Auto Added by WPeMatico

Toxic femininity

 

Image result for heather heying

 

From Quillette, by Heather Heying

 

Creating hunger in men by actively inviting the male gaze, then demanding that men have no such hunger—that is toxic femininity. Subjugating men, emasculating them when they display strength—physical, intellectual, or other—that is toxic femininity. Insisting that men, simply by virtue of being men, are toxic, and then acting surprised as relationships between men and women become more strained—that is toxic femininity. It is a game, the benefits of which go to a few while the costs are shared by all of us…..

The movement that has popularized the term ‘toxic masculinity’ shares tools and conclusions with those who see signs of ‘white supremacy’ everywhere they look. Intersectionalists have in common with one another a particular rhetorical trick: Any claim made by a member of an historically oppressed group is unquestionably true. Questioning claims is, itself, an act of oppression.

This opens the door for anyone who is willing to lie to obtain power. If you cannot question claims, any claim can be made.

Thus: Racism is ubiquitous. And all men are toxic. I object—but objection is not allowed. Everyone who understands game theory knows how this game ends: Innocent people being vilified with false claims, and exposed to witch hunts. Sexual assault is real, but that does not mean that all claims of sexual assault are honest.

It is shocking that this bears saying, but there is a world of men who are smart and compassionate and eager to have vibrant, surprising conversations with other people, both men and women. The sex-specific toxicity that I have seen, when it has been obvious, has mostly been in the other court. All men are toxic and all women victims? No. Not in my name.

College degrees by sex

I do not use the word “gender”  and I counsel everyone to use the real word for it, sex.

“Gender” implies a political or grammatical construct. It is the same issue that Jordan Peterson has raised about pronouns for the inter-sexed and confused.

Now, on to the main course.

So which sex is finding that university is less appealing? Or which sex  cannot make the grades necessary in today’s pro-female education system? And which sex is falling behind in earning power as a consequence? And is either sex  allowed to observe this and remark upon it?

 

Professor Pangloss, meet Dr. Doom

 

 

The most important thing about prediction is the time scale over which you are measuring. The probability of the extremely rare event rises to certainty with the passage of time. For example, the history of the earth for the last two million years shows that the next ice age cannot be further away than two to five thousand years. If we extend the time scale to several tens of millions of years, it is likely that the earth will pass through epochs considerably warmer than we are in now.

So it is with historical timespans, which are far shorter . The human race has been undergoing a massive population expansion since 1800 because of science, increasing energy resources, and a feedback loop between increasing wealth and increasing resources to deal with disease.

Yet the very forces that have created the population explosion are everywhere reducing human birthrates. Why? Because as women become certain of the survival of their babies, they have fewer of them. Just as the burden of humans on the planet reaches a peak, the human species declines in numbers. These are demographic certainties: the dearth of children since the 1970s has been felt in every part of the world, including especially the Islamic parts. Within three generations human fertility has crashed from 6-8 live births to about 2 live births per woman. Read David Goldman’s It’s not the End of the World, it’s just the End of You: the Great Extinction of Nations.

It was with interest and pleasure that I have been absorbing Kyle Harper’s The Fate of Rome. Harper is the first historian of whom I am aware to have taken seriously the impacts of disease and climate change on the fate of the Roman Empire. He addresses the reader’s attention to the startling scale of death in the three waves of pestilence that not just decimated, but halved, Roman populations in the period 200AD to 550 AD. There were three near-global epidemics that swept through the Empire, each assisted by the ubiquity of trade links and safety of travel that imperial security allowed. One was probably the first exposure of humans to what we later called smallpox. The second was an Ebola-like hemorrhagic fever. 

The third, which swept through the Empire when the Emperor Justinian was trying to restore civil order and prosperity in the mid-500s, was bubonic plague, which broke out in AD 542. The population of the eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire fell by half in one year, from 30 to 15 million, and kept on falling for several decades after as plague returned. Imagine the stink of corpses when everyone is dying and not enough people are available to bury them.

Coupled with volcanic outbursts that clouded the sun, and variations in the rainfall in central Asia, which sent the Huns westward in search pasturage, causing them to crash into the Goths who crashed into the Roman Empire, these waves of disease, worsening climate, and barbarian invasions had utterly wrecked the western Roman Empire by AD 400. Brian Fagan records in his book, The Long Summer, that the cultivation of the grape and the olive used to take place as far north in Gaul as the current French-Belgian border, but that, after the Roman Climate Optimum suddenly collapsed around 400 AD, the olive tree grows no further north than its current line in France’s Massif Central. Can you imagine what it would do to US agriculture if the climate of Saskatchewan moved south 400 miles? In the space of ten years?

Compared to scientifically literate histories like The Fate of Rome, Edward Gibbon’s attempt to blame the fall of Rome on the rise of Christianity, the personalities of Emperors, and barbarian invasions, seems more like an exercise in oratory and Latinate English than anything accurate.

Which brings me to the genial, clever Professor Steven Pinker and his Enlightenment Now. Pinker presents the best case possible that progress in the past several centuries has been real, and that catastrophists are wrong. I have every reason to believe this story; I am a rational optimist myself. Pinker and his teammate, Matt Ridley, both make the irrebuttable case that the world has been getting massively better for all. I wish there were more people who were aware of how much and how rapidly human life has improved since 1800, since 1900, since 2000. In that sense it is important to point out how much I agree with Pinker.

And yet, the pace of evolution is accelerating as population becomes denser. The pathogens that struck down the Roman Empire in repeated waves are entirely recent mutations.

As Harper explains:

The last few thousand years have been the platform for a new age of roiling evolutionary  ferment among pathogenic microbes. The Roman Empire was caught in the the turbulence of this great acceleration….

The primacy of the natural environment in the fate of this civilization draws us closer to the Romans, huddled together to cheer the ancient spectacles and unsuspecting of the next chapter, in ways we might not have imagined.

We are as grass, and while the arguments for impending catastrophe are much weaker than supposed, it is unwise to think that all will be well. The influenza epidemic of 1918 killed 3 to 5% of the world’s population, 50 to 100 million people, more than the World War that preceded it.

Civilizations and empires can end because of diseases and climate change. They have already done so several times. There is no reason to suppose we are immune, notwithstanding the cheerful and truthful news from the likes of Steve Pinker and Matt Ridley.

Professor Pangloss, meet Doctor Doom.

 

The y-axis indicates deaths per thousand

File:1918 spanish flu waves.gif

The biology of human sexual life versus the Left

There are only 4,000 mammal species on earth. Humans are  weird, and in some cases unique, among those 4,000 species.. Two professors, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, here interviewed by Joe Rogan, have been the subject of leftist attacks because they insist on the biological basis of sex. Who would have thought it possible?

Their troubles at Evergreen College are related here.

Heather Heying’s analysis of the situation is here.

 

The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.

Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas.

Your daily dose of Jordan Peterson

You need to hear him. The BBC interviewer interrupts constantly and it is obvious that nothing Peterson says fits her preconceived notions. Yet he calmly prevails. I wish I had as much precision of speech when under pressure.

Worth watching just to see how a careful answer can influence even a BBC interrogator. She interrupts, she fails to listen, she is disagreeable, she acts is unfair.  She projects madly from stuff she misinterprets. In fact, she argues like your wife, your girl friend.

He points out she has the right to be disagreeable, and that she is being disagreeable, and she agrees with him. So how come Jordan Peterson does not have the right to be disagreeable to radical leftist ideologues?

 

 

The Jayman: you have to read him

From the Jayman, who for your interest and information, is Jamaican.

Clannishness and how to mitigate its dire effects on (lack of) development, trust and progress.

My earlier entry (Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain) established that there are deep distinctions between Northwestern European peoples and most of the rest of the world, and that these differences have a huge impact on the world, including on levels of human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust. If you’re unfamiliar with this division, the previous entry and materials linked within cover it all in extensive detail.

But the question is, how did it happen? How did these divisions come to be? Well, of course, my answer is evolution through natural selection – specifically, gene-culture co-evolution.

Before we can ascribe these differences to evolution, it must be understood that these differences have a genetic basis. That is, they are heritable. This means that genetic differences between different peoples lead to differences in their behavioral traits, which, collectively, manifests as cultural differences. We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each. As John Derbyshire put it, “if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities.”. See my Behavioral Genetics Page for more. The rest of this entry proceeds assuming an understanding of this reality.

Now, it’s also very important to understand that evolution proceeds quicker than you’ve been led to believe. Certainly a lot faster than mainstream ideology posits (i.e., claiming that human evolution somehow came to a halt 50,000 years ago) which is demonstrably nonsense:

 

Figure 1: Age of human selected genetic variants

Figure 2: Distribution of Lactose Tolerance

Global-Lactose-Intolerance

As seen in both the age of genetic variants and the distribution of lactose tolerance, much human evolution took place within the last 5,000-10,000 years.

But evolution can proceed within the space of a few centuries, as governed by the breeder’s equation. A few centuries of sustained selective pressure can make a considerable impact on the characteristics of a human group. We see that with Ashkenazi Jews, whose high IQ (and many other traits) evolved only within the last 2,000 years.

With all of this out of the way, what selective pressures explain the differences between Northwestern Europeans and the rest of the world? Here, we can, for now, only hypothesize. As opposed to the reality of the differences, which is easy to establish, how these differences came to be is a harder puzzle to untangle. That said, we do have some good ideas.

 

Read on:

http://www.unz.com/jman/clannishness-the-series-how-it-happened/

A warning: the Unz Review contains views of wildly incongruous and incompatible positions and personalities, from bananarama Left to Pat Buchanan on the Paleolithic Right.

 

Google: What goes around, comes around

 

James Damore has filed suit against Google for discrimination against conservative white men.

 

Damore isn’t holding back any punches here. According to his filing, Google employs “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.”

The suit also claims that “numerical presence of women celebrated at Google” was based “solely due to their gender” while the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”

Somewhat redundantly, it adds that Damore, Gudeman and “other class members” were “ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males.”

The lawsuit is seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies.

From my real but limited experience in the Google matrix, what Damore alleges reflects the Silicon Valley Democratic consensus, and the company’s actual behaviours. Google preaches PC every day, in every way.

Further evidence for this proposition comes this morning from Breitbart:

 

The lawsuit further accuses Google of what amounts to racism stating, “Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination — Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.” The lawsuit also alleges that Google operates in an “ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink.”

The lawsuit claims that at one of Google’s weekly company-wide meetings the presence of white males at the company was openly booed by employees. “Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods.”

The full pleading is found here.

I have said before and will say again, Google is in the firm grip of a totalitarian cult. What interests me as a lawyer, is that a cursory look at the pleading evinces a clear, self-declared, unembarrassed, explicit anti-white male bias  on the part of Google and its management and many of its employees.

Deconstructing Jordan Peterson

 

Occasionally there is nothing to add to a perfect piece of analysis. I refer you to Mark Milke’s Deconstructing Jordan Peterson in the C2C Journal:

 

…his views are worth quoting at length, this from his C2C Journal interview one year ago, where he summarizes the attempts to argue genders and gender identities are mere social constructs. Peterson objects and argues that gender identity is biologically fixed:

“There are sex differences at every level of analysis. There are masculinity/femininity scales that have been derived; they’re basically secondary derivations of personality descriptors. There are huge personality differences between men and women. There’s literature looking at differences of men and women in personality in many, many societies throughout the world. I think the biggest paper examined 55 different societies. And they rank societies by sociological and political equality. The hypothesis was that if you equalize the environment between men and women, you eradicate the differences between them. In other words, if you treat boys and girls the same, the differences between them will disappear. But that’s not what the studies showed. In reality, they get bigger. Those are studies of tens of thousands of people. The social constructionist theory was tested. It failed. Gender identity is very much biologically determined.”

Thus, if Peterson’s characterization of the literature is correct, but for the infinitesimally small proportion of the human population that is anatomically hermaphroditic at birth or anatomically altered by chemicals and surgery, if you are born with male anatomy you are a man, and if you born with female anatomy you are a woman. Pretending gender is subjective and engaging in word games about identity – as if we, not nature, choose our gender – is thus an affront to biological reality, rudimentary empiricism and also honest language.

I want everyone to stop using the word “gender” for anything other than masculine and feminine nouns. I am male. I am of the male sex. I am not of the male gender.  You do not have choice in participating in your sexual  identity, contrary to all fashionable nonsense of the era. “Gender” is akin to the Marxist use of the word “exploitation”. It is ideologically loaded; it is nonsense on stilts. Biology is not a social construct.

The art of dealing with the  world as it is consists of knowing what cannot be changed by talking about it differently.

For more on this, see Hjernevask, the entertaining documentary film in Norwegian and English on the subject of orthodox leftism’s pseudo-scientific rubbish.

 

Here is more of Mark Mielke:

So the notion that gender identity is fluid is redolent of old, discredited Marxist assumptions. It enables the construct of countless new realities, disconnected from empirical evidence that until now determined whether people were male or female. But if gender is malleable, why stop there? Why not insist – many of us would like this – age really is a state of mind? How about ethnicity a la carte? After all, if the biological reality of chromosome realities can be ignored in favour of a self-chosen label, why not do away with the pesky notion of ages and ethnic origins altogether? To paraphrase Descartes, today I feel like a 21-year-old, therefore I am.

The modern constructivists, pace the economic Marxists, ignore nature and believe people and outcomes are always and everywhere determined by power, imposed, and thus artificial. Human beings are thus subject to infinite deconstruction and reconstruction – whatever imaginary identity or society one wishes to impose and with zero regard for actual, on-the-ground realities.

 

 

The Omnivore’s Dilemma

Two of my favourite thinkers speak of disgust, exposure to foreign matter, the body, and how people divide politically: openness versus security – Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt. It leads to a very interesting discussion of Hitler, in passing. It shows how much we are slaves to metaphors.

Haidt situates the problem in

  • loss of unsupervised play as children, so that they arrive at university expecting a parent will always intervene;
  • excessive exposure to social media as children, and the pervasive use of media platforms (Facebook etc) that expose women and girls to reputation damage by mob;
  • Political polarization and segregation of people into hostile tribes; no one has been exposed to a differing opinion.

Haidt recommends everyone read Lenore Skenazy’s “Free Range Kids“. Why should kids always be confined to organized play?