"It is just you opinion", "It is just your hypothesis", how many times have you heard this dreadful criticism from someone after you give your point-of-view? Yes, it is just my opinion. You know what else is also my opinion? It is also my opinion that psychics are fake. It is also my opinion that horoscopes are wrong. It is also my opinion that you should not gamble with lots of money that you need. It is also my opinion that free speech is worth protecting. All of those are my opinions, that does not make them wrong. When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species that was "just his opinion". When Issac Newton wrote the Principia that was "just his opinion". When Albert Einstein published the theory of relativity that was "just his opinion". What kind of response is "it is just your opinion", or "you are just forming your own hypothesis"? I tell you what kind of a response that it. It is a response of a retard. A response from a person who is unable to refute anything of what you say so the only thing he is able to do is say "well that is just your opinion".
I agree, it is "just my opinion". But that does not make it wrong. Especially when I can defend my opinion quite well. All ideas that we now take as true have been opinions at one time or another. One who criticizes another person by saying "well that is just your opinion" is an enemy of intellectual progress. Because before we can find out what is true or not we need to form our opinions and battle our ideas out together before we can find a definitive way to show that one view is correct.
What do you want me to do? Put on a lab coat, write "PhD" next to my name and show you some fancy pie charts statistics? Because that if what sadly seems to convince people, having a well reasoned argument does not convince them.
And the same thing with the response that I hear from these retards when they tell me, "everyone is entitled to their opinion". How am I supposed to respond to something like that? That is so stupid beyond belief that I have no idea how to respond to something like that. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, not everyone is entitled to have their opinions respected.
The next time someone says "it is just your opinion" or "everyone is entitled to their opinion", please stay away from them. They are enemies of intelligence. Where did this attack on human reason even come from? I am blaming college. That is the only place that I can imagine that can make people to think in such a dumb way. The one place which is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas turns out being the place that kills creative ideas because "everybody got an opinion and we have to realize we just have one opinion among many".
Sit on my middle finger, whoever you are, who criticizes me for "just having an opinion". Better yet go kill yourself. You are worthless to the human species. Kill yourself to improve our gene pool.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Are Labels Necessary?
I have noticed that a popular issue to complain about online are labels. I have seen so many posts and videos by people asking the question "why do we need labels?". They argue that we should not label people, because when he label people we have a false image of the person, we think of a label and not the person.
I am going to challenge this view. Labels are like words that we create to describe the world. Sometimes our words are not the exact description of the world, sometimes they can be used as metaphors in poetic language, but they do describe the world in a helpful way. Being against labels sounds like being against words themselves. There are different kind of elements. They behave different and they have different properties so we describe them with words. The same with people. People think differently, act differently, so we come up with words that summarize what a person is so that we would not need to describe a person in a long essay. Take for example someone like Noam Chomsky. I dislike the guy, for the main reason that he is a hypocrite, he is no anarchist, he is an apologist for large governments, he only hides on the title of "anarchist". (Maybe I do a series called "Noam Chomsky Sucks" but that would have to wait, I just did one). If I ever have to describe Chomsky to someone who does not know who he is, I would say "he is a crazy Marxist". That one word "Marxist" is enough to say so much about the guy. While it is true that it does not describe everything about Chomsky, and there are still more questions that need to be answered, one word is enough to tell someone what another person is about.
The problems are not labels. They are necessary and helpful. It would be inefficient to argue with one another without having any labels. The only problem with labels is that people go too far. Richard Dawkins is one such example. He gets so crazy with the different kinds of atheists labels that I have once heard him describe certain atheists are "tea-pot agnostics". Labels should be a way give a quick summary of another person's ideas, they cannot be used as a substitute for what another person believes.
Yes, labels are necessary.
I am going to challenge this view. Labels are like words that we create to describe the world. Sometimes our words are not the exact description of the world, sometimes they can be used as metaphors in poetic language, but they do describe the world in a helpful way. Being against labels sounds like being against words themselves. There are different kind of elements. They behave different and they have different properties so we describe them with words. The same with people. People think differently, act differently, so we come up with words that summarize what a person is so that we would not need to describe a person in a long essay. Take for example someone like Noam Chomsky. I dislike the guy, for the main reason that he is a hypocrite, he is no anarchist, he is an apologist for large governments, he only hides on the title of "anarchist". (Maybe I do a series called "Noam Chomsky Sucks" but that would have to wait, I just did one). If I ever have to describe Chomsky to someone who does not know who he is, I would say "he is a crazy Marxist". That one word "Marxist" is enough to say so much about the guy. While it is true that it does not describe everything about Chomsky, and there are still more questions that need to be answered, one word is enough to tell someone what another person is about.
The problems are not labels. They are necessary and helpful. It would be inefficient to argue with one another without having any labels. The only problem with labels is that people go too far. Richard Dawkins is one such example. He gets so crazy with the different kinds of atheists labels that I have once heard him describe certain atheists are "tea-pot agnostics". Labels should be a way give a quick summary of another person's ideas, they cannot be used as a substitute for what another person believes.
Yes, labels are necessary.
Religion is Arrogant
I hear all the time from religious people how atheists, skeptics, and other non-religious people are arrogant. Consider myself. Now I happen to be an arrogant person, you can guess that from my tone in my posts, I do not deny that, I am not ashamed of it, nor do I think it is necessarily a bad thing, in some cases it can even be a virtue. However, my arrogance is unrelated to my skepticism. Saying, "you are arrogant because you are a skeptic" is a logical fallacy. If that argument was valid, then the following argument would also be valid, "you are arrogant because you are a male". See how stupid that is? This is basically the "correlation is equal to causation" fallacy. Just because two properties are shared together, does not imply that one caused the other.
What the religious believer should really say is that being a skeptic induces arrogance in the person. I find this statement very funny. For the following simple reason. Religious people know exactly what happens to you when you die, they know where the universe came to be, they know the ultimate objective morals for people, from an ancient text. That is not arrogant?! You claim that skepticism is arrogant. Look at yourselves instead. I am the one who says I do not have the answers. I have no idea where the universe came from, I have no idea what happens upon death, I do not know where the soul comes from, and so on and so on. I happen to form my own positions regarding these questions based on my best possible understanding of the world around us. But I by no means claim to know these answers. Religion is soaked in arrogance, claiming to know the answers to the big questions. So do not tell me that I am arrogant because I am a skeptic! You can condemn me for arrogance, that is fine, but that is part of my personality, not my philosophy.
But there is another laughable point from religious people who say that skeptics are arrogant. Let us consider our place in the universe. We are not the center of our solar system. We are way off the center, not even close. We are not in the center of our galaxy. Indeed, we are a feeble point in the corner of our galaxy. Our galaxy, in a group of galaxies, is quite pathetic, tiny, and insignificant, off the center. And I can assure you that the galactic group we are in is not even in the center of the universe, if there even happens to be such a location, it is a lost location, a random location, somewhere out where in the universe. I look at all of this and say that we are a rather unimportant species. The religious person, despite all this information that we now know from astronomy, says to himself, "God made all of this for me!".
Who is the arrogant one?
What the religious believer should really say is that being a skeptic induces arrogance in the person. I find this statement very funny. For the following simple reason. Religious people know exactly what happens to you when you die, they know where the universe came to be, they know the ultimate objective morals for people, from an ancient text. That is not arrogant?! You claim that skepticism is arrogant. Look at yourselves instead. I am the one who says I do not have the answers. I have no idea where the universe came from, I have no idea what happens upon death, I do not know where the soul comes from, and so on and so on. I happen to form my own positions regarding these questions based on my best possible understanding of the world around us. But I by no means claim to know these answers. Religion is soaked in arrogance, claiming to know the answers to the big questions. So do not tell me that I am arrogant because I am a skeptic! You can condemn me for arrogance, that is fine, but that is part of my personality, not my philosophy.
But there is another laughable point from religious people who say that skeptics are arrogant. Let us consider our place in the universe. We are not the center of our solar system. We are way off the center, not even close. We are not in the center of our galaxy. Indeed, we are a feeble point in the corner of our galaxy. Our galaxy, in a group of galaxies, is quite pathetic, tiny, and insignificant, off the center. And I can assure you that the galactic group we are in is not even in the center of the universe, if there even happens to be such a location, it is a lost location, a random location, somewhere out where in the universe. I look at all of this and say that we are a rather unimportant species. The religious person, despite all this information that we now know from astronomy, says to himself, "God made all of this for me!".
Who is the arrogant one?
Feminism Sucks Part 8: Conclusion
Now boys and girls I have completed nearly everything that I wanted to say regarding feminism. Almost everything, there is just one more thing I want to bring up, and I make it quick. Feminists support a quota on the number of people applied in certain jobs and universities. That is sexism. It is judging the virtues of a person not on his own individual accomplishments, but on his sex. Feminism is a sexist 'philosophy' not to mention that it is again not based on equality of opportunity but equality of results.
In my posts I have demonstrated the following issues regarding feminism. It is sexist, it is for distribution of equal results, it is for special privledges for women over men, it is contradictory to science, it rejects reality for a view on life that is more feel good, it fails to understand basic economics, it is contrary to freedom, it restricts choices of certain women who have "low" jobs, it violates freedom of speech, and in some radical cases is entirely rooted in hatred of men. Furthermore, the policies that feminists want to implement often harm women by unintended consequences. Therefore, ironically, feminism is anti-woman.
I summarize feminism as, "an evil pseudo-scientific world view that is for giving women special privledges over men which in some cases is even derived from man hating". Most people would find my statement unfair, and "intolerant", but I have given my case for everything I said in my one line summary of feminism. I did not just pull this statement out of my anus, I have done my best to justify it in a reasonable manner.
I also claim that feminism is more evil than the KKK. I have three reasons for saying this. First, feminists hate about 50% of the world, the KKK hate gays, Jews, and blacks, which accounts to about, I am guessing here, 10% of the world. Whatever, the number is unimportant, it is definitely not 40%. In the future, I will give a lecture on something known as the "inclusion-exclusion principle" and explain how to compute this percentage. This is all unimportant for us at the moment, what is important is that feminists hate more people than the KKK. Second, the KKK are a do nothing group. They just sit around have their own meetings and talk about white nationalist pride. They do not try to impose laws or restrictions on anyone else. They do not impose speech codes, and they do not try to limit the freedom of the people. They do not use the state for their own evil desires. Third, and this is most important, the KKK do not pretend that they are virtuous. Feminists love to make themselves look like virtuous people and many people have the perception of feminists as virtous people. The KKK are honest about their views. They are a hate group and they do not hide it. They openly admit it. Feminists hide their true intentions. These three reasons are enough to show that feminists are more evil than the KKK. Thus, the well-known pun "feminazi" about feminists, is justified.
I have also in the past referred to feminism as a "religion": here. The way I defined religion is as a set of beliefs such that: (i) it has a final goal, (ii) creates a set of morals for living one's live, (iii) it has a strong emotional attachment to the believer, (iv) if challenged by reason or empiricism it shall not give way. Everything I have said revealed these four points. Feminism is pseudo-scientific, this satisfies the (iv) condition. Feminism has a final goal, ultimate liberation of women, that is (i). Feminism has a set of morals that make people live a certain way by teaching women to see the world all in terms of sexism and discrimination, so that is (ii). And it has a strong emotional attachment to a woman, because the psychology of feminists are based on feel good feelings and rarer conditions - hatred. Therefore, it follows by definition of "religion" that feminism is a religion itself. Like all religions it can be dangerous. Beware of feminism.
Now I want to attach videos that are related to feminism. They have even more content that argue against feminism. Feminism is dead. We have killed it.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4 (Hardcore!)
Link 5
Link 6 (Eight Part Lecture!)
Link 7 (Milton Friedman!)
Link 8 (Thomas Sowell!)
Link 9 (Comedy!)
In my posts I have demonstrated the following issues regarding feminism. It is sexist, it is for distribution of equal results, it is for special privledges for women over men, it is contradictory to science, it rejects reality for a view on life that is more feel good, it fails to understand basic economics, it is contrary to freedom, it restricts choices of certain women who have "low" jobs, it violates freedom of speech, and in some radical cases is entirely rooted in hatred of men. Furthermore, the policies that feminists want to implement often harm women by unintended consequences. Therefore, ironically, feminism is anti-woman.
I summarize feminism as, "an evil pseudo-scientific world view that is for giving women special privledges over men which in some cases is even derived from man hating". Most people would find my statement unfair, and "intolerant", but I have given my case for everything I said in my one line summary of feminism. I did not just pull this statement out of my anus, I have done my best to justify it in a reasonable manner.
I also claim that feminism is more evil than the KKK. I have three reasons for saying this. First, feminists hate about 50% of the world, the KKK hate gays, Jews, and blacks, which accounts to about, I am guessing here, 10% of the world. Whatever, the number is unimportant, it is definitely not 40%. In the future, I will give a lecture on something known as the "inclusion-exclusion principle" and explain how to compute this percentage. This is all unimportant for us at the moment, what is important is that feminists hate more people than the KKK. Second, the KKK are a do nothing group. They just sit around have their own meetings and talk about white nationalist pride. They do not try to impose laws or restrictions on anyone else. They do not impose speech codes, and they do not try to limit the freedom of the people. They do not use the state for their own evil desires. Third, and this is most important, the KKK do not pretend that they are virtuous. Feminists love to make themselves look like virtuous people and many people have the perception of feminists as virtous people. The KKK are honest about their views. They are a hate group and they do not hide it. They openly admit it. Feminists hide their true intentions. These three reasons are enough to show that feminists are more evil than the KKK. Thus, the well-known pun "feminazi" about feminists, is justified.
I have also in the past referred to feminism as a "religion": here. The way I defined religion is as a set of beliefs such that: (i) it has a final goal, (ii) creates a set of morals for living one's live, (iii) it has a strong emotional attachment to the believer, (iv) if challenged by reason or empiricism it shall not give way. Everything I have said revealed these four points. Feminism is pseudo-scientific, this satisfies the (iv) condition. Feminism has a final goal, ultimate liberation of women, that is (i). Feminism has a set of morals that make people live a certain way by teaching women to see the world all in terms of sexism and discrimination, so that is (ii). And it has a strong emotional attachment to a woman, because the psychology of feminists are based on feel good feelings and rarer conditions - hatred. Therefore, it follows by definition of "religion" that feminism is a religion itself. Like all religions it can be dangerous. Beware of feminism.
Now I want to attach videos that are related to feminism. They have even more content that argue against feminism. Feminism is dead. We have killed it.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4 (Hardcore!)
Link 5
Link 6 (Eight Part Lecture!)
Link 7 (Milton Friedman!)
Link 8 (Thomas Sowell!)
Link 9 (Comedy!)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 7: Anti-Freedom
No person ever says "I do not believe in freedom" nor "I do not believe in free speech". Every person when asked, "do you support freedom and free speech?", will answer immediately without any thought "yes". This is not just true for individuals this is true for countries. All countries proclaim "freedom" and "free speech", especially the United States. But if we actually examine the polices of the United States there are anything but pro freedom, in some cases they even oppose free speech. Thus, "the land of the free" is not free, it only proclaims itself to be free. Other countries proclaim the same. Consider the Soviet Union, it uses the word "freedom" as well, but we know the USSR was an oppressive evil country. Yet it still called itself "free" and many people within the country believed the lie. No country will ever say "we do not believe in freedom", because that would not go well with the population, they would be angry and rebellious, so nations need to lie to its citizens and claim that they are free. To rule the citizens more efficiently the nation convinces the citizens they are free. We see the same phenomenon with individuals as well. You hardly ever come across anyone in your life who openly condemns freedom and free speech. There are people like that, for example, some fundamentalists Muslims and few overly religious Jewish who would say that, but in general, even the biggest deniers of freedom and free speech still say to everyone they believe in freedom and free speech.
Fascists never call themselves fascists. George Carlin said, "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack boots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts." I love this quotation, it very nicely summarizes everything I said above. The last thing fascists want you to think is that they are fascists. They always claim that they are doing it "for your safety" and "for the children" and "for social progress" and if we do not do it "it will be chaos in the streets". I would be happy to finally see one fascist to openly deny freedom and free speech rather than being an apologist for more and more control.
When an individual says "I believe in freedom and free speech" we need to be extremely skeptical to that claim. We hear people say this all the time. In fact, we just heard conservatives come out in support of the Arizona immigration laws, which is a violation of liberty, pure and simple. The very same conservatives who complain about what Barack is doing because he is destroying freedom, come out and support an immigration law which is a pure contradiction to freedom. Even conservatives that I like, for example Michael Savage, who has good points with regard to economics, has supported this vicious law. We need to remember that what a person says does not really represent his true views. Rather we need to look at what he supports at what he really does if we want to understand his honest positions. And with conservatives we see this problem, when it comes to opposing government intervention in the economical realm because they say that intervention violates freedom (and it does) but when it comes to civil matters, such as the way we treat homosexuals, immigrants, capital punishment and so forth, they got no problem with government intervention. Thus, conservatives can preach as much as they want about freedom, that is irrelevant, what we need to do is judge them by their policies, their policies clearly contradict the positions they proudly spout.
Now we can return back to the subject of feminism. Feminists, in general, not even the radical ones, contradict freedom, and I shall demonstrate this case below. However, feminists will never admit that they are against freedom or free speech as explained above. We can ignore all what feminism supposedly say with regard to free speech and freedom; we must concentrate on the policies that they really support.
The first one that we will look into is sexual harassment. There is no need for me to go on one of my long off topic journeys (as I did above) to explain what sexual harassment is, we all know what it is. Important for us, is that certain speech can be considered sexual harassment. I am not really sure what kinds of words are sexual harassment or not but let us assume, for sake of illustration, that saying "wow you are really sexy" qualifies as sexual harassment. An employer (presumably male) who says this can get in trouble or fired from his job for this kind of speech.
One can ask me a question, "why is so bad that this male employee got fired from his job, he deserved it?". Well, maybe he deserved it, maybe he was insulting, however, he should have free speech. In the future I will make a post explaining what free speech is and is not because there is much confusion among people but for now I will say only this regarding free speech. Free speech means one cannot get in trouble for what he says by the government, that is to say, "speech is free from government control". Let us return back to our example regarding the male employer who told the female worker "wow you are really sexy". Do I think what he said was inappropriate? Of course I do, it is not an appropriate thing to say because many women would be uncomfortable to such a statement. Do I think the female worker can get him fired or in trouble for what he said? No, because free speech means that speech cannot be controlled by the government. Free speech certainly does include insulting speech, in fact, that is the entire point of having free speech support because no one ever objects to happy nice speech, it is the insulting and hurtful speech that people want to censor. Feminists are no exception, they want to censor certain kind of speech which is insulting. They may have good motivations when they want to impose sexual harassment laws but what they actually do is violate free speech. Consider the following example. Co-workers sometimes get into disputes with one another, they may end up insulting someone by calling the other person "stupid". Can the insultee take legal action against the insulter in that particular case? No, sorry, we do not legislate our feelings. I understand that it may be insulting, but nothing can be done, he has the right to free speech and so what he says cannot be controlled by the government. There is something so much more important at stake than our feelings, and that is free speech, it is a concept some are ready to die for, some have died for, and we want to get ignore it because we are concerned about our feelings getting hurt?! Also sexual harassment laws do not make much sense. Suppose a male worker gets insulted at a female worker and calls her "dumb". This is not sexual harassment and nothing would be done to him. However, if he says "dumb blonde" then all of the sudden she can take legal action against him. (My examples might be legally wrong, I am not familiar with which words are fine and which words are not fine, but that is irrelevant, the point that I am trying to make is all that is relevant). Why does inserting the words "blonde" suddenly turn the insult into something that would violate law? It makes no sense.
I think that I should explain what should be done with sexual harassment instead even though it is not really related to my post because some people would have questions for me about what a woman should do if someone harasses her. Also, if I do not explain my positions regarding harassment then people would think of me as I think that it is okay for men to harass women, so I will best explain what should be done in the case of harassment. First of all let us make something clear. Saying, "sexy hot thing" is not harassment, it is certainly impolite, I would never say it to a woman who is not my girlfriend, but it is not harassment. Harassment is when a your neighbor yells, insults you, and bothers you repeatedly because he despises you. Harassment does not need to be physical, but it still is a violation of another person's rights, the one who is harassed feels threatened and under stress. I certainly think that harassment in the way I described should be illegal, in fact, there is something known as a restraining law that reflects just that. However, "sexual harassment" is a dishonest name, because sexual harassment can refer to a single word or comment, that is not harassment, that is simply being impolite. Many laws in the US have dishonest names, like the "Patriot Act", "sexual harassment" is another example of one of those dishonest name for laws, but that would take me way off topic, and I do not want to go there, I am already off topic as it is. Now to return to my approach to what needs to be done about sexual "harassment". Well, as explained, if it is just a comment then nothing can be done, sorry, but people cannot make other people act unrudely to them by law. Just like one cannot use legal action for being called "dumb" one cannot use legal action for being called "dumb blonde". However, if a male co-worker is actually obstructive in a certain way, refer to above to what "harassment" means, then she can definitely take action against him. If it is only an impolite comment then she can take that case to her boss. Her boss has the power to fire the male co-worker, the government cannot here. It is true that some bosses might be impolite themselves, in that case she is working among rude immoral people, her best option is to simply leave as sad as that sounds. But this is not something that would be common in the workplace. Most bosses would want to ensure a work conduct. The reason is very simply, from an economic point-of-view. A boss, like most capitalists, wants to maximize his profits. To maximize his profits he would want to make sure that his workplace is nicely run, otherwise there be hostility among the co-workers, that would run him a loss. Thus, a boss, even if not for concern of his fellow workers, would want to make sure that his workplace is peaceful. Mean nasty bosses who hire impolite rude workers would run at a loss if they do not do anything about work conduct, he would punish himself economically, as he deserves.
Sexual "harassment" laws are not really laws for harassment but rather for laws against hurt feelings, thus, these laws are a violation of free speech. A feminist would of course, never ever say that "I do not support free speech", as explained in my opening paragraphs, but this is all irrelevant if we simply consider their position regarding sexual "harassment". In general, what people say, "I support free speech but not hate speech". How many times you heard people say that? I cannot count how many. Saying hateful thing most certainly is part of free speech. Watch this awesome video that shows the ridiculous position of people who say "I am for free speech but not hate speech": here. So please do not fall into the censorship trap of people who want to impose hate speech laws. Despite my long ramblings on this topic of sexual "harassment" I do not put much blame on feminists for sexual "harassment" cases, they are not the only ones who give major support for this issue, most people on the left-wing support such policies. Thus, feminists are excused from this criticism. But nonetheless my main objection that feminists are anti-free speech still is intact.
Now let us have more fun and talk about porn. Porn is a particular kind of free speech. The first amendment really applies to religious and political opposition, but it does not have to, that was the intention of the amendment but it can always just as well apply to porn. Porn is not thrown in your face. Porn is available online, on TV, on magazines, and so forth, so if you want to, you can watch it, if you do not want to, you do not have to watch it. Simple as that. One group, the porn watchers, which we would call the "males", are minding their own business, another group, the non-porn watchers, which we would call the "females", are minding their own business. The males do not make the females watch porn nor do the females stop the males from watching porn. There is a peaceful harmony between the males and females, how can anyone be against this?
It turns out there is one more group of people besides the males and females, and that group ironically consists of females that want to become males, we will call that group the "feminists". The feminists are against porn. They either want to ban it or limit porn. As a result, the feminists are against freedom of speech, it does not matter that they say "I believe in free speech but not ___ ", they may say that all they want, the situation is that they oppose the freedom of speech because certain kind of speech bothers them. But they will never admit their opposition to free speech for same reason the US will never admit that it is not "the land of the free", because fascists do not call themselves fascists.
Feminists oppose porn because they say that it depicts women as sex objects and it dehumanizes women. Okay, but here is the nice thing about free speech, if you do not like it, do not watch it. If you see porn as dehumanizing to women then do not watch it. I do not think of women any less when I watch porn. Actually, I watch all kinds of porn, straight, gay, bisexual, because I happen to be a bisexual guy after all. And not once have I thought of girls or guys as sex objects. I look at porn because it is sexually pleasing to masturbate to, not because I want to dehumanize women after that. I never treated women in an inferior manner because of porn. The feminist objection to porn is something they pulled out of their own anus. The feminists fail to realize that people have different ways of interpreting art, beauty, pictures, and so forth. The way the feminists interpret porn, is their own way, the way other people interpret porn is their own way. So it is unfair for a feminist to interpret porn in the way she see it and think that the same interpretation goes through the mind of a guy who watches porn.
There is a certain kind of porn which has "rape fantasies" or whatever it is called. Basically, it is porn in which rape is acted out. It is not real rape! It is just an act that looks like rape. Some guys like that kind of stuff. I have no idea why they like that kind of stuff, I never seen it and never plan to see it but there are guys who are turned on by that kind of stuff. And again we hear from the feminists that this kind of porn needs to be banned. They try to frighten us into thinking that it will influence men to be rapists. Their argument is ridiculous, consider the following example. We have murder movies and books, we have movies that depict theft and books that tell stories about kidnapping. Are we influenced to steal, kidnap, or kill by watching these movies or books? No. The same with rape fantasy porn. The guys who watch this only are interested to watch it, in their minds they know it is wrong, the fact that they watch it does not turn them suddenly into rapists.
I want to make this very clear. Even if it can be empirical shown that crime goes up because of porn, which is not true at all, I will still not support banning porn. For two reasons. First of all prohibition does not work and it will lead to more crime as we have seen in history. Second, and more importantly, is that the situation is still a matter of free speech, the fact that someone has a chance to become a criminal after watching porn does not give us a permission to ban porn. There is a chance that people after drinking alcohol can do dangerous things, but we do not ban alcohol. We cannot be afraid of what indirectly can happen as a result of something and ban it. If we want to live in a society that is free and has free speech we must be willing to put up with inconveniences for the sake of protecting freedom.
To be fair, not all feminists want to ban porn. The feminists are split on this issue. Some feminists are for either banning porn or limiting it, while others will not do anything about porn. But it still is a pretty big number of feminists who want to get rid of porn and they are not even radical. There is an even bigger number of feminists who want to use the state to control the content of porn. This is almost as much of an assault on free speech as the ones who want to get rid of it entirely. Because those who want to control the content of porn will now have control over what is shown in porn, thus, they would be able to over time impose more and more restrictions on porn so that porn will be much less in number. Therefore, my complaint about feminist assault on free speech is addressed only to the feminists who want to ban or control porn. If a feminist is willing to leave porn alone despite that she does not like it, then good for her, I have no complaint to give to her. However, plenty of feminists today are part of the anti-porn movement, my professor in college was an anti-porn feminists herself. There are not rare, they are very numerous indeed. Be careful of these feminists, they stand as a threat to free speech.
The last case I want to consider is prostitution. Thus far everything that I was speaking of applies to free speech. Prostitution is not a free speech issue, but it is a freedom issue. The idea is very simple. Two people, a male and female, make an agreement. The male says that he wants some pussy, the female says she is willing to give him pussy, but the female demands a price for her pussy, so the male negotiates with the price and they come to an agreement. They have entered into a contract by voluntary mutual consent. They are not bothering anyone, they do it only among themselves. Freedom does imply that one has the choice to set up a contract with another person with the terms that both agree.
Anyone who is against prostitution, for whatever reasons, is violating the concept of freedom. The concept of freedom was explained in the previous paragraph. But more than just violating freedom such a person makes no sense whatsoever when he says "prostitution should be illegal". George Carlin, summarized this as, "having sex is legal, selling is legal, so why is selling sex illegal?". Basically, his point was that, why is it illegal to sell something which is perfectly fine to give away for free? It makes no sense. Anyone who is against prostitution runs into this contradiction, it would make sense with anyone who is opposed to prostitution to hold the view that casual sex should be illegal too.
But along come the feminists who are unhappy about freedom and common sense. They want to get rid of it. And again, repeating myself for like the fifth time, they never openly say "we are against freedom", they always hide behind a different argument. Their arguments include that the female prostitutes are taken advantage of, they argue that prostitution is a violent business, and that prostitution denigrates the perception of women.
So let us examine their silly arguments. We already got the freedom issue out of the way so let us look into what the feminists claim. First, that women are being taken advantage of. I want to ask how? How are prostitutes being taken advantage of? They are not forced into being prostitutes. They choose to become prostitutes. They get good pay for their service. They help themselves financially. Second, that prostitution is a violent business against women. If feminists actually understood a bit about economics they would not make such a ridiculously stupid argument. Why is it violent? That is the question that is not asked. Prostitution is connected to crime precisely because it is illegal! There is a demand for prostitution but because it is illegal a supply meets the demand in the black market. Thus, there are no laws to protect women, and so this is precisely why prostitution can be linked with violence and crime. If prostitution was no longer illegal this problem of crime would go away because enterpreneurs would set up businesses for prostitutes where they would be protected and taken care of. Third, that is denigrades the perception of women. This is another dumb point from the feminists. Perception is a subjective view. Some of us might look at prostitutes in a negative way and some of us might look at prostitutes in a positive way. I, for instance, do not look at prostitution as a negative job at all. Prostitution is an important service to have in society, women who perform this service should be praised for the job that they do, I have respect for prostitutes. My perception of women is not any lower by knowing that some of them are prostitutes, my perception of women gets lower when I see feminist professors of sociology, angry ugly women who are opposed to freedom and common sense. So perception all depends on the person who does the percieving, it is not an objective refutation at all in regard to prostitution.
What confuses me about feminists is that they claim they want to make as many choices open to women as they can. But in actuality they limit their choices, either when it comes to making porn movies or selling themselves for sex. Feminism is clearly not for pro opportunity of women, something I been saying in my early posts. Thus, what we have from these feminists regarding prostitution: an assault on freedom, no reasonable objections, and taking away opportunity choices from women to make money. What more needs to be said?
What is interesting is that the early feminist movements have often favored prostitution. But there is a difference between modern feminism and what feminism used to be. To be fair again there still remain feminists today who are in favor of prostitution. However, the number who are against prostitution is high within the feminist movement. Thus, my criticism of feminism here does not concern the pro-prostitution feminists, only the anti-prostitution ones.
I realize that I been all over the place with this post. But I made the point that I wanted to make. That feminists, at least a big percentage of them, are against freedom. They oppose freedom of speech with various speech codes. They oppose freedom of speech by trying to get rid of porn. And they oppose freedom and opportunity for women, paradoxically, by trying to ban prostitution. Thus, as much as feminists like to preach that they are the champions of women, in all actuality they harm them. Even I, who is not affiliated with feminism whatsoever, am a bigger champion for women than feminists are.
I want to post two videos from a TV show called Penn and Teller's "Bullshit". Both of these videos have sexual content in them. But it is a good watch with good points:
War on Porn
Prostitution
Fascists never call themselves fascists. George Carlin said, "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack boots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts." I love this quotation, it very nicely summarizes everything I said above. The last thing fascists want you to think is that they are fascists. They always claim that they are doing it "for your safety" and "for the children" and "for social progress" and if we do not do it "it will be chaos in the streets". I would be happy to finally see one fascist to openly deny freedom and free speech rather than being an apologist for more and more control.
When an individual says "I believe in freedom and free speech" we need to be extremely skeptical to that claim. We hear people say this all the time. In fact, we just heard conservatives come out in support of the Arizona immigration laws, which is a violation of liberty, pure and simple. The very same conservatives who complain about what Barack is doing because he is destroying freedom, come out and support an immigration law which is a pure contradiction to freedom. Even conservatives that I like, for example Michael Savage, who has good points with regard to economics, has supported this vicious law. We need to remember that what a person says does not really represent his true views. Rather we need to look at what he supports at what he really does if we want to understand his honest positions. And with conservatives we see this problem, when it comes to opposing government intervention in the economical realm because they say that intervention violates freedom (and it does) but when it comes to civil matters, such as the way we treat homosexuals, immigrants, capital punishment and so forth, they got no problem with government intervention. Thus, conservatives can preach as much as they want about freedom, that is irrelevant, what we need to do is judge them by their policies, their policies clearly contradict the positions they proudly spout.
Now we can return back to the subject of feminism. Feminists, in general, not even the radical ones, contradict freedom, and I shall demonstrate this case below. However, feminists will never admit that they are against freedom or free speech as explained above. We can ignore all what feminism supposedly say with regard to free speech and freedom; we must concentrate on the policies that they really support.
The first one that we will look into is sexual harassment. There is no need for me to go on one of my long off topic journeys (as I did above) to explain what sexual harassment is, we all know what it is. Important for us, is that certain speech can be considered sexual harassment. I am not really sure what kinds of words are sexual harassment or not but let us assume, for sake of illustration, that saying "wow you are really sexy" qualifies as sexual harassment. An employer (presumably male) who says this can get in trouble or fired from his job for this kind of speech.
One can ask me a question, "why is so bad that this male employee got fired from his job, he deserved it?". Well, maybe he deserved it, maybe he was insulting, however, he should have free speech. In the future I will make a post explaining what free speech is and is not because there is much confusion among people but for now I will say only this regarding free speech. Free speech means one cannot get in trouble for what he says by the government, that is to say, "speech is free from government control". Let us return back to our example regarding the male employer who told the female worker "wow you are really sexy". Do I think what he said was inappropriate? Of course I do, it is not an appropriate thing to say because many women would be uncomfortable to such a statement. Do I think the female worker can get him fired or in trouble for what he said? No, because free speech means that speech cannot be controlled by the government. Free speech certainly does include insulting speech, in fact, that is the entire point of having free speech support because no one ever objects to happy nice speech, it is the insulting and hurtful speech that people want to censor. Feminists are no exception, they want to censor certain kind of speech which is insulting. They may have good motivations when they want to impose sexual harassment laws but what they actually do is violate free speech. Consider the following example. Co-workers sometimes get into disputes with one another, they may end up insulting someone by calling the other person "stupid". Can the insultee take legal action against the insulter in that particular case? No, sorry, we do not legislate our feelings. I understand that it may be insulting, but nothing can be done, he has the right to free speech and so what he says cannot be controlled by the government. There is something so much more important at stake than our feelings, and that is free speech, it is a concept some are ready to die for, some have died for, and we want to get ignore it because we are concerned about our feelings getting hurt?! Also sexual harassment laws do not make much sense. Suppose a male worker gets insulted at a female worker and calls her "dumb". This is not sexual harassment and nothing would be done to him. However, if he says "dumb blonde" then all of the sudden she can take legal action against him. (My examples might be legally wrong, I am not familiar with which words are fine and which words are not fine, but that is irrelevant, the point that I am trying to make is all that is relevant). Why does inserting the words "blonde" suddenly turn the insult into something that would violate law? It makes no sense.
I think that I should explain what should be done with sexual harassment instead even though it is not really related to my post because some people would have questions for me about what a woman should do if someone harasses her. Also, if I do not explain my positions regarding harassment then people would think of me as I think that it is okay for men to harass women, so I will best explain what should be done in the case of harassment. First of all let us make something clear. Saying, "sexy hot thing" is not harassment, it is certainly impolite, I would never say it to a woman who is not my girlfriend, but it is not harassment. Harassment is when a your neighbor yells, insults you, and bothers you repeatedly because he despises you. Harassment does not need to be physical, but it still is a violation of another person's rights, the one who is harassed feels threatened and under stress. I certainly think that harassment in the way I described should be illegal, in fact, there is something known as a restraining law that reflects just that. However, "sexual harassment" is a dishonest name, because sexual harassment can refer to a single word or comment, that is not harassment, that is simply being impolite. Many laws in the US have dishonest names, like the "Patriot Act", "sexual harassment" is another example of one of those dishonest name for laws, but that would take me way off topic, and I do not want to go there, I am already off topic as it is. Now to return to my approach to what needs to be done about sexual "harassment". Well, as explained, if it is just a comment then nothing can be done, sorry, but people cannot make other people act unrudely to them by law. Just like one cannot use legal action for being called "dumb" one cannot use legal action for being called "dumb blonde". However, if a male co-worker is actually obstructive in a certain way, refer to above to what "harassment" means, then she can definitely take action against him. If it is only an impolite comment then she can take that case to her boss. Her boss has the power to fire the male co-worker, the government cannot here. It is true that some bosses might be impolite themselves, in that case she is working among rude immoral people, her best option is to simply leave as sad as that sounds. But this is not something that would be common in the workplace. Most bosses would want to ensure a work conduct. The reason is very simply, from an economic point-of-view. A boss, like most capitalists, wants to maximize his profits. To maximize his profits he would want to make sure that his workplace is nicely run, otherwise there be hostility among the co-workers, that would run him a loss. Thus, a boss, even if not for concern of his fellow workers, would want to make sure that his workplace is peaceful. Mean nasty bosses who hire impolite rude workers would run at a loss if they do not do anything about work conduct, he would punish himself economically, as he deserves.
Sexual "harassment" laws are not really laws for harassment but rather for laws against hurt feelings, thus, these laws are a violation of free speech. A feminist would of course, never ever say that "I do not support free speech", as explained in my opening paragraphs, but this is all irrelevant if we simply consider their position regarding sexual "harassment". In general, what people say, "I support free speech but not hate speech". How many times you heard people say that? I cannot count how many. Saying hateful thing most certainly is part of free speech. Watch this awesome video that shows the ridiculous position of people who say "I am for free speech but not hate speech": here. So please do not fall into the censorship trap of people who want to impose hate speech laws. Despite my long ramblings on this topic of sexual "harassment" I do not put much blame on feminists for sexual "harassment" cases, they are not the only ones who give major support for this issue, most people on the left-wing support such policies. Thus, feminists are excused from this criticism. But nonetheless my main objection that feminists are anti-free speech still is intact.
Now let us have more fun and talk about porn. Porn is a particular kind of free speech. The first amendment really applies to religious and political opposition, but it does not have to, that was the intention of the amendment but it can always just as well apply to porn. Porn is not thrown in your face. Porn is available online, on TV, on magazines, and so forth, so if you want to, you can watch it, if you do not want to, you do not have to watch it. Simple as that. One group, the porn watchers, which we would call the "males", are minding their own business, another group, the non-porn watchers, which we would call the "females", are minding their own business. The males do not make the females watch porn nor do the females stop the males from watching porn. There is a peaceful harmony between the males and females, how can anyone be against this?
It turns out there is one more group of people besides the males and females, and that group ironically consists of females that want to become males, we will call that group the "feminists". The feminists are against porn. They either want to ban it or limit porn. As a result, the feminists are against freedom of speech, it does not matter that they say "I believe in free speech but not ___ ", they may say that all they want, the situation is that they oppose the freedom of speech because certain kind of speech bothers them. But they will never admit their opposition to free speech for same reason the US will never admit that it is not "the land of the free", because fascists do not call themselves fascists.
Feminists oppose porn because they say that it depicts women as sex objects and it dehumanizes women. Okay, but here is the nice thing about free speech, if you do not like it, do not watch it. If you see porn as dehumanizing to women then do not watch it. I do not think of women any less when I watch porn. Actually, I watch all kinds of porn, straight, gay, bisexual, because I happen to be a bisexual guy after all. And not once have I thought of girls or guys as sex objects. I look at porn because it is sexually pleasing to masturbate to, not because I want to dehumanize women after that. I never treated women in an inferior manner because of porn. The feminist objection to porn is something they pulled out of their own anus. The feminists fail to realize that people have different ways of interpreting art, beauty, pictures, and so forth. The way the feminists interpret porn, is their own way, the way other people interpret porn is their own way. So it is unfair for a feminist to interpret porn in the way she see it and think that the same interpretation goes through the mind of a guy who watches porn.
There is a certain kind of porn which has "rape fantasies" or whatever it is called. Basically, it is porn in which rape is acted out. It is not real rape! It is just an act that looks like rape. Some guys like that kind of stuff. I have no idea why they like that kind of stuff, I never seen it and never plan to see it but there are guys who are turned on by that kind of stuff. And again we hear from the feminists that this kind of porn needs to be banned. They try to frighten us into thinking that it will influence men to be rapists. Their argument is ridiculous, consider the following example. We have murder movies and books, we have movies that depict theft and books that tell stories about kidnapping. Are we influenced to steal, kidnap, or kill by watching these movies or books? No. The same with rape fantasy porn. The guys who watch this only are interested to watch it, in their minds they know it is wrong, the fact that they watch it does not turn them suddenly into rapists.
I want to make this very clear. Even if it can be empirical shown that crime goes up because of porn, which is not true at all, I will still not support banning porn. For two reasons. First of all prohibition does not work and it will lead to more crime as we have seen in history. Second, and more importantly, is that the situation is still a matter of free speech, the fact that someone has a chance to become a criminal after watching porn does not give us a permission to ban porn. There is a chance that people after drinking alcohol can do dangerous things, but we do not ban alcohol. We cannot be afraid of what indirectly can happen as a result of something and ban it. If we want to live in a society that is free and has free speech we must be willing to put up with inconveniences for the sake of protecting freedom.
To be fair, not all feminists want to ban porn. The feminists are split on this issue. Some feminists are for either banning porn or limiting it, while others will not do anything about porn. But it still is a pretty big number of feminists who want to get rid of porn and they are not even radical. There is an even bigger number of feminists who want to use the state to control the content of porn. This is almost as much of an assault on free speech as the ones who want to get rid of it entirely. Because those who want to control the content of porn will now have control over what is shown in porn, thus, they would be able to over time impose more and more restrictions on porn so that porn will be much less in number. Therefore, my complaint about feminist assault on free speech is addressed only to the feminists who want to ban or control porn. If a feminist is willing to leave porn alone despite that she does not like it, then good for her, I have no complaint to give to her. However, plenty of feminists today are part of the anti-porn movement, my professor in college was an anti-porn feminists herself. There are not rare, they are very numerous indeed. Be careful of these feminists, they stand as a threat to free speech.
The last case I want to consider is prostitution. Thus far everything that I was speaking of applies to free speech. Prostitution is not a free speech issue, but it is a freedom issue. The idea is very simple. Two people, a male and female, make an agreement. The male says that he wants some pussy, the female says she is willing to give him pussy, but the female demands a price for her pussy, so the male negotiates with the price and they come to an agreement. They have entered into a contract by voluntary mutual consent. They are not bothering anyone, they do it only among themselves. Freedom does imply that one has the choice to set up a contract with another person with the terms that both agree.
Anyone who is against prostitution, for whatever reasons, is violating the concept of freedom. The concept of freedom was explained in the previous paragraph. But more than just violating freedom such a person makes no sense whatsoever when he says "prostitution should be illegal". George Carlin, summarized this as, "having sex is legal, selling is legal, so why is selling sex illegal?". Basically, his point was that, why is it illegal to sell something which is perfectly fine to give away for free? It makes no sense. Anyone who is against prostitution runs into this contradiction, it would make sense with anyone who is opposed to prostitution to hold the view that casual sex should be illegal too.
But along come the feminists who are unhappy about freedom and common sense. They want to get rid of it. And again, repeating myself for like the fifth time, they never openly say "we are against freedom", they always hide behind a different argument. Their arguments include that the female prostitutes are taken advantage of, they argue that prostitution is a violent business, and that prostitution denigrates the perception of women.
So let us examine their silly arguments. We already got the freedom issue out of the way so let us look into what the feminists claim. First, that women are being taken advantage of. I want to ask how? How are prostitutes being taken advantage of? They are not forced into being prostitutes. They choose to become prostitutes. They get good pay for their service. They help themselves financially. Second, that prostitution is a violent business against women. If feminists actually understood a bit about economics they would not make such a ridiculously stupid argument. Why is it violent? That is the question that is not asked. Prostitution is connected to crime precisely because it is illegal! There is a demand for prostitution but because it is illegal a supply meets the demand in the black market. Thus, there are no laws to protect women, and so this is precisely why prostitution can be linked with violence and crime. If prostitution was no longer illegal this problem of crime would go away because enterpreneurs would set up businesses for prostitutes where they would be protected and taken care of. Third, that is denigrades the perception of women. This is another dumb point from the feminists. Perception is a subjective view. Some of us might look at prostitutes in a negative way and some of us might look at prostitutes in a positive way. I, for instance, do not look at prostitution as a negative job at all. Prostitution is an important service to have in society, women who perform this service should be praised for the job that they do, I have respect for prostitutes. My perception of women is not any lower by knowing that some of them are prostitutes, my perception of women gets lower when I see feminist professors of sociology, angry ugly women who are opposed to freedom and common sense. So perception all depends on the person who does the percieving, it is not an objective refutation at all in regard to prostitution.
What confuses me about feminists is that they claim they want to make as many choices open to women as they can. But in actuality they limit their choices, either when it comes to making porn movies or selling themselves for sex. Feminism is clearly not for pro opportunity of women, something I been saying in my early posts. Thus, what we have from these feminists regarding prostitution: an assault on freedom, no reasonable objections, and taking away opportunity choices from women to make money. What more needs to be said?
What is interesting is that the early feminist movements have often favored prostitution. But there is a difference between modern feminism and what feminism used to be. To be fair again there still remain feminists today who are in favor of prostitution. However, the number who are against prostitution is high within the feminist movement. Thus, my criticism of feminism here does not concern the pro-prostitution feminists, only the anti-prostitution ones.
I realize that I been all over the place with this post. But I made the point that I wanted to make. That feminists, at least a big percentage of them, are against freedom. They oppose freedom of speech with various speech codes. They oppose freedom of speech by trying to get rid of porn. And they oppose freedom and opportunity for women, paradoxically, by trying to ban prostitution. Thus, as much as feminists like to preach that they are the champions of women, in all actuality they harm them. Even I, who is not affiliated with feminism whatsoever, am a bigger champion for women than feminists are.
I want to post two videos from a TV show called Penn and Teller's "Bullshit". Both of these videos have sexual content in them. But it is a good watch with good points:
War on Porn
Prostitution
Monday, April 26, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 6: Anti-Male
All my posts up to now have been addressed to general feminism as it exists today. I presented a case against feminists in those posts, with exception of my fifth one, the one on the psychology of a feminist. That post was based on my own observations on feminists, it does not really have so much of a rational defense as did my others. During that post I was more playing a role of a psychologist than a philosopher. Nonetheless, I think my psychological evaluation of feminists has truth in it and that is why I decided to put it into my series on feminism. This post will also be devoted to feminist psychology. But this post shall be different from my last one. My last one was to feminists in general, this one will only be applicable to more radical feminists. My claim is that the more radical feminists have a deep hatred towards men.
These feminists that I am referring to wish to dissolve the family structure as it currently is. This immediately raises a question to any thinking person. Why would feminists want to dissolve family structure? What does this have anything to do with feminism? They would claim that the family structure is sexist, the main house figure is the husband, not the mother, it is clearly opposed to women and so the feminists oppose normal family structures. But we should ask another question. If what these feminists are angry about is that the father is the dominant figure then they should speak out against the practice of family not the establishment of family itself, why do they not do that? It would make a lot more sense to say that neither men nor women should be the dominant figures in a family, rather family should be structured in a different way. Indeed, in our times, it can be different. In some families the mother can be the dominant figure in the house and the husband the secondary figure. My mother, for example, is the dominant one in my family, she has always done more of the work. I have no problem with my mother being in charge. Nor do I have a problem with a woman being the dominant figure with her family. I am fine with both situations that exist. What I would encourage is for people to be open-minded and consider different family structures from as they existed in the past, rather than trying to abolish the entire structure. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Consider voting. Voting at one point was against women. Women did not say to abolish voting. They said to change its structure and allow women to vote. This is my question. Why would these feminists rather prefer to abolish family structure than to change our perspective to family into a new modern and equal way to looking? The answer, which seems apparent to me, is that these radical feminists hate men. They do not like men. They despise them. They do not want women to live together with men. So they wish to abolish family, for if there is no traditional family anymore then it would mean that men have no married relationship with women. This is what these radical feminists want.
I realize that what I said about feminist men-hating was a heavy claim. One can ask me how do I know this? Every aspect of my reason points me to this inevitable conclusion that even surprises myself. But I have my reasons and I will show them to you. I never heard a feminist agree to my claim, but that is irrelevant, they can say one thing and believe another, what is relevant is what they believe. I gave you my first reason above, now I will give another. Much of radical feminism also focuses on what is known as lesbian feminism. That is, as the name suggests, feminism that encourages women to give up straight lives in place of lesbian lifestyles. The question I must ask, of course, is, what does this have anything to do with feminism?! What does scissoring with another women have anything to do with equality? I do not understand. Do not misunderstand me, I have no problem with gay or lesbian people, let them have fun, I am a bisexual myself, it would seem really strange and hypocritical if I opposed gay people if I am one-half gay myself. But what I have a problem with is that advocacy of lesbians is connected to feminism. It is like as if I was a mathematics teacher and I instructed my class to become gay, it would make no sense to the subject. Indeed, it does not make sense if we think of feminism as a movement that is for equality of women (I have busted this myth already in my other posts). It only begins to make more sense once you understand the purpose of radical feminism, and that is an excuse to hate men. Then it is clear why lesbian lifestyles are promoted within this feminism, because they hate men. Even straight girls are encouraged to be lesbians, why? Because they despise men, they want to stay away from them as much as they can. They do not want to depend on men for sexual satisfication but rather on themselves.
The question should be asked is why do these feminists hate men? What is the motive? If I had to guess into their psychology I would guess that they have a victim mentality. In my previous post I have explained that feminists see the world as a chess game, and when there is unfairness or inequality it must be that it was socially constructed. The radical feminists see the men as the source of inequality and unjustice. Thus, they see themselves as victims of the evils that the men do. In some cases, I would guess, these feminists become jealous towards men, they see that there are more men in one area of the economy than women and hence they develop jealously. But they cannot simply say they are jealous, they need to find an excuse to the inequality that exists in the world. Their excuse, like always, is that it must be the result of discrimination. Once they start to believe that men discriminate against women then they see themselves as victims, therefore it is clear why they hate men. They see men as their oppresors and develop resentment towards them. Thus, it should become clear at this point why these feminists encourage the break up of traditional families and how they can even encourage other women to become lesbians.
I will post some quotations that come from well known feminists today as futher justification for my claim that radical feminism is concentrated around man-hating.
1)Elizabeth Stanton, "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men".
2)Marilyn French, "All men are rapists, and that is all they are".
3)Judith Levine, "A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, even if she does not feel forced."
4)Catharine MacKinnon, "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
5)Catharine MacKinnon, "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
6)Catherine Comins, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
7)Linda Gordon, "The nuclear family must be destroyed. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process."
8)Robin Morgan, "We cannot destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
9)Robin Morgan, "I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
10)Valerie Solanas, "To call a man an animal is to flatter him, he is a machine, a walking dildo."
11)Sheila Cronin, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
12)Ti Grace Atkinson, "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."
13)Andrea Dworkin, "In my own life, I don not have intercourse. That is my choice."
14)Andrea Dworkin, "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."
15)Ti Grace Atkinson, "If feminism has any logic at all, it must be working for a sexless society."
16)Andrea Dworkin, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
17)Sheila Jeffreys, "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."
18)Sally Gearhart, "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race."
19)Marilyn French, "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women, he can sexually molest his daughters. The vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above."
20)Simone de Beauvoir, "No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women would make it."
That is twenty quotations I picked up from the internet. I found them on Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, and other various places. If I tried some more I could have collected a hundred of these if I really wanted to but I have other things to do with my time. I want you to look at these quotations and realize what radical feminism is about. My claim that feminism is based on the hatred of men is apparent in these quoations, some actually openly admit to man hating.
I want to make it very clear again, I do not have a problem with all of these quotations. For example, take Andrea Dworkin admitting that she does not have sex in quotation thirteen (I think the real reason is not that it is her choice, but rather that feminists are way too ugly for any man to give up their penis for them). I have no problem if a woman is to say that. What I have a problem with is a woman saying that she is for "equality" and then to come along and start to say these things, that is just hypocritical, the man hatred is apparently.
I am also curios to found out, if it is possible, how many of these feminist movements are funded by tax money. Maybe I am wrong and they are all private, but I seriously doubt that. I doubt it because feminists have a love affair with the government, so it seems quite reasonable that they get government money for what they do. The thought is so terrible to imagine feminists stealing money from normal citizens so they can sponsor their male hating campaigns!
Notice the huge double standard that exists between what men say and what women say. In my fifth post on feminist psychology I said that "sexist" is use as a word today to silence opposition, it is the modern day equivalent of "heretic". The double standard is that you never see women being accused of "sexism". If a man is to get on TV, mention that men earn more money in construction than women because men have stronger body strength, he would be called a "sexist" on the news channels. He would be called a sexist for making a truthful statement. But these feminists, they can make up lies, they can openly admit their hatred of men, yet they never get called "sexist". Why not? That is what I want to know. I want an answer to why this double standard exists.
Perhaps the reader can now understand better why I do not like to refer to feminism as a 'philosophy'. A philosophy should be based on human intelligence, not human emotions. Radical feminism is clearly based on passions. Evil passions. It is not a surprise then why so many things that the radical feminists preach is completely non-sense as I have explained in my previous posts.
If one is not a radical feminist as the feminists mentioned above then she should ask herself the following question. Consider a radical form of religion, say Orthodox Judaism. One can still be a Jewish believer without being part of Orthodox Judaism. However, the ideas that are derived in the watered down Jewish religion come from Orthodox Judaism itself. Thus, the ideas are derived from radical ones, it may be the case that the non-radical ideas are taken out of Orthodox Judaism and the radical ones are ignored, however, the fact still remains that ideas were taken out of a radical religion. One should therefore be skeptical. Ask herself why that if she does not accept radical concepts of feminism but only the moderates ones then why should they be correct? If radical feminism is based on dark passions then it would not be a surprise why the movement is stupid, for it is not based on intelligence but on passion. Therefore, if from radical feminism more moderate ideas are extracted one should ask herself why these ideas are correct. Radical feminism reminds me of a fundamentalist religion, and feminism reminds me of a moderate religion. Take something like the Bible and Christianity (or Judaism). You might not believe in the Bible completely if you happen to be a more moderate religious person, but you need to remember that your religion is derived from a radical extreme text. As a moderate religious believer in Christinaity or Judaism you need to justify the terrible verses that the Bible or Torah speak about. Likewise, with radical feminism. You need to justify how these feminists that I mentioned above can say what they say. If you do not agree with them then it is your responsibility to condemn them for what they say and completely disassociate yourself from them.
Finally, look at quotation number twenty. Feminism, as I will show in my next post, is anti-freedom. Here you have a feminist who openly wishes to deny the women a choice in being a housewive. If feminism, as it claims, is to be for the equality of women, then it should follow that feminists support as many options open to women as possible. However, this is just not the case, someone like the feminist Beauvoir is willing to take away choices from women because she does not agree with them. This is contrary to freedom. This is a prelude to my next post which will be based on demonstrating that feminism is contrary to freedom.
I just want to end with an ending quotation from Robin Morgan, that has nothing to do with this post but it is a stupid quotation, that nicely illustrates the stupidity of this woman.
"My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free." - Robin Morgan
These feminists that I am referring to wish to dissolve the family structure as it currently is. This immediately raises a question to any thinking person. Why would feminists want to dissolve family structure? What does this have anything to do with feminism? They would claim that the family structure is sexist, the main house figure is the husband, not the mother, it is clearly opposed to women and so the feminists oppose normal family structures. But we should ask another question. If what these feminists are angry about is that the father is the dominant figure then they should speak out against the practice of family not the establishment of family itself, why do they not do that? It would make a lot more sense to say that neither men nor women should be the dominant figures in a family, rather family should be structured in a different way. Indeed, in our times, it can be different. In some families the mother can be the dominant figure in the house and the husband the secondary figure. My mother, for example, is the dominant one in my family, she has always done more of the work. I have no problem with my mother being in charge. Nor do I have a problem with a woman being the dominant figure with her family. I am fine with both situations that exist. What I would encourage is for people to be open-minded and consider different family structures from as they existed in the past, rather than trying to abolish the entire structure. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Consider voting. Voting at one point was against women. Women did not say to abolish voting. They said to change its structure and allow women to vote. This is my question. Why would these feminists rather prefer to abolish family structure than to change our perspective to family into a new modern and equal way to looking? The answer, which seems apparent to me, is that these radical feminists hate men. They do not like men. They despise them. They do not want women to live together with men. So they wish to abolish family, for if there is no traditional family anymore then it would mean that men have no married relationship with women. This is what these radical feminists want.
I realize that what I said about feminist men-hating was a heavy claim. One can ask me how do I know this? Every aspect of my reason points me to this inevitable conclusion that even surprises myself. But I have my reasons and I will show them to you. I never heard a feminist agree to my claim, but that is irrelevant, they can say one thing and believe another, what is relevant is what they believe. I gave you my first reason above, now I will give another. Much of radical feminism also focuses on what is known as lesbian feminism. That is, as the name suggests, feminism that encourages women to give up straight lives in place of lesbian lifestyles. The question I must ask, of course, is, what does this have anything to do with feminism?! What does scissoring with another women have anything to do with equality? I do not understand. Do not misunderstand me, I have no problem with gay or lesbian people, let them have fun, I am a bisexual myself, it would seem really strange and hypocritical if I opposed gay people if I am one-half gay myself. But what I have a problem with is that advocacy of lesbians is connected to feminism. It is like as if I was a mathematics teacher and I instructed my class to become gay, it would make no sense to the subject. Indeed, it does not make sense if we think of feminism as a movement that is for equality of women (I have busted this myth already in my other posts). It only begins to make more sense once you understand the purpose of radical feminism, and that is an excuse to hate men. Then it is clear why lesbian lifestyles are promoted within this feminism, because they hate men. Even straight girls are encouraged to be lesbians, why? Because they despise men, they want to stay away from them as much as they can. They do not want to depend on men for sexual satisfication but rather on themselves.
The question should be asked is why do these feminists hate men? What is the motive? If I had to guess into their psychology I would guess that they have a victim mentality. In my previous post I have explained that feminists see the world as a chess game, and when there is unfairness or inequality it must be that it was socially constructed. The radical feminists see the men as the source of inequality and unjustice. Thus, they see themselves as victims of the evils that the men do. In some cases, I would guess, these feminists become jealous towards men, they see that there are more men in one area of the economy than women and hence they develop jealously. But they cannot simply say they are jealous, they need to find an excuse to the inequality that exists in the world. Their excuse, like always, is that it must be the result of discrimination. Once they start to believe that men discriminate against women then they see themselves as victims, therefore it is clear why they hate men. They see men as their oppresors and develop resentment towards them. Thus, it should become clear at this point why these feminists encourage the break up of traditional families and how they can even encourage other women to become lesbians.
I will post some quotations that come from well known feminists today as futher justification for my claim that radical feminism is concentrated around man-hating.
1)Elizabeth Stanton, "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men".
2)Marilyn French, "All men are rapists, and that is all they are".
3)Judith Levine, "A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, even if she does not feel forced."
4)Catharine MacKinnon, "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
5)Catharine MacKinnon, "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
6)Catherine Comins, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
7)Linda Gordon, "The nuclear family must be destroyed. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process."
8)Robin Morgan, "We cannot destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
9)Robin Morgan, "I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
10)Valerie Solanas, "To call a man an animal is to flatter him, he is a machine, a walking dildo."
11)Sheila Cronin, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
12)Ti Grace Atkinson, "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."
13)Andrea Dworkin, "In my own life, I don not have intercourse. That is my choice."
14)Andrea Dworkin, "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."
15)Ti Grace Atkinson, "If feminism has any logic at all, it must be working for a sexless society."
16)Andrea Dworkin, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
17)Sheila Jeffreys, "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."
18)Sally Gearhart, "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race."
19)Marilyn French, "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women, he can sexually molest his daughters. The vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above."
20)Simone de Beauvoir, "No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women would make it."
That is twenty quotations I picked up from the internet. I found them on Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, and other various places. If I tried some more I could have collected a hundred of these if I really wanted to but I have other things to do with my time. I want you to look at these quotations and realize what radical feminism is about. My claim that feminism is based on the hatred of men is apparent in these quoations, some actually openly admit to man hating.
I want to make it very clear again, I do not have a problem with all of these quotations. For example, take Andrea Dworkin admitting that she does not have sex in quotation thirteen (I think the real reason is not that it is her choice, but rather that feminists are way too ugly for any man to give up their penis for them). I have no problem if a woman is to say that. What I have a problem with is a woman saying that she is for "equality" and then to come along and start to say these things, that is just hypocritical, the man hatred is apparently.
I am also curios to found out, if it is possible, how many of these feminist movements are funded by tax money. Maybe I am wrong and they are all private, but I seriously doubt that. I doubt it because feminists have a love affair with the government, so it seems quite reasonable that they get government money for what they do. The thought is so terrible to imagine feminists stealing money from normal citizens so they can sponsor their male hating campaigns!
Notice the huge double standard that exists between what men say and what women say. In my fifth post on feminist psychology I said that "sexist" is use as a word today to silence opposition, it is the modern day equivalent of "heretic". The double standard is that you never see women being accused of "sexism". If a man is to get on TV, mention that men earn more money in construction than women because men have stronger body strength, he would be called a "sexist" on the news channels. He would be called a sexist for making a truthful statement. But these feminists, they can make up lies, they can openly admit their hatred of men, yet they never get called "sexist". Why not? That is what I want to know. I want an answer to why this double standard exists.
Perhaps the reader can now understand better why I do not like to refer to feminism as a 'philosophy'. A philosophy should be based on human intelligence, not human emotions. Radical feminism is clearly based on passions. Evil passions. It is not a surprise then why so many things that the radical feminists preach is completely non-sense as I have explained in my previous posts.
If one is not a radical feminist as the feminists mentioned above then she should ask herself the following question. Consider a radical form of religion, say Orthodox Judaism. One can still be a Jewish believer without being part of Orthodox Judaism. However, the ideas that are derived in the watered down Jewish religion come from Orthodox Judaism itself. Thus, the ideas are derived from radical ones, it may be the case that the non-radical ideas are taken out of Orthodox Judaism and the radical ones are ignored, however, the fact still remains that ideas were taken out of a radical religion. One should therefore be skeptical. Ask herself why that if she does not accept radical concepts of feminism but only the moderates ones then why should they be correct? If radical feminism is based on dark passions then it would not be a surprise why the movement is stupid, for it is not based on intelligence but on passion. Therefore, if from radical feminism more moderate ideas are extracted one should ask herself why these ideas are correct. Radical feminism reminds me of a fundamentalist religion, and feminism reminds me of a moderate religion. Take something like the Bible and Christianity (or Judaism). You might not believe in the Bible completely if you happen to be a more moderate religious person, but you need to remember that your religion is derived from a radical extreme text. As a moderate religious believer in Christinaity or Judaism you need to justify the terrible verses that the Bible or Torah speak about. Likewise, with radical feminism. You need to justify how these feminists that I mentioned above can say what they say. If you do not agree with them then it is your responsibility to condemn them for what they say and completely disassociate yourself from them.
Finally, look at quotation number twenty. Feminism, as I will show in my next post, is anti-freedom. Here you have a feminist who openly wishes to deny the women a choice in being a housewive. If feminism, as it claims, is to be for the equality of women, then it should follow that feminists support as many options open to women as possible. However, this is just not the case, someone like the feminist Beauvoir is willing to take away choices from women because she does not agree with them. This is contrary to freedom. This is a prelude to my next post which will be based on demonstrating that feminism is contrary to freedom.
I just want to end with an ending quotation from Robin Morgan, that has nothing to do with this post but it is a stupid quotation, that nicely illustrates the stupidity of this woman.
"My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free." - Robin Morgan
Friday, April 23, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 5: Psychology
Life is not a game of chess. Players do not start out with the same equal conditions and have to attain victory by playing correctly. Life is a game of poker where everyone is dealt cars which are different from everyone else. Some players have terrible cards, some have average hands, a few of them have even strong cards. To be a good poker player one must learn to play with the cards that he is dealt. There are players that play foolishly with a strong hand and lose with a weak hand. Great poker players can win with many different set of hands, both good and bad. Life is similar to this game of poker. We are all different. To become succesful in life we need to know how to play with what we have been dealt with. But what one cannot do in poker, if we wishes to be succesful at the game, is assume that all other players have the same cards that he has, that kind of mentality leads to failure in poker. The same with life. If we want to become succesful in life one important realization that we must have is that we have limitations. We are different from everyone else. We cannot do whatever we wish to achieve and we are distinct from everyone around us. People are not equal. Some are born very smart, some are born very dumb. Some are born beautiful, some are physically repulsive. Some are strong, some are disabled. And some are smart, handsome, and strong, like myself, but are not very humble about it. There are so many different combinations that exist from person to person.
For many people thinking of life as a poker game is a depressing way to look at the world. It is unfair why some people are born with talents above other people. What did these people do to deserve these talents? It is unfair. And so for many people it is depressing to compare life to poker, they would rather want to compare it to chess. In chess where everyone is equal to start out with, the chess version of life is fair. Thus, as a result, many ideologies came to pass, that reflect this chess version of life in which there can be equality and fairness. In particular, what is important for our discussion, the ideology of feminism.
I am of course talking about modern feminism. Feminism, how it was in the past, emerged not because it tried to make life a chess game, but because women simply wanted to have the same equal opportunity as everyone else. With this original feminist goal achieved feminism can now die a peaceful death. But this was not the case. Feminism needed a new reason to stay alive, to resurrect itself from beyond the grave. And thus was the birth of modern feminism, as it is present today. It has completely different goals than seeking opportunity for women. It now represents the chess version of life.
I wrote back here about what is the psychology of religious Jews. I explained that truth is not the motive for religious Jews to stay or become religious Jews, they have a completely different psychological reason. The same is the case with feminism. Women of today do not become feminists because they are concerned about the truth nor are they concerned about justice (if you read my previous posts that should be clear at this point). They become feminists because feminism offers them a comfortable 'philosophy'. A 'philosophy' that preaches equality and fairness. A 'philosophy' that says that whatever inequalities or unfairness that exists in the world is not the results of what the world is but rather what we made the world to be. We have made the world unequal and unfair. Feminism is a way to bring back equality and fairness. Feminism attracts women because it tells women that everyone is the same to one another, it is all equal. This is why feminists are attracted towards feminism; like a religion which promises afterlife, feminism is attractive to many of its followers by preaching equality and fairness. This is also why feminists are often supported by people on the left-wing, the left-wing is usually attracted to the chess version of life as well, and so it is natural for them to support feminists.
In the past, 500 years ago, when people spoke out against religion they were called "heretics". The terms "heresy" and "blashphemy" were used as words to silence opposition. Today these words have lost their power, they no longer mean what they used to mean with as much power. However, these heretical words of the past are replaced by modern age words. Those are "sexist" and "racist" and "intolerant" and "homophobe" and so forth. Anyone who dares challenge the chess version of life is called one of those words. The word "sexist", a beloved feminist term for heresy, is used to silence opposition. You see if I was in a debate with a feminist, what she would eventually do is say that I am a "sexist". What the implicit strategy of this feminist is, is to silence my opposition to feminism, it is to implicity make everyone else aware that they cannot listen to me because I am a "sexist" and therefore I am "intolerant".
Truth is not afraid of debate. Truth does not depend on he who speaketh it, be he virtuous or vile. Truth invites debate and discussion. Those who seek the truth shall not be silenced by opposition. However, those who do not seek the truth, those who rather believe in comforting ideas, do not invite debate or opposition. They are afraid. They are uncomfortable as the religious people are afraid of the heretic who dares to challenge them. Thus, they need a way to silence their opponents. In the case of feminism it is to use the words "sexism" and "discrimination" at any opportunity that presents itself to use such words.
This is the psychology of a feminist whether she admits it or not. This is what goes through her mind, the belief that all is equal and fair in reality. A belief that cannot be challenged by others, lest they are "intolerant".
For many people thinking of life as a poker game is a depressing way to look at the world. It is unfair why some people are born with talents above other people. What did these people do to deserve these talents? It is unfair. And so for many people it is depressing to compare life to poker, they would rather want to compare it to chess. In chess where everyone is equal to start out with, the chess version of life is fair. Thus, as a result, many ideologies came to pass, that reflect this chess version of life in which there can be equality and fairness. In particular, what is important for our discussion, the ideology of feminism.
I am of course talking about modern feminism. Feminism, how it was in the past, emerged not because it tried to make life a chess game, but because women simply wanted to have the same equal opportunity as everyone else. With this original feminist goal achieved feminism can now die a peaceful death. But this was not the case. Feminism needed a new reason to stay alive, to resurrect itself from beyond the grave. And thus was the birth of modern feminism, as it is present today. It has completely different goals than seeking opportunity for women. It now represents the chess version of life.
I wrote back here about what is the psychology of religious Jews. I explained that truth is not the motive for religious Jews to stay or become religious Jews, they have a completely different psychological reason. The same is the case with feminism. Women of today do not become feminists because they are concerned about the truth nor are they concerned about justice (if you read my previous posts that should be clear at this point). They become feminists because feminism offers them a comfortable 'philosophy'. A 'philosophy' that preaches equality and fairness. A 'philosophy' that says that whatever inequalities or unfairness that exists in the world is not the results of what the world is but rather what we made the world to be. We have made the world unequal and unfair. Feminism is a way to bring back equality and fairness. Feminism attracts women because it tells women that everyone is the same to one another, it is all equal. This is why feminists are attracted towards feminism; like a religion which promises afterlife, feminism is attractive to many of its followers by preaching equality and fairness. This is also why feminists are often supported by people on the left-wing, the left-wing is usually attracted to the chess version of life as well, and so it is natural for them to support feminists.
In the past, 500 years ago, when people spoke out against religion they were called "heretics". The terms "heresy" and "blashphemy" were used as words to silence opposition. Today these words have lost their power, they no longer mean what they used to mean with as much power. However, these heretical words of the past are replaced by modern age words. Those are "sexist" and "racist" and "intolerant" and "homophobe" and so forth. Anyone who dares challenge the chess version of life is called one of those words. The word "sexist", a beloved feminist term for heresy, is used to silence opposition. You see if I was in a debate with a feminist, what she would eventually do is say that I am a "sexist". What the implicit strategy of this feminist is, is to silence my opposition to feminism, it is to implicity make everyone else aware that they cannot listen to me because I am a "sexist" and therefore I am "intolerant".
Truth is not afraid of debate. Truth does not depend on he who speaketh it, be he virtuous or vile. Truth invites debate and discussion. Those who seek the truth shall not be silenced by opposition. However, those who do not seek the truth, those who rather believe in comforting ideas, do not invite debate or opposition. They are afraid. They are uncomfortable as the religious people are afraid of the heretic who dares to challenge them. Thus, they need a way to silence their opponents. In the case of feminism it is to use the words "sexism" and "discrimination" at any opportunity that presents itself to use such words.
This is the psychology of a feminist whether she admits it or not. This is what goes through her mind, the belief that all is equal and fair in reality. A belief that cannot be challenged by others, lest they are "intolerant".
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 4: Distribution
Here I want to explain a natural account to why men and women have the distinct nature that they have. In particular, why men have been the warriors and women have been the ones who upbring the kids. This is not a social construction, this is a biological construction, a necessary biological construction. Within feminism there is a (undemonstrated, of course, not a surprise with feminism) concept that society is the way it is because of social construction. Now in some cases that is true, having a society in which women are forced to wear mobile tents is a social construction. But not everything is a social construction. What I am really talking about is a husband and wife relationship. The husband is the one who is seen as the strong one and the one who has to work, while the wife stays at home with children. Feminists refer to this as a "patriarchal society", think it is sexist, and want to change its structure. But there is a naturalistic account for it.
Consider two groups of people. One group A has 90 men and 10 women. Another group B has 90 women and 10 men. Let us make some assumptions to make this problem simple: (i) every women ends up having sex (ii) each women gets pregnant and gives birth in nine months (iii) every birth is a boy and girl (iv) the next nine months the men have sex again. Obviously, these are rather big assumptions, especially (iv), that is unrealistic, the one year old babies cannot reproduce yet, but that is unimportant, I want to illustrate an important point so I make it as simple as possible, I can make it more realistic, my argument will still hold, but it will only confuse the reader. What will happen with these two groups after nine months? Group A will have 100 men and 20 women, nine months later it will have, 120 men and 40 women, nine months later it will have, 160 men and 80 women. Group B will have 100 men and 180 women after nine months, next nine months it will have, 280 men and 360 women, nine months later it will have, 640 men and 720 women. So in three generations group A has a total of 240 people, but group B has a total of 1360. Note that both groups started out with 100 people but now group B has over 1000 people in just three generations!
The above calculation is based on a very simple biological fact. Men can impregnate many women. Women cannot. Women need to fine a unique man, but a men can have sex with many women. This is why a population that has many women and few men will prosper over a population that has few women and many men. Therefore, a population with few men and many women is more prosperous (here "prosperous" simply means having an increased chance to survive) than the model with many men and few women.
This means two things. First, it explains why men always think about sex, women are not as much obsessed about sex. Women need a single partner, men need to find multiple women constantly. But this interesting point between male and female nature is unimportant in our discussion. The point which is important is that women are precious, men are expendable. Protecting women is what will lead to a more prosperous species. This is precisely why it is men protecting the women by being the warrior sex than the other way around. Furthermore, one has to remember that women are pregnant for a long time, men can impregnate a woman at any time. Therefore, there needs to be a careful time period of protecting the mother with the child, with men this is clearly not such the case. Therefore, sexual properties of biology itself force men and women to have the nature that they have. As a result the patriarchal structure develops.
There is another very important result we can deduce from the above observation. If there are two species, one is protected and one is not then the non-protected one will have much more variation through natural selection than the protected one through natural selection. Variation occurs within a species when it is naturally selected. The more protected a species is, the slower and weaker the variation would be within the species. The less protected a species is, the faster and stronger the variation would be within the species. If animals were put on an island that was a utopia, it had everything they ever wanted and they never were killed by other animals, then there would be no natural selection within this species whatsoever. But the real world is much more brutal, animals have to struggle to adapt and survive, thus natural selection leads to a more varied species. Now let us return to men and women. Because women are precious they are more protected, thus, natural selection would not lead to much variation within the female population. The men, however, are expendable, they are not so much protected, they go to wars, and so forth, thus, natural selection would lead to much more variation within the male population. Thus, to conclude, there is more variation within men than women.
Whenever we have a population of people we can form a distribution for them. A distribution is just a histograph. The histograph can measure whatever we like. Suppose we want to measure income levels. If we form a histograph for income levels it will tell us how frequently people end up in various income levels. We expect to find a concentration of people in the middle and few people at the extremes. Most people fall somewhere in the middle income level. Now the most important kind of distribution, for anyone who taken a probability and statistics course, is a normal distribution. It depends on two factors, the "mean" and "standard deviation". The "mean" is simply the average of the population that we are dealing with, and the "standard deviation" is a measure of how varied the population is in comparison to the mean.
Let us pick something to measure between men and women. IQ is a terrible way to figure out someone's intelligence but there is a direct correlation between high IQ and good intelligence, so I will use it nonetheless. We will consider the distribution for the IQ of men and women. As with most random samples the distribution will be a normal distribution, so it will depend on the mean (average IQ) and standard deviation (the measure of variation from the mean IQ). Let us begin with a simple assumption about men and women which I think is a fair (and probably correct) assumption to make, that is, the mean IQ for men and women is the same, let us say 100 for that is usually taken as the average value. The mean would be the same, but the deviation would be different. The deviation for men would be larger than women because they are a more varied group as explained above. Therefore, we would have two distribution curves, one for women, one for men, both are centered at the same point (the mean) but the one for men would have a larger deviation. Graphically this means that the distribution for men would be a stretched curve while the one for women would be tightly concentrated at the middle.
If a curve is tightly concentrate at the middle, thin, and tall, like the one for women, it would mean that the extremes of the distribution are incredibly unlikely. That is, it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is a failure at life, and it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is an (to use a German expression) ubermensch (meaning, she is far ahead of the human race in her talents). And we see this in real life. If we have to imagine a person who is a failure at life, the picture that comes to mind is some guy. But at the same if we have to imagine a person who is far ahead of everybody else in the world either in talents or intelligence we also think of a man. Homeless people are almost always men, but Nobel prize winners are almost always men. Women are not varied enough in their distribution to end at the two extremes. Thus, we do not really see homeless women but we do not really see Nobel prize winning women.
Take for instance the Field's Medal, the equivalent of a Nobel prize for mathematics. At the moment about 40 or so people received this high prize for mathematics. None of them women. Consider the Wolf prize in mathematics, also 40 or so people received this award for mathematics, none of them women.
Is this because the Field's Medal, Wolf Prize, Nobel Prize, discriminate against women? No, not at all. Feminists would like us to believe that the Nobel prize purposefully discriminates against women and that is why we have a disproportion. But this has nothing to do with discrimination, this is simply how the world operates.
Feminists say that there is a disproportion to the number of men and women for the Nobel prize because of the "glass ceiling". That is, discrimination and sexism against women that prevents them from raising above the crowd. But, as I been saying many times before, feminists never demonstrate that it is discrimination that keeps them down, they simply state it, and we have to accept this as a fact. I offer a different explanation (not my own explanation, I seen other people use it before) to why there is this disproportion, which is actually a reasoned thought out argument. Again we run into a problem with "equality", here feminists are using "equality" as referring to actual equality between men and women. Since they believe in actual equality between the sexes it follows that if there is a disproportion between men and women it must be because of discrimination. However, the problem with that statement is that the feminists never demonstrated why men and women are actually equal to one another. The distribution between men and women busts so much of the myths the feminists say about discrimination and creates a bigger hole with feminist 'theory'.
Consider two groups of people. One group A has 90 men and 10 women. Another group B has 90 women and 10 men. Let us make some assumptions to make this problem simple: (i) every women ends up having sex (ii) each women gets pregnant and gives birth in nine months (iii) every birth is a boy and girl (iv) the next nine months the men have sex again. Obviously, these are rather big assumptions, especially (iv), that is unrealistic, the one year old babies cannot reproduce yet, but that is unimportant, I want to illustrate an important point so I make it as simple as possible, I can make it more realistic, my argument will still hold, but it will only confuse the reader. What will happen with these two groups after nine months? Group A will have 100 men and 20 women, nine months later it will have, 120 men and 40 women, nine months later it will have, 160 men and 80 women. Group B will have 100 men and 180 women after nine months, next nine months it will have, 280 men and 360 women, nine months later it will have, 640 men and 720 women. So in three generations group A has a total of 240 people, but group B has a total of 1360. Note that both groups started out with 100 people but now group B has over 1000 people in just three generations!
The above calculation is based on a very simple biological fact. Men can impregnate many women. Women cannot. Women need to fine a unique man, but a men can have sex with many women. This is why a population that has many women and few men will prosper over a population that has few women and many men. Therefore, a population with few men and many women is more prosperous (here "prosperous" simply means having an increased chance to survive) than the model with many men and few women.
This means two things. First, it explains why men always think about sex, women are not as much obsessed about sex. Women need a single partner, men need to find multiple women constantly. But this interesting point between male and female nature is unimportant in our discussion. The point which is important is that women are precious, men are expendable. Protecting women is what will lead to a more prosperous species. This is precisely why it is men protecting the women by being the warrior sex than the other way around. Furthermore, one has to remember that women are pregnant for a long time, men can impregnate a woman at any time. Therefore, there needs to be a careful time period of protecting the mother with the child, with men this is clearly not such the case. Therefore, sexual properties of biology itself force men and women to have the nature that they have. As a result the patriarchal structure develops.
There is another very important result we can deduce from the above observation. If there are two species, one is protected and one is not then the non-protected one will have much more variation through natural selection than the protected one through natural selection. Variation occurs within a species when it is naturally selected. The more protected a species is, the slower and weaker the variation would be within the species. The less protected a species is, the faster and stronger the variation would be within the species. If animals were put on an island that was a utopia, it had everything they ever wanted and they never were killed by other animals, then there would be no natural selection within this species whatsoever. But the real world is much more brutal, animals have to struggle to adapt and survive, thus natural selection leads to a more varied species. Now let us return to men and women. Because women are precious they are more protected, thus, natural selection would not lead to much variation within the female population. The men, however, are expendable, they are not so much protected, they go to wars, and so forth, thus, natural selection would lead to much more variation within the male population. Thus, to conclude, there is more variation within men than women.
Whenever we have a population of people we can form a distribution for them. A distribution is just a histograph. The histograph can measure whatever we like. Suppose we want to measure income levels. If we form a histograph for income levels it will tell us how frequently people end up in various income levels. We expect to find a concentration of people in the middle and few people at the extremes. Most people fall somewhere in the middle income level. Now the most important kind of distribution, for anyone who taken a probability and statistics course, is a normal distribution. It depends on two factors, the "mean" and "standard deviation". The "mean" is simply the average of the population that we are dealing with, and the "standard deviation" is a measure of how varied the population is in comparison to the mean.
Let us pick something to measure between men and women. IQ is a terrible way to figure out someone's intelligence but there is a direct correlation between high IQ and good intelligence, so I will use it nonetheless. We will consider the distribution for the IQ of men and women. As with most random samples the distribution will be a normal distribution, so it will depend on the mean (average IQ) and standard deviation (the measure of variation from the mean IQ). Let us begin with a simple assumption about men and women which I think is a fair (and probably correct) assumption to make, that is, the mean IQ for men and women is the same, let us say 100 for that is usually taken as the average value. The mean would be the same, but the deviation would be different. The deviation for men would be larger than women because they are a more varied group as explained above. Therefore, we would have two distribution curves, one for women, one for men, both are centered at the same point (the mean) but the one for men would have a larger deviation. Graphically this means that the distribution for men would be a stretched curve while the one for women would be tightly concentrated at the middle.
If a curve is tightly concentrate at the middle, thin, and tall, like the one for women, it would mean that the extremes of the distribution are incredibly unlikely. That is, it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is a failure at life, and it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is an (to use a German expression) ubermensch (meaning, she is far ahead of the human race in her talents). And we see this in real life. If we have to imagine a person who is a failure at life, the picture that comes to mind is some guy. But at the same if we have to imagine a person who is far ahead of everybody else in the world either in talents or intelligence we also think of a man. Homeless people are almost always men, but Nobel prize winners are almost always men. Women are not varied enough in their distribution to end at the two extremes. Thus, we do not really see homeless women but we do not really see Nobel prize winning women.
Take for instance the Field's Medal, the equivalent of a Nobel prize for mathematics. At the moment about 40 or so people received this high prize for mathematics. None of them women. Consider the Wolf prize in mathematics, also 40 or so people received this award for mathematics, none of them women.
Is this because the Field's Medal, Wolf Prize, Nobel Prize, discriminate against women? No, not at all. Feminists would like us to believe that the Nobel prize purposefully discriminates against women and that is why we have a disproportion. But this has nothing to do with discrimination, this is simply how the world operates.
Feminists say that there is a disproportion to the number of men and women for the Nobel prize because of the "glass ceiling". That is, discrimination and sexism against women that prevents them from raising above the crowd. But, as I been saying many times before, feminists never demonstrate that it is discrimination that keeps them down, they simply state it, and we have to accept this as a fact. I offer a different explanation (not my own explanation, I seen other people use it before) to why there is this disproportion, which is actually a reasoned thought out argument. Again we run into a problem with "equality", here feminists are using "equality" as referring to actual equality between men and women. Since they believe in actual equality between the sexes it follows that if there is a disproportion between men and women it must be because of discrimination. However, the problem with that statement is that the feminists never demonstrated why men and women are actually equal to one another. The distribution between men and women busts so much of the myths the feminists say about discrimination and creates a bigger hole with feminist 'theory'.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 3: Hypocrisy
Thus far I have explained that feminism is based on equality of results. But there is more to say on this subject. Feminists are not just happy with equal results for men and women but they are willing to gain special privledges over men. Feminists do not only want equal results, but they want more, they want to have privledges and bonuses over men even if it means they have an unfair advantage over men.
I will begin with a silly example but I think it illustrates an important point. Feminists complain when men speak of people in general as "men", they prefer for men to say "humans" or "people". Feminists have an issue when I refer to a person in general as a "he", they would want me to say "him or her". They claim equality, they want to men to speak of people equally without focusing on men. Now consider the following. In our society and other societies as well it considered to be appropriate for a man to give up his seat for a woman. It is also considered appropriate for a man to help a woman carry something up the stairs. If the situation is reversed, if a woman gives up her seat for a man, or a woman helps a man carry something up the stairs, it will seem inappropriate, it will look funny and strange. In this particular instance a woman has an advantage to a man. A man is required (by social understanding) to go out of his way to help a woman. When there is a hostage situation or a ship is sinking down under, who goes out first? It is the women who leave the scene before the men. This is who is helped first. So in this particular instance women have an advantage over men. Have you ever heard of a feminist complain about these social traditions? I never have. I hear feminists complain when I say "he" instead of "he or she" or when I say "man" instead of "person". But I never once heard a feminist complain about our social tradition and say "because we want equality in every way we do not want to be treated with special privledges". This is one example of feminist hypocrisy that I am referring to.
There are more important examples that illustrate feminist hypocrisy and show how feminists want to have special privledges over men. Take for example maternity leave. Women get leave almost all the time, while men usually do not. Do you hear feminists complain about this issue? Do you hear feminists say how it is unfair that women and men are being treated unequally? No. Because feminists are happy to have special privledges over men. I am not complaining and asking for paternity leave, I do not think there should be any kind of paternal leave. Because it is not the responsibility of the company to support kids of someone else; parents, mothers, or fathers, who want to have kids, that responsibility is on them (I will say no more on this topic for it will get off topic). My complaints are not addressed to that women get maternity leave, nor are my complaints that men do not get paternity leave. What my complaint is, is that these feminists who claim "equality" do not object to maternity leave because it benefits their own interests. If a woman was really intellectually honest and said that she would like maternity leave even though men are not likely to get them, fine, I can understand that, at least that would be honest. But what bothers me is the feminist hypocrisy. They talk about how they want to be treated in the same way as men, but the moment they get privledges over men, they forget their "equality" speech and take the benefits.
Here is another ridiculous example. Women firefighters have an easier training than male firefighters. There was a time in history when women had to go through the same hard training requirements as men did to become firefighters. As a result there was clearly a disproportiate amount of women to men because women are not as physically strong by their nature. Today this is not the case. Women have an easier training by lifting lighter dummies. Wait, I thought feminists want to have "equality". Where is their "equality" now? Besides for the fact that this firefighter policy is being hypocritical to feminists it also makes no sense. If a building is on fire or people need to be rescued a woman cannot say "sorry, I cannot do anything, I was not trained for this physically excessive job". I have also read about how in the military women do not have to do chin ups. Why the double standard?
Let us return back to the topic of feminism. I have mentioned that feminists often have this delusional view of "equality" as referring to actual equality between males and females. I have also shown that the goal of a modern feminist is to get equality of results not equality of opportunity. But now I am saying more. Feminists want more. They are not only satisfied with the same results for everybody but they want to have special privledges. This is why I am uncomfortable calling feminism a "philosophy". There is no intellectual thought in it. It is just a big giant special interest lobby group. That is it. That wants as much as it can get to itself by claiming to stand for "equality". And do not misunderstand me. I am not saying women should not be treated with a privledge over men. I realize that men are naturally stronger than women therefore I think it is appropriate, for example, for men to help women carry stuff up the stairs and not the other way around. But I am not a hypocrite, I do not preach "equality" and do something else.
I will begin with a silly example but I think it illustrates an important point. Feminists complain when men speak of people in general as "men", they prefer for men to say "humans" or "people". Feminists have an issue when I refer to a person in general as a "he", they would want me to say "him or her". They claim equality, they want to men to speak of people equally without focusing on men. Now consider the following. In our society and other societies as well it considered to be appropriate for a man to give up his seat for a woman. It is also considered appropriate for a man to help a woman carry something up the stairs. If the situation is reversed, if a woman gives up her seat for a man, or a woman helps a man carry something up the stairs, it will seem inappropriate, it will look funny and strange. In this particular instance a woman has an advantage to a man. A man is required (by social understanding) to go out of his way to help a woman. When there is a hostage situation or a ship is sinking down under, who goes out first? It is the women who leave the scene before the men. This is who is helped first. So in this particular instance women have an advantage over men. Have you ever heard of a feminist complain about these social traditions? I never have. I hear feminists complain when I say "he" instead of "he or she" or when I say "man" instead of "person". But I never once heard a feminist complain about our social tradition and say "because we want equality in every way we do not want to be treated with special privledges". This is one example of feminist hypocrisy that I am referring to.
There are more important examples that illustrate feminist hypocrisy and show how feminists want to have special privledges over men. Take for example maternity leave. Women get leave almost all the time, while men usually do not. Do you hear feminists complain about this issue? Do you hear feminists say how it is unfair that women and men are being treated unequally? No. Because feminists are happy to have special privledges over men. I am not complaining and asking for paternity leave, I do not think there should be any kind of paternal leave. Because it is not the responsibility of the company to support kids of someone else; parents, mothers, or fathers, who want to have kids, that responsibility is on them (I will say no more on this topic for it will get off topic). My complaints are not addressed to that women get maternity leave, nor are my complaints that men do not get paternity leave. What my complaint is, is that these feminists who claim "equality" do not object to maternity leave because it benefits their own interests. If a woman was really intellectually honest and said that she would like maternity leave even though men are not likely to get them, fine, I can understand that, at least that would be honest. But what bothers me is the feminist hypocrisy. They talk about how they want to be treated in the same way as men, but the moment they get privledges over men, they forget their "equality" speech and take the benefits.
Here is another ridiculous example. Women firefighters have an easier training than male firefighters. There was a time in history when women had to go through the same hard training requirements as men did to become firefighters. As a result there was clearly a disproportiate amount of women to men because women are not as physically strong by their nature. Today this is not the case. Women have an easier training by lifting lighter dummies. Wait, I thought feminists want to have "equality". Where is their "equality" now? Besides for the fact that this firefighter policy is being hypocritical to feminists it also makes no sense. If a building is on fire or people need to be rescued a woman cannot say "sorry, I cannot do anything, I was not trained for this physically excessive job". I have also read about how in the military women do not have to do chin ups. Why the double standard?
Let us return back to the topic of feminism. I have mentioned that feminists often have this delusional view of "equality" as referring to actual equality between males and females. I have also shown that the goal of a modern feminist is to get equality of results not equality of opportunity. But now I am saying more. Feminists want more. They are not only satisfied with the same results for everybody but they want to have special privledges. This is why I am uncomfortable calling feminism a "philosophy". There is no intellectual thought in it. It is just a big giant special interest lobby group. That is it. That wants as much as it can get to itself by claiming to stand for "equality". And do not misunderstand me. I am not saying women should not be treated with a privledge over men. I realize that men are naturally stronger than women therefore I think it is appropriate, for example, for men to help women carry stuff up the stairs and not the other way around. But I am not a hypocrite, I do not preach "equality" and do something else.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 2: Discrimination
Central to all of feminism is the concept of discrimination. Discrimination is a cause which follows the effect of sexism. I will give some examples of what I mean by "discrimination". Suppose a woman applies to a job, the employer is a male-chauvinistic pig, he is uncomfortable to hire her to the job because she is a woman, he is clearly a sexist, so he simply does not hire her. Sexism is an effect here, the cause of the sexism of the employer of not hiring the woman is discrimination. Here is one more example. Assume that a woman tried to run for president but she was denied the opportunity. If the people who denied her the opportunity did so only because she was a woman then they have discriminated against her. The cause was, again, the sexism of the people who denied her, and the effect was the denial of this woman to have an attempt to run as a president, so it is discrimination. Of course, there are other kinds of discrimination too, like racial discrimination, but this post will be unconcerned about that, we are only concentrating on sex based discrimination and we will simply refer to it by "discrimination".
The problem with much of feminism is that they assume discrimination whenever they have a chance to. The classic case of what I am talking about is the wage gap. I do not remember exactly what the statistics are but last I heard it was something of 70 cents for every dollar a male earns. Thus, women earn about 30% less on jobs than men do, on the average. The way a feminist looks at such a gap is immediately assuming that it must be discrimination. Feminists never justify why the gap is the result of discrimination, rather they just state it is discrimination and we have to believe them for what they say.
It is important to understand what determines wages. Wages are determined by the productivity of the worker (actually I think it is better to say "marginal productivity"). If a worker is able to produce 30 dollar worth of labor in an hour then the employer would have to pay less than that amount, otherwise the employer would be losing money. Thus, the employer would pay 25 dollars or 27 dollars but he would not pay 31 dollars because 31 dollars per hour would run the employer on a lose. Now suppose there are two workers for an employer. One worker produces 40 dollars of labor per hour and another worker produces 15 dollars of labor per hour. It would be then reasonable to expect that the worker who produces more with his labor would be paid a higher wage from his employer. The fact that one worker is being paid less does not in any way imply that the employer hates him. The real reason why one worker is being paid less is that this is how the economics work out, nothing to do with hatred or discrimination.
Let us consider work in computer engineering. I think it is fair to say that the height of people is irrelevant to the skill of computer engineering. Therefore, height should not be a factor to the productivity of a computer engineer. This would mean the following from a statistical point of view. If we were to compute the percentages for people's heights then the same percentages must be present in the subcollection of computer engineers. Thus, if 5% of the population is above 6' 4'' then we would expect to find the same percentage with regard to employment in computer engineering. The fancy way to say this is: heights are normally distributed, if heights do not affect computer engineers then the heights of employees in computer engineering should also be normally distributed with the same mean and deviation. Now consider professional basketball players. Height is relevant to the skill of being a basketball player. In basketball the population which is above 6' 4'' would probably be something like 95%. This is precisely because height is a significant factor for basketball. The managers are not discriminating against short players, it is rather that height is an advantage for more productivity in basketball. What this all means is the following important point. If in computer engineering an employer pays the taller workers more than the shorter ones then we can imply that he is discriminating against the short workers, however, if a manager pays for taller basketball players more wages does not imply that the manager discriminates against shorter players.
It is common for feminists to say that there is a wage gap, which is true, and to conclude that this must mean that there is discrimination by the employers. I would agree that the employers are discriminating against the women if they can demonstrate to me that men and women are equal in their abilities when it comes to various types of labor. But this is never demonstrated by feminists, this version of "equality" is something which is stated but never demonstrated. It is common for a feminist to say "men and women are equal" but uncommon (possibly even unheard of) for them to then demonstrate this statement. The only reason why they can get away with such a statement is that what they say is politically correct to say, but I am challenging them because I am capable of free thought.
There is a very basic economic refutation to the belief that women are being discriminated against. What I like about this refutation is that it uses no fancy pie charts or statistics, it uses only basic economic reasoning. Let us assume, as the feminists do, that on the average, men and women are equally good workers, that is, as said above, they have the same (marginal) productivity. If the women produce as much as the men but they are being paid less then it must mean that the employer is earning a larger profit off the women than he is earning off the men. Thus, the non-discriminatory men would have it in their interest to hire more women for their job in place of men. This would imply that the demand for women would increase while demand of men would decrease, consequently it will follow that women would have an increase in wages while men would have a decrease in wages. The male-chauvinistic pig who is not comfortable hiring women would be running at a loss when compared to his competitors. His male workers would be bringing him a loss, while the non-discriminatory males would go to hire more women into employment. As a result the male-chauvinistic pig would harm himself. Discrimination would become costly and the male pigs will drive themselves out of the market. Discrimination is not sustainable, yet the feminists imply that this is the case, they contradict basic economic principles! We must immediately conclude from this that the feminists must be wrong about their position regarding discrimination by men for the same productive work.
The question is then why is there a wage gap? It must be the case, as explained above, the men are more productive in most jobs than women, on the average. We should ask one more question, why are men more productive than women, on the average? Is it something which is innate in male and female nature? Not really. In some cases it is true that male nature is simply more preferable to female nature, for instance, being a construction worker, men have stronger bodies for that kind of work. But in most jobs, which are not physical, there really is not much of a difference between men and women. The research that has been done on this question suggests that marriage is the single biggest contribution to the wage gap between men and women. The reason is very simple. Married couples have a larger responsibility for their family. In general, women have more of a responsibility with the children and so she is not a position to be able to take as much work as her husband. Indeed, if we eliminate married people and only look at men and women who never been married we find that here is hardly a wage gap, it is almost eliminated. This hypothesis about marriage being responsible for the wage gap is an actual thought out rational response to this question, unlike the common feminist accusation that the market must be sexist.
Because of their delusion feminists support the "equal pay for equal work" policy. We will examine this policy. First of all, as explained above, there is no "equal work", if there was then it would lead to an economic unsustainability by the male-chauvinistic pigs; also I have provided the real explanation for the wage gap above. Thus, one major criticism of this policy is that it is based on a delusion. But the other problem with this policy, which is even worse, is that it will have terrible consequences. If the "equal pay for equal work" policy is put into place then it will protect the male-chauvinistic pigs and it will harm the women workers. The reason is as follows. The male-chauvinistic pigs will simply not hire women workers. It will harm these unemployed women even more by not having a job. But moreover, as explained above, the market makes discrimination unsustainable, this law will equalize the pay for men and women, as a result the male-chauvinistic pig will not be driven out of the market because their non-sexist competitors will not have an economic advantage over him. I think this example is a beautiful illustration of the unintended consequences of most regulation. Regulation, in this particular case of "equal pay for equal work", was set up to benefit the women, but as a result it ended up protecting the male-chauvinistic pigs from the market and harmed the women workers. Therefore, feminists are advocating policies that are anti-women and pro-sexism without even realizing it!
There is something we can learn from feminists here. The policy that feminists support under "equal pay for equal work" is one of equality of results. Women have an equal opportunity to work, however, they might be paid less, for whatever reasons it happens to be. What the feminists want is the same result (in this case payment) for women as it is for men. They want to use the law to obtain the same results for men and women. In my first part I have discussed various types of notions that "equality" can mean. I have said that "equality" can refer to equality of results or it can refer to actual equality between the sexes. What the feminist attitude to the alleged discrimination shows is that feminists are in support of these two notions of "equality". Discriminration can only be implied if there is actual equality between the sexes, and furthermore, having equal pay for the work must mean that they want equality of results.
The problem with much of feminism is that they assume discrimination whenever they have a chance to. The classic case of what I am talking about is the wage gap. I do not remember exactly what the statistics are but last I heard it was something of 70 cents for every dollar a male earns. Thus, women earn about 30% less on jobs than men do, on the average. The way a feminist looks at such a gap is immediately assuming that it must be discrimination. Feminists never justify why the gap is the result of discrimination, rather they just state it is discrimination and we have to believe them for what they say.
It is important to understand what determines wages. Wages are determined by the productivity of the worker (actually I think it is better to say "marginal productivity"). If a worker is able to produce 30 dollar worth of labor in an hour then the employer would have to pay less than that amount, otherwise the employer would be losing money. Thus, the employer would pay 25 dollars or 27 dollars but he would not pay 31 dollars because 31 dollars per hour would run the employer on a lose. Now suppose there are two workers for an employer. One worker produces 40 dollars of labor per hour and another worker produces 15 dollars of labor per hour. It would be then reasonable to expect that the worker who produces more with his labor would be paid a higher wage from his employer. The fact that one worker is being paid less does not in any way imply that the employer hates him. The real reason why one worker is being paid less is that this is how the economics work out, nothing to do with hatred or discrimination.
Let us consider work in computer engineering. I think it is fair to say that the height of people is irrelevant to the skill of computer engineering. Therefore, height should not be a factor to the productivity of a computer engineer. This would mean the following from a statistical point of view. If we were to compute the percentages for people's heights then the same percentages must be present in the subcollection of computer engineers. Thus, if 5% of the population is above 6' 4'' then we would expect to find the same percentage with regard to employment in computer engineering. The fancy way to say this is: heights are normally distributed, if heights do not affect computer engineers then the heights of employees in computer engineering should also be normally distributed with the same mean and deviation. Now consider professional basketball players. Height is relevant to the skill of being a basketball player. In basketball the population which is above 6' 4'' would probably be something like 95%. This is precisely because height is a significant factor for basketball. The managers are not discriminating against short players, it is rather that height is an advantage for more productivity in basketball. What this all means is the following important point. If in computer engineering an employer pays the taller workers more than the shorter ones then we can imply that he is discriminating against the short workers, however, if a manager pays for taller basketball players more wages does not imply that the manager discriminates against shorter players.
It is common for feminists to say that there is a wage gap, which is true, and to conclude that this must mean that there is discrimination by the employers. I would agree that the employers are discriminating against the women if they can demonstrate to me that men and women are equal in their abilities when it comes to various types of labor. But this is never demonstrated by feminists, this version of "equality" is something which is stated but never demonstrated. It is common for a feminist to say "men and women are equal" but uncommon (possibly even unheard of) for them to then demonstrate this statement. The only reason why they can get away with such a statement is that what they say is politically correct to say, but I am challenging them because I am capable of free thought.
There is a very basic economic refutation to the belief that women are being discriminated against. What I like about this refutation is that it uses no fancy pie charts or statistics, it uses only basic economic reasoning. Let us assume, as the feminists do, that on the average, men and women are equally good workers, that is, as said above, they have the same (marginal) productivity. If the women produce as much as the men but they are being paid less then it must mean that the employer is earning a larger profit off the women than he is earning off the men. Thus, the non-discriminatory men would have it in their interest to hire more women for their job in place of men. This would imply that the demand for women would increase while demand of men would decrease, consequently it will follow that women would have an increase in wages while men would have a decrease in wages. The male-chauvinistic pig who is not comfortable hiring women would be running at a loss when compared to his competitors. His male workers would be bringing him a loss, while the non-discriminatory males would go to hire more women into employment. As a result the male-chauvinistic pig would harm himself. Discrimination would become costly and the male pigs will drive themselves out of the market. Discrimination is not sustainable, yet the feminists imply that this is the case, they contradict basic economic principles! We must immediately conclude from this that the feminists must be wrong about their position regarding discrimination by men for the same productive work.
The question is then why is there a wage gap? It must be the case, as explained above, the men are more productive in most jobs than women, on the average. We should ask one more question, why are men more productive than women, on the average? Is it something which is innate in male and female nature? Not really. In some cases it is true that male nature is simply more preferable to female nature, for instance, being a construction worker, men have stronger bodies for that kind of work. But in most jobs, which are not physical, there really is not much of a difference between men and women. The research that has been done on this question suggests that marriage is the single biggest contribution to the wage gap between men and women. The reason is very simple. Married couples have a larger responsibility for their family. In general, women have more of a responsibility with the children and so she is not a position to be able to take as much work as her husband. Indeed, if we eliminate married people and only look at men and women who never been married we find that here is hardly a wage gap, it is almost eliminated. This hypothesis about marriage being responsible for the wage gap is an actual thought out rational response to this question, unlike the common feminist accusation that the market must be sexist.
Because of their delusion feminists support the "equal pay for equal work" policy. We will examine this policy. First of all, as explained above, there is no "equal work", if there was then it would lead to an economic unsustainability by the male-chauvinistic pigs; also I have provided the real explanation for the wage gap above. Thus, one major criticism of this policy is that it is based on a delusion. But the other problem with this policy, which is even worse, is that it will have terrible consequences. If the "equal pay for equal work" policy is put into place then it will protect the male-chauvinistic pigs and it will harm the women workers. The reason is as follows. The male-chauvinistic pigs will simply not hire women workers. It will harm these unemployed women even more by not having a job. But moreover, as explained above, the market makes discrimination unsustainable, this law will equalize the pay for men and women, as a result the male-chauvinistic pig will not be driven out of the market because their non-sexist competitors will not have an economic advantage over him. I think this example is a beautiful illustration of the unintended consequences of most regulation. Regulation, in this particular case of "equal pay for equal work", was set up to benefit the women, but as a result it ended up protecting the male-chauvinistic pigs from the market and harmed the women workers. Therefore, feminists are advocating policies that are anti-women and pro-sexism without even realizing it!
There is something we can learn from feminists here. The policy that feminists support under "equal pay for equal work" is one of equality of results. Women have an equal opportunity to work, however, they might be paid less, for whatever reasons it happens to be. What the feminists want is the same result (in this case payment) for women as it is for men. They want to use the law to obtain the same results for men and women. In my first part I have discussed various types of notions that "equality" can mean. I have said that "equality" can refer to equality of results or it can refer to actual equality between the sexes. What the feminist attitude to the alleged discrimination shows is that feminists are in support of these two notions of "equality". Discriminration can only be implied if there is actual equality between the sexes, and furthermore, having equal pay for the work must mean that they want equality of results.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Feminism Sucks Part 1: Philosophy
I happen to think that feminism is a wrong and evil philosophy (not to mention a stupid philosophy, that I am uncomfortable by even calling it a "philosophy"). I will try to explain why I think this way about feminism in several posts. A difficultly with this discussion is that "feminism" can mean differently to different women. There are many different kinds of feminists, so I will try to be focusing on general feminism, something that is usually present in every modern feminist movement. I will then talk about different kinds of feminism that focus on special goals that are not necessarily part of the general feminist movement. I hope that the reader after reading this will finally understand why I am an anti-feminist.
The first and most important thing which needs to be done in such a discussion is to define what "feminism" means. Using a dictionary definition here is not very helpful. The reason being is that a feminist can mean by "feminism" one definition and a dictionary can mean by "feminism" a different definition. A dictionary definition would say that feminism is "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes". However, feminists themselves can define feminism differently. Searching some forums online I have found feminists describe feminism as "The belief that men and women should have equal rights". Another one I found said, "The belief that women are equal human beings". The problem with a dictionary definition is that it does not matter how the dictionary defines it, what matters is how the feminists themselves define it. I will concentrate on how feminists define feminism.
There is a very big difference between saying, "men and women are equal" and saying "men and women should be equal". The dictionary definition says that feminism is a movement to gain equality for men and women, many feminists would define feminism in the same way, however there are feminists who define feminism as basically "a belief that men and women are equal". The statement "men and women are equal" is a descriptive statement, the statement "men and women should be equal" is a prescriptive statement. That is to say, the first statement is a statement of truth, while the second statement is a statement for what ought to be. Saying that men and women are equal is a truth claim. However, saying that men and women should be equal is not a truth claim, it is rather a statement that says what ought to be. Let me give an example. The statement, "stabbing a person in the head will kill that person" is a descriptive statement, it is a statement of truth, if I stab someone he dies. However, the statement, "stabbling should not be done" is not a statement of truth, it is rather a statement of how we ought to behave with one another. Therefore, there is a big difference between a feminism who says "feminism is the belief that men and women are equal" and the feminist who says "feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal". The first kind of feminist is making a claim on truth, the second kind of feminism is saying how the world ought to be. We will examine these two in detail.
We also need to understand what "equality" means. Equality can refer to actual equality, that is, men and women are the same. No thinking person possibly can believe in this, of course they are different, even little kids can see the difference. One has to go to college to believe in something so stupid. Not only men and women are different but every person is different. Every person has his own positives and negatives. Some people are great with business but terrible with computers. Other people can be great with computers but terrible with business. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages. For one thing men and women have different bodies, so right there we have a difference. One can object to me and say that is a trivial observation, of course men and women have different bodies however as far as their skills and abilities go they are the same. So for example, one who says that men and women are equal in their abilities implies that when it comes to work men and women do it just as well. But how do we know this? It is the responsibility of one who makes a case for actual equality to demonstrate this fact to me. Women and men suffer different psychological diseases, we can imply from there that their brains must be actually different. If so then why should we not think that women and men are identical in their mental abilities? Remember the Natural Laws do not care about men or women, why should we assume then that men and women have developed with equal abilities? Everything points to the conclusion that men and women cannot be equal in their abilities, nor in their mental abilities. Anyone who says that I am wrong about this point must present an argument to why women and men are actually the same in their abilities. If a person was to say on TV, "I believe that women and men are equal", will be applauded for saying that, we would call him "tolerant", however, my demand is still open, I demand to see justification for this statement. It does not matter how pleasant a statement sounds, what matters is the justification of the statement. Thus, I ask thee, if you mean by "equality" actual equality in their abilities and talents then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this statement, if you fail to demonstrate this, then we must reject it and take the default position that men and women are not actually equal in their abilities.
Not all feminists do believe that men and women are actual equal in what they are able to do. But plently of feminists do! I read this article by K C Cole, not sure if she is a feminist or not, but she wrote about that there are few women in science because they are uncomfortable being unique among men (the question should be asked of why did the gap between women and men ever come to be in science if they are actually equal?, this is the question that is never asked or considered). This suggests to me that Cole believes that when it comes to science, such as physics, women are naturally just as good as men are. Because if that is not what she believed then she would not write about how women are uncomfortable being unique among men. Thus, it must be the case that she does indeed believe that women and men are naturally able to contribute to science, therefore she seeks an explanation to for the gap between female and male scientists. Within that article she said that boys play with electrical toys while girls are encouraged to play with dolls and so this creates a divison between the sexes. Thus, she believes that the difference between the personality of boys and girls is learned by their enviroment rather than being the way their nature is. So this is an example of one women (I guess she is a feminist) who actually accepts this view of equality. One can object to me and say that she is only one person, I cannot condemn the entire feminist movement on one person alone there has to be a signifigant number of feminists who subscribe to this view of equality. Indeed, that is true, however there is a movement within feminism known as "gender feminism" which asserts the differences between males and females are socially constructed and are not innate to males or females. This is a rejection of science! But these feminists still continue to deny it by stating the case of David Reimer confirms their pseudo-science. They forgot that Riemer committed suicide, he was not normal, so he cannot be used for "evidence".
There are other kinds of definitions for the world "equality". There can be equality of opportunity and equality of results. Equality of opportunity means that women have the same opportunity as men do in the world, this does not mean that what they seek will be provided for them but it does mean that they have an ability to go for what they want to. Equality of oppurtunity implies that women have "economic equality". There can also be political equality, that is, women can vote and run for office. And finally there can be legal equality, that is the law treats women fairly, unlike the Talmud which says women cannot be witnesses or non-sense like that. An alternate meaning to "equality" is not that men and women are really alike but rather they should be both treated equally with regard to economic, political, and legal equality. This is certainly something I agree with, with these kinds of equalities I think women and men should be equal. Now there is one last kind of equality and that is equality of results. Equality of results means that we make men and women equal in what they achieve in life. For example, wealth redistribution is an example of equality of results. We take ("steal" is more appropriate word) from one group of people and give that money to another group of people. Forms of Socialism amd Marxism are based on equality of results. This is done in hopes of making people financially equal to one another. Another example would be to have quotas on the number of male and females students to make university attentance at 50% for both, that would be "equality of results".
Now we will examine how each of the views of "equality" applies to feminism. Equality of opportunity which includes economic, legal and political equality cannot be the only kind of equality part of the feminist movement. If it was, then there would be no feminist movement, for women already have equality of opportunity. The early feminist movement actually focused on equality of opportunity, modern feminist movements has been perverted and now are focused on different issues. It follows from basic reason that the modern feminist movement, whatever it is, cannot be only based on equality of opportunity. In these upcoming posts I will make the case that feminism today includes equality of results and sometimes actual equality between men and women.
Let us finally return back to the feminist who defines "feminism" as, "the belief in the equality of men and women" and the feminist who defines "feminism" as, "the belief in attaining equality for women". The first kind of feminist must be the feminist who beliefs in actual equality between men and women. The reason is simple, the first kind of feminist is making a descriptive statement, therefore her understanding of "equality" must be descriptive, that is, actual equality between men and women. The second kind of feminist might reject the pseudo-scientific idea of the actual equality between men and women and focus on different kinds of "eqaulities". In particular, as we will see, equality of results.
One last thing to mention. What does the word "sexism" mean? One can read the proper definition of "racism" of what I wrote here. Everything that was said with regard to racism can be generalized to "sexism". It is the same exact definition. The reason why the word "sexism" will have to be properly understood is because it is a word that is used very commonly in feminism, so it is important to understand its proper meaning.
The first and most important thing which needs to be done in such a discussion is to define what "feminism" means. Using a dictionary definition here is not very helpful. The reason being is that a feminist can mean by "feminism" one definition and a dictionary can mean by "feminism" a different definition. A dictionary definition would say that feminism is "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes". However, feminists themselves can define feminism differently. Searching some forums online I have found feminists describe feminism as "The belief that men and women should have equal rights". Another one I found said, "The belief that women are equal human beings". The problem with a dictionary definition is that it does not matter how the dictionary defines it, what matters is how the feminists themselves define it. I will concentrate on how feminists define feminism.
There is a very big difference between saying, "men and women are equal" and saying "men and women should be equal". The dictionary definition says that feminism is a movement to gain equality for men and women, many feminists would define feminism in the same way, however there are feminists who define feminism as basically "a belief that men and women are equal". The statement "men and women are equal" is a descriptive statement, the statement "men and women should be equal" is a prescriptive statement. That is to say, the first statement is a statement of truth, while the second statement is a statement for what ought to be. Saying that men and women are equal is a truth claim. However, saying that men and women should be equal is not a truth claim, it is rather a statement that says what ought to be. Let me give an example. The statement, "stabbing a person in the head will kill that person" is a descriptive statement, it is a statement of truth, if I stab someone he dies. However, the statement, "stabbling should not be done" is not a statement of truth, it is rather a statement of how we ought to behave with one another. Therefore, there is a big difference between a feminism who says "feminism is the belief that men and women are equal" and the feminist who says "feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal". The first kind of feminist is making a claim on truth, the second kind of feminism is saying how the world ought to be. We will examine these two in detail.
We also need to understand what "equality" means. Equality can refer to actual equality, that is, men and women are the same. No thinking person possibly can believe in this, of course they are different, even little kids can see the difference. One has to go to college to believe in something so stupid. Not only men and women are different but every person is different. Every person has his own positives and negatives. Some people are great with business but terrible with computers. Other people can be great with computers but terrible with business. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages. For one thing men and women have different bodies, so right there we have a difference. One can object to me and say that is a trivial observation, of course men and women have different bodies however as far as their skills and abilities go they are the same. So for example, one who says that men and women are equal in their abilities implies that when it comes to work men and women do it just as well. But how do we know this? It is the responsibility of one who makes a case for actual equality to demonstrate this fact to me. Women and men suffer different psychological diseases, we can imply from there that their brains must be actually different. If so then why should we not think that women and men are identical in their mental abilities? Remember the Natural Laws do not care about men or women, why should we assume then that men and women have developed with equal abilities? Everything points to the conclusion that men and women cannot be equal in their abilities, nor in their mental abilities. Anyone who says that I am wrong about this point must present an argument to why women and men are actually the same in their abilities. If a person was to say on TV, "I believe that women and men are equal", will be applauded for saying that, we would call him "tolerant", however, my demand is still open, I demand to see justification for this statement. It does not matter how pleasant a statement sounds, what matters is the justification of the statement. Thus, I ask thee, if you mean by "equality" actual equality in their abilities and talents then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this statement, if you fail to demonstrate this, then we must reject it and take the default position that men and women are not actually equal in their abilities.
Not all feminists do believe that men and women are actual equal in what they are able to do. But plently of feminists do! I read this article by K C Cole, not sure if she is a feminist or not, but she wrote about that there are few women in science because they are uncomfortable being unique among men (the question should be asked of why did the gap between women and men ever come to be in science if they are actually equal?, this is the question that is never asked or considered). This suggests to me that Cole believes that when it comes to science, such as physics, women are naturally just as good as men are. Because if that is not what she believed then she would not write about how women are uncomfortable being unique among men. Thus, it must be the case that she does indeed believe that women and men are naturally able to contribute to science, therefore she seeks an explanation to for the gap between female and male scientists. Within that article she said that boys play with electrical toys while girls are encouraged to play with dolls and so this creates a divison between the sexes. Thus, she believes that the difference between the personality of boys and girls is learned by their enviroment rather than being the way their nature is. So this is an example of one women (I guess she is a feminist) who actually accepts this view of equality. One can object to me and say that she is only one person, I cannot condemn the entire feminist movement on one person alone there has to be a signifigant number of feminists who subscribe to this view of equality. Indeed, that is true, however there is a movement within feminism known as "gender feminism" which asserts the differences between males and females are socially constructed and are not innate to males or females. This is a rejection of science! But these feminists still continue to deny it by stating the case of David Reimer confirms their pseudo-science. They forgot that Riemer committed suicide, he was not normal, so he cannot be used for "evidence".
There are other kinds of definitions for the world "equality". There can be equality of opportunity and equality of results. Equality of opportunity means that women have the same opportunity as men do in the world, this does not mean that what they seek will be provided for them but it does mean that they have an ability to go for what they want to. Equality of oppurtunity implies that women have "economic equality". There can also be political equality, that is, women can vote and run for office. And finally there can be legal equality, that is the law treats women fairly, unlike the Talmud which says women cannot be witnesses or non-sense like that. An alternate meaning to "equality" is not that men and women are really alike but rather they should be both treated equally with regard to economic, political, and legal equality. This is certainly something I agree with, with these kinds of equalities I think women and men should be equal. Now there is one last kind of equality and that is equality of results. Equality of results means that we make men and women equal in what they achieve in life. For example, wealth redistribution is an example of equality of results. We take ("steal" is more appropriate word) from one group of people and give that money to another group of people. Forms of Socialism amd Marxism are based on equality of results. This is done in hopes of making people financially equal to one another. Another example would be to have quotas on the number of male and females students to make university attentance at 50% for both, that would be "equality of results".
Now we will examine how each of the views of "equality" applies to feminism. Equality of opportunity which includes economic, legal and political equality cannot be the only kind of equality part of the feminist movement. If it was, then there would be no feminist movement, for women already have equality of opportunity. The early feminist movement actually focused on equality of opportunity, modern feminist movements has been perverted and now are focused on different issues. It follows from basic reason that the modern feminist movement, whatever it is, cannot be only based on equality of opportunity. In these upcoming posts I will make the case that feminism today includes equality of results and sometimes actual equality between men and women.
Let us finally return back to the feminist who defines "feminism" as, "the belief in the equality of men and women" and the feminist who defines "feminism" as, "the belief in attaining equality for women". The first kind of feminist must be the feminist who beliefs in actual equality between men and women. The reason is simple, the first kind of feminist is making a descriptive statement, therefore her understanding of "equality" must be descriptive, that is, actual equality between men and women. The second kind of feminist might reject the pseudo-scientific idea of the actual equality between men and women and focus on different kinds of "eqaulities". In particular, as we will see, equality of results.
One last thing to mention. What does the word "sexism" mean? One can read the proper definition of "racism" of what I wrote here. Everything that was said with regard to racism can be generalized to "sexism". It is the same exact definition. The reason why the word "sexism" will have to be properly understood is because it is a word that is used very commonly in feminism, so it is important to understand its proper meaning.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Liberal Lunacy 2: Regulate Radios
I do not watch news, but about two weeks ago I was looking through the TV and saw a liberal news show discussing how unfair it is that there are more conservative radio shows than liberal radio shows. I wish I can remember what channel it was, what the name of the program it was, and name of the host was, but I did not pay attention to any of those details. I do remember the argument of the host though. He wanted the government to regulate the radios so that the numbers of liberal radio shows are equal to the number of conservative radio shows.
They claim that they support free speech because they want to encourage more liberal shows. But they fail to realize what free speech is. Read the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Focus on the part that says "shall make no law". The moment laws are made regarding speech then that is no longer "free speech". It is called "free speech" precisely because it is "free" from government control. If there are laws regarding speech on radios then it is no longer "free". Saying that you "want to pass laws to protect free speech" is just as retarded as saying you "want to regulate freedom to protect freedom" which is just as retarded as saying "want to go to war to achieve peace" or as George Carlin said "to screw for virginity", it just makes no sense.
Who did this liberal host blame for an excess number of conservative radio shows? The scapegoat of liberals, that is, the corporations. It is always the corporations, they are always evil and terrible. He claimed that corporations have an interest in having conservative radio shows therefore that is why we have an excess number of conservative radio shows.
The real reason why there are fewer liberal radio shows is because liberal shows are boring. Did you ever listen to Stephanie Miller? It makes me want to commit suicide, not only boring, but a braindead show. Conservative shows are more entertaining (I do not listen to them, but from what I have heard from time to time I think there are more interesting). That is the real reason why more people turn to conservative radio shows than to liberal radio shows.
Consider the following. Who are the most subscribed people on YouTube? Number one is nigahiga, number two is Fred, number three is Smosh. I have no idea why people watch these channels but apparently they are the most subscribed channels on YouTube. This example shows that people watch what they like. None of these people are corporations. They are just kids and teenagers who make videos that are not even so expensive to make. Yet the vast subscription of YouTube watches them. For the very simple reason is because they find them more entertaining to watch then anything else on YouTube. A kid speeding up his voice on camera gets more subscriptions than channels that are owned by corporations. Furthermore, if you ever watch YouTube you would realize that most political channels on YouTube are liberal channels not conservative channels. There are in fact very few conservative channels on YouTube. Are the corporations to blame again for the increase number of liberal shows? No, use basic common sense, people watch on YouTube what their interests are. Since most people on YouTube are of the younger variety there are more likely to lean on the left than on the right, therefore they are more interested in liberals shows. This is why liberal shows on YouTube are more successful than conservative shows.
Now who listens to radios? I doubt that young people listen to radios, that is from the past generation. Older people listen to radios. They are more likely to lean right. Therefore, the radio subscription is more interested in conservative talk radio. This has nothing to do with corporations, just basic common sense.
The proposal of these liberals to regulate radios for more liberal show is an attack on free speech.
They claim that they support free speech because they want to encourage more liberal shows. But they fail to realize what free speech is. Read the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Focus on the part that says "shall make no law". The moment laws are made regarding speech then that is no longer "free speech". It is called "free speech" precisely because it is "free" from government control. If there are laws regarding speech on radios then it is no longer "free". Saying that you "want to pass laws to protect free speech" is just as retarded as saying you "want to regulate freedom to protect freedom" which is just as retarded as saying "want to go to war to achieve peace" or as George Carlin said "to screw for virginity", it just makes no sense.
Who did this liberal host blame for an excess number of conservative radio shows? The scapegoat of liberals, that is, the corporations. It is always the corporations, they are always evil and terrible. He claimed that corporations have an interest in having conservative radio shows therefore that is why we have an excess number of conservative radio shows.
The real reason why there are fewer liberal radio shows is because liberal shows are boring. Did you ever listen to Stephanie Miller? It makes me want to commit suicide, not only boring, but a braindead show. Conservative shows are more entertaining (I do not listen to them, but from what I have heard from time to time I think there are more interesting). That is the real reason why more people turn to conservative radio shows than to liberal radio shows.
Consider the following. Who are the most subscribed people on YouTube? Number one is nigahiga, number two is Fred, number three is Smosh. I have no idea why people watch these channels but apparently they are the most subscribed channels on YouTube. This example shows that people watch what they like. None of these people are corporations. They are just kids and teenagers who make videos that are not even so expensive to make. Yet the vast subscription of YouTube watches them. For the very simple reason is because they find them more entertaining to watch then anything else on YouTube. A kid speeding up his voice on camera gets more subscriptions than channels that are owned by corporations. Furthermore, if you ever watch YouTube you would realize that most political channels on YouTube are liberal channels not conservative channels. There are in fact very few conservative channels on YouTube. Are the corporations to blame again for the increase number of liberal shows? No, use basic common sense, people watch on YouTube what their interests are. Since most people on YouTube are of the younger variety there are more likely to lean on the left than on the right, therefore they are more interested in liberals shows. This is why liberal shows on YouTube are more successful than conservative shows.
Now who listens to radios? I doubt that young people listen to radios, that is from the past generation. Older people listen to radios. They are more likely to lean right. Therefore, the radio subscription is more interested in conservative talk radio. This has nothing to do with corporations, just basic common sense.
The proposal of these liberals to regulate radios for more liberal show is an attack on free speech.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Prayer
Religious Jews and other religious people talk about how they prayed to God and he answered their prayers. They say that because their prayers got answered it must be that God exists.
The first obvious problem with this argument is that it is a logical fallacy. An confirmed prayer does not mean that God exists. It may, of course, be just a coincidence that it happened. Indeed, from the prayer stories that I hear, it has to be coincidence for the following reason. The number of successes and misses of a prayer is something we would expect from just random events. Let us suppose that I pray so that I will win a lot of money on a roulette wheel. So come to Las Vegas, put all my money on black and end up doubling my money. This is not an impressive prayer. It, of course, can just be a coincidence. If I do this every month, take my money and put it on the roulette wheel, I will lose some times and win some times, approximately 50/50. If I think that God confirmed my prayers whenever I won every time then I am a retard for thinking that way. Because what about all the times when my prayers were denied? The religious person would say "well, God answered, he just answered in the negative". That is to say, God choose not to confirm the prayer for whatever reasons God had planned. This is such a ridiculous response, no matter what God does, he always answers prayers. Sometimes he confirms it and other times he denies them. Why is that so impressive? Why is that something that should surprise me and make me think that there is a God who is confirming the prayers that would have not happened by mere chance? Can you answer that?
What religious people do is that they ignore all the times when their prayers were not answered in the affirmative and only focus on the ones that were. This is what a lot of believers in psychics do. They go to a psychic reading. The psychic tells them their fortune, and the person only pays attention (not to mention also pays a lot of money) on the stuff that the psychic gets right while ignoring all the things the psychic got wrong. This is not impressive whatsoever, that is what we expect mere chance to give. When James Randi performed experiments with psychics he tested them for the numbers of correct things they say versus the numbers of incorrect things they say. It turns out that during a reading the psychic fails statistically, that is, the psychic gets only a few things correct from a big collection of statements that she makes. This is not mathematically surprising. But what psychic believers do is only focus on what the psychic gets correct and ignore all of her mistakes. This is why people who go to psychics are so impressed. The same is with prayer. If we only focus on the confirmed prayers and ignore the denied prayers it is really nothing impressive.
It also depends on what we pray for. I divide prayer into three categories. First category I call the "common prayer". Second category I call the "additional prayer". Third category I call the "miraculous prayer". Common prayer is prayer that religious people may say very day. Common prayer consists of common everyday life. An example of common prayer is a man prayer for God so that God would make sure that he will always have a good job in his life. Or a parent asking God to make sure that his children do well at school. Additional prayer is prayer that asks for out of common requests. For example, suppose a person is poor and prays to God to make sure to give him some money. This is something which does not happen from day to day. Or a person praying to God to meet a good friend of his life in person. Miraculous prayer is prayer that would classified as a
miracle if it was to occur. For example, a young teenage girl is depressed that she has tiny breasts so she prays to God to have large breasts. The next day she wakes up her tiny breasts are gone and she has super enormous sized breasts.
Let us examine each one of the prayers rationally and skeptical. Common prayer is not impressive even if it has like a 99% success rate because it is after all "common". Having a steady income is passive. Being healthy is passive. Losing much income is active. Becoming sick is active. A person who prays to be successful in business and always is successful in business is not impressive, this is something that we expect. A person praying to be in healthy condition is not impressive, most people are healthy, being healthy is the norm. If you are open-minded to test common prayer then try this for me. Try not prayer to God. Or pray to someone else instead, like Charles Darwin. In your everyday prayer replace "God" by "Darwin" and see what happens. If you are not comfortable doing that then just try not to pray. Do not worry, nothing will happen. What was the norm for you will stay the norm for you. There is nothing statistically impressive about common prayer. Thus, if people say "God confirms my common prayers" it is not a statement of statistical surprise. Having refuted common prayer let us move on.
Additional prayer is something which is not the norm but it is something which can still be coincidental. An example I gave above is that you want to meet your friend in real life that you did not see for many years and one day you meet him in the street. Is that impressive? Of course, I would certainly be impressed. However, I would put this into consideration. Read my third paragraph where I explain exactly what I mean. When it comes to additional prayer what people do is only focus on the success not on the failure of the prayer. In a vast number of cases additional prayer is not confirmed. Let me give you another example. If I was to get a straight flush in poker, that is certainly impressive, but that does not imply God is helping me in poker. Indeed, it is a one time thing only, something I would expect from probability alone. Try this experiment, if you are open-minded, do not pray, just wish. Anything you want, just wish it. You will notice that wishing and additional prayer has the same statistical rate. Having refuted additional prayer let us move on.
The final kind of prayer is miraculous prayer. Prayer that just cannot happen by coincidence. A girl growing super large breasts in a single day is a miracle. It is something that cannot happen naturally. Or suppose that your friend lost his head after he was in a car accident. You pray to God and a week later your friend comes back to life with a magically grown head. That is a miracle, out of the natural order. The problem with miraculous prayer is that there are no seen miracles and so there are no instances of confirmed miraculous prayer. Miraculous prayer never works. In fact, what is interesting, I think, is that religious people never pray for miraculous things. If their friend loses a head, they are not going to pray for him to come back to life because they realize that cannot happen. All prayer is either common or additional.
I want to remind the reader one more thing. Think back to the Holocaust. Consider all the Jews, gays, blacks, communists, and so forth who prayed (well, maybe I should not put communists on the list because these communists where also atheists) to God while there were in the death camps. Were their prayers confirmed? No. Millions of people dead, none of their prayers confirmed. What is this? Am I supposed to be impressed with this God character? The statistical outcome of all the prayers of these people in the death camps is completely unimpressive. What bothers me even more is when some lucky survivor managed to escape and Jews say "oh look, what a miracle". How am I supposed to respond to that? It is so insulting to say something like that to all the dead people. You say it is a miracle that one unique person managed to escape while all the millions of people were dying? Nothing impressive whatsoever about that to me. Stop looking at the exceptional cases and concentrate on the whole.
If I pray to God not to confirm my prayer, what would God do?
The first obvious problem with this argument is that it is a logical fallacy. An confirmed prayer does not mean that God exists. It may, of course, be just a coincidence that it happened. Indeed, from the prayer stories that I hear, it has to be coincidence for the following reason. The number of successes and misses of a prayer is something we would expect from just random events. Let us suppose that I pray so that I will win a lot of money on a roulette wheel. So come to Las Vegas, put all my money on black and end up doubling my money. This is not an impressive prayer. It, of course, can just be a coincidence. If I do this every month, take my money and put it on the roulette wheel, I will lose some times and win some times, approximately 50/50. If I think that God confirmed my prayers whenever I won every time then I am a retard for thinking that way. Because what about all the times when my prayers were denied? The religious person would say "well, God answered, he just answered in the negative". That is to say, God choose not to confirm the prayer for whatever reasons God had planned. This is such a ridiculous response, no matter what God does, he always answers prayers. Sometimes he confirms it and other times he denies them. Why is that so impressive? Why is that something that should surprise me and make me think that there is a God who is confirming the prayers that would have not happened by mere chance? Can you answer that?
What religious people do is that they ignore all the times when their prayers were not answered in the affirmative and only focus on the ones that were. This is what a lot of believers in psychics do. They go to a psychic reading. The psychic tells them their fortune, and the person only pays attention (not to mention also pays a lot of money) on the stuff that the psychic gets right while ignoring all the things the psychic got wrong. This is not impressive whatsoever, that is what we expect mere chance to give. When James Randi performed experiments with psychics he tested them for the numbers of correct things they say versus the numbers of incorrect things they say. It turns out that during a reading the psychic fails statistically, that is, the psychic gets only a few things correct from a big collection of statements that she makes. This is not mathematically surprising. But what psychic believers do is only focus on what the psychic gets correct and ignore all of her mistakes. This is why people who go to psychics are so impressed. The same is with prayer. If we only focus on the confirmed prayers and ignore the denied prayers it is really nothing impressive.
It also depends on what we pray for. I divide prayer into three categories. First category I call the "common prayer". Second category I call the "additional prayer". Third category I call the "miraculous prayer". Common prayer is prayer that religious people may say very day. Common prayer consists of common everyday life. An example of common prayer is a man prayer for God so that God would make sure that he will always have a good job in his life. Or a parent asking God to make sure that his children do well at school. Additional prayer is prayer that asks for out of common requests. For example, suppose a person is poor and prays to God to make sure to give him some money. This is something which does not happen from day to day. Or a person praying to God to meet a good friend of his life in person. Miraculous prayer is prayer that would classified as a
miracle if it was to occur. For example, a young teenage girl is depressed that she has tiny breasts so she prays to God to have large breasts. The next day she wakes up her tiny breasts are gone and she has super enormous sized breasts.
Let us examine each one of the prayers rationally and skeptical. Common prayer is not impressive even if it has like a 99% success rate because it is after all "common". Having a steady income is passive. Being healthy is passive. Losing much income is active. Becoming sick is active. A person who prays to be successful in business and always is successful in business is not impressive, this is something that we expect. A person praying to be in healthy condition is not impressive, most people are healthy, being healthy is the norm. If you are open-minded to test common prayer then try this for me. Try not prayer to God. Or pray to someone else instead, like Charles Darwin. In your everyday prayer replace "God" by "Darwin" and see what happens. If you are not comfortable doing that then just try not to pray. Do not worry, nothing will happen. What was the norm for you will stay the norm for you. There is nothing statistically impressive about common prayer. Thus, if people say "God confirms my common prayers" it is not a statement of statistical surprise. Having refuted common prayer let us move on.
Additional prayer is something which is not the norm but it is something which can still be coincidental. An example I gave above is that you want to meet your friend in real life that you did not see for many years and one day you meet him in the street. Is that impressive? Of course, I would certainly be impressed. However, I would put this into consideration. Read my third paragraph where I explain exactly what I mean. When it comes to additional prayer what people do is only focus on the success not on the failure of the prayer. In a vast number of cases additional prayer is not confirmed. Let me give you another example. If I was to get a straight flush in poker, that is certainly impressive, but that does not imply God is helping me in poker. Indeed, it is a one time thing only, something I would expect from probability alone. Try this experiment, if you are open-minded, do not pray, just wish. Anything you want, just wish it. You will notice that wishing and additional prayer has the same statistical rate. Having refuted additional prayer let us move on.
The final kind of prayer is miraculous prayer. Prayer that just cannot happen by coincidence. A girl growing super large breasts in a single day is a miracle. It is something that cannot happen naturally. Or suppose that your friend lost his head after he was in a car accident. You pray to God and a week later your friend comes back to life with a magically grown head. That is a miracle, out of the natural order. The problem with miraculous prayer is that there are no seen miracles and so there are no instances of confirmed miraculous prayer. Miraculous prayer never works. In fact, what is interesting, I think, is that religious people never pray for miraculous things. If their friend loses a head, they are not going to pray for him to come back to life because they realize that cannot happen. All prayer is either common or additional.
I want to remind the reader one more thing. Think back to the Holocaust. Consider all the Jews, gays, blacks, communists, and so forth who prayed (well, maybe I should not put communists on the list because these communists where also atheists) to God while there were in the death camps. Were their prayers confirmed? No. Millions of people dead, none of their prayers confirmed. What is this? Am I supposed to be impressed with this God character? The statistical outcome of all the prayers of these people in the death camps is completely unimpressive. What bothers me even more is when some lucky survivor managed to escape and Jews say "oh look, what a miracle". How am I supposed to respond to that? It is so insulting to say something like that to all the dead people. You say it is a miracle that one unique person managed to escape while all the millions of people were dying? Nothing impressive whatsoever about that to me. Stop looking at the exceptional cases and concentrate on the whole.
If I pray to God not to confirm my prayer, what would God do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
