#you just feel entitled to sex and female availability for you to fulfill this entitlement | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

houroftheantichristwolf · 6 years

Text

The ultimate issue that needs to be addressed is still hatred of female exclusive same-sex attraction. I say that because it is both sexism and homophobia that makes lesbians 2X the scapegoat in *progressive* spaces. Groups continuously politicizing and attaching personal ethics to and expectations of lesbians and harboring a lot of entitlement over the lives of lesbians.

*Progressive* anti-lesbian sentiment in feminist spaces both radical and liberal is in the form of women encouraging other women who aren't lesbians to identify with and appropriate lesbian experiences in order to combat patriarchy [‘Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice”]. Second wave hetero feminists, from half-assed observations of the lives and experiences of lesbians (initially from fearful and hateful angles when the priority was restoring the sanctity of the hetero nuclear family) developed an idea that lesbianism could actually be feminist-friendly if the sexual orientation itself or ‘sexual relations’ could be ignored and the more *wholesome* and *useful* idea that lesbianism encourages prioritization of women and provides women with a more enriching lifestyle that traditional heterosexual relationships did not have which would be respectable since it could be beneficial for "all women."

Conceptualizing lesbianism as “saving: women from patriarchy cemented the idea that lesbianism = not an innate sexual orientation, but a political choice. Lesbians who disagreed with this have been labeled “born lesbians” and are perceived as ‘selfish’, ‘exclusionary’ and ‘holding back’ her *sisters* from *liberation.*

The reality of lesbians being correctively raped, sexually abused, brutalized, institutionalized and killed specifically because of being homosexual females had barely been discussed and/or swept under the rug and if brought up, was considered just *misogyny* and therefore simplified to experiences 'all women go through,’ contributing to erasing lesbian specific perspectives and experiences based on hatred of homosexuality combined with sexism. There is no lesbian specific experience that hetero women do not experience under patriarchy, therefore there is no point in causing division by making a distinction that homophobia is an axis of oppression not inherently related to sexism.

Liberal feminism incorporated many of those second-wave concepts and further expanded them, using the same theory to re-define womanhood no longer as the state of being a biological female but rather as a metaphysical concept created by patriarchy and by adjusting your perception could become empowered within patriarchy which is how to achieve liberation. This way, anyone could experience or opt out of experiencing womanhood and can choose to be empowered by changing your mindset. This means males can identify as women, redefine womanhood to become empowered and pursue lesbians without the fear that they will be recognized as lesbian-fetishizing men because they no longer ‘identify’ as men. Rejecting this concept is perceived as conservative.

Add the 'sex positivity' movement. If lesbianism is a advantageous choice that any woman - the concept of woman ever-changing according to new political theories - can make, then lesbians become public sexual property. Lesbians, according to these ideals, should not concern themselves with romantic and sexual fulfillment but should be available for sex and relationships with anyone who identifies with feminism and womanhood or they are wrong (’biphobia’ ‘transphobia’ 'terf' ‘unfeminist’) and need to be shamed, ostracized and coerced until they accommodate. Females who fetishize lesbians can come out with think pieces about lesbians being conservative for wanting to date only lesbians, for not being able to change their sexuality to accommodate feminine males, or how political lesbophobes in or interested in long-term relationships prove that they fit the criteria to call themselves lesbians and so can pursue lesbians who only wish to date other lesbians, or shaming lesbians for not engaging in threesomes with heterosexual couples and for not supporting stories hetero women write where lesbian characters are fucked straight, the list goes on. Lesbianism as an actual sexual orientation not for the convenience of others is conservative, outdated, sexually repressed, gate-keeping.

This is how lesbianism is increasingly no longer viewed as a innate sexuality but a lifestyle choice and attached to feminist ideals (not necessarily feminist but according to these individuals ideally feminist) into their definition of lesbianism which allowed anyone and everyone on any political spectrum to feel comfortable in identifying as such.

Thinking about this you cannot be shocked why and how both liberal and radical spaces are completely hostile to lesbians no matter what our politics or (lack of politics) are and no matter what our contributions are and aren't. The hatred of exclusive female same-sex attraction and the entitlement over lesbians' personal lives is worth acknowledging as the root of these issues.

#political entitlement over lesbian lives

261 notes · View notes

zozammer · 6 years

Text

Thoughts on #MeToo

Maybe if I hadn’t been punished for my isolated incidents of random slips in social conduct my whole life, I wouldn’t write this.

From a person who’s been punished by people for making mistakes (well within the jurisdiction of law and order, but still questionable in terms of propriety), I have a problem with raising a finger at people because I’m assuming they’re capable of remorse, reflection, and reform. Just as I have seen through many examples in my life, including myself.

I believe in not hating the sinner, the sin yes.

Apart from being violated, I have also been in situations that I have sought out without understanding inner natures, consequences of actions and choices, and how each incident is deeper than meets the eye, and differs from case to case.

I’m not a rape apologist, at least I don’t want to be.

I’m not an apologist for molesters and abusers.

I am all for weeding out the bad apples.

But it’s what you do with the bad apples, is what frightens me a bit.

Maybe we ought to address a deeper topic of how desensitised our society is in the work force or in daily life. The ideas we have about class, transport, education, circles, opportunity, creativity.

What ideas we encourage in board rooms and whom we take them from, the kind of hours expected from each employee, increased patrolling on streets instead of hiding women in homes, allowing women to express themselves without a judging eye, not shaming children early on, not creating absurd standards for success, encouraging chivalry.

This step - chivalry, is something we missed on the way while jumping from patriarchy to current nightlife and workforce. A value conveniently ignored for the lack of time and textbook.

... I consider myself a bad apple sometimes.

And I wonder if I would be held accountable for all the silly / horrible / scandalous things that I’ve done had I been a man instead of a woman. On a soul level, I think I would be just as bad and held responsible as a one time offender maybe. Men feel abused or violated just as much as women do.

This far out thought is not applicable in a society constructed like ours which is still focussing on getting basic education, food, and human rights to all. We falter in the system and we need drastic change and a clean sweep, yes.

We need to hold men and women accountable for their actions. Yes.

We need to question what we teach our children.

I don’t know.

I’m wondering if it’s the values we place with false logic that are cause of this misbalanced idea of love, sex, law and order.

The false logic that we structure our actions on :

1) Punitive vs Permissible.

Why do we either turn a blind eye completely or decide to uproot everything in the wake of this person’s path?

Why isn’t there a middle ground?

Why can’t a person be punished and still be thought capable of reform? Why can’t a person be diseased? Why aren’t there distinctions between a one time offender vs a repeat offender?

Why aren’t mothers held accountable for their works or actions? Why aren’t friends asked to reflect on what they condoned? Why aren’t we all held responsible for the make and allowance of such a personality in a setting where the violence committed was an option and avoidable.

Why do we see the act of violence / weakness / evil / suffering / darkness and not observe the prequel and the sequel?

2) We still judge men and women for seeking and fulfilling themselves. We create class barriers that create resentment and desire.

3) Our households do not have enough assertive, fair, and independent women. India likes ladies to buy the “pious woman” aesthetic/ rhetoric.

4) Women are not safe on roads and thus must be protected and kept at home.

5) Respect and what it’s worth in our country. Who is worthy of it.

We play the exclusivity game so that everyone is alone and ladders matter. So that everyone is narrowly trying to seek the most coveted box due to lack of options and resources. Our boxes of acceptance are very narrow. A good life is available to few.

6) Men are perverse because they are also damaged and mental health is still hush hush.

7) Bad or no training. Most grow up without any training from schools, homes, counselors, and teachers. Teachers aren’t valued or trained intensively to bring up healthy kids.

They did because they thought they could. That makes them entitled. But who let them think that? Who did it around them to make them think this was how it was?

God knows I’ve said and done, hung out with losers, just because I didn’t know better. I’ve said things that didn’t even matter to me, but I thought it mattered to society and friends, so it became a part of my vocabulary for the lack of a better world and ideals around me.

We’re always soaking in the maladies if we aren’t questioning them. Our thoughts and actions are being rewarded.

And so we must question the reward system as much as we question the actions taken against, in this country.

Men are very much savage and accountable for their depraved actions.

But there’s a reason behind everything, is all I’m saying,

and I would like if not only they were punished, but also examined for the sake of better acknowledgement of wounds on both sides of the argument, and more data.

Till recent years, studies on the female orgasm limited women and their needs based on social norms / ideas / imposed on their natures.

I think the same goes for research into the nature of the Indian man and the decisions he makes while we once again sweep all the “criminals” into one broad category just as we swept them under the phrase “boys will be boys” in the past.

All I’m asking is to please dissect and identify the garbage and where it came from. Human beings are fucking complex and it would be cool if we broke the cycle of shame, punishment, witch hunts, torches, pitchforks, ducking, censorship, sweeping, abuse, torture.

I think the first block is shame. To not shame a woman in the first place.

#metoo #me too movement #assault #women #rape #harrassment #abuse #essay #india #writers on tumblr

4 notes · View notes

baehraini · 6 years

Text

*Progressive* anti-lesbian sentiment in feminist spaces both radical and liberal is in the form of women encouraging other women who aren’t lesbians to identify with and appropriate lesbian experiences in order to combat patriarchy [‘Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice”]. Second wave hetero feminists, from half-assed observations of the lives and experiences of lesbians (initially from fearful and hateful angles when the priority was restoring the sanctity of the hetero nuclear family) developed an idea that lesbianism could actually be feminist-friendly if the sexual orientation itself or ‘sexual relations’ could be ignored and the more *wholesome* and *useful* idea that lesbianism encourages prioritization of women and provides women with a more enriching lifestyle that traditional heterosexual relationships did not have which would be respectable since it could be beneficial for “all women.“

Conceptualizing lesbianism as “saving” women from patriarchy cemented the idea that lesbianism = not an innate sexual orientation, but a political choice. Lesbians who disagreed with this have been labeled “born lesbians” and are perceived as ‘selfish’, ‘exclusionary’ and ‘holding back’ her *sisters* from *liberation.*

The reality of lesbians being correctively raped, sexually abused, brutalized, institutionalized and killed specifically because of being homosexual females had barely been discussed and/or swept under the rug and if brought up, was considered just *misogyny* and therefore simplified to experiences ‘all women go through,’ contributing to erasing lesbian specific perspectives and experiences based on hatred of homosexuality combined with sexism. There is no lesbian specific experience that hetero women do not experience under patriarchy, therefore there is no point in causing division by making a distinction that homophobia is an axis of oppression not inherently related to sexism.

Liberal feminism incorporated many of those second-wave concepts and further expanded them, using the same theory to re-define womanhood as a metaphysical concept created by patriarchy and by adjusting your perception could become empowered within patriarchy which is how to achieve liberation. This way, anyone could experience or opt out of experiencing womanhood and can choose to be empowered by changing your mindset. Rejecting this concept is perceived as conservative.

Add the ‘sex positivity’ movement. If lesbianism is a advantageous choice that any woman - the concept of woman ever-changing according to new political theories - can make, then lesbians become public sexual property. Lesbians, according to these ideals, should not concern themselves with romantic and sexual fulfillment but should be available for sex and relationships with anyone who identifies with feminism and womanhood or they are wrong (’biphobia’ ‘transphobia’ ‘terf’ ‘unfeminist’) and need to be shamed, ostracized and coerced until they accommodate. Females who fetishize lesbians can come out with think pieces about lesbians being conservative for wanting to date only lesbians, for not being able to change their sexuality to accommodate males, or how political lesbophobes in or interested in long-term relationships prove that they fit the criteria to call themselves lesbians and so can pursue lesbians who only wish to date other lesbians, or shaming lesbians for not engaging in threesomes with heterosexual couples and for not supporting stories hetero women write where lesbian characters are fucked straight, the list goes on. Lesbianism as an actual sexual orientation not for the convenience of others is conservative, outdated, sexually repressed, gate-keeping.

Thinking about this you cannot be shocked why and how both liberal and radical spaces are completely hostile to lesbians no matter what our politics or (lack of politics) are and no matter what our contributions are and aren’t. The hatred of exclusive female same-sex attraction and the entitlement over lesbians’ personal lives is worth acknowledging as the root of these issues.

#blockt series #i removed some bits tho #u can go to houroftheanarchistwolf i think her url is

2 notes · View notes

gaiatheorist · 5 years

Text

Grant me the confidence...

There’s another round of internet whack-a-mole on the go. Early yesterday there was what the young people call a ‘self-own’, with some man bizarrely stating that he’d never known a hetero woman to be an ‘enthusiastic participant’ during sex. My initial thought was “Well you’re doing sex wrong.”, I suspect many of us came to that conclusion, before the ‘but...’ crept in. If she’s not enthusiastic, is he still continuing? That’s bleak when you think about it, full disclosure here, I have had sexual encounters so awful that I’ve completely detached, and just waited for them to be over. It’s a learned response to previous trauma, relaxed muscles are less likely to be damaged than tensed ones. ‘Brad’ is possibly an example of Germaine Greer’s very poorly articulated line between unsatisfactory sex, and rape. An analogy was used frequently when I was growing up, “It hurts when I do *insert stupid action, like banging your head on a wall.*” “Well stop doing it, then.” My parents, in their misguided way, trying to explain the futility of repeating an unproductive action, and hoping for a different outcome, their version of “If you always do what you’ve always done...”

There are many possible reasons that ��Brad’ doesn’t feel his female participants are enthusiastic. The most probable is that he’s insensitive to their wants and needs, prioritising his own, and then wondering why he’s not producing ‘When Harry Met Sally’ performances. The second most probable is that he has unrealistic expectations, sit down, Brad, Meg Ryan was acting in that scene, it wasn’t a real orgasm. Some women, in some circumstances, might genuinely react that way, I’m going to make a sweeping generalisation, and assume that most of us don’t, most of the time. (Or, it could be me ‘doing it wrong’, I’ll accept that, if that’s the case.)

The proliferation of pornography is a part of it, too. I remember when all this was fields, and, yes, you’d occasionally find a discarded porn magazine in one of those fields. The boys would say “Phwoar!”, the girls would say “Yuck, that’s disgusting!”, because that’s what we were supposed to do, conditioned that sex was all about the in-and-out-for-making-babies. Our Mums didn’t like it, they only put up with it because our Dads wanted it, it was a dirty thing, lights off, pull my nightie back down when you’ve finished, and don’t wipe your dick on the curtains. Now, there’s all the porn, none of us are more than a couple of clicks from a dick, and it’s moved on from soggy magazines under hedges, and mysterious unlabelled VHS tapes. I ‘came of age’ during that period, and the less-than-now availability of pornography was still impacting expectations, I have a very clear memory of an ex-boyfriend’s best mate assuming he was ‘in’ with a girl, because ‘everybody’ said she was a slag. They’d decided to have some good, old-fashioned P-in-V on someone’s driveway (classy), and his recount of the experience was “I had to spit on it to get it in.” Vile. I was 17 when it dawned on me that some boys had absolutely no understanding of the mechanics of the female anatomy, and expected us to be ‘ready’ when they were. The women in porn are ‘ready’ straight away.

We’re not the women in porn, though, and I think that’s where the ‘enthusiasm’ misconception has crept in. There’s a gulf between the Penis Beaker people, and the pornography-expectations, as was demonstrated by ‘Scott’ joining the debate, with his insistence that women ‘claim’ to enjoy sex, but are biologically programmed only to do so when they’re fertile. Sit down, ‘Scott’, there’s this not-so-little structure called the clitoris, its only purpose is sexual pleasure, and it doesn’t have that silly old ‘recharge’ period like your apparatus, we can go all day if we want to. (Don’t get me started on the type of bloke who does know where the clitoris is, and demonstrates this by jabbing away at it like he’s trying to re-ignite a dodgy boiler pilot-light.) I’m not here to provide an anatomy lesson to the ‘Scott’ and ‘Brad’ types, the reproductive ‘insert tab A into slot B’ part of their school biology lessons might well have given them the impression that’s all there is to it.

So, we have ‘Brad’ at one end of the spectrum, repeatedly hitting his own thumb with a hammer, and complaining that his pictures keep falling off the wall, and ‘Scott’ at the other end, insisting that women don’t *really* enjoy sex. I’d like to sit them all down in a room, with Penis Beaker woman, and ‘The correct word is vagina’ Paul, and then just lock the door, and walk away. Human right to freedom of expression, though, even when the expression is quite clearly deluded. ‘To each their own’, she thinks, wrestling with the conundrum that I’m complaining on the internet about other people having differing opinions on the nature of sex and sensuality, when mine haven’t always been clear.

My opinions and preferences are more clear now than they have ever been, cruel timing on nature’s part, but at least I managed to catch it while my tits still point out, rather than down. For a very, very long time, I had thought that I was ‘broken’, that there was something wrong with me, because not every sexual encounter was full-on bells-and-whistles, and some were worse than that. I had a very long period of being that mute receptacle, waiting for him to finish. I resent that it took me so long to find my ‘no’, and start sleeping in my clothes to deter his demands. I’d been raised to think of sex as something that wives ‘put up with’, and he was very much of the opinion that ‘wifely duty’ was an entitlement. It wasn’t. Especially the way he did it. Some of the responses to ‘Brad’ and ‘Scott’ touch on that, the way some-men whine that partners go cold, or leave, and it just KEEPS happening. Back to “It hurts when I do *this.*”

I haven’t had ‘many’ sexual partners, but it was always very clear which ones were ‘pre-formatted’ and which were actually responsive. Some of the replies to ‘Brad’ and ‘Scott’ have covered that, just because ‘Susan’ liked it when you did ‘that’, it doesn’t mean it’s going to be a magic wand for every future partner, I hate one-trick ponies. I’m shuddering at one ‘participant’ who seemed pre-programmed to keep doing something after I’d tried to push him away, and told him it wasn’t working for me. In that scenario, I became the ‘unenthusiastic hetero woman’, because I’d backed myself into a corner. Lessons have been learned.

We learn what we enjoy, and don’t enjoy through experimentation, and communication, not through restrictively-sticking to the same repetitive routine, or by suddenly pulling a ‘new trick’ without checking, especially if it’s one that might cause your partner to scream, and climb out of the window. I’m not advocating pre-fuck agreements in writing, nobody wants that degree of additional admin, but consent is a process, not a single tick-box. ‘Brad’ has done well to notice that his partners haven’t been particularly responsive, he’s one step more evolved than the blokes-in-the-pub I’ve heard, complaining that “It’s like shagging a sack of spuds.” Lads, you can explain the offside rule in infinite detail, but you’re still aiming for the wrong goal if you think porn-sex is how the real thing is going to be. ‘Scott’ has pulled the “Women don’t enjoy sex.” argument out of his arse, or he might just be having sex with the same women as ‘Brad.’, OR they might both be sleeping with members of the Penis Beaker club. Women can and do enjoy sex, when we’re active participants, rather than passive receptacles. The whole ‘sex ban’ furore has illustrated how many people still perceive sex as ‘insert tab A into slot B’. “That ain’t it, chief.” as the internet says.

I’m as sorry for ‘Brad’ and ‘Scott’ as I am for the people who think that sex, and sexual intimacy is purely a reproductive function. I can’t imagine ever being enthusiastic about only having sex when the calendar says so. I’m sure some people genuinely do have fulfilling sex lives ‘within the sanctity of marriage’, but to reduce something that can be utterly phenomenal to a purely procreative function saddens me deeply. I won’t criticise people who choose to ‘do it with the lights off’ just because that’s not my personal preference any more than I’d state that anyone who doesn’t is a pervert. (Perverts are brilliant, as long as everything’s consensual and legal.) I will criticise the Brads and Scotts, for stating their skewed opinions as facts. The ‘confidence of a man on the internet’ irritates me, I’ve had an entire lifetime of being ‘told’, mostly by men, frequently by men who don’t know what they’re talking about. The world is a scary, messy place right now, I’m not having Brad and Scott tell me I’m doing sex wrong.

0 notes

republicstandard · 6 years

Text

Political Correctness 101: Are Males Smarter Than Females? Science Says...

For a second, forget what gender you are. Also, forget any existing opinions on variances in biological gender traits you may hold – if any. Instead, quickly think about the many differences in reaction to the above title had it instead read:

Evolutionary Science 101: Are Females Smarter Than Males? Science Says Yes

How many mainstream science journals and liberal tabloids would proudly emblazon such a revolutionary finding across their front pages unapologetically? Take this to the bank: Science would periodically be more popular than sex as a chant of “the future is female” rose up like prayers to the deity.

It’s clear that science is becoming another academic safe space. Evolutionary science, in particular, is in danger of complete derailment by those who fear the implications of greater human understanding. The future of evolutionary science now revolves around two quivering phobias within the halls of academia: On one hand we have researchers petrified their character and findings will come under attack by political correctness hawks; on the other hand lurks a lynch mob of academic activists who, out of pure fear of the implications, are actively suppressing study into uncomfortable aspects of gender dimorphism and biological variance across racial groups. The former are now largely self-censoring to the detriment of overall scientific progress; the latter are becoming emboldened as bullying becomes normalized through official endorsement.

This article will treat one such landmark incident recently exposed in a Quillette piece authored a few weeks ago by Theodore P. Hill; Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech and currently a research scholar in residence at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Ted and two associates collaborated to produce a research paper which was first scotched from an agreed publication in the Mathematical Intelligencer, then subsequently published by the New York Journal of Mathematics (NYJM), only to be ‘memory-holed’ and replaced after publication. Ted’s published paper in its final form was entitled An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis (2018), which is now only available as an archived pdf ( HERE ).

After realizing his hard work had been unceremoniously assassinated on the podium – after publication, without precedent – Ted did some digging to identify those responsible. It was discovered that the paper had been targeted by an influential wife and husband team of activists at the University of Chicago. Professor Amie Wilkinson and her husband Professor Benson Farb – a member of the NYJM editorial board – had become confederate with Amie’s psychometrician and statistician father including Benson’s father-in-law. These personalities had taken exception to the social implications of Ted’s paper on purely ‘feminist’ grounds and had hatched a plot to murder his paper. At no time did any of these academic assassins approach the authors directly, preferring cowardice by exerting influence from behind the curtain.

Ted’s paper had dared to theorize about an evolutionary mechanism to explain the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis (GMVH); probably one of the most controversial but solid fields of study in evolutionary science due to its relevance in understanding variance in human intelligence distributions. This area of study is vital for the fair application of gender-based social policy in the field of education; it is also vital for guiding workplace reform policy regarding merit-based recruitment practices where high-IQ individuals are required. Those who seek to impose artificial gender-based quotas on recruitment within public and private organizations, seemingly, need to suppress this field of scientific inquiry in order to fulfill a social engineering agenda. The extent to which such social engineering is simply the product of transgressive group-think, or more organized, itself probably deserves serious study on evolutionary grounds because a clear group strategy within a subset of the human population is becoming noticeable.

Ted’s story elucidates the extent to which a crusading lynch mob is wrecking the integrity of STEM within the education system of the western world, prompting some hard questions:

Is this lynch mob adopting a collective identity and actively pursuing a group strategy to eliminate their biological competition?

If so, did this group strategy arise mostly organically, or was it consciously precipitated by active social engineering?

If so, who are the parties most responsible for consciously catalyzing the rise of this lynch mob?

Like a viral infection followed by an antibody reaction, is the rising audibility of this group strategy actually the driving force behind the rise of the ‘Alt-Right’? (Amorphous and heavily male as this Hegelian reactionary group is, it is undoubtedly the antithesis of the lynch mob).

Is this antibody reaction, which is also becoming self-aware, supposed to sit back and allow the wholesale wrecking of academic freedom to undertake scientific inquiry?

We’ve seen the cost of such complacency on the social sciences in recent years. I say it’s high time to wage a counteroffensive in the name of titans like Galileo. We owe it to these brave men from skirmishes of old to carry forward the flame of truth, ensuring their great personal sacrifices were not in vain.

What Would Galileo Say About This?

Fear is a powerful motivator; some might say the most important evolutionary motivator of all as it underpins the development of the global food chain. Who’s eating who and who is successfully preventing themselves from becoming dinner is important stuff. But should fear have a place in scientific inquiry? Can we at least all agree that modern humans have an imperative to free scientific inquiry and theory from the irrational jaws of human emotion? Scientific truths shouldn’t have to account for feels. We need to throw away the adult diapers and embrace dispassionate scientific inquiry as a separate jurisdiction from the ethical and moral systems we eventually find influenced by scientific truth. Maybe this is just too much to ask of those who live in fear of being eaten so instead have decided to act as apex predators in the academic food chain. Perhaps this is evolution at work – eat or be eaten!

Galileo has been described by the likes of Einstein as the ‘father of modern science.’ He is undoubtedly a character who requires no introduction, yet the lessons of his life story and persecution, we are led so easily to believe, are lessons for a bygone era. Not so. Such lessons are timeless. Their relevance to the modern era should be as fresh as the red meat of a giant buffalo ripped from the bone by a pack of hungry hyenas able to pick him off based purely on numerical superiority. For most of his life Galileo probably felt like that buffalo, but as tasty as he was, the hyena has a formidable appetite. It is never satisfied. Along comes a new variety of hyena – one that shrieks like a Banshee.

Upon his death in 1642 the body of Galileo was refused burial among his relatives in the Basilica of Santa Croce. When the Church finally admitted its error almost one hundred years later his body was re-interred exactly where it deserved to be, but not before three of his fingers were unceremoniously removed from his remains – the middle finger of his right hand being currently on display at the Museo Galileo in Florence. Yes, the middle finger! Galileo was a pious individual who would probably object to such a post-mortem prank – as funny as we find this today – but this monumental finger of history has more value for me than to evince a mere chuckle; it represents the inability of decent people to defend the freedoms and honor of our strongmen of civilization within their own lifetime, against unworthy hyenas.

Should Theodore P. Hill and other prominent thinkers of this current era console themselves by the thought their progeny might at least get a chance to glare upon the embalmed middle finger of their forefather, flipping the bird towards the likes of the New York Journal of Mathematics? No, said forefather should have the satisfaction of seeing his persecutors reprimanded, chastised by their peers in academia, but also exposed to public ridicule for corrupting the legacy of men like Galileo.

But why is this not the case already? Why is Mr. Hill probably, right now, inserting a provision in his last will and testament to preserve all ten fingers upon his cadaver? It’s simple: Buffaloes are much stronger than hyenas yet they lack an effective group strategy capable of nullifying the well-developed group strategy of the hyena. The strong within society, out of necessity, must actively develop conscious group strategies against their would-be assassins who fancy themselves as apex predators. It’s only a cunning bluff. Group strategy is a seminal force in evolution (ie, bees, dolphins, hyenas), but like the shrieking feminist within academia, males need to literally ‘man up’ as a group, instead of standing idle while being steadily emasculated.

The Three Sins Of Theodore P. Hill – Arch Heretic

What were Ted’s great sins deserving of investigationem annihilatio ?

** Here are the three biggies:**

SIN #1:

Ted had the kahunas to splash this little beauty (below) across page seven of his paper. I’ve labeled the graph for the enjoyment of the layman. This graph should be known as “The horror! The horror!” or the “Oh to be average!” icon. It’s crying out to be adopted as the logo of a men’s rights organization called Men Behaving Badly International (MBBI) – conciliatory women of good quality welcome for membership too because you’re evidently the world’s most valuable commodity based on high desirability (read Ted’s paper for the inside joke).

Nobody wants to be average, but then most people don’t want to be a bricklayer or a plumber either – no offense to the humble laborer; you’re more useful to society than a dozen shrieking feminists or a pack of high soy content urban trust fund babies. This graph displays what every intellectually honest and keen observer of society already suspects: There are a higher percentage of both really stupid males and really smart males in the overall population when compared to females on a like-for-like basis. Females hug the average more closely.

Contrary to the above graph which is generalized for the GMVH across all traits, the average male IQ is actually higher than the average female IQ. This is seemingly due to the effects of larger average brain size and higher testosterone levels, among others. Ted didn’t go this far in his paper, but the assumption that there’s a higher proportion of mentally deficient males than females does not seem to be the case (!), which can only evince a more shrill reaction from ‘feminists’.

Just go to a Chess tournament and have an unbiased look around. These differences between male and female brain development aren’t the result of discrimination against females by males, but rather a biological discrimination phenomenon. Males shouldn’t be forced to apologize for human biology and we definitely shouldn’t be made to believe disparities in performance are due to our behavioral discrimination against females. The truth is this: Males who play Chess are itching to meet competitive (desirable) females in the workplace but they’re simply left standing at the altar, no fault of their own – we don’t blame the victim. What male Chess player wouldn’t want a spouse he could practice competitively with for enjoyment and edification in their spare time?

There’s no need here to explain Ted’s highly technical mathematical models as they are above most people’s comprehension, including my own. It will simply suffice to repeat Ted’s introduction to this gender variability phenomenon where he simply quotes Charles Darwin:

In his research on evolution in the 19th century Charles Darwin reported "Throughout the animal kingdom, when the sexes differ in external appearance, it is, with rare exceptions, the male which has been the more modified; for, generally, the female retains a closer resemblance to the young of her own species, and to other adult members of the same group". – Page 1 of Ted’s paper.

The primary biological trait which seems to pack the culture war dynamite, predictably, is human intelligence. Obviously, this is due to IQ being the most important determinant of perceived social value in a modern, technological world, and especially for academics addicted to the smell of their own lovely scent. Likewise, in timeless fashion, even the human creation story in the book of Genesis enshrines the fate of human relations using the Tree of Knowledge metaphor – triggering a fall from grace into a disorder built on faulty gender relations as Adam laments: “The woman whom thou gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree [of knowledge], and I did eat” (Genesis 3:12). The Ancient Greeks also had a story about the first female releasing disorder upon the world; Pandora and her ‘box’ or ‘pithos’, within which only hope (Elpis) remained entrapped – maybe the reader can ponder upon the timeless musings of Greek literary use of sexual euphemism. How ironic that such valuable anthropological artifacts deemed ‘defunct’ still highlight perfectly the importance of gender relations when it comes to the human ability to harness knowledge to prevent social disorder.

Regardless of the explosiveness of the IQ dynamite (forbidden fruit, pardon the pun), it’s important to note for the sake of theoretical rigidity that this gender-based variability observation holds for 1) a vast spectrum of biological traits such as height, ape index, hand size (!), etcetera, and 2) it is observable across most of the animal kingdom with infrequent but interesting exceptions to this rule, particularly in the insect kingdom involving an inversion to the sexual dimorphism rule and its correlation with sexual cannibalism; reinforcing a suspicion that a biological gender war is indeed bubbling deep within organic life systems (perhaps the topic for a future article).

As rigid as the first moment Darwin penned it, the GMVH observation is as solid as the truth of heliocentricity championed by Galileo, and likewise, it has hurt the feely-feels of powers that shouldn’t be – academic misandrists and their cuckold sidekicks posing as angelic, benevolent feminists.

SIN #2:

Ted’s proposed theory to explain the greater variability among one gender of a sexually dimorphic species, upon which he chose to formulate general mathematical principles to spur further debate, verbatim, was this:

“SELECTIVITY-VARIABILITY PRINCIPLE. In a species with two sexes A and B, both of which are needed for reproduction, suppose that sex A is relatively selective, i.e., will mate only with a top tier (less than half ) of B candidates. Then from one generation to the next, among subpopulations of B with comparable average attributes, those with greater variability will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability. Conversely, if A is relatively non-selective, accepting all but a bottom fraction (less than half ) of the opposite sex, then subpopulations of B with lesser variability will tend to prevail over those with comparable means and greater variability.” – Page 2 of Ted’s paper.

Even though Ted’s paper is highly academic, he has managed to vigorously wave a red flag at a bull – or since Ted is the bull, perhaps a pack of hyenas is more appropriate. We can clearly see that males of many species, especially mammals and birds, compete for the attention of the female who holds the ability to partake in the evolutionary process between her legs.

As a quick proof of concept, here are two great examples from the bird kingdom – now tell me Ted is wrong to look in this direction!

Clearly, the greater visual variability in attractive plumage only exhibited by the males is designed to attract the plain looking females. It's all about the nookie. At some point in time, only the males would have diverged from the norm in order to increase their chances of mating, thus they must have exhibited greater variability. In humans, when it comes to visual performance, women seem to be the ones investing more heavily on personal appearance, however, in the human species, discrimination for IQ – but also IQ correlations like wealth – has become most important to the equation, unlike with our feathered friends.

In human social science, the act of one gender exhibiting higher selection criteria (being picky) towards a future mate, is known as hypergamy; colloquially referred to as “marrying up” or “gold-digging.” Hypergamy is among one of the easiest social phenomena to observe, especially where a historical analysis of Western European culture versus Islamic culture is concerned. This is perhaps a topic for a future article because the manifestation of hypergamy between Islam and Christendom has been quite marked in modes of application over time; even more so among Jewish populations where the males were confined to mercantile professions and then these families were able to escape, for instance, a pogrom, while poorer families were not.

To show how deep this subject cuts into modern gender relations, from The Rational Male, here’s probably one of the most revealing excerpts I’ve read on hypergamy and the ‘my body, my choice’ era where feminists scowl at hypergamy as if it were a vicious slander:

“I recently saw a video of a fertility doctor who had either used his own sperm to fertilize women’s eggs, or completely random samples to father about 40 children. The women, the children (mostly female) were absolutely aghast that he was their father or some donor who they would never know had contributed to half their DNA. The idea that the selection and control of Hypergamy was taken from them was worthy of the death penalty. Yet this is exactly the control we expect men to relinquish in this age. We will pat men on the back for abandoning their evolved instinct to ascertain paternity. We’ll tell a man he’s a hero for wifing up a single mother and “stepping up to be a father” to a child he didn’t sire and at the same time pretend that fathers are superfluous. We’ll change ‘Father’s Day’ to ‘Special Person’s Day’ and tell men they’re insecure in their masculinity for preferring a son or daughter of his own – but try to remove that control from a woman, try to tell her that Hypergamous choice wasn’t hers to make and it’s tantamount to rape.” – The Rational Male.

If you liked that excerpt, you’ll be horrified by THIS exhibit.

The real bombshell which should hit home for feminists if Ted’s correct:

“Within human populations where females have historically experienced greater license to choose a mate/sperm sample, due to the correlation between economic success and intelligence, greater female discrimination has aided the males of our species to become more vigorous genetically, especially regarding IQ.” – Choróin Ó Ceallaigh

‘Choice’ is a word feminists love to sloganize, but the irony is that the birthrate of rabid feminists is extremely low compared with females lacking their same social antagonisms, which will only increase the pool of males available to those right-headed females actually seeking a male for mating purposes. Because the direction of future evolution, and especially male vigor, is decided by breeding rather than constant dry-womb kvetching about muh patriarchy, if Ted’s theory is correct (I’d wager it is), feminists are only plotting a future where males have an even larger variability in IQ in comparison to females. Too bad for the overall fertility rate though – R.I.P.

Ted’s theory (in genetic terms) translates into an extremely selective pressure on the genes within the Y-chromosome in particular, which is only transmitted through male lines. Recent studies on the link between the Y-chromosome and dimorphic differences in brain development are beyond the scope of this article, but if the readers dare delve into this arena the following study is a good place to start:

The Role of the Y Chromosome in Brain Function (2010). “Conclusion: Despite its small size, and limited gene content, we have argued here that the Y chromosome may exert a considerable influence on brain function. As a consequence of its inheritance pattern, genes upon it may help to define male-specific brain phenotypes, and hence male-typical behaviors. . . . A major goal for future work will be to describe the brain functions of Y-linked genes in terms of their relevance to selective evolutionary forces acting on the chromosome, such as sexual antagonism. Further studies on the Y chromosome will provide insights into the biological basis of neural sexual differentiation (or lack thereof), and will clarify the molecular basis of sex biases in common neuropsychiatric disorders.”

Right there at the end, we see the real reason why removing academic activists is vital to human progress: The study of neuropsychiatric disorders is tied up with our understanding of sexual dimorphisms. Why should we choose political correctness over advances in medical science which could greatly alleviate human suffering by possibly opening up a world of treatments and cures for brain disorders? Maybe we should ask this question to the faculty, administrators and trustees of the University of Chicago, the “Free-Speech University” according to the Wall Street Journal. Don’t expect an answer any time soon – the devil protects his own.

SIN #3:

Ted is a male . . . the most serious crime of all, but Ted DGAF.

The Best Retirement Present Ever

Clearly, Ted and his two colleagues are victims of gender discrimination in the workplace by a female activist and her accomplice husband with a different surname who you just know chants “yes zir” all day long like a parrot gagging for a cracker. Unfortunately, Ted’s two colleagues removed their names from his paper before publication, caving into the pressure because they fear to jeopardize their careers. But what about Ted? No, Ted wasn’t about to retire without making use of his middle finger before his joints seize up. Ted went full honey badger.

Beware the all-powerful retiree – the honey badger of academia!

Ted seems to have learned the best lesson of all from the post-mortem Galileo, and he’s done so while still drawing breath. Persevering to bring this curious saga to light will pay dividends for posterity. However, this individual effort is merely one building block necessary to expose the hyenas preying upon academic freedoms, subsequently infecting our culture and hamstringing real human progress.

That group strategy I hinted at earlier is where you, dear reader, come into your own. Ted’s story is a weapon and there are many other examples out there requiring a home in an organized armory. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to ensure these weapons are constantly fired and reloaded on social media and in the public space, but also woven into future alternative media productions such as online video and prose. This is evolutionary war. Only through this group strategy can we earn a much-needed advantage by turning the tables of fear upon these hyenas. Females who care more about social harmony and family needs than selfish agenda, who value the future wellbeing of their sons, should be treated as the Chess Queens they are – MVP’s – and don’t forget this, men! Healthy families are the engine of human progress and the single most important driver of success or failure in human evolution. It’s a group effort, or it’s a dead end.

Ted’s episode will now get hung on the same immovable wall as the activist bullying of Jordan Peterson, James Damore, Cassie Jaye and Lindsay Shepherd (more ammunition). I can only imagine one retirement gift better for badger Ted than having a paper published in the NYJM, and that’s being the first person to have a paper published but then memory-holed by Orwellian activists. Undoubtedly, Ted’s paper will now be read by more people than any other NYJM paper, ever. Winning!

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” – a based male badger

Here’s the link to Ted’s archived paper and here’s the link to Ted’s Quillette article which contains far juicier intrigue than an episode of Game of Thrones. It’s well worth the read though I’d love to see a mini-documentary of Ted’s story set to a David Attenborough impersonator unlocking the faunal mysteries of the academic food chain. There has to be a talented YouTube badger out there somewhere looking for a project to bite into. Extra points if YouTube bans it. Dare to be famous, like Ted.

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2xMVPOS via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes