Posts Tagged ‘Greg Laden’

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

First reconstruction of Neanderthal man

Guy 1: Why do women prefer cavemen? Guy 2: I don't know--ask your wife. Guy 3: Have you SEEN his wife?

Sex with cavemen gave humans an immune boost: study

AFPBy Kerry Sheridan | AFP – Thu, Aug 25, 2011

 Sexual encounters with archaic humans like the Neanderthals produced children who inherited key genes that have helped modern humans fight illness and disease, said a US study published Thursday.
“The cross-breeding wasn’t just a random event that happened, it gave something useful to the gene pool of the modern human,” said Stanford University’s Peter Parham, senior author of the study in the journal Science.
Equipped with knowledge of the genome of the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, of whom a tooth and a finger bone were discovered in a Russian cave last year, researchers scoured the data for hints of what genes crossed over.
Scientists already knew that about four percent of Neanderthal DNA and up to six percent of Denisovan DNA are present in some modern humans…

———————————————————————————————-

The latest caveman DNA story above is even more evidence that modern humans and cavemen interbred, and that women prefer sexually aggressive sex partners. That is, if you believe the caveman stereotype.

But perhaps it is the other way around, and men prefer sexually aggressive females? We may never know, because women’s groups and feminists work so hard at denying actual, physical violence and aggression perpetrated by females, despite decades of evidence demonstrating that women are at least, or more aggressive than men.

We may never know because feminism in any western country is based in logical fallacies , and false dilemas that pervade diaolgues, and deny the power of kyriarchy.

But one thing is certain: it is literally in the financial interests of feminists and their allies in science to deny women’s violence, and perpetuate the sexist stereotypes of women as ‘helpless victims,’ rather than as capable people–there’s money to be made in perpetuation.

I should back up a bit: I don’t want to be accused of sexism by all of those sexists –(have you ever noticed how sexist the people who point out sexism actually are)?

So it would be more fair to point out that modern humans interbred with cavepeople, in this case the Denisovan group of ancestors.

We already knew that we are related to Neanderthals–who actually get a bad rap for violence, because of the sexist biases of modern scientists like Greg Laden,who maintain that Neanderthals were all rapists, despite evidence that they were spiritual and compassionate, and also evidence they took care of the handicapped amongst them.

Sex-biased scientists are almost as disreputable as religious ones, and  fanatics who believe the cavemen lived alongside dinosaurs, and ‘went to heaven.’ But you have to take science with a grain of salt these days, as the left/right religious and sexist wars rage through the facts.

So the stereotype prevails that cavemen were a brutal, male dominated species, and  the stereotype waxes and wanes in  currency, because some women are also financially invested in the idea of perpetuating the image of women as vulnerable, and helpless–which is anti-feminist–despite their own claims to the contrary!

Advancements of women who have at least, their own powerful identities, separate from monolithic feminism are nearly antithetical to the rape and rapeology industries that thrive and prosper in academia, government, and social services.

This type of feminist minces words or concepts like “nature versus nurture,” and act like its all one grand mystery how sexism is perpetuated (clue to feminist moms: stop treating your own daughter like a sex object), while pimping their daughters to middle class paradigms of ‘beauty’ and ‘ frailty’ in need of ‘protection’ from cavemen.

Nature and nurture are complex, and not simply explained from either a genetic, or a psychological reasoning, because social forces intervene in each. The bias of scientists selects for or against explaining this complexity–the religious doubt the genetic explanation, the sexists doubt the religious explanations, and both mangle the social implications of the discussion.

Psychological perspective: http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm

Psychological-genetic explanation: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Nature_nurture

So how can we explain female college wrestlers Brittany and Brienna Delgado, subduing a fleeing hit and run suspect with chicken locks and chokeholds!?

“We do several moves where you stop your opponents,” said Brittany Delgado. “My sister and I are very proficient wrestlers and also played football in high school, so we know about tackling.”

My best guess is that these young ladies weren’t raised by feminists per se, or at least that kind of feminist– or scientists. I would guess they were raised by loving parents who were aware of the interplay between nature and nurture, as well as the biases in each corner.

But one thing is certain: the Delgado girls can probably handle themselves in any elevator–unlike young, white, middle class feminists raised by other middle class sex pandering feminists[see links at bottom for “elevators”] who sexualized their daughters.

As long as sexism and science are blurred with feminism, we may never know what women, or our own DNA really are made of, because like religion, there’s just way too much money to be made in arguing about it, and perpetuating false rape scenarios, and Virgin Mary complexes, rather than getting our human groove on–cave person style.

Did you ever have a secret you couldn’t tell anyone? Men and boys often do, and it is imperative that we learn to listen, rather than chiding, or mocking them, or making light of problems that men and boys face.

12 year old boy faces prison–and it’s all his fault. He should man up or somethin… [Especially watch the womans comment at the end of the video, about how he should rot or get raped in prison]

I probably ask some of the same questions—and come up with the same answers as you do when it comes to trying to understand why a young boy would take a shotgun, and blow a person’s head off. But for some, the  likely the answer is because “that’s just what boys do,” or some derivative of ‘ boys and violence.”

And I am not a psychiatrist; I don’t know for certain why he did what he did, but I do know a bit about being a boy, and how that can hurt in weird ways. Especially when they tell you that girls don’t do bad things.

This idea is perpetuated by academics who believe that boys are harmful to society. However, actual scientists believe that there is massive gender bias against  boys in mental health diagnoses.

Boys are four times less likely to be diagnosed with autism, and autism might even be a factor in whether or not boys become murderers.

Boys also suffer from the under diagnoses of ADHD, and a host of other mental health issues.

Homicide is an extreme example of course, but an example of ‘male ascribed behavior’ that is perpetuated through gender stereotypes and under diagnoses like the above links. In fact, most violence is described as male behavior, part of a cycle of socially ascribed male status, until a boy “becomes a man” and achieves the status of violentoffender.

Most societies still encourage violence in males, despite the primitive nature of such a sexist belief system. Even the San people, who call themselves the  !Kung- who are reportedly one of the most gentle groups of people around the world,  believe that a boy is not a man until he kills.

Violence is socially constructed, and engendered  as male in discussions of domestic violence, and in the enumeration of the symptoms of mental disorders as well–which could be viewed as a form of violence directed at men, and in the least is sexist. Ascribing violence to males perpetuates violence, and is an inaccurate and misleading characterization, because women’s violence accounts for at least half of all domestic violence, and also takes many different forms, especially when they are drinking, and sometimes takes the extreme forms that this boy exhibits as well.

And some of those forms are well hidden in the family structure, and under discussed in mainstream dialogues. Even as I wrote this, a woman said to me (and I hear this quite a bit) “but you don’t know if the woman hurt him; how do you know the father didn’t do something to him?”

There is little doubt the father ‘did something’ but also he likely didn’t do enough, or could have. And the thing the father shouldn’t have done is to bring a strange woman with two strange kids into the center of a young boys life without some professional dialogue, or a counselor to oversee the transition.

But the dialogue with western women never progresses that far.The ‘it’s mens fault’  speaker is set to high volume, playing that old record every time you bring it up.

I have learned that this primary western female responsibility-negation response is to be expected when discussing causation of violence. Most if not all women reflexively deflect issues of violence onto men, and ascribe the results to male initiation—no matter how gross and evil acts of women’s violence are, or what different forms women’s violence takes. I have even come to the conclusion that this behavior—deflecting issues of violence onto men—is in fact a form of female violence.

But violence is every bodies problem. For an example: the bear comes to the mouth of the cave!! Do the man and woman each stand up and fight the bear? Do the children who have legs stand up and fight the bear?? Of course they do, if nuclear family has any meaning at all. It takes more than one woman kicking a man’s ass out of the comfort of the bearskin rugs to kick the ass of the next bear.

Anywhere except in America, the nuclear weapons capital of the world, land of the replaceable Uber-man, the ever fertile cannon fodder producing woman, and initiator of more than five current wars! And except for domestic violence issues and rape, violence is apparently wholesome, and socially acceptable.

Never mind statistics that prove that women’s sexual violence against boys leads to aberrant male behaviors—like rape and domestic violence.

From The Invisible Boy Report: Re-imagining the Victimization of Male Children and Teens

Statistics from The Invisible Boy Report, Health Canada

So I have learned the importance of ignoring this type of diffusion by women, because it only and forever leads to blaming boys for how they were raised, rather than examining women’s direct and indirect violence against boys which makes them “men” who fight bears all alone.

Anyone looking in on such a story, without proper social context, would conclude one of two things: the boy was angry and controlling, or the boy was homicidal—perhaps a sociopath. Maybe both, and maybe neither. Nobody can disagree on those two things, based on what we know about violence, except perhaps psychologists, and well- funded, well organized (invested) , biased social observers who define certain behaviors as “male behaviors” and certain other behaviors as ‘female behaviors.’

It isthis gendered schema which is the root of the problem of domestic violence, and those who parade such ideas don’t just define, or perpetuate the behaviors: they create them.

But I will suggest the bizarre, and the extreme: maybe the boy was neither angry, nor homicidal. Because boys respond to threats and challenges differently than women do because they are enculturated to do so. And boys who respond to challenges with extreme violence often are over-reacting to remembered violence that they have experienced. Fight or flight responses gone mad, escalated to a point where there is no turning back.

Maybe the boy was being preemptive in protecting ‘his home.’

Boys re-experience past violence when they are challenged or threatened. The sensitivity that is cultivated in girls is discouraged in boys. So instead of resorting to tears, and tantrums, or being encouraged to discuss his feelings, or even incorporated into a body politic that ascribes them validation through ‘victim status,’ boys can become isolated to the point of making irrational statements of protectiveness, or independence.

O.K., GAME TIME!

Let’s play a game—whether you want to or not, but if you’ve read this far–you will play. I will give you an example, you will follow it: rock, paper, and scissors. You will pick one of the three.

You picked one of the three, right? Even if you didn’t want to, or you chose not to play along, there was one of them in your head—I would bet it was rock. But playing, or not playing–either one is normal behavior.

But I know you picked one of the three even if you didn’t admit it. I told you to pick one of the three. You had to pick one of the three, and whether you wanted to or not, you did. Didn’t you?

DIDN”T YOU?

I personally would have picked option two—I wouldn’t have played the game, because I didn’t like the language that was used to get me to play. It sounds authoritarian, manipulative, and un-inclusive of my feelings.

And I cannot imagine what a boy might be feeling or thinking as he blasts someone in the back of the head with a shotgun, but I suspect he was remembering, feeling, or re-experiencing similar word games, and scars they had left on him, and possibly other more physical memories–after all, hitting boys is still common in American households.

But this kid is the kid who doesn’t understand normal, and his choice was “shotgun.” Shotgun wins every time over people who play games with your sense of safety (your rock), and your sense of expressing fairness ( paper), or your ability to separate the two (scissors). When grown-ups fail you on all three levels, there can be extreme consequences.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

A real time example of what it looks like when reason fails in discussions about sex and gender is taking place over at Greg Laden‘s blog at Scienceblogs.com. 

Or, in plain English, a battle of the sexes is taking place–gender warporn, and academic warporn.

Here is a live feed with a commentator, discussing the difference between child brains and adult brains. Notice the woman slapping the child/man at about 2:55 into the commentary.

Many of the women in the discussion are upset because men ‘just don’t get it’ when it comes to them being afraid of being raped, while many men think women just don’t get it about men dying, being killed, being incarcerated, and ALSO being raped, and assaulted as part of possibility of the every day life of being male.

In other words, white female privilege is again at war with males who are less privileged, while males who are privileged are also at war with those lesser privileged males. This is a historic pattern, as white female privilege goes hand in hand with imperialism. White female pseudo feminism is cultural imperialism.

On the other side of the debate is a woman, Abbie Smith, aka ERV,  who is a ” graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV,” and she is of the opinion that women whining about being afraid to be in an elevator with a man are, well, whiners.

And lurking around the fringes of the debate is notoriously sag-titted misandrist and false rape proponent P.Z. Meyers, who is a militarist, and an apologist for the police state.

Smith’s audience is mostly younger males that have been labeled, or ostracized from the gender feminists discussion at Laden’s blog and elsewhere.

Most importantly, notice that her blog is immensely more popular. I make note of that because  all of them are making money generating web traffic at the expense of males who feel they have been deprived of a ‘seat at the table.’ In first insulting males, and secondly, by capitalizing on male anger over insult, they together wage war against men.

Or, put in laymans terms, their are two old reasonable wealthy or secure white guys, both professors of  Marxist deconstructions of reality, who are circling as best as they can to keep up with two young white girls, andpotentially any other girls who feel ‘safe’ in the discussion.

The old feminists called that patriarchy; the new ones call it feminism. Hmmm.

Same as it ever was, with a twist: these types of people, and these type of debates lead to a domestic climate of fear, feed into police state ideology, and cause men to be incarcerated at incredibly high rates; all while providing a smokescreen against the backdrop of America’s imperialistic internationalist  invasions on five fronts that are actually killing children, and causing rape.

Or, put another way, chimpanzees do the same thing. Bands of chimps are patriarchal, and they hunt ‘outgroup’ males, with the approval of females.

Or, put yet another way: I might be wrong in my hypotheses that feminists are bonobos, with so much actual violence going around out there–violence that they instigate, or perpetuate against males.

Domestic gender war masks actual international war, and causes its own collateral damage. Women, then, are integral to the causation of war and violence.