity and naked male patriarchal dominance. We could actually learn a thing or two from the Koran, especially in regards to how we should better control our women who, dressed in stiletto heels and tight boob shirts, are out wrecking the veryfoundations of western civilization itself. No wonder the west is in a state of rapid decline and Muslim culture is in the ascendancy. We’ve given women the reins of power for so long.

Come on, men, let’s pull up our trousers and force all women back into the kitchen where they belong, even at gunpoint, if necessary. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

A few thoughts on the legitimacy of rape...

2008-04-20T17:24:00.001-04:00

From an evolutionary biological perspective, rape is primarily an act of sexual gratification achieved by means of circumventing female reproductive choice. Rape can also be interpreted as a justified political act of revolutionary upheaval; it is a vehicle by which mass terror is readily disseminated throughout any given female population demographic. In the hands of any trained urban guerrilla commando, it can be one of the most effective tactics of psychological warfare at one’s disposal. On the basis of military strategy alone, the act of forcible copulation itself can function as a form of personal empowerment that can only be asserted in the face of any female-dominated liberal establishment. Often, the only way to destroy any matriarchal tyranny, which happens to be ideologically sustained by the prevailing social liberalism within current political discourse, is through the sublime mechanism of rape.

Rape is the supreme act of revenge against the power of the dominant Alpha male. To take a woman, the property of the dominant male who secured her, and use her for the sole purpose of sexual release is a supremely heroic act. It is the logical extension of the central physiological aim of the male reproductive strategy; it is based on the fierce competition for available females as a scarce commodity that pits rutting animals against one another in an attempt to secure a viable means by which the transmission of their own genes is assured. To rape a woman is the ultimate act of male sexual superiority. Through raping another man’s woman, one not only denigrates the woman who is being raped, but one also diminishes whatever status or influence has already accrued to the dominant male whose sexual partner is the one being violated in the first place.

2008-04-20T09:26:00.004-04:00

2008-04-19T16:53:00.004-04:00

2008-04-19T16:26:00.004-04:00

2008-04-19T11:29:00.002-04:00

Men have bigger brains than women...

2008-04-19T01:43:00.000-04:00

Male intellectual superiority can be easily explained on the basis of a neuro-physiological examination of gender-based differences in relative brain size and z-value conversion of male-female IQ scores.

Scientists have known for hundreds of years that adults have a much larger cranial capacity than children because of higher levels of developmental intelligence; human beings have greater relative brain size than the higher primates due to the effects of biological evolution; and males have heavier brains than females because men have greater mental capacity than women.
Consistent with the latest craniometric analyses, men have an average brain mass of 1,077 g; women have one of 949 g. Men also have 4 billion or 16% more neocortical neurons than women, meaning that the male brain is much more highly specialized in the processing and transmission of information. Ultimately, it is this neuro-anatomical fact which underlies the pervasive biological reality that between genders, relative brain size determines level of general intelligence.

The researchers Andreasen et al (1993) conducted a meticulous investigation into the well-known causal relationship between brain volume and mental ability. They discovered that men and women of more gifted intelligence than their same gender peers, as evaluated by the WAIS-R (a powerful analytical tool devised in accord with conventional psychometric methodology), also had correspondingly heavier brains, larger intracranial capacity, more complex external convolutions on the brain surface and larger frontal lobes. It also determined that the men, having the larger cranial capacity per cubic centimetre, performed at considerably higher levels of competence on IQ tests than women.

As indicated by z-score conversion of bell curve values generated by IQ scores for men and women (based on figures derived from the psychometric analysis of Stumpf and Jackson, 1994), there is a 65% probability that the average man is considerably more intelligent than the average female; whereas, there is a 35% probability that the average woman is more intelligent than the average man. Another way of expressing this is that 65 out of a hundred men will demonstrate a much greater mental capacity than the average female; 35 out of 100 women will actually exceed the average male score for mean intelligence. Thus, it follows that if there are almost twice as many men as there are women who exceed the mean intelligence for both genders then it follows logically that the average man is much more intelligent than the average female.

In the final analysis, women have lower levels of intelligence and creativity than men. This is probably due to the fact that women have brains that resemble a gorillas’ in both size and overall neurological functioning; amongst human beings, the female possesses a brain the furthest removed from that of modern, civilized man. On this basis then, the average man has considerable rational justification for assuming that most women are dumber than fuck.
Is not this gender assymetry in brain size made more obvious still through the daily interactions of the sexes? In reality, the overwhelming majority of women are just as dumb as the vapid blonde bimbo of locker room folklore.

2008-04-19T01:21:00.003-04:00

A good lot of women are stupid!

2008-04-18T16:57:00.000-04:00

The gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in human intelligence as extrapolated from both child and adult versions of Weschler’s intelligence scale is just a small amount of the substantial psychometric evidence pointing in the direction of tremendous sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. Only somebody possessing the limited intelligence of a lesser evolved and more primitive female central nervous system would assume that the bell curve itself is dimorphic; what the gaussian distribution demonstrates is that the disparity between male and female levels of intelligence can be mathematically substantiated through the rigorous application of non-overlapping analytic geometrical co-ordinates.

Gender-based differences in mental capacity are obviously sexually dimorphic because both traits are unevenly distributed between both genders. There are substantial neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological factors, such as higher levels of circulating androgens and greater relative brain size in males, which are responsible for the sexual differentiation in human cognition that leads to men having significantly higher levels of intelligence than females. Just because gender-based differences in human intelligence demonstrate some degree of overlap in no way invalidates the accepted scientific fact that the average male is significantly more intelligent than the average female. For example, male and female levels of aggression also show some degree of overlap, but this in no way invalidates the fact that there is considerable sexual dimorphism in levels of human aggression; gender differences in aggression gravitate around certain statistical polarities which indicate that, regardless of the degree of overlap, men are considerably more aggressive than women. It is the very universality of both higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, within all societies and across all cultures, as well as the substantial body of both neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological evidence, which makes them both sexually differentiated traits just as dimorphic as gender differences in genitalia (which also demonstrate some degree of overlap, if one takes such intersexual phenomena as hermaphroditism into consideration).

Expressed another way, one could say that the higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, as well as the male reproductive organs, are all sexually dimorphic traits because the expression of all three is the result of higher levels of circulating androgens within the male body; in contrast, the lower levels of intelligence and aggression in the human female, as well as the female reproductive organs, are sexually dimorphic traits because of the presence of higher levels of circulating estrogens within the female bloodstream.

To assume that gender-based differences in native mental ability do not exist is really an act of Orwellian doublethink; those who do so willfully contradict a large body of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taking the data accumulated by Stumpf and Jackson (1994), if 65% of men are more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic and 35% of women are more intelligent than the average male, then it is obvious that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female by a factor of 30% (65% - 35%), a figure which is by no means statistically insignificant. If there is a 30% higher probability that the average man is considerably more intelligent than the average woman, it becomes virtually impossible to assume that there are no sex-based differences in mental capacity. The only way to safely assume that there are no differences in mental capacity would be if the data indicated that there was a 50% probability of both genders being more intelligent than each other. However, this is not the case; the available data reveals otherwise. Men are significantly more intelligent than women because there is a higher probability that the average man (65%) is more intelligent than the average female (35%).

Consistent with these observations, it is furthermore absurd to deny the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence given the fact that both female brain size and mental capacity decreases rapidly throughout the female life cycle as opposed to the male. The researchers Ho et al (1980) actually uncovered a pattern of massive brain shrinkage as the human female ages. This is especially marked from the age of 45 onwards and is a process of nervous degeneration that is almost unparalelled in the life cycle of the human male.

In addition, the team of Ho et al also discovered that the female central nervous system consists of a much higher ratio of cerebrospinal fluid to actual brain tissue, whereas the male has a higher ratio of brain tissue to cerebrospinal fluid. By confirming that men have bigger brains than women, the researchers make it obvious that the human female is mentally inferior to the intellectually dominant male.

In the final analysis, when it comes to cases such as these, it is probably safe to assume that any woman of supposedly high intelligence is considerably dumber than the average man in the street.

On female intellectual inferiority

2008-04-18T16:50:00.000-04:00

The notion that women are intellectually inferior to men is one of the cornerstones upon which the modern psychometric investigation into gender-based differences in both fluid and crystallized intelligence, expressed as global mental capacity, is based. In fact, female intellectual inferiority can be readily demonstrated on the basis of that elementary principle of physiology which states that larger brain size = higher intellectual capacity. Thus, it has been established that men exceed women in brain size by an average of .78d. When this is multiplied by the .45 mean correlation between brain volume and g relationship derived from the research of Shoenemann et al (2000), we are left with a standard deviation of 0.351. Further multiplying this figure by 15 (the unit conversion of SD into IQ points) produces a male lead in average intelligence by about 5.265 IQ points. Therefore, because the average man has a significantly bigger brain than the average female, it can be mathematically calculated with ease that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female; the greater size of the average male brain in comparison to the female is central to being able to fully comprehend male intellectual superiority over the lesser mental capacity of the female.

In addition, it has been further argued by the British psychologist Richard Lynn that relative brain size and mental capacity is highly correlated; because men have larger brains than women it follows logically that men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Lynn also notes, on the basis of current psychometric research, that occupational status and income are also highly correlated with intelligence; men have greater occupational status and income than women, therefore men have higher levels of intelligence than women. Even the greater male advantage in mean intelligence, estimated by both Lynn and Irwing (2005), in their meta-analysis of gender-based differences in global intelligence as revealed on the highly g-loaded Progressive Matrices, as being roughly .33d or 5 IQ points, cannot be interpreted as being statistically insignificant.

Whether we accept a determination of the gender gap in mental capacity as being the equivalent of 8.4 IQ points in favour of males as uncovered by Stumpf and Jackson or Lynn and Irwing’s measure of male-female differences in global intelligence as being approximately 5 IQ points, it would be foolhardy to dismiss these results as being of little consequence. The effect of even a 5 IQ point gap favouring males in gender-based differences in intelligence is ultimately translated into an exponentially increased series of male-female ratios at the higher end of the normal distribution curve of intelligence. Therefore, the male advantage over the lesser intelligent female would be formulated as a ratio of 2.3:1 with IQs exceeding 130, 3:1 with IQs exceeding 145, 5.5:1 with IQs exceeding 155, and 30:1 with IQs exceeding the range of 170. Consistent with the foregoing, Benbow (1992) and Benbow et al (2000) both observe that male intellectual superiority over the lesser evolved and smaller brained female is most likely revealed in tasks of high complexity such as problem-solving with high level abstractions in mathematics, engineering, physics as well as other tasks calling for high degrees of spatial visualization, the sex-typical neurological specialization for which has been heavily integrated into the male central nervous system by a process of gradual biological evolution.

In light of the entire discussion so far, it follows that the greater advantage of the average male in both relative brain size and intelligence should also go a long way in providing an explanation for the omnipresence of male dominance throughout all social, economic, and political institutions around which human civilization is organized. The greater variability in male intelligence as opposed to female, as the German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck has pointed out, has tremendous implications for the socio-economic and political organization of human socio-sexual relations. It produces a significantly greater proportion of males at either end of the normal distribution curve of human intelligence. For example, it can be shown from the research of Benbow (1988) that of those students between the ages of 12 - 15 who scored over 700 on the mathematical section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), there was a ratio of 12.9 boys for every one girl. Thus, it is results such as these which help explain why a disproportionate number of those positions requiring high levels of intelligence or spatial and technical ability are always occupied by men; it helps elucidate the reasons as to why male patriarchal dominance has been both universal and psycho-physiologically inevitable throughout all societies and cultures.

In the final analysis, it would seem that the radical gender feminist theory of a ‘glass ceiling’, in which women face constant discrimination from men resulting in the routine social exclusion of women from the professions and senior level positions in industrial management, is shameless drivel. Male intellectual dominance over the lesser evolved and mentally inferior female is a product almost exclusively of genetic factors; it has absolutely nothing to do with the false ideological construct of male chauvinism, which essentially constitutes a theoretical leftover from the days when Marxist sociological analysis was fiercely advocated by the now defunct Frankfurt School of Dialectical Materialism.

Steve Blinkhorn is an idiot; men are still smarter than women

2008-04-18T16:33:00.000-04:00

MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES

Steve Blinkhorn is a controversial psychometric researcher and gender scholar who has been repeatedly implicated in many attempts to deliberately falsify evidence. He is widely known for maintaining a strong ideological kinship with gender feminism and the liberal Keynesian economics of the social welfare state. Blinkhorn is also a staunch advocate of the extreme social constructionism propagated by the late Harvard palaeontologist S.J. Gould, another fellow socialist academic suffering from a severe bout of left-wing infantile psychosis. It has been fully established by much of the scientific community at large that much of his research has been thoroughly discredited by all leading proponents of hereditarianism and evolutionary biology. Many of the studies that have been produced by Blinkhorn have actually been derided by many scholars as both methodologically unsound and characterized by frequent distortions of whatever available scientific evidence is on hand.

To illustrate, it was widely believed by a number of British psychologists, as determined by the mechanical technique of establishing coefficients of co-variation by means of electromagneto-encephalography (EM-EEG), that brain electrical activity could be reliably associated with psychometric differences in measured intelligence; the mathematical determination of “string length”, interpreted as average evoked potential, is expressed in terms of evoked potential component amplitude, and often under the parameters of such brain wave features as latency, contour length, variability, and zero-crossings. The major premise of those investigations involved in gathering together such empirical observations is based on the null hypothesis that people of high intelligence would have more reliable brain electrical responses to stimuli generated by the outer environment. Many within the academic community argued that the string length of the average brain electrical potential demonstrated an unmistakably positive correlation with both reaction time and differential abilities in mental capacity.

In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.

Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”.

According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. The raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.

Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.

Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.

Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.

Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:

The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.

The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.

From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:

The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…

Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.

The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.

Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.

In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.

Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.

We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.

MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES

Women are intellectually inferior to men...

2008-04-18T16:20:00.000-04:00

There are multiple ways in which to conceptualize the lesser intelligence of the human female. The best way to comprehend female intellectual inferiority to the superior mental capacity of the male gender is by constructing a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait distribution within a given population demographic. There are two fundamental operationalizations around which gravitate those statistical polarities synthesized from the standard gaussian distribution of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the first serves as an important basis upon which the typical gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in mental capacity rests. This can be readily observed in its primary function as being a scientific methodology which generates both an epistemological praxis and workable data on the basis of objective statistical and empirical information. A second function that needs to be emphasized is that such a mathematical tool also serves as a means of conducting a rigorous analysis of corresponding normal distribution curves whose final pupose is to calculate the relative probabilities which determine the likelihood of the average male being more intelligent than the average female and vice versa. This is achieved by standardizing the product of the raw score subtracted from its population mean and than further dividing the product by the standard deviation. The final step involves converting the end result into a z-score or standardized variable as statistically computed from a standard normal distribution table and than subsequently expressing the result as a percentage of the pattern of continuous probability distribution.

The analytical process itself functions as an underlying computational methodology which enables us to fully grasp the fact that the average male has significantly greater levels of ‘g’ than the average female; it is this process which highlights the fact that this can only be done by gaining an exact knowledge of what is the relative probability that the average male has significantly higher levels of intelligence than the human female. To be fair, the body of statistical data used for constructing such a level of probability shall be the gaussian distribution of male-female differences in mental capacity provided by the WISC-R, a test specifically designed to assess the intelligence of children between the ages of 6 - 16.5. It is also an IQ test notorious for furnishing experimenters with one of the most conservative measures of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the overall format of the test is structured in such a way as to largely lean in the direction of minimizing sex differences. Another important aspect of the data collected from the administration of the WISC-R is that the test is generally designed to assess the ‘g’ of solely of the developing child; although male intellectual capacity may be closer to the female in childhood, the gap in intelligence between both male and female genders widens by up to 10 points as the juvenile gradually matures into adulthood. In addition, it is also important to point out that, with the onset of old age, the average female IQ declines at a much more rapid pace than the male.

The data furnished by the WISC-R is converted into a z-value by means of standardizing the raw scores. This is done by statistically computing them on the basis of a standard normal distribution table. The equation that expresses this function is:

Z = X - mu / sigma, where Z represents the z-score, mu represents the mean population distribution, and sigma symbolizes the standard deviation of the continuous probability distribution of X. This is ultimately calculated by converting the end result into the z-values of the standard normal statistical tables, and than finally expressing the figure as a percentage of the probability of X.

A further, much more practical example is needed in order to fully elucidate this point. For the purposes of instruction, our mathematical calculation of the probability that the average man will be considerably more intelligent than the average female and vice versa shall be directly based on the raw data gathered by the WISC-R. The subsequent equation will look thus:

103.08 - 101.41 / 13.55 = 0.123 = 0.4510535 = 0.45 = 45%

This equation expresses the fact that the probability of the average woman being more intelligent than the average man is 0.45. Expressed as a percentage of its own probability distribution, it indicates that 45% of the female population demographic will be smarter than 100% of the male population demographic.

101.41 - 103.08 / 14.54 = - 0.115 = 0.5457775 = 0.55 = 55%

The solution of this equation expresses the fact that the average man has a 55% probability of being considerably more intelligent than the average female; this means that 55% of males will be substantially more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic.If the values provided by the more liberal estimates of Stumpf and Jackson (1994) were substituted into the equation itself, than the probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female would increase from 55% to approximately 65%; correspondingly, the probability that the average female would be more intelligent than the average male would decrease from 45% to 35%.

In the final analysis, we can see that the notion that the average male is likely to be just as intelligent as the average female is a propagandistic falsehood based on the radical social constructionist interpretive framework of Marxist cultural anthropology. It is impossible to maintain such a ridiculous notion when one recognizes the fact that the average male is about as likely to share equal intelligence with the average female as plants are likely to share the same anatomical structural isomorphism with mammalian species. The statistical tabulation of the probability that males have a 55% chance of having a greater likelihood of being more intelligent than the average female leads to the higher probability that males will be more intelligent than females. This is almost simultaneously translated into average male intelligence being considerably than average levels of female mental capacity.Thus, if males have a 55% probability of being more intelligent than the average woman and females have a 45% probability of being more intelligent than the average man, it follows that this directly leads, by logical extension, to more average men being significantly more intelligent than greater numbers of average women; the higher the probability that a certain proportion of men will be more intelligent than 100% of women means a substantially larger number of average men who are more intelligent than average women; this in turn leads to higher levels of overall male intelligence in relation to the female.In short, it is virtually impossible to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. The above statistical computations yield one conclusion and one conclusion only: it reveals that most men are smart and that most women are dumber than shit is an irrefutable fact of the logic of scientific inquiry.