Victim Complex

Hugo Schwyzer is a freak + the mentality of male feminists

ArgusEyes — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:22:00 GMT

I first became aware of Hugo Schwyzer when I listened to debates he would have on the Glenn Sacks show (his side). He struck me as a softly-spoken gimp-like character; a man who took an almost fetishistic-like joy in self-flagellation and, by extension, the flagellation of his entire sex. Every solution to every problem was to declare men to be the weak perpetrators of evils based on their terribly flawed patriarchally-based natures. In short, he was a quintessential feminist.

However, whilst we can see why a female may find feminism alluring because it allows them to attach to a movement which offers catnip to blame all their shortcomings and failures in the game of life by buying into the belief that that game is essentially rigged. Feminism is a theory that offers women a chance to feel superior about themselves, whilst also feeling sorry about themselves and acting as the cringing victims.

This double-barreled appeal, whilst seemingly contradictory, has a great pull to it; a pull that we can see in the terrible characters of the many feminists we have run into through the years. The strength of the pull is entirely dependent on being a female though. If you don’t belong to that exclusive club but yet are a feminist, then you are coming into it for entirely different reasons.

I’ve been rather appalled at the Hugo Schwyzer story that has been unfolding unpleasantly lately, but since Ms. Daisy Cutter brought it up and Comrade Physioprof has a good post on it, I thought I’d throw in a few words to the pigpile.

Schwyzer is a professor who lectures on feminism…he’s also a professor who had sex with his students and who tried to murder an ex-girlfriend. We could stop right there; just those acts alone make him contemptible. But for some unfathomable reason, he now makes money lecturing women on feminist ethics and patriarchal culture; would you believe that the title of one of his lectures is “Holding Men Accountable”? And now many people are arguing that he should be recognized as a useful ally for women, that we should forgive and move on, and recognize him as a changed and better person.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/page/2/

P.Z. Myers is himself a cringing politically correct feminist. He is not into it for the same reasons that Schwyzer is though. Myers is a feminist because he sees it as the correct position to take, not morally, but correct in the context of his leftist politically correct nature. To not support the victim group is unconscionable. Myers won’t be “into it” to a degree even approaching Schwyzer though. I don’t think that money is the reason Hugo does his thing. I even don’t think it’s a pursuit of sex. I think he is weak and substantially flawed and riddled with guilt over his own feelings for women. His embrace of feminism is a way of getting acceptance and of being seen as a “right thinking” when the winds change over to a female-centric world.

In short, Schwyzer is messed up and weak, and in desperate need of validation from females.

P.Z. Myers: Annoyed at society

ArgusEyes — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:04:28 GMT

P.Z. Myers is annoyed at society.

here's nothing wrong about being pretty, or sexy, or shopping, or being interested in traditionally girly things—but there is a big problem when that's the only option you're given.

It’s true. At a young age, girls are visited by the thought police and subtly told that tomboyish behaviour is punishable by room 101.

I know I'd be stressed if I were constantly told I'm less of a man if I'm not playing football or working in a manly occupation that involved large wrenches and heavy industrial tools, so I can sympathize with the limited choices given women:

I think I used to be the kind to sound like a male version of a feminist and complain about the pressures put on men by society. Now I realise that life is what you make of it (clichéd though that may sound) and that people who make a fuss if you don’t watch sports or watch chick flicks or whatever, are insecure individuals with whom you should probably not associate.

oh, you aren't wearing a bikini on your lithe body with the large breasts? Then you're an ugly dyke. You aren't planning a career as a homemaker and mother? You just want to be a man.

I hear this all the time. </sarcasm>

P.Z. Myers does not reside in reality.

He then goes on to talk about a pink clothes and boys obsessed video game aimed at girls. It looks horrible. Don’t play it if you want to. You know, I don’t get what people like him are actually asking for.. The banning of games such as this. A skewing of the media towards a certain portrayal of women? Substance is normally not provided.

He then links to this video.

To sum up my feelings. I left this comment on the video.

Life is what we make of it. I implore all people who want to live differently from the other sheep in this world to persist in it and ignore others, if it works for you then that’s all that matters.

Life will not be fair to us and we will not get everything handed to us on a silver platter. Please reject the tempting carrot of victimist movements like the ones portrayed in this trailer who are promising to change society for you – don’t YOU worry about changing your life. Only you can do it.

Woe to the world when people call good evil and evil good

ArgusEyes — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 16:58:19 GMT

True to my standard form, I only comment after the hubbub has died down.

Why did the London riots occur? Bad people. People who have been groomed by the welfare society to be worse then they would otherwise be. People who simmer in hatred in underclass, who live by an us vs. them mentality. Then, there are the opportunists with no morality and the bored youth. They see no limitation to taking the opportunity to jump on the looting bandwagon and after all, what is life except the pursuit of the next “laugh”?

However, worse than the riots are the people who made them happen. Call them what you want. Leftists, liberals, pinko’s, commies.. I like to know them as the supporters of evil.

To look at people breaking into stores, perpetrating acts of barbarity, and to not blame those barbarians but to say that the problem is us, the problem is society or the “rich”. Well, all I can say is that I am acting very hard to control my anger over the moral repugnancy of that idea.

If you want a good example of this kind of thinking. Then check out this big picture gallery:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/08/london_riots_update.html

A selection of comments from the bottom of the page:

Chul Park · Seoul, Korea
Looters are scum.

                Vance Feld · Portland, Oregon
                companies that evade paying taxes are scum.

                Pavel Verner · Masaryk University
                That doesn't justify violence and looting. You don't have right to steal, that's not "taking the justice in your own hands".

                Flor Tercero
                Nothing justifies violence, but poor people in the UK are being under violence by their government and the police for a very long time. Violence, any kind of violence, brings violence. The answer is to get to the root of the problem and share the outrageous wealth of very seldom ones to the big majority that suffers from the neoliberal dogma that is bringing us all down.
42 · · Reply · Wednesday at 12:48am

…

Natalie Bonanno
This is the result of a broken system. When peaceful protest won't get you results, won't even get you media coverage, this is what you get. A riot is the language of the unheard.

                Bogusz Topolnicki
                I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter rubbish. I have yet to hear a single demand, or actually see any political agenda coming from those people. As it has been said already they are just a group of opportunists taking advantage of the situation. Please, don't speak on the matter you know nothing about.

                Natalie Bonanno
                I'm sure there are some opportunists, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there just looting and burning things down for fun and because they think they can get away with it. But not everyone out there is like that. Stop treating these people like scum, if anything, they're heroes. They're standing up to a government that is out of touch with the people they're governing. Politicians are out on vacation in Italy and meanwhile these kids can't find a job, they can't get a decent education, they can't pay for a house of their own. Two months ago over 2000 black youths peacefully marched to Scotland Yard, but you didn't see any coverage on that. The people are frustrated, and have every right to be.

…

slsturgi (signed in using Yahoo)
Your use of "youth" is incorrect. Stop it. Use correct terms in your descriptions. I'd suggest "men" or "young men" if you must remain polite.

                azerfvbn (signed in using Yahoo)
                Also, "stupid men" or stealer", simply :D

This part deserves special emphasis:

But not everyone out there is like that. Stop treating these people like scum, if anything, they're heroes. They're standing up to a government that is out of touch with the people they're governing.

That is something so stupid, that you can only be brainwashed by college to believe it. It’s fascinating how a belief system can turn the thuggish barbarians.. Into heroes.

Theodore Dalrymple’s comments, as always, are worthwhile on this topic:

The ferocious criminality exhibited by an uncomfortably large section of the English population during the current riots has not surprised me in the least. I have been writing about it, in its slightly less acute manifestations, for the past 20 years. To have spotted it required no great perspicacity on my part; rather, it took a peculiar cowardly blindness, one regularly displayed by the British intelligentsia and political class, not to see it and not to realize its significance. There is nothing that an intellectual less likes to change than his mind, or a politician his policy.

Three men were run over and killed as they tried to protect their property in the very area of Birmingham in which I used to work, and through which I walked daily; the large town that I live near when I’m in England has also seen rioting. Only someone who never looked around him and never drew any conclusions from the faces and manner of the young men he saw would have been surprised.

The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form. A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude. On the contrary, he would simply feel that the subventions were not sufficient to allow him to live as he would have liked.

…

The culture of the person in this situation is not such as to elevate his behavior. One in which the late Amy Winehouse—the vulgar, semicriminal drug addict and alcoholic singer of songs whose lyrics effectively celebrated the most degenerate kind of life imaginable—could be raised to the status of heroine is not one that is likely to protect against bad behavior.

Finally, long experience of impunity has taught the rioters that they have nothing to fear from the law, which in England has become almost comically lax—except, that is, for the victims of crime. For the rioters, crime has become the default setting of their behavior; the surprising thing about the riots is not that they have occurred, but that they did not occur sooner and did not become chronic.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0810td.html

Eve Ensler is fucking insane

ArgusEyes — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:01:40 GMT

I don’t expect you to make it through this entire video. Luckily, you only need two minutes (that is how long I was able to hold out) to realise that Eve Ensler is a fucking loon. I’m not going to transcribe it but, like I said, you only need two minutes.

There are a couple of points to be made here. The first, and most important is that feminism and other petered-out activist/victimist movements, attract very damaged people. These are not healthy, well-adjusted people and they have clearly turned their angst outwards to a large degree. Their theories affect other damaged people, but they also rub off on impressionable women and men who think that because they are a college professor or a talker, that they have wisdom on the world.

Second point is; a bit effect of feminism is to turn women into weak, pathetic losers. Think back to all the shrieking and over-the-top language about feelings and un-comfortableness and privilege at the Rebecca Watson elevator affair. Some guy asks her out in an elevator and the community throws itself into a fit. How about you say “no” and leave it at that? This navel-gazing waffling loon is speaking at an event called TEDWomen. If I were invited to TEDMen then I’d feel embarrassed at myself and I would decline to appear. Aren’t they embarrassed?! Really, I don’t get it. TED is for men and women who have something interesting to say. TEDWomen is like a special-ed class for women who want to rant incoherently about things that no one else cares about. If you’re on the short bus then you’ve fucked up in life.

If you read the comments on the video page, most are against. Sense might yet prevail.

If they’re anything like Rebecca Watson, then do we actually want more women in the atheist/skeptic movement?

ArgusEyes — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:19:30 GMT

Since I last commented, I’ve heard many podcasts and read many articles on the wretched Rebecca Watson affair. Not because I sought them, but because they are brought up at the places I regularly visit. I have commented before, but I feel a sort of last word is required since I’ve not heard many people go over what really pisses me off about this whole thing.

It’s about this whole idea of privilege. The idea being peddled is that we men have such a sense of privilege and chutzpah that we brazenly go where we please propositioning women left and right?

Guys. Do you feel ‘privileged’ to be the pursuers, do you feel ‘empowered’ when approaching a woman at a club or bar? Are these women weak and diminutive? Or are they fully aware of the power behind their own positions? In my experience, it’s normally the latter.

In fact, being able to sit on your arse and be propositioned by guys and be offered drinks. That sounds like a privileged position to me! If I’d exchange my ‘privilege’ for their ‘oppression’ on any day of the week then guess what? It isn’t privilege!

Men and women are different. We ask the women out, because we want to get laid. Sorry. Is this debatable? (And no, I’m not saying that women never ask men out for fucks sake). If the world changed tomorrow, and guys stopped asking women out, then women would probably be the first ones to complain.

Take the ardent atheist podcast episode that dealt with this. The gay host has a female co-host and he fills the panel with three women! So one gay guy and four women discuss this issue. Are you serious! I’ll give you one chance to try and guess which perspective is missing here. This brings a side issue to the fore, the intrusion of politically correct victim groups into a movement which is ostensibly about facts and science. Take this comment:

(2) There are also women out there who do not believe this is an issue because they haven’t personally experienced it, or have experienced things they feel are far worse. Please do not diminish the experiences and emotions of your sisters in skepticism. Remain open to the possibility that you, too, might be unconsciously influenced by cultural baggage.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

Feelings and emotions have no place in scepticism. Skepticism is about facts, not your petty personality problems. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Feminism makes women weak and pathetic. Look at how the goalposts have moved. From sensible arguments about legitimate differences to these Orwellian phrases about “cultural baggage”. It’s all an excuse to continue feeling aggrieved and a victim in societies which, generally speaking, excellent in their treatment of females.

Feminism & PC is not going away, it's getting shriller and it’s growing like mould in a movement that is not ostensibly about it. A lot of people didn’t come here for this.

JREF president DJ Grothe did just that when, a few days before TAM9, he openly addressed the rift caused by “Elevatorgate” and made it clear that unwanted sexual advances or other harassing behavior were unacceptable, and grounds for being ejected from the conference. Grothe also deserves credit for making diversity a priority in his selection of speakers and topic. That’s the mark of a true leader, and the JREF is lucky to have him. Kudos, also, to Big Name skeptics like Phil Plait, PZ Myers, Josh Rosenau, Greg Laden and others who spoke up eloquently in support of Watson.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/

How do you know it’s unwanted until you try? Then you’re already fucked (as we know from elevator dude). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You are a Neanderthal for being a normal, healthy male. Submit to the thought collective and let them mould you like putty.

A lot of people don’t particularly like the victim mongers and their cringing, hand-wringing supporters (most of the leaders in the movement support the Watson view by the way, the kerfuffle comes from those who are in the movement but are not in positions of power – the rot will continue). A lot of people think that Watson’s comments were going too far in criticizing someone coming on to her, they don’t live in bubbles of PC, they’re out there in real life where they have to ask chicks out.

My recommendation. Become a monk. Live on a mountaintop, and laugh at the ridiculous monkeys scurrying around below you with their stupid, petty little gripes and lives.

Shockwaves strike the skeptic community as an act of such untrammeled sexism shakes out very foundations

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:12:08 GMT

PZ says:

here is an odd attitude in our culture that it's acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

He’s incited people to “always name names”. Other’s have chimed in too. PZ’s followed up with “The Decent Human Beings' Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences”.

At Furious Purpose:

Sometimes I feel ashamed to have a dingdong, seriously.

http://furiouspurpose.me/2011/06/21/rebecca-watson-has-a-new-video/

Wow, that’s pretty harsh rhetoric. “Decent human being” indeed. Whatever did happen to Rebecca Watson to incite such flapping?

Well, she left a party at 4am in some atheist/skeptic conference and a guy got on with her and said.

Don't take this the wrong way but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?

Oh. Sweet. Jesus. Call the fucking police. Now!

Oh, and she named and shamed him publicly afterwards. Classy.

So many thoughts are swilling throughout my mind, that if I don’t curtail them to a certain degree then this will become an uber-post. I suppose the most important one is just how weak and pathetic women infected by feminism can be. Can I imagine a woman of my mother’s generation making such a fuss about something like this? Now, it is creepy, I’ll admit that. An elevator is a confined place and it’s an early hour of the morning but I guess that he liked you Rebecca, and he was waiting to ask you all evening and grabbed a chance and that he didn’t think about the creepiness of it at the time and was probably a little bit intoxicated and… Well, he probably regrets liking you now doesn’t he?

If only feminists come in bright colours like tree frogs do. Then you’d know to stay away from something that is incredibly dangerous.

Rebecca Watson is, of course, the classic victim narcissist. An event like this that most decent people would drop, or communicate to friends, is aired out to dry for the whole world to see. The point? To bring attention to herself and her victim ideology. Rebecca, like all religious dogmatists, has a deep need to prove herself right on the issues she holds emotionally true. Every little thing becomes further fuel for the cause. “See! I told you we’ve still got some way to go”. However, as the privilege of women continues its inexorable rise, the examples they need to use to prove their case become increasingly thin; hence clumsy elevator passes.

But I guess we’re all talking about Rebecca Watson now aren’t we? Remember, this is a woman who foisted her wedding on an auditorium of unsuspecting people who didn’t come there for that event.

There are so many more troubling things people are saying though. One things PZ was harping on about was that us men are somehow striding around considering it our right to proposition women in all sorts of ways. First off, the denial that it’s not men’s role to do this (socialized, biological or not, I don’t care, it’s the way it is) is another grand Leftist denial of human nature. Does he think this is a privilege for us?! I suppose he also thinks it’s a privilege for us to pay for the meals at dates too?

I truly hate these people.

I don’t buy that PZ was ever a great puller. Does he remember the horrible feeling when approaching a woman in a club, or wherever? I tell you, you don’t feel happy to have that privilege then. If you’d give anything to have the other sex have that privilege then it ain’t privilege.

The last point before this absorbs my entire morning is about the sheer wussification of the atheist/skeptic community. Now, people have been supporting the side of sanity on this, but it’s a battle between PC feminism and a slightly lesser version of it. I’m not happy to belong to a classification that has anything more than 10% of people who would make a comment like this:

I'm sorry we men can? be horrible assholes a lot of the time. It gets me down. Hopefully we'll grow.

(from the youtube comments on Watson’s video)

Oh yes mistress! We can change our silly, boyish ways, teach us the ways of the angelic being that we know women to be!

What. A. Worthless. Pussy.

So I think that’s it for today. The atheist/skeptic community is filled with worthless, weak, pathetic men. Angry, furious, chip-on-the-shoulder embittered women. Feminism has turned women into losers; and last.

This thread really is the last on this specific topic. The only thing I've so far found useful about them is that they've smoked the flaming misogynists out of the woodwork. Try not to be one of them, OK?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php

It’s good to know that the issues are always, the saints versus the haters. Classic left.

The modern atheist movement is a boiling sea of oppression and bigotry

ArgusEyes — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:42:09 GMT

..by which I mean people may innocently call female atheists pretty.

Oh noes!

[Me, trying to make a purchase]: Do you have any of these in a box that doesn't say "from someone in New Orleans who loves you"? I was going to get them for my lab and that might be kind of creepy.

[Retail salesguy]: Your lab? I'm not sure those are good for dogs.

[Me]: No, not the dog lab. A science lab. My laboratory. The people who work for me.

[RSG]: Oh, you're here for the science conference?

[Me]: Yes, microbiology. I study germs.

[RSG]: But you can't be a scientist!

[Me]: I can't?

[RSG]: No, you don't look like a microbiologist.

[Me]: Um, what exactly does a microbiologist look like, then?

[RSG]: Uh...

[Me]: Because I'm pretty sure that I am one. (Rummaging through bag, digging out ASM nametag). Yep, that's my name, and that's the microbiology conference logo right there.

[RSG]: But you're too pretty! You should be in Hollywood.

[Me]: (picking up bag, leaving unpurchased boxes on counter) I bet you've had dozens of scientists just like me through your store today, and never even realized it because of the stereotypes you hold. Conference runs through tomorrow, so I hope you'll say hello to a few of them.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2011/05/youre_too_prettyyoungfemale_ta.php

Let’s make a parallel. I’m a computer nerd; computer nerds have a reputation of being either thin & sickly, with glasses or a fat tub or lard. Say, if I were an attractive guy (let’s make this a though experiment shall we? Since I am firmly in that aforementioned fat tub of lard demographic so solidly that you’d think I’d have pioneered the stereotype), and I was talking to a bird, and she said something like “oh, you’re far too normal/handsome to be a programmer!”.

Now, if I started stomping my foot and making a big stink about the “bad image of programmers” then you could legitimately call me a sad berk. Many women do it. Fine.. After all, they have a berk-enabling ideology called feminism behind them, driving their actions.

Check out one comment at the thread at the above post:

This summer a fellow med student told me I got called nurse a lot bc I'm young and pretty...?? Um bc OBVIOUSLY there are no young or pretty med students or doctors and all nurses are young, beautiful females. So frustrating!

God dammit! The thought of living in a world where you get called beautiful all the time, it makes me want to fucking puke! That level of oppression.

Here's a hint guys. No compliments. Don't compliment women, don't even bother.
And when they complain that we don't, cite shit like this..

If you’re wearing a whore’s uniform…

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 May 2011 18:18:06 GMT

So these ridiculous slut walks are heading in my general geographic direction.

A "Slut Walk" protest is planned in Wellington next month as protests grow following a police officer's remarks about how woman should dress to avoid sexual assaults.

In Boston approximately 2000 protesters marched yesterday some holding signs saying We love sluts! and Jesus loves sluts, Associated Press reported.

The protest movement, sparked by a Toronto police officer's remark that women could avoid being raped by not dressing like "sluts," came to Boston after advocates saw similar events - largely organised through Facebook and Twitter - pop up in Canada, England and other parts of the US.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4976243/Slut-Walk-protest-planned-for-Wellington

I don’t have much to say on this topic. So I’ll let Mr. Chappelle say it best.

Also, whilst Googling for images to use in this post, I came upon a piece called “These 'slut walk' women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty” by Germaine Greer (the subtitle is “True liberation is women wearing what they like and abandoning the Hoover.” – what fucking decade is this stupid woman living in?). I love how ridiculous feminism has become. Look at the words used here, “fight”, “right”. Question; what right are these women being deprived of? Is there some sharia-style law being proposed against slutty clothes. No. A police officer made a comment. Oh noes! Better take to the streets then! You gotta know how to pick your fights in life I guess…

Oh BTW, if you’re a man, and you’re at one of these slut walks in the march, you’re a pussy.

A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If….

ArgusEyes — Sun, 22 May 2011 14:44:18 GMT

So TheAmazingAtheist has done a critique of a feminist argument about the things that make you a rape supporter. I think I’ve found the original source:

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Read it if you want to get furious. The comments are fawning, and yes she does filter them. She is as dogmatic as a human can get. She’s not stupid, she’s also a terrible human being.

So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?

So you’ve engineered a list where almost all men are going to meet its criteria. Then you label these people “rape supporters”. I don’t think I can really express how I feel when I think about this so I’ll just say. To the author. Do words have meanings to you? Do you actually think about what you’re saying. To equate such a horrendous term, with such a horrendous meaning, with almost all men makes you a scum of the highest order.

P.S. A previous post on Meg White was removed because the blogger software I submitted it with cut off the actual point of the piece. As it read on this site for a few weeks, it seemed like a unprovoked attack on a person with no reason.

Women in spaaaaaace

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 May 2011 09:56:39 GMT

So Phil Plait, a nice guy to be sure, has made another preening post wringing his hands about the lamentable status of women in the field of science. I don’t know about you, but when I look around the office here, I don’t see women doing too badly.

I am not an expert in gender diversity in the sciences, but through my reading and talking about it with scientists, it appears that big strides have been made in the past decade or two, but the goal of gender equity is obviously still a ways off.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/29/women-as-planetary-science-role-models/

“The goal of gender equity”. As if it’s a given. I don’t understand how leftists make this argument. The goal of gender equity amongst nurses and hair stylists is still a long way off. However, it should always be a long way off, or near, or past it, depending solely upon the free decisions of individuals who want to enter the field. I don’t want the leviathan to coerce the people to go into certain fields based upon what is basically a religion, Phil’s not doing that here though:

One thing I do know is that all disciplines need role models, and I just found out about an interesting web site called Women in Planetary Sciences (motto: "Women make up half the bodies in the solar system. Why not half the scientists?") which has a series of interviews with women planetary scientists. I know a few of these folks — like Emily Lakdawalla, Heidi Hammel, and Sara Seager, names that may be familiar to regular BA readers — and reading their stories is pretty interesting.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/29/women-as-planetary-science-role-models/

You know what? Fine. I’m fine with passive role-models being made available to girls to get them into science. This is activism that is not forced down our throats like the fascistic 40% women on boards law. I find his motto telling. "Women make up half the bodies in the solar system. Why not half the scientists?". This confuses me slightly. Why not half the scientists? Because women and men are not the same. It’s not even a question to me that women and men will trend to different things, we have different minds and different bodies. It’s not a burr in my psyche that this is true, it’s not something that I’m going to victimize myself over or toss and turn at night over.

Larry Summers Version 2.0

ArgusEyes — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:02:03 GMT

Alright. This is a story which has really gotten my goat, for reasons that a so numerous; the least of which are the single-minded subservience by the politically correct faithful, the sheer lack of actual sexism and the fascism and thought policing of the PC thugs who have taken over many aspects of academia and western culture.

So like Larry Summers, Dr. Lazar Greenfield is an experienced and skilled professional who is being drummed out of a position due to some comments which have offended the PC knee-jerk brigade of feminist fanciers. (Sorry, have I used enough pejoratives? It’s probably over the top but this disgusts me and I really, really hate these people.). From respectful insolence (abbreviate for the point, go to the main article and read the whole thing).

I actually don't think so. Basically, it's a story of a surgeon making a fool of himself

…

An utterly brilliant man, Dr. Greenfield has authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 55 book chapters, and 8 books.

…

This year, he reached one of the ultimate professional pinnacles in surgery, being elected to be the incoming president of the American College of Surgeons, the largest and most influential surgical organization. Given that Dr. Greenfield is 78, it appeared that he was finishing his career on a high note.

…

Then, as editor, he decided to write a truly bizarre Valentine's Day-themed editorial for Surgery News. So offensive was the editorial considered among women that the entire issue of GSN was pulled from the web and Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign as editor. What caused such a ruckus? Dr. Greenfield apparently thinks that semen is a mood-enhancing antidepressant.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php#more

Now, I remember this study as I saw it on PhysOrg.com when it came up, I can’t find that link despite my data-archiving tendencies (typical!) so here’s the study from the source. I so want to get this in case it “disappears” from the internet. The premise is that semen, when absorbed through the walls of the vagina, can have anti-depressant and mood-uplifting effects due the hormones contained in that semen. I’ve seen other similar proposed biological effects of semen in the literature, though I do not have the expertise to judge such claims. I rely on people who know more than I to do that.

Now, what I stated above is perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis. It’s either true or not (or proven and unproven if you want to methodologically pedantic), either way, this is a question for science. Orac has some thoughts.

In other words, in order to make a joke (apparently), Dr. Greenfield picked what is at best a dubious study upon which to base it. Worse, he didn't simply say that sex makes women happier (which probably wouldn't have caused much of a stir; after all there's little doubt it makes men happier, too) or taken a Barry White-like position that it's time to get it on. Rather, he said that it is the semen makes women happy, that getting it on isn't enough by itself. In other words, the implication of Dr. Greenfield's wildly inappropriate little joke, published in the official news magazine of the ACS, is that a woman needs a man to inject his seed into her in order to be truly happy. Therein, I suspect, lies the subtext that elevated the outrage over Dr. Greenfield's remarks to the level they've reached. If he had simply tried to argue, even based on biology, that a little nookie on Valentine's Day can make a man and woman grow closer based on biology, no one would have complained--or likely even argued. Of course, he would have had to leave out out that final study as his justification and in particular left out the bit of its having nothing to do with "promiscuity"--what is this, the 1950s?--but if he had done those things he might have crafted a mildly amusing paean to physical love on Valentine's Day. I'm sure that was probably his intent, but instead he ended up implying that unmarried college age women should have unprotected sex on Valentine's Day because it would make them happier.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php#more

Here’s that “wildly inappropriate little joke”:

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sexism-charges-divide-surgeons-group/

Shock and horror!

I think you can see now, where the outrage is coming from. This has ticked a list of leftist political pressure points.

It can be perceived as being anti-condom use. This could be used by groups like conservatives or religious fundamentalists to argue against condom use.
It deals with promiscuity as indicated by Orac’s “what is this, the 1950s” outburst. The question of whether promiscuity is better for women doesn’t matter. It’s politically incorrect to say it. Political correctness is an insipid thought-controlling fascistic ideology.
I expect the reasoning behind this is that anything that can be viewed as placing standards on the behavior of women is some kind of plot to keep the “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” or some such rubbish like that. The feminists and feminist sympathizers hate this. Remember a while ago, I made a video about Dennis Prager’s column on women who’s constant refusal to have sex for not “being in the mood” garnered hysteria from many on the web. To suggest that women’s mood in refusing sex may have negative effects on their relationship and thus be something they don’t want to do that often is certainly true, may be good advice, and it is an accusation that women can’t do whatever they want and suffer no repercussions from it. Such a thing is the true effect of liberty. Feminists want tyranny.
It’s catnip to confirm what they already believe. Never underestimate this temptation in the human animal. We walk around in a cloud of delusions and we seek confirmatory evidence to sustain that cloud of delusions. The waffling hairpieces are moaning about the “state of women” in surgery over this. What this has to do with his comments is beyond me, probably something about a “hostile” workplace or some such thing. I don’t deny that hostile workplaces can exist, in part. I do, however, expect women/whoever to rise above it. That previous statement has set the leftists who read it into a tizzy because it suggests that women become stronger individually rather than moan and be victims.

This isn’t a debate over truth. It’s hysteria.

PC-fuelled too. I keep asking this, but where’s the sexism.

“I was aghast,” said Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, and a member of the organization for over 20 years. Dr. Brophy, who served as chairwoman of its surgical research committee, publicly resigned from the College on Thursday. “I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/sexism-charges-divide-surgeons-group/

Sounds a bit like Nancy Hopkins from the Larry Summers affair doesn’t it?

Nancy Hopkins, a biology student at the school, stumbled outside claiming, if she stayed, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

http://takimag.com/article/ann_coulter_and_ottawa_u_goodbye_college_hello_madrasah

I recommend you all read this piece from the nytimes blog entitled “Sexism Charges Divide Surgeons’ Group”. Again, what sexism?! It waffles on about the numbers of female surgeons etc, the “old guard” versus the new surgeons coming up through the ranks who embrace “transparency” (through thought policing – please). It’s quite a piece of avoidance and confuscation.

“I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

What response? Where?

“I’m not sure some of the old guard see this as the watershed moment it is,” she continued. Referring to the college’s role as a standard bearer for surgeons and an advocacy organization for patient care and patient safety, she added: “It’s not so much about Dr. Greenfield anymore. It’s about the spine of our organization and the principles by which the organization governs itself.”

What does that mean? Explain!

“There are all these men and women out there who are afraid to say something,” said Dr. Barbara Lee Bass, chairwoman of surgery at the Methodist Hospital in Houston, who recently served on the college’s governing board. “It reveals that there is still this intimidation and fearfulness, and that’s what troubles me most.”

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

These people don’t think, they feel. The world is on its head.

Feedback from a rational feminist: Radical, moderates and the depravity of the feminist movement

ArgusEyes — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:00:48 GMT

I have received some feedback via my YouTube channel and I have written a response that many here may want to read. I have included the salient parts of her email to me in my reply so I shall not reproduce her email first, but I shall put it below my reply.

(pleasantries omitted)

well, the first point is difficult to prove with figures etc, but a conversation with a cross-section of people who identify as feminist would reveal that very few are radical, and most of the non-radicals think radicals are insane too.

At first, I started to disagree with you on this. However, after considering the point in more detail, I actually agree. I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding on how each of us defines the word “radical” I think you use the term mainly in conjunction with actions, such as the shrieking harpy like feminists ala Harriett Harman and Andrea Dworkin. However, I use the term for radical ideas. Such as ideas which take a radical departure from the tradition of western societies (in concordance with the #1 definition of radical in the dictionary; ‘of or going to the root or origin’).

Now, I do think that most people who self-identify as feminists are not the harpy kind. However, they do hold the belief system of the radicals, albeit, it a more toned down for, and this leads them to not oust the more radical feminists from the leadership. After all, what kind of movement would have an intellectual leadership that doesn’t represent it? I think that it is human nature to protect the movement you have associated yourself with against attacks, as you are doing, but I think that moderates like you create a smokescreen for the radicals.

since many people who are feminist do not identify as such (hell, you probably qualify as a feminist yourself, because from what i gathered, you do support equal legal rights for men and women, despite your criticisms of the movement as a whole. im betting you dont call yourself a feminist, though),

For this argument to work, feminism as a definition needs to be clear-cut and simple as you make out. Someone is or isn’t an atheist. Someone either does or doesn’t have blond hair. However, if you consult the dictionary definition of feminism:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

I think #3 is bullshit by the way, and by no means does the dictionary enshackle our thinking in a rigid way. But I agree with the first two definitions. Feminism is a political advocacy position and is not a simple Boolean representation of being. Imagine a similar thing being done on behalf of another advocacy group..

Alice meets Sue. Sue says to Alice "Hey, are you a member of PETA?" (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Alice replies "No".
Sue says "So, you hate animals then?".
Alice says "I love animals, I contribute to the RSPCA. I am simply unwilling to join an organisation with a such shady image".
Sue says "oh, that's just the leaders of PETA, the real PETA members don't support the terrorist"
Alice says "I don't understand how people who are not supported can become the leaders"
Sue says "Of course they can, they are a vocal minority".

From this, we can understand how silly it is to force people to be in a movement they don’t want to be in, or to assume de-facto that to not be in that movement is to be against the simplistic mission statement attributed to it. I know you didn’t make this claim, but I have people quite literally say to me that because I label myself as an ‘anti-feminist’ that that means I hate or am against women. It is a game played mainly with leftist victim “advocacy” movements.

but ill tell you how i, personally, think it happened: simply because the radical feminists are the only ones who think that there's work to be done in the field of women's rights that can be solved the way they're trying to solve it, so they're the ones doing the campaigning etc. basically speaking, the feminists who are part of the feminist movement are almost all radicals, simply because most of the sane feminists stopped actively campaingning when we achieved our aims in the law.

I entirely agree. Or, as I have been known to term it, a movement goes from legitimacy to depravity. When feminism was formed, there were legitimate battles to be waged, but at that point there were layers of persons in the movement. From those who reasonably saw injustices to women in society all the way to those who where perennially irresponsible and saw to blame society for their personal problems (a psychological artefact I see as being the cause of much of leftist advocacy). All types saw meaning in joining the movement, but as the causes were won, the more sensible element left to manage their own lives or didn’t join in the first place, stripping out the outer layer to leave the fetted, rotting core.

When a movement moves to depravity, it essentially becomes a grievance mining industry. Constantly looking under rocks to find the next ‘battle’, however pathetic it may be. Witness the black victimists in the US who spoke out against a ‘racist’ card (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/11/naacp-urges-hallmark-pull-racist-card-shelves/). Witness the sheer ridiculousness of the claim, these people will never leave the movement because they are too emotionally indebted to it, like the person who gains weight in perpetuity, yet stuffs another pie into their face, they eschew proper and healthy action for the easy carrot of blaming others for their problems. These people will never ever leave the movement and I would like to know how you think you can remove these radicals? Since the movement is their life but the reasonable moderates like you have lives of your own. How exactly are you going to mobilise to get rid of them? What’s your plan?

(pleasantries omitted)

Her original YouTube email to me:

well, the first point is difficult to prove with figures etc, but a conversation with a cross-section of people who identify as feminist would reveal that very few are radical, and most of the non-radicals think radicals are insane too. that wouldn't really be scientific, since many people who are feminist do not identify as such (hell, you probably qualify as a feminist yourself, because from what i gathered, you do support equal legal rights for men and women, despite your criticisms of the movement as a whole. im betting you dont call yourself a feminist, though), but it is a good start.

but ill tell you how i, personally, think it happened: simply because the radical feminists are the only ones who think that there's work to be done in the field of women's rights that can be solved the way they're trying to solve it, so they're the ones doing the campaigning etc. basically speaking, the feminists who are part of the feminist movement are almost all radicals, simply because most of the sane feminists stopped actively campaingning when we achieved our aims in the law.

the second point: i believe that there is still a fair amount of discrimination against women, but this is all sociological, not legal, and i feel that a large part of this is actually due to the radical feminists. because men and women aren't quite as equal as sane feminists would like, but it's not a legal problem, and its almost never because of men being sexist. no, its because, to get our comparative freedom truly accepted would require all men to respect us, not necessarily all of us as equals, but that we CAN be equal to them. this might be difficult for me to explain, but ill still try: sociological equality, to me, is not "no-one is better at anything than anyone else", as the more collectivist radicals seem to believe, (or "all woman are better at everything than all men: they're all useless sexist chauvanist pigs who need to be wiped off the face of the earth!!!!!", as the REALLY misandrist radicals would have it), but "some women are equal to or better than some men at things considered un-feminine, and vice-versa: men can beat some girls at girl stuff, without it being either a big deal or a requirement." this hasn't happened yet: it's sometimes a big deal, but it's usually a requirement, with compaines being required to hire a certain amount of women to prove that they're not being sexist, regardless of whether or not they're the most qualified (and if they ARE the most qualified, no-one will believe it: after all, the company in question HAS to hire (x) number of women, so who's to say the very qualified female employee who loves her job and works very dilligently want hired to meet the company woman quota? she'll lose a lot of respect for that, and it isnt in any way her fault.)

and about the big deal? when someone becomes the first woman to do something, everyone makes a huge fuss about it, but to me this comes across as patronising, people essentially going "awwww, clever girl! you got to be president of [insert country/company/organisation name here] all by yourself!!! that's so sweet! coochie coo!!". and lastly, a crucial component of making sociological equality work is respect. women have to respect men, men have to respect women. and what radical feminists are doing is a barrier to all three: they lead the patronising when a woman achieves anything, pressure from them is part of what makes the woman quotas mandatory, and they very rarely show respect for men (yes, when a man holds the door open for you, scream at him and tell him he's a sexist pig. that will REALLY improve his opinion of women. *rolls eyes, sighs dejectedly*). and the lack of respect for men can generate misaimed anger towards all feminists at best (*cough* you *cough*) and outright misogyny at worst.
so what do i feel needs to be done in terms of women's rights? get rid of the radicals! theyre doing more harm to women's rights by accident than someone could ever do on purpose! >_<

and once that's done, and the sane feminists are assembled, i feel our efforts could be better focused elsewhere: there are still parts of the world where women have basically no rights, after all, and that would be a much better campaign to fight than the one the radicals seem to be fighting aginst anyone with a penis right now –_-.

Christmas Wars: The battle of the fundamentalists

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:04:16 GMT

I hate this sign. First off, I don’t understand the need to spew your message over others in the form of advertising. I don’t watch TV mainly because of the advertising, I don’t accept the invitations to have advertising on my YouTube channel. That said, what I don’t like about it is the bold-faced assertion that people who are looking upon this somehow know that Christmas is a myth. This is as close to calling them a liar that you can get without actually saying it. No, they don’t know it’s a myth, they sincerely believe in it.

There is type of person, or maybe a type of thinking that we all go through but maybe grow out of. This mentality leads one to believe a set of things for various reasons and to assume that when someone disagrees with them, then it because that is like they are, and has also come to the same conclusions on life but acts against them due to personal flaws such as greed, envy, etc.

In essence, it is an example of projection. The person thinks that all people must think like they do, that they have identified right and must have taken active measures to move from it to wrong. The projection comes from the projection of the life steps that the projector has gone through onto the person they disagree with. However in reality, we all have had different life experiences that inform the decisions we have made, we also have differing levels of wisdom which is the most important of all. What is important to know, is that we generally all believe the things we say we believe. A person who denies this, or acts like he denies this, is so foolish in his understanding of the human animal that he can almost be written out of serious consideration altogether.

P.Z. Myers is one such person. My favourite smart fool on the entire web. In a post entitled “Get over yourselves, timid atheists”, he castigates an author of a Jezebel post who criticises the advert. So he is in favour of the advert, bowl me over. So when a direct mirror image of the advert appears, an advert which says “You Know It's Real: This Season Celebrate Jesus” appears. Then a consistent person, he has this to say:

The pro-superstition sign says, "You Know It's Real: This Season Celebrate Jesus". Isn't that sweet? It's just like the religious side to proclaim a falsehood. Anyway, they're welcome to buy the ad space. The real winners here are the commercial enterprises marketing billboards and selling, selling, selling…and when you get right down to it, isn't that what Christmas is really all about?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/the_war_on_christmas_escalates.php

Everyone can see a hypocrite except the hypocrite himself. Everyone can see a fundamentalist except the fundamentalist himself. If it is a falsehood to say we know it is real then it is just as much of a falsehood to say we know it is false. Atheists like Myers scoff at the “fundamentalist atheist” claim but they don’t know what it means. It’s in reference to tactics and modes of thinking that one undertakes as a part of a group. As much as Myers may hate Bill Donohue, they are peas in a pod.

In which we betray our gender

ArgusEyes — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:19:46 GMT

A comic for those who want some really piercing gender analysis.

The first part: http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

The follow-up: http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1457

Dan Abrams to write a bigoted supremacist book

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:39:14 GMT

Msnbc legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dan-abrams-to-write-book-proving-that-women-are-better-than-men-yes-really/

Mother’s day eh? Isn’t that nice. Maybe I can pick up a copy for my mum to help illustrate to her how her son is a worthless piece of shit. Here’s my view on supremacy.

Whilst it is an unavoidable fact that men are better than women at some tasks and women are better than men at some tasks, it seems like a silly endeavour to state that “X is superior, in a general and absolute way, to Y”. Even if you could do it, why do it? Why upset people and sow the seeds of hatred and angst. If women make superior nurses, why jump about shouting “aha – in your face!” It’s obnoxious and counterproductive. Here’s my view on supremacists

Supremacists are not secure, decent people. A person to whom it is important to argue for the supremacy of whites, blacks, men, women, gays, straights, Muslims or whatever, is not arguing for that groups as much as they are arguing for themselves. Feminists or blacklists or many other types of activists are of the same template but with the target stripped out and replaced by something else. The target of the supremacist is not an earned skill such as chess playing proficiency, or interest in Chaucer. Rather, it is a chance physical attribute that took no effort to assume. A black is a black and a female is a female, they do not earn these identities but the identity is the only thing they have to cling to. Let’s refer to this as the identity complex. After many years of talking to feminists, I can safely generalise that the more dedicated a woman is to feminism (let’s put the issue of male feminists aside for now) the less impressive she was as person to me. The nice kinds of feminists who email to take me to task have a passing interest in the subject. They are not on the forefront of the activist wing of the feminist movement and I normally ask them where they fit into things.

The identity complex I described the last paragraph is inevitably going to be tied to the victim complex. Someone send me a great quote about victims:

"The victim stance is a powerful one: The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. "

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victim_psychology.html

Whilst it may not make sense to think that a person is happy to be unhappy (as in, someone seeks to be a victim which makes them unhappy), but humans are not rational beings and there is power in victimhood. In Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the bottom”. Dalrymple recounts many tales of how criminals in the prison where he had worked would constantly blame others for their actions (IE “it wasn’t my fault I stole the VCR, they should have locked their window”). To not be a victim is to stand face-to-face with one’s own flaws. It requires a savage degree of self honesty to say “I was wrong”. Humans generally do not do this because of cognitive dissonance, any ideas that challenge the things we hold to be emotionally important (I am worthwhile / I am honest / I am good) get filtered by the brain and rationalised before they even get to our conscious mind.

In short, identity complex and victim complex go hand in hand because of the worthlessness of the people who assume them. It takes guts to say “I am unintelligent” and “I have no skill”. It is human nature to blame our flaws on others. The identity victim (that’s it – I am coining that phrase from now on) reaches to what they can, the problem is because I am a woman and women are oppressed, or that I am black. Winners do not whine, they achieve.

That covers supremacists, but what about Mr. Abrams? He obviously isn’t acting on behalf of his own sex here, he’s acting against it. I think he is motivated by other things. Number one is political correctness. PC thought is the “appropriate” way to think in our modern western societies. Because it has successfully garnered the image of being “compassion” to oppressed groups. These oppressed groups are, of course, fronted by people with the identity victim complex. Dan is being very correct in the spirit of the times to be writing a book like this. As can be seen from the questions in the article like “Where are you in terms of writing the book? Is it done?”. This might be the kind of question you ask a policy wonk but it is not what you ask a bigot writing a work of supremacy. PC tells all of us that this how you treat people acting in favour of a victim group but not one in favour of an oppressor group.

It is also possible that Abrams may be seeking affirmation from women. This is an affliction of males to a greater degree than for women because men do more work to earn women approval and attention. To be honest, I have psycho-analysed enough for one day. I’ll end with this. We live in a society of many different types of people. And we do this by getting along. People like Mr. Abrams make the world worse by picking at scabs and setting man against woman. There are better endeavours in life to which one can dedicate oneself, greatening anger is not one of them.

Does truth matter?

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:08:00 GMT

In the ongoing tradition of replies that deserve their own blog post. This one is a follow-up to the “Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer” thread.

Emotion, to me, is my starting point; it is also an important element of the way I communicate.

..

I also think that truth is just about anything anybody else wants it to be. ‘Truth’ is a word that is available to me in sea of many other words.

This reminds me of when, discussing God with religious people, if a person says that god is a faith issue for them then there is no point arguing anymore because you have boiled it down the fundamental difference between that person’s view of the world and yours. This is similar to you and I.

Truth is subjective.. Your emotions are your guide.. That is a view I can neither understand nor condone.

Truth is not whatever we want it to be. I believe there is a standard of truth that transcends our emotions and perceptions. That is why I go through efforts to clarify what I am talking about, in this instance that the claims that Ada Lovelace was “the first programmer” are false. You don’t get to answer “yes” or “no” depending on whatever you feel you want to, there is only one answer. Whatever you want to define as a program, if you make the statement that Ada was the first to write it, then the fact that Babbage wrote it for her nullifies the idea that she was the first making the answer a “no”. Plain and simple. The question of whether Babbage was the first is separate, and “giving her the benefit of the doubt” is wishful delusion.

Living on emotions is a bad idea. Should the anti-Semite live on his or her hate? Does the racial lies they tell about Jews, which are truly believed by themselves, be the “starting point” for them? Do my protestations over the claim that that Jews slaughter non-Jews in order to use their blood for knead matzes for Passover [1] get legitimately pushed aside against claims that “emotions are my starting point” or does the truth matter?

The world is full of untruths; these are worse than lies because they are normally believed sincerely and thus are much more dangerous, the architect of untruth is emotion. Our societies are filled with victim ideologies like feminism and blackism which keep people in enshrined in a miasma of hateful emotion about how abused they are. This enables them to rationalise the evil their abuse of others. Emotional thinking is perhaps the cause of most of the evil in the world. Lesser versions of this effect cause people to raise other people like Ada Lovelace on a pedestal, the reason is to make themselves feel better, to satiate their own self worth by raising it for another person of the same group as they are, therefore raising themselves with it. It is not something that secure people do.

Your worldview is wrong. Truth is important and it is not whatever you want it to be.

Sources

[1] http://missingpeace.eu/en/articles/132-articles/11-salah-soltan-repeats-blood-libel-while-attending-a-conference-about-interfaith-and-coexistence

The Princess and the Frog. Racist too, apparently

ArgusEyes — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:24:30 GMT

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

“THE Princess and the Frog” does not open nationwide until December, but the buzz is already breathless: For the first time in Walt Disney animation history, the fairest of them all is black.

Who cares. Judge me not by the colour of my skin yada yada yada.. I only say that, because I’m a racist though. The modern disease is to judge everything through the lens of race. yeah baby! That’s not racist thought. Paying constant attention to, and deference to race isn't in any way race-ism, do you disagree? Racist. Moving on.

After viewing some photographs of merchandise tied to the movie, which is still unfinished, Black Voices, a Web site on AOL dedicated to African-American culture, faulted the prince’s relatively light skin colour. Prince Naveen hails from the fictional land of Maldonia and is voiced by a Brazilian actor; Disney says that he is not white.

“Disney obviously doesn’t think a black man is worthy of the title of prince,” Angela Bronner Helm wrote March 19 on the site. “His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage.”

Sweet Jebus. This world is filled with insufferable jackasses and busybodies with nothing better to waste their time on (ahem). I swear. The issue is not this victim movement or that victim movement. It’s the mentality of the human victim complex and groupthink. These people are invested in a victim worldview. They are happy in being unhappy.

Of course, armchair critics have also been complaining about the princess. Disney originally called her Maddy (short for Madeleine). Too much like Mammy and thus racist. A rumour surfaced on the Internet that an early script called for her to be a chambermaid to a white woman, a historically correct profession. Too much like slavery.

And wait: We finally get a black princess and she spends the majority of her time on screen as a frog?

Everyone is racist, my chair is racist (actually it’s black so no way), her name is racist, the theme is racist, this is racist, that is racist, her skin isn’t “black” enough, his skin isn’t “black” enough, his hair isn’t “black” enough.

“Because of Disney’s history of stereotyping,” said Michael D. Baran, a cognitive psychologist and anthropologist who teaches at Harvard and specializes in how children learn about race, “people are really excited to see how Disney will handle her language, her culture, her physical attributes.”

Hmmm, let me peer into my crystal ball. Yep! It’ll be deemed to be racist, by a lot of really creative twists of logic that defy the imagination. And I confidently expect Disney to cringe and apologise like a puppy that has just wet the rug. Just like Hallmark did with their “racist” card. Maybe Disney they will pull a Capcom and alter the film somewhat.

Either way, I’ll be sitting back to watch the spiralling of society into a black hole (not black whore) of stupidity. Anyway, I’m off to brush my racist teeth and lie down in my racist bed to ponder, in amazement, the bone-crushing foolishness of the human race.