Women Execute Renowned Top Surgeon

As editor of Surgery News Dr. Greenfield wrote the below Valentine's Day-themed editorial in a publication for fellow surgeons. Apparently women were so upset by it that the entire issue of Surgery News was pulled from the web and Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign as editor as well as forced to declare his resignation as President-Elect of the American College of Surgeons. His new role...a castigated exile to the back alleys of civilization, the implicit label of a criminal to humanity and the subject of no less than execution:


"As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you'd be surprised by new findings. It's been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%."

"Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests. So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."

Greenfield's personal reflections on the matter: "The editorial was a review of what I thought was some fascinating new findings related to semen, and the way in which nature is trying to promote a stronger bond between men and women. It impressed me. It seemed as though it was a gift from nature. And so that was the reason for my lighthearted comments."

The entire editorial can be read HERE

Popular Science Magazine has also written more upon the story HERE

What the world lost?:

Chairman of the Department of Surgery, and inventor of inferior vena cava filter which has saved countless lives from pulmonary embolism caused by blood clots during heart surgery. An utterly brilliant man, Dr. Greenfield has authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 55 book chapters, and 8 books. His textbook of surgery is one of the major surgical texts used by many medical schools and residencies to this day. He is an Emeritus Professor of Surgery. This year, he reached one of the ultimate professional pinnacles in surgery, being elected to be the incoming president of the American College of Surgeons, the largest and most influential surgical organization.

UPDATE: As with the Dr. Lawrence Summers case, Dr Greenfield has been replaced by a woman, Dr. Patricia J. Numann of Syracuse, N.Y. as president-elect of American College of Surgeons.


Now.....we must ask why women do this. Well lets take a look from a female bloggers perspective from inside the organization:

"A Valentine’s Day editorial in the official newspaper of the American College of Surgeons has set off a firestorm of controversy that has divided the largest professional organization of surgeons in the country and raised questions about the current leadership and its attitudes toward women and gay and lesbian members."

"Dr. Greenfield wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues in response to the criticism, he wrote that his editorial “was considered by the Women in Surgery Committee and the Association of Women Surgeons as demeaning to women. Despite my apologies, they brought the issue to the Board of Regents.”

"While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned (source?), and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or courthship advances from men.

"Dr. Greenfield has had what many believe is an exemplary career not only as a surgeon but also as a longtime mentor and advocate of women in surgery." "Dr. Greenfield has been a mentor to countless surgeons, many of them women"

"Birmingham, who worked as a medical student, surgeon-in-training and faculty member under Dr. Greenfield. “Our understanding was that he went out of his way to recruit women on the trainee and faculty level.”

Clearly this was a mistake on his part wasn't it....

However "Dr. Diane M. Simeone, a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan who was a co-author of a recent article on barriers faced by women in academic surgery, agrees. “There still is a lot of gender bias in surgery, and I have seen it myself on multiple fronts,” she said."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So....what I gather is that the execution of Dr. Greenfield is the product of the vendeta women have. It is a product of the hypersensitive atmosphere of "social gender justice" and "sexual harassment" hysteria that dominates the social infrastructure of our societal institutions at every level including the Federal government. This was a product of dominate female social agency in action.

Popular Science Magazine: ‎"For what it's worth, I asked Gordon Gallup, Jr., an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY Albany what he thought about "Semengate."

"I think it's a tragic overreaction," he says. "The point at which we begin to let a political agenda dictate what science is all about is the point when science ceases to be a viable enterprise."

- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/controversial-ideas-semen-natures-antidepressant

What we do know is that it is clear that women have a well known track record with things like this. It is my contention that women have shown themselves to be to child like and to emotional to be capable of engaging in the higher pursuits of science. Yes, the above statement is facetious and filled with resentment isn't it.

They obviously have no business being anywhere near such definitive processes of logic and reason Dr. Greenfield referenced in his light hearted Valentines Day editorial. It's very sad what they have done.

Women should know that no matter how many men they have fired and castigated to the back alleys of civilization, science and freedom of speech will progress forward no matter how hard women try to stop it, no matter how hindered, handicapped and anti-male they attempt to make it.

I think what we are witnessing is female critical selective nature in action. Women evidently see his statement as an advocation for their own ingestion of semen perhaps even from the man in question.

I would like to reference an assessment of the universal appeal that misadry in commercials has to women in relation to their gynocentric, critical and selective natures:



It is my contention that portraying men as unworthy males to women is done to provide contrast to what is presented as a proper hypergamous decision...i.e. to make them feel as if buying the product presented is, in contrast to the choice they made in a man, a good better and rightful decision.

It plays on women's biology. their natural critical, demanding, hypergamous and selective nature. The product presents to females the inverse of the selective mistake they made of the man so the product is presented as the selective solution. It is meant to validate their critical, discerning and selective nature as naturally ordained "choosers".

This is why these ads are universally appealing to women. It taps directly into female nature.

So it does not really matter what she is being critical of in the man. Any selective preference of men by women is, in the female mind, the right one. In fact, the more unreasonably critical she is shown to be, the more it elevates the selective value she is ellicited to find in the product. By creating contrast with an inadequate male, it increases the selective worthiness and value of the product.


The above assessment is a deconstruction of the same selective sexual selection process in action in the Greenfield case. So to me it seems that women did not see the doctors statement as objective in nature but internalized the process of what he said through the subjective filter of mate selection. His statement was processed as an affront towards the critical filter of their selective natures.

He did not make the cut....that much was made perfectly clear to the world.

On an individual level is the fact that the reaction that took place against the doctor was uniquely female not feminist. It is the natural coalescence of female individual and gynocentric will that formates feminism as the collective vehicle of action. Was it feminist ideology that influenced the reaction and gave a vehicle of agency to it...yes. But the underlying forces involved is the product of individual female nature itself.

I think we need to realize that being a feminist and being female are integrally related. Feminism is simply the vehicle that is formed from female collective agency. It allows women as a group to enforce female will and power. It is not necessarily feminism that reigns supreme, it is female public agency and the natural social dominance that comes with it.

Female hegemony and individual nature coalesces through the vehicle of feminism. Suffice as to say that all women are feminists. Suffice as to say that females, increasingly, in any institution we look at have established and are able to maintain social dominance above and beyond male social agency. Females have always been served by public and private social structures of society in all realms...the difference is that it was men who had influence over how we and the social systems serve women to any measurable extent. Now, women dictate the terms of how they are served....this is a monumental change.

The concept that it's females themselves that are the source of destruction is a frightening idea I know because we are talking about females themselves being the dominate threat rather than a specific group of females with the label (feminists). We are talking about female collective social agency itself that is the threat and as such female public agency within public social institutions themselves.

Is this why prior cultures throughout time tended to keep females away from spheres of influence over public social structures...yes, undoubtedly so.

Few civilizations prior have allowed it and as we have witnessed.....this was for good reason. This is because female agency begins to reign supreme in a gynocentric fashion. These public social infrastructures quickly turn gynocentric and as such..as we have increasingly witnessed, these systems themselves are consumed of their own means of operation and production in order to serve female interests. The greater objective purpose of these institutions is destroyed.

In the Dr. Greenfield case, the Dr. Lawrence Summers case and many others this is obviously what we are looking at here and yes....it has proved nothing but destructive. The cat is out of the bag. I fear we will not be able to do anything to stop it. This is to say that we are unable to keep them from ABSOLUTE domination over public and institutional structures through the exercise of their will and power.

When public social infrastructure such as government are of AT LEAST equal male influence through male social and political agency they at least have the chance of acting in a manner to best serve resources to females while maintaining individual sovereignty of the individual especially the sovereignty and rights of men along with equal protections and provisions. As female agency grows the male workhorses of the Matriarchy grow to serve female gynocentric interests to the detriment of the objective purpose and intended ends of these public infrastructures



Again, this is simply how dominate female institutional and societal agency is manifesting..i.e. in a gynocentric fashion.

With now dominate female social and political agency females now simply dictate the terms of how their will, needs, protection and provision is served and to what extent. We have seen the limitations of extent brought forth by it. This is to say that there IS NO limitation of extent. I regret to say that as we have witnessed, there is no limit to the preference given to this if we look at the laws and policy women have implemented.

A female dominated society is the female domination of both the private and public sphere of societal operation and infrastructure.

As we have witnessed it is remarkably gynocentric and as such it is manifested through subjective female focus on themselves. Watch a Dove Chocolate commercial and you will witness female gynocentric focus of self sustainment and self focus in action.

Female terms serve the subjective self and not the objective terms which are beneficial to formating and operating such social structures. From definitive observation, these subjective terms of female gynocentric agency are no doubt a destructive force to these structures. Suffice as to say that this force serves to consume the system of its own means of production.

Again, what we have witnessed is female subjective, relative and selective nature manifesting itself to the objective detriment of the structure as a whole...Take this quote for instance which further corroborates with my initial assessment :

"That's right. Forget chocolate on Valentine's Day. Give your woman a heapin' helpin' of man juice, and your "little lady" will perk right up. And, according to ol' Lazar, it's all biology, maaan; as in evolutionary biology."

As we can see, women pass the doctors comment through their subjective and selective gynocentric filter of what is allowed to serve them and in this case it is the implication that a man's semen is beneficial to them. They did not see it in an objective format as men do but in a subjective format. This is to say that it implied to them that just any man's semen is good for them or perhaps that by correlation this man was implying that his semen was good for them. The implication being that they should be consummate of semen. Obviously it was offensive to the dominate agency of arbitration women hold over what semen is acceptable to be given to them.

Objective reason, logic and connections to supporting data for this to be the general case is thrown out the window, then internalized on a subjective level and reacted to accordingly. Women seem to be incapable of objective reasoning and logic in this case and many others. Again gynocentricity is inherent to their nature and manifested likewise when they obtain social agency within public social infrastructures. It forms the base structure from which their reason functions and their actions follow accordingly.


You know, chivalry and courtship itself is the demonstration of willingness and dedication to serve females. We know that female nature is gynocentric and it is their nature to see themselves to be served in this fashion. As such they seek to enact structured chivalry into institutional structures and this includes government policy, law and social policy itself.

Other source: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/cluelessness_and_sexism_in_the_american.php?utm_source=combinedfeed&utm_medium=rss