-"We see what the male moral subjectivity and “logic” has accomplished in the forms of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and so on."
Per my previous statement you mean male objective morality unless you mean that men as a whole overwhelmingly present subjective moral reasoning. You base your whole basis of understanding of objective morality on the moral constitution of no more than 8 individuals. Just because men demonstrate objective moral reasoning does not mean that all men are moral. Your statement is a strawman argument and non sequitur...try again....Again, you prove my point i.e. the subjective relativity of female morality and in this case the projections of its thought process. If you notice, the form of alternative structure that women come up with on their own within feminist circles is that of wican goddess worship and thus a projection based upon the subjective self. Overwhelmingly female devised religion does not produce an objective and external goddess for which they themselves are subject to but rather profess and worship the self as the goddess, your self included. This has also been refered to as "The Devine Feminine". This is to be expected based upon evident aspects and expression of her nature in other realms of her subjective reasoning process, associated gynocentricity and resulatant moral ethos.
Furthermore, these men gained power through the subjective, morally relative gynocentric central ethos of the female in order to transition the sovereignty of the family and the mated pair bond as the core of society to at first the gynocentric nature of the female and consequently the control of State and working industry. If it were not for women falling prey to their own nature, the Communist Revolutions in China, Cambodia and the former Soviet Union could never have happened.
"Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Communist luminary Mr. Karl Marx
The element that drives males to acquire such power, territory and resources is not the result of an essentialist element of androcentric nature but in actuality to meet the ends to which female gynocentric nature seeks for herself. Contrary to gynocentric female projectionist thought, the male does not do all of these things for himself, he does them for you. The Male's nature (which is supposed to be complimentary to the female) does not exist or has come about in a vacuum but rather it is your own nature through sexual selection that you have embodied in him. He is in fact everything you selected for him to be. It is your own gynocentric nature, when manifested with political agency that destroys the mated pair bond and transfers power to State and working industry.
A timeline of feminist thought which has risen as a prominent ideology right here in The United States:
Here are quotes from an early feminist and leader of Stalin's women's section of the Communist Party the prototype which has formed Obama's Council On Women and Girls, a council which has the same stated goals and thus effectual outcome of Marxist equality upon society.
On Women in the Workforce:
"Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance." "Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier." -Alexandra Kollontai (female)-Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920
It was by the use of the gynocentric all consummate all consumptious but most importantly, subjective reasoning mind of the female that centralized power was and is achieved. :
Female Gynocentricity leads to the centralized powers of State and working industry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0 On Childcare Facilities:
"The state is responsible for the upbringing of children" "The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." -Alexandra Kollontai (female)-Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920
It is important for you to recognize the merger of female gynocentricity with State, and the merger of corporations and working industry with State that leads to totalitarian governments.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
If the tenets of these totalitarian governments and their central machinations were female it would merely result in mutual squalor for all which I will explain later in this writing. In fact these central machinations are achieved vicariously through the female to begin with.
As you can see and as you have already confirmed females do not care or focus on the objective but rather any means to acquire their subjective proclivities and requisites. Nothing matters to the female but to acquire these things by any means and yes as you have demonstrated even by the expendability of the male from the mated pair bond and the lives of their children.
Women don't believe in Independence, Liberty and Freedom. Inherently women do not believe in depending on themselves but rather a more dominant, more capable force either centralized through the power of the State (which they see as alpha or through the power of the collective through which they seek to defer their dependent tendencies upon in order to fulfill) or as is evident by female implemented marriage laws, the removal of Independence, Liberty, Freedom, Rights, property and children of the male. Yet again, the subjective moral relativism and gynocentric nature of the female presents itself : )
Both of these support structures women either naturally see or are convinced to see as a better alternative than the mated and mutually dependent pair bond with mutually dependent liabilities. No-fault divorce was implemented by females to relinquish themselves of their portion of liability to the mated pair bond while still being entitled to the males and likewise was implemented during the Bolshevik Communist Revolution and to some extent during the decline of the Roman Republic. Before no-fault and default female child custody men VERY RARELY divorced their families and if they did they still bared their liabilities and obligations to the female. Even today men VERY RARELY divorce their family and even less so when there are children involved. Females initiate 70+% off all divorce. Of the 30% of divorce initiated by men, very few if not most do not involve children. Women do this after an average period of 7.9 years (a predictable pattern) and do so to follow through on the unequal ability such laws present to them in order to spread and increase their genetic fitness. Men would do this as well if we likewise bared no liability to women. Conversely under patriarchy (unlike our current and growing matriarchal construct) men do not absolve themselves of obligation and liability to the female. Again, female gynocentric and subjective moral relativism presents itself : )
-"I think Matriarchy is favorable to patriarchy, but you know I’m biased!"
Matriarchy by definition amounts to men not being a part of the family and in the animal kingdom it is likewise. Polyandry in such a structure is so rampant to the point where men do not even know who their own children are. You will notice this is a prominent aspect of the most definitive matriarchal communities in the United States, the African American community. If matriarchy is implemented men naturally feel, nor do they have obligation to women or their own offspring. In one of the only matriarchies that survive today men live with their mothers and marginally invest in the offspring of their female relatives. For the most part however men in matriarchies do not produce ANYTHING AT ALL.
Here is a picture of a matriarchy:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers_big.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers.html You can see that they live a rather primitive life with no modern implements THAT MEN PRODUCE anywhere to be seen. There is a tractor tire that is cut in half on the ground in the background and the scattered leavings of the prosperous patriarchies around them. The only reason this matriarchy has been allowed to survive is owed to the surrounding patriarchies having not come in conflict with them for territory and resources. Matriarchies do not survive long. They consume themselves, through female gynocentric agency, associated resultant polyandry and thus any semblance of their own enfranchisement and means of production through the male competitive echelon : ). Women simply do not produce anything and furthermore do not know how nor do they need to in a properly functioning patriarchy, how's that for "oppression". In females, the propensity for external demonstration of selective variables, associated utility of such, nor the associated competitive echelon that accompanies it exists at all and thus you have a society that lives in squalor.
-"It is My wish that Women realize their innate power and likewise realize how rewarding male submission is"
Submission??? You mean slavery....females are not capable of leadership in this regard nor morally objective thinking..Females are capable of no more than succumbing to their gynocentric, all consummate and consumtious nature. Their leadership would be brutal and fascist and yes amount to slavery. Simply take a look at the laws that women lobby for and create : ) Women are capable of nothing more than attending to their own requisite needs of THEIR OWN survival and that of what they believe are THEIR offspring. To females, yourself included males are nothing more than a means to an end.
-(In reference to the forced resignation of former President of Harvard University upon upsetting the feelings of females within the once sacred sanctity inside the highest chambers of academia and intellectual conjecture) "Noooo, Mr. Summers made an ignorant, throwback statement"
No, what Mr. Summers made was an opinion. Again females are incapable of objective thinking. They think in terms of how something subjectively affects the self and as such freedom of speech is born of male objectivity. Women lack reason, all intelligent men know this.
"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-
In fact it is your nature to delete this entire writing from your site for the same reasons.
"Overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."
The above is what Mr Summers said and Mr. Summers has scientific data, g factors and other OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE elements of proof to back it up. The Dimorphic curve of variance shows males proportionally populate the top and the bottom of the curve. Suffice as to say if you are going to find the most talented, the most gifted most exceptional individuals the chance increases exponentially as you go up the curve that that individual will be male. I know that females have a hard time accepting this but it is a proven fact.
Again here is the curve:
Again here is more evidence of the numbers behind the exponential curve. Before you claim "patriarchy monster" and "cultural bias" or "gender is a social construct" the curve is proportional to the bottom percentiles as well:
More Nobels but More Dumbells, Why Men Are At The Top: by Helena Cronin:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin Females have a MASSIVE inferiority complex. What women need to understand is that they are not men, they are not male and never will be. You are so gynocentric that you seek your requisites and follow your programed proclivities to the point of male nullification itself. Females have to understand that they are heavily represented in the clustered mean average for a reason, they are the constant for a reason. Likewise their chromosomes along with the associated carried variables reflect likewise. The 50 million dollars women demanded and recieved after a "patriarch" expressed his OPINION (based in fact) will do nothing to change this. What it will do however is reduce the net production of our science base and thus in the end we will succumb to a patriarchy who does not allow women's gynocentric and subjective understanding of the world interfere with their science base.
"There is nothing “average” about the X chromosome, especially when you have two of them. You would do well to read about X inactivation in Female adaptation to disease and environment."
The quantitative does not equal the qualitative. More X chromosomes means nothing in the mind of one with objective reason. Again this must be a product of your gynocentric consumptious and all consumate reasoning. Futhermore I am already well read on this subject. You are speaking to a dominant male and not the beta males you surround yourself with, you know, the ones even yourself are unattracted to. This is also why a social structure like the one you have built in your home will never exist on a grand scale. Again, your mental pathology precludes you from acting upon the normal sexually selective preference of females. Suffice as to say that the likelihood that you will reproduce is slim to none and if you do it will be with these beta males. By chance you do reproduce this inferior offspring (as defined by nature and sexual selection) and this offspring happens to be male you will abuse him as you do the beta males you are so proud of attracting. In this case it is very likely he will grow up to abuse females. Ask any criminal pathologist this question.
Besides I will place a good bet that you do not plan on reproducing because it will nullify the vacuous lifestyle you aspire to. The ultimate reward will be that your genes will be extinguished from existence. Furthermore if your offspring is male you will not raise him to be fit for spreading his genetic fitness but rather to exist in some sort of psycho-sexual femdom underworld of disturbed females like yourself. Again you lose, and again to your disappointment, he will likely develop your own pathology. If your offspring are female I can guarantee you will not be doing her a favor in gaining the attention of men IN THE REAL WORLD:
"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."
Anyway, to the point of your statement. What the X does carry is our base blueprint. All human beings are modeled from it. The X carries cross redundant back up mechanisms to repair damage to this base blueprint. Consequently the lack of selective variables carried through the X is the reason why females are clustered in the mean average of variance in EVERY measure of adaptive and selective variables. Suffice as to say that you are doomed to mediocrity as far as selective traits are concerned, intelligence being one of them.
-"the male is an expendable sort of experiment by nature; he is without a doubt the more disposable sex."
He is without a doubt the most valuable sex in maintaining genetic variance and as such the adaptive health of the species. You would like to believe that males are expendable to you. Again this is due to the innate gynocentric and subjective moral reasoning of the female and as you practice your central female ethos out in the open you will only serve to garner expendable beta males into your "stock". However much to your disappointment, male expendability is not the case outside of your gynocentric self as much as you would like to believe it. Nature ensures that there are more males born to maintain this value of males. Given your mental pathology you have certainly keyed in on male variance and the expendability of certain variants as a reason you are superior. By definition there is nothing exceptional about the female representation as the base blueprint, the constant. What is exceptional, valuable and precious by definition is variance. The males with the best variables (which are not determined by you believe it or not) are more valuable than ANY FEMALE.
"To assert the male brain is superior to the Female brain is chauvinist fantasy, however."
You are the one focusing on supremacy which I have concluded by other examples elsewhere must be an innate part of female nature to be preoccupied with. Your obsession with an oppressive patriarchy is nothing more than projectionist psychology. As such your subjective and gynocentric nature makes you unfit to lead. Not to be condescending but in terms of functional aspects females are more so a parasite than a host. You consume, you do not produce or provide anything to men nor society at large outside of the social fabric which you manipulate and latch onto in order to survive.
(The males that keep your company are beta) "Very funny, and proof positive you know nothing about Me or the lifestyle I lead!"
Non sequitur argument....disqualified. Try again. Though now you have to come up with a reason you are attracted to these men. This will be difficult for you so you will have to lie on this matter or come to terms with your mental pathology. Again fundamentally as referenced from the whole of the female population and sexual selection itself the female is not attracted to them.
"I invite you to realize that the above is only a partial list (of female inventors.)"
Fine, I am willing to agree there are exceptions to the rule. The fact that men are MUCH more suited to the intelligent utilization of resources is the rule. I know this from countless encounters with females in my personal life, my observations of where females predominate in the areas of higher education and my observations of the world around me. Females by nature do not know how to design, build, maintain or repair the world around them which is built by the male mind. Nor do they have the motivation to. Females by nature do not produce. You are more so a parasite upon the male and the associated things which men produce.
Females do not produce and have never done so to the capacity of the male. Again due to your gynocentric nature any resources you do acquire are spent upon yourself. You have been carried on the backs of male protection and provision for so long, the capability to produce is not represented in the innate ability of the female population. You are social creatures by enlarge and instead focus on "the people sciences" more than anything else. You can't stand the fact that you possess different apptitudes in such capabilities as men. This is why your sex demands Affirmative Action, Title IX, bribery in the form of female only loans and free ride scholarships in order to force numerical parity of representation in the hard sciences.
"Does the name Grace Hopper mean anything to you?"
No but it should. She is such an exception to the norm. I wish we could have done a FMRI scan of her brain. Very odd indeed. She married at 25 which is exceptionally old for her time and never had children. Given her male like brain and capabilities along with female hypergamous mating preference it is a wonder she married at all. Usually such females like her produce themselves out of their own preference for a mate:
See:
Furthermore it is likely that Ms. Hopper was exposed to inordinate amounts of androgens during fetal development. Her facial characteristics show many signs of male androgenically induced secondary sexual characteristics. She looks much like a man with makeup on: See:
-(In reference to the dimorphic curve chart) "Be that as it may, this chart (which has been around for a while) represents an old logic of IQ axis, blind to the fact that cultural evolution shapes the brain through belief systems"
Ahhhh yes the old gender and gender differences are a social construct. Dream on sister. The two genders exist for a reason. It is not to be superior, but to be complimentary toward the ends of our common felicity and sacred bond ordained by nature. Unlike the male the female is valuable for the simple fact that she exists. She is the constant in sexual selection. Congruently, this nature of innate inherent value, a sense of primary importance or chooser as the constant in sexual selection seems to embody itself within the central psychological and fucntional modalities of the female ethos.
-"Also, what do you think about this graph?"
http://tinyurl.com/4pfv3ax I think that different variants of the human genus very likely have differences and adaptive advantages. Black people for instance despite them denying it openly have superior athletic ability.
-"Other studies find a small female advantage on IQ tests. After controlling for sociodemographic and health variables, “gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage.”
http://tinyurl.com/49fl4md This was not an IQ test, does not appear to be peer reviewed, has a limited sample size and does not represent the sheer mass of aggregate results from standard, more broad and nationally conducted tests on the ENTIRE population nor the sample sizes used to produce the aggregate results in question produced from IQ tests. I will agree that females may have different abilities in language and communication function. If my understanding of females is correct they may excel in the areas of choice of words and understanding of social context.
"(the males that are my "slaves") are more often than not are alpha males by definition"
And what is an alpha male by definition? If this is the case, females like you are merely an outlet for them to escape the dominant role and plethora of opportunities they have with a myriad of females other than yourself. You are by no means a superior when it comes to surmounting the base principals of sexual selection. They, in fact, may be numb from being "superior" (as you like to call it) themselves and are looking to pretend or play with the feeling and desire not only to find a female of equal selective value but exacerbate this desire by creating a disproportionate and even submissive interaction with a female. It is something they may miss IN THE REAL WORLD. Again, back to my point that you are not superior over them but merely appeasing them. They are over-qualifiers so to speak and far from inferior when it comes to the power you believe you actually hold over them.
It makes sense that they are either extreme betas in which case you are fooling or overriding your own biologically selective preferences for a male in favor of the predilections produced by your mental pathology in which case selectively speaking you lose and are surrounding yourselves with losers of the mating game which any female is capable of but will never manifest on a grand scale in some sort of female dominated utopia you have in your head. Otherwise as previously stated these males are extreme alphas in which case you are again not superior in the first place but serve as an appeaser to create an exaggerated dynamic based upon creating an imaginary lack of worthinesses they LACK IN THE REAL WORLD.
-"How many men understand how a DVD player or computer works, from front to back end, for that matter?
More men than women I can assure you of that. Would you like to challenge me to a debate upon the inner workings of a DVD player or computer system : ) Come on its ok....open your eyes.
-"Are you suggesting there are no Female computer scientists? Are you suggesting there are no Female engineers? Mechanics?."
No, but there are far fewer of them and this is so not only because of innate lack of female ability but lack of interest as well. As with many if not all things they will not be represented in the top percentiles either. As with everything else, nor do they want to be, or, sexually selectively speaking, nor do they need to be.
- (Affirmative Action "women first laws" and the myriad of female special privilege laws) "such special privileges for women serve to "counter-balance cultural bias."
Ahhh yes the vaunted imaginary patriarchy that serves to hold females down. Yes, that's it, the imaginary male monster. If it were about cultural bias they would simply remove the name of the person and gender from the entrance exam. You know as well as I do that it is not about merit at all but forcing "gender parity" and "equality". The only thing feminists seek equality in is the high paying professions and they seek to do so by force and not by female merit. As such, due to these policies females have accomplished nothing upon their merit. Furthermore if it were about fairness away from the mandates of an "oppressive patriarchy" and not forced superior or equal access to resources feminists would insist that there should be forced parity in such fields as car mechanics etc. Quite frankly If I were you I would be embarrassed. Typically male fields are higher paying fields for a reason...they produce i.e. the requisites to support life itself.
-"While there are of course abuses in any system, such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."
Well at least you admit these policies are abuses.
-"such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."
LOL these abuses invalidate "overall merit" itself LOL : )
Have a wonderful day : ) You have such a charming character! I wish you the best in your goal to enslave the entire male population. You are the perfect example of a feminist and likewise the proprietor of the innate female mindset of what I believe to be embodied in ALL WOMEN which has manifested itself into and has the goal of changing actual social, political and economic policy according to your gynocentric natures....a real disappointment your "equality" has been. I find solace in the knowledge that the foreign hordes will be here soon. Again as history has shown, matriarchies do not last long and historically speaking the development of such, through my studies, is correlated directly with the "death cycle" of great civilizations before us. http://saharaheve.com/blog/
Posts
